[MUD-Dev] Re: Less numbers, more roleplaying.

[coder at ibm.net]

On 09/11/97 at 01:46 PM, Adam Wiggins <nightfall at user2.inficad.com> said:
>[Marian Griffith:]

>> It still is the way I like to play, even if it is not the 'official' way
>> to play muds.

I've probably regailed everyone enough with my tales of how I would
regularly re-invent my own way of playing video games, usually setting
myself goals that bore no resemblance to the game's intended methods of
play (archive search key word: Tron).

Observation: The ability to redefine and reinvent the gameplay seems to be
proportional to the general quality of a game as a game.

>I think this is the key to the whole issue.  If you get rid of an
>'official' (or, more accurately, 'standard') method to play the game, it
>will simutaneously appeal to more players from different backgrounds and
>with different ideas of what's fun, and be more flexible and thereby more
>entertaining in the long run to the players as a whole. Of course, the
>hard part about this is that it's difficult to make a game which seems to
>have some sort of purpose to it, especially when you first start the
>game.  I think Ultima Online has done a very good job with this sort of
>an approach, but still the main complaint I hear (especially from those
>used to the more directed form of playin single player computer games) is
>that they can't figure out what they should be doing when they start the
>game.

This is the core of the problem.  Considered as a scale, at one end you
have mono-purpose and mono-solution games (eg Myst, Shades, MUD1/2, most
DIKU's etc).  At the other end there is a total free-form lack of defined
goals, purposes, and solutions, perhaps exemplified by the more socially
based MOO's et al.  This parallels the basic definition of what
constitutes a game:

  A game can be defined as any system which contains goals, barriers, and
freedoms.  

  Elaborating slightly: There are goals to attain within the system,
barriers which attempt to prevent or dissuade you from achieving those
goals, and freedoms to excercise various abilities to overcome those
barriers in pursuit of those goals.

>From this vantage it is easy to see why many MOO's violently insist that
they are not games (and thus supporting Bartle's assertion).  

Whatever your game preference, Doom can be seen and grokked within seconds
(I can't comment on Quake as I've never seen it).  More free-form games
(virtual worlds, environments, etc) don't have that simplicity.  There are
no (fewer) clear goals, solution paths, or even freedoms (what does or
does not advance progress toward the goal).  As such the barrier to
quickly grokking what the "game is about" (barrier to entry) is higher --
it is (much) more difficult to "grab" a potential players attention long
enough to convince them that this is something they want to invest time
in.

The general solution in such cases is to attempt to use "hooks": things
that grab and lock attention for just long enough for (hopefully) the
other "real" qualities to penetrate and confirm.  Games like Myst used
stunning graphics and music.  Descent uses intrigueing 3D manipulation
(just flying the hallways was my biggest pleasure for a long time, let
alone the game itself).  I'm not sure what a flat text MUD could or should
use profitably.

Suggestions?

Are MUDs about to lose their player base due to the fact that they have
evolved away from simple, instant, playability?

>Personally I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.  We've touched
>on it before but I don't think ever dived in very deeply.  

True.  I suspect this may be a point on which there is general agreement
that "here there be dragons", but little idea of what sorts of dragons
they are.

>Usually the
>short answers are 'good, accessable documentation' and 'good character
>creation.'  

Neither of which have I ever noted as necessary for a good game for me, or
even as something that I'd even notice as a game quality.  My only real
caveat is that I like near-instantaneous character creation: hit a button
== gotta new character.  Games which demand constructing a new character
in any detail I tend to abandon -- its not worth the effort and I have no
interest.

Points I would rate as valuable upon introduction to a game:

  -- Awareness that I will be able to do interesting "neat" things in the
game. If I know almost instantly that I can not only create explosions,
but that I can shape, direct, and potentially control those explosions to
create c00l effects, that's likely to get my attention for a while.

  -- Obvious attention to detail in the game frills.  I mentioned a car
driving game a few messages ago.  One aspect which almost lost my interest
from the get-go, was that it was possible to drive the car up the side of
cliffs, and those cliffs, as soon as you left the road surface, were very
coarsely rendered, with huge blobbly square render points.  Conversely the
road and lower levels of the cliffs were very finely detailed.  That's
just cheap and unneccessarily nasty.  It would not have been difficult to
use a standard LOD algorithm to scale the level of detail used. 
Conversely, the handling of the car's suspension behaviours and its stunt
abilities showed some real attention to duplicating some of the physics
involved.

