[MUD-Dev] Types of game

[Koster]

On Saturday, September 20, 1997 2:22 AM, Matt 
Chatterley[SMTP:root at mpc.dyn.ml.org] wrote:
> I finally got around to compacting some of these thoughts and 
sending them
> here. They fit in quite well with some of the recent user-base 
relevant
> debates, depending on the light you take them in.
>
> Cogitate, deliberate, and dissect.
>
> Regards,
> 	-Matt Chatterley

Hurm. Or, put another, different way:

Forms of PLAY:
	- make believe (solo or cooperative), joint story-telling, 
fictionalizing, assisted daydreaming
	- less involved form of the above: social tie-building, community 
building & reinforcement
	- investigation, interaction with environment or "toy" object

Forms of GAME:
	- competitive measure against others or self-imposed marker 
threshold
	- cooperative form of the above (team, etc)

Under this division it is easy to see Bartle's four types falling 
nicely into two players (socializers and explorers) and two gamers 
(killers and achievers). It also helps see where folks are coming from 
when they say "there's no GAME in a MUSH"--defined this way, they are 
right. :)

This largely comes btw from Bruno Bettelheim's writings on child 
psychology. He also contended that this tends to be a gender division 
in children as well--female children like make-believe more than male, 
and when males engage in it, it is often solo versus group activity, 
etc.

And Caliban said:
> The distinction I draw here is as follows. A hack and slash game
> actively encourages anti-social behavior (fighting and killing). A
> roleplaying game, on the other end of the spectrum, actively 
encourages
> social behavior, such as clubs, organisations, etc. An adventure 
game,
> on the other hand, does not specifically reward either out of
> proportion; it is instead oriