[MUD-Dev] The 'Socialiser' problem

[Matt Chatterley]

On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, Greg Munt wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Nathan Yospe wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Greg Munt wrote:
> > 
> > :The ultimate aim of my server is to attempt, in some respects, to model 
> > :reality.
> > 
> > :I ran a TinyMUD for several years. Its users could be partitioned into 
> > :two sets:
> > 
> > :   1. Socialisers (This label is used, since members of this set are closely 
> > :      related to Bartle's Socialisers; members of this set do not role-play 
> > :      in any way.) 
> > 
> > :   2. Softcoders.
> > 
> > :   Users can be members of both sets.
> > :   Users can be members of the Socialiser set only.
> > :   Users cannot be members of the Softcoder set only.
> > 
> > What, no roleplayers whatsoever?
> 
> None. As far as the Socialisers are concerned, the game is strictly a 
> talker - people talk about events in their real lives, about themselves, 
> etc.

I believe Nathan refers to your initial (seeming) classification of all
players into two distinct non-roleplaying, and even non-gameplaying sets.
You are presumably refering strictly to the users of that one tinymud,
though - whereas Nathan (and I in my first post) assumed a more general
bent.
 
> > :  5. To have their own, personal, private room (again, at no charge or 
> > :     detriment) - this area may be used to 'entertain' close friends
> > 
> > Mmm. OK, this is a little different...
> > 
> > :  6. To instantaneously teleport to various locations within the game 
> > :     (such as their personal room, or the personal room of a friend - also 
> > :     to 'public' rooms)
> > 
> > This too.
> 
> Both of these are features borrowed from conventional talkers, such as 
> EW-2 or NUTS.

And are quite popular - but not really a 'necessity' for 'happy'
socialisers. I wonder how little of this a socialiser would accept, and be
content with, to use the game as a medium for entertainment, without
playing, or if they could as a generality be enticed into playing? Indeed,
would they even dare to venture onto something advertised as a 'game'?
 
> > :  5. If you do have some sort of 'free' area, it wont have much privacy - 
> > :     the most that could be justified is some kind of shelter for the 
> > :     homeless
> > 
> > How about a clearing in a forest?
> 
> A forest clearing can't be locked. Absolute privacy cannot be guaranteed. 
> (Someone hiding in a tree could overhear the conversation, for example.)

But again, nothing can be locked quite securely - in low tech, low magic
environments, you can smash down doors, with high magic or high tech,
spying devices are not hard to come by. Unless you allow them to partition
themselves off from the game, this cannot be done without impacting
consistancy (as opposed to 'realism').
 
> > Everything you mentioned is available from (and only from, OOC) the shell
> > account and OOC chatrooms outside of the game itself, for me. It makes it
> > possible to, for example, chat with the guy from the opposing side after a
> > major clash between factions of the radical elements of the war (all PCs
> > are technically on the same side, but that doesn't stop them from
> > fighting, as I have learned.) in the "dressing room" or "backstage", or to
> > just hang out in the "singles room", the "bar", or learn something
> > (possibly useful for the game) in the "tutoring rooms"... Email and
> > newsgroups, fingers and pages (that get through to people in the game if
> > not blocked) are all possible from the shell.
> 
> Seperating the game into two is a possibility. However, this falls into 
> the 'two muds in one' trap. In some aspects, it can appear rather 
> contrived, and only existing as a means of attracting pure Socialisers.

Mind you, many roleplaying games (notable Penn/Tiny based) successfully
partition themselves into 'OOC' and 'IC' areas. It DOES cause a few
problems, but not so many as to be undoable.
 
> The feature that you refer to, allowing OOC players to page IC players, 
> would that not disrupt the 'immersion'? If you are going to allow this, 
> you may as well integrate the two areas into one. I can see no effective 
> difference - and my unwillingness to integrate abstraction with 
> virtual pseudo-reality (and the resultant problems) was the motivation for 
> the original post.

This depends how you count a 'page'. If you go for full IC/OOC separation,
the purely social functions should be only available if all parties are in
the latter state. This does cause your 'two-in-one' side effect, however.
    
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             "Scratch muds can only ever be leaves of The Mud Tree."          
>                       Discuss, using obscure references.          
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." -Theodore Roosevelt