  -- Awareness that there is more to the game than is immediately obvious. 
This is not the trite "hidden depths", or even the "untold mystery", but
successfully communicating that there is more that I can do within the
game, and that that can be discovered with a reasonable (not too short,
not too long) learning curve from where I am now, and. most importantly,
that I won't exhaust the stock of those learning curves too quickly.  Its
especially attractive if those depths go on for a long way.  This doesn't
just mean that it takes a long time to master XXX, but that there is a
long and many detailed route from newbie to mastering XXX, with
interesting stages and features the whole way.  

  The definition of "interesting" is key here.  Variation and
unpredictability are essential.  In Doom you can get a variety of more
powerful and "neat" weapons.  After the first two or three, its just
monotonous repetition along a linear and utterly predictable scale.  "Oh
yeah, another weapon.  Gosh.  Blue flashes.  Next?"  Most MUD magic
systems suffer the same failing.

Aside: Learning curves and their acceptability within the game process is
a whole topic in itself.

>Also we've talked about newbie guides (NPCs with a script or
>players who volunteer themselves) taking you through the
>basic features of the game in an interactive tour (a great idea, IMO, one
>I've seen used to excellent effect on several muds).  Still, these are
>just tack-on features, ones that try to make the user more at home in an
>unfamiliar environment.  When they actually go to dive into the game on
>their own, what can they _do_ right away that is productive and at least
>mildly entertaining for them?  

Yup, you got it, its the "do" bit that's the key.  As for answering your
question: "I dunno".

>I tend to think this is highly dependant
>on the given game, so I was wondering what (if anything) the various
>folks with well-defined game ideas (Nathan, Raph, Jeff K, maybe JC...?)
>plan on allowing or requiring new players to do first.  

I haven't actually done anything.  Some ideas I had:

  -- Have a ghost mode tour.  This would just be a quick fly-thru of
"interesting", "wow!" etc pre-canned bits (recorded log playback?).  The
idea is to analagously replace the demos on arcade games.  An extension
would have new "wow!' bits added to the log as they occurred in the world,
with old ones falling off.

  -- A guide mobile.  I'm not fond of the tour-guide variety sheperding a
flock of newbies like a mother hen.  I thought twisting the standard a
little might be fun, sparked by the mention earlier of a guide sword that
suggested avenues of play:

  Have something like the guide sword as mentioned.  (Don't think it would
be a sword, but for this description I'll stick with that tag)  The sword
would be a mobile which abandons the character when the character advances
"too far".  The basic character would be a bit manic depressive.  MArvin
the Paranoid Android would be a model.  

  Gather sufficient newbies and their guide swords together, and a new big
guide manifests as a stand-alone mobile, summoned by the swords, which the
swords then bicker with.  As the newbies dissipate the big guide will
vanish.  His local appearance is maintained by the presence of all the
swords,  The big guide is significantly more helpful and educational than
the swords.  The swords are good at helping on small matters and
decisions.  The big guide is good at giving the broad scope, describing
areas and base purposes, but not very good on "can I kill that mobile", or
"is this a useful object" type areas.  

  Upon manifestation of the big guide, also establish a private channel
unique to that group of newbies, and make it their default form of
communication.  

  The entire purpose of the big guide is to encourage newbies to group,
and then to talk among themselves about what they see/find/do.  The guides
suggest and cajole, but don't prevent newbies from doing anything.  Once a
group has formed, they will attempt to maintain that group.  They will
also actively encourage groups to form to summon the big guide.  They are
there to give a sense of context to what the newbie discovers for himself,
and to suggest new activities to gain new contexts.
  
>Commonly players
>are just tossed into a random town with a message of 'Good luck' at which
>point they type 'score' and see that they need three points to reach Rank
>2. Simple, boring, and linear - not to mention, with the complex skill
>systems, body-stealing, or other methods of character advancement
>availible, this doesn't work anyhow.

Quite.  I don't have any specifics yet.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
----------(*)                              Internet: coder at ibm.net
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...