[MUD-Dev] Motivating people

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <Pine.LNX.3.91.970728154058.64V-100000 at uni-corn.demon.co.uk>, on
07/28/97 
   at 08:13 PM, Greg Munt <greg at uni-corn.demon.co.uk> said:

>On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

>I suggested that due to apathy, I was considering shutting Frontiers 
>down. 'Amusing' replies such as

>"I'm not saying anything :)"

>were received, and I went on a major bender, explaining precisely why
>I  thought Frontiers should/shouldn't stay open. It is probably worth
> pointing out that only the non-apathetic subscribers have bothered
>to  post anything in that thread.

Which reveals another interesting possibility:  If the goal of the
game or project is to engender certain behaviours in specific other
people, you're already lost.  To reduce to classical adolescent
idiocy:

  I'm gonna go do this big project thing over here so whassername 
  will like me...

It never worked in school.  It never worked at home.  It never worked
on the streets.  It ain't gonna start working with a MUD.

The purpose for the project and the actitivities of the project have
to align.  If they don't, if they're actually in two widely seperate
fields, you've already lost.  To quote a friend, "You can't build
houses by milking cows."  You'll either need to change the activity or
the purpose so that they align.

>> Another problem may
>> be that if your player base and/or staff consists of former players and
>> staff on the ex-mud, they may not share the same vision as you do.
>> "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend" or something like
>> that.  I think you have written some insights that this might be the 
>> case.

>This is definitely the case. They want a 'better-run TCZ' (the other 
>mud is called 'The Chatting Zone') rather than Frontiers.

Bingo.

>I want the game to be attractive to all
>player types (using Bartle's JOMR paper as a model - have any other
>similar studies been made in this area?)...

See JOMR's web site for minor extensions, and places the LambdaMOO's
papers/ directory, and other similar paper collections about the net. 
Just web wander -- you'll find them.  They tend to reference each
other.

Aside: I'm not happy with Bartle's JOMR model as being either accurate
or well representative.

>...so how, how, how can I
>delimit the  scope of this? 

You've stated previously that you are a social player with little
experience outside the Talker/Tiny world?  First up I'd suggest
playing other game types.  Second up I'd suggest re-approaching all
the same games in the mode of each of Bartle's four player types. 
Attempt to play a DIKU like a heart, like a club, like a spade, etc. 
Repeat for the other games and server types.  It need not take a whole
lot fo time, but by the end of it you should have the beginnings of a
good grasp on what builds each viewpoint.

Once you've got that lay out what you think the key points are of each
aspect, and what's needed to serve them.  Now wrap a world about them,
figure out an internal structure (levels, points, kills, whatever),
lay it all out and the go away for a few days.  

Then when you come back, look at what you've come up with as if you
were a player.  Don't look at the way the system thinks you'll behave,
but what you could do as a player to make the system do what you want
(cheating schmeating).  You'll find all sort of backhanded and
unexpected ways for "breaking" the system that you didn;t think of the
first time.  So refigure the systems, fix 'em, and do it all over
again.

That's what I try and do.

>There is also the danger of the thing
>becoming 'four muds  in one' rather than a single world... 

I don't know that this can be compleatly solved.   Many of use would
like to think it could however.
 
--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...