[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is supposed to be playing, anyway? (Was: PK Again)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

Caliban Tiresias Darklock <caliban at darklock.com> wrote:

>A good game with a good story is nothing 
>short of phenomenal, and since most of us on this list appear to be 
>idealists, why aren't we spending more time discussing the ways players 
>interact with the game itself and whether it's actually going to be fun to 
>play?

An article in Computer Graphics vol 28, no 2, may 1994 by David
"Talin" Joiner comes to mind (page 97).  It discusses interactivity
versus storyline, and I think it does a good job at it.  Is it
possible to create a good story, without sacrificing the
interactivity?  If not, should one give up "the story" part and simply
provide a scenery, plus nuts and bolts?

"Deadline" by Infocom is probably one of the few games I've played
that gave me a story, and still a feeling of interactivity.  The story
wasn't great, the interaction was frustrating, but still...  There was
something in there that made it interesting to simply walk around and
watch whatever happend, or even chatting with characters.  I believe
the clue in that particular game was that each character had a very
distinct personality and some kind of "destiny". (and of course, that
they were all involved in something bigger that I tried to figure
out)

>matter how dedicated you are. Gamers as a whole are a very demanding group, 
>and will want their own needs taken care of first -- the puzzle types will 
>want more puzzles to solve, and the solo players will want more things they 
>can do themselves, and the power gamers will want more levels and more 
>skills and more equipment, and the socialisers will want an enhanced 
>channel system... it never ends. You can't do it all. You have to select 
>the group you intend to target, and cater specifically to that group.

Unless you can design your system in a way that makes the different
groups interdependent on each other.  If you can let the "output" from
one group become "input" for another group, then you've essentially
freed up a lot of your own resources. If one thinks in terms of producers
and consumers:

Producer: A likes to draw pictures and have them published
Consumer: B likes to watch pictures
Producer: B likes to arrange pictures

Design: Scenery is composed by arranged pictures

Producer: B composes scenes
Consumer: C likes to explore new areas

etc.

(there's an article by Richard Bartle on usertypes in Journal of MUD
Research: "Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit muds" )

>So here's my question. I know it was a long time in coming, but really -- 
>what sort of things do you look for in a MUD? How would you like to play, 
>if you were to log onto someone else's game and find that it was exactly 
>what you've always wanted?

My very subjective opinion:

1. I should find really interesting people, who I would like to have as
   real life friends, within my first 3 hours of gameplay

2. I should get a feeling that my presence would be valuable for them,
   that my friendship would add "power" to their existance in the world

3. I should be able to create my homestead right from the start, building
   my own castle (or whatever) inch by inch, session by session.  I should
   be able to protect it with walls etc.  I should be able to rebuild it,
   if destroyed, automatically provided the availability of the neccessary
   resources (energy or robots or whatever).  Building should be based on
   modules/building blocks, no knowledge of any programming language should
   be necessary.  Most "building blocks" should be stand-alone units.

4. The admin should let "proven" roleplayers get powerful or special
   characters to stage dramatic events.  The actions of these characters
   should be logged and destroyed if used out of context.  I'd like to see
   a formal measure (or skill) for acting/story building.  Anyone with a
   high such skill should be allowed to act seriously obnoxious.
   
5. Graphics is an absolute necessity.  I guess I could accept a norwegian
   text-only system, but international communication is far more fun.
   There should be dramatic changes in the scenery.

6. There should be a background story for the world, not neccessarily
   outspoken, more like the way Tolkien did it.  A lot of unpublished
   background material. Mostly to create the feeling "there is more to 
   this... hmmm...".  Thus the goal of the game would be to find out about
   the "truth" in the world (meaning of life), and let that subjective
   opinion about what the "truth" is affect all your actions.

7. Only non-global high-cost "channels" should be allowed.  The larger
   the range, the more expensive.  Mainly because "channels" destroys the
   feeling of "location", thus with excessive use of channels the game
   degrades into some kind of monopoly: all players are present. "random
   access" teleporting should be limited for the same reason.

>to the game nonetheless. Likewise obscure puns and inside jokes from 
>classic games, movies, TV, and books are nice to see. 

I come to think of the first mud I used: BSX Regenesis (a LPMud at
Lysator).  It had this boring labyrinth quest, but one of the NPCs
involved was Bart Simpson (with a drawing).  I believe walking around
this character, kicking him etc, was quite amusing for many players.
He was (of course) a random walker, so newbies would run around
desperatly asking for good old Bart, which was kind of amusing as
well.

The point is, if this NPC had been called Peter Smith, then the NPC
would have been a boring annoying nobody.  By naming the NPC Bart
(with a funny drawing) you had a whole new "story" going, with very
little effort.  The annoying part was appropriate, and killing him was
"a story" by itself. Not a very good idea for a commercial system
though.

Ola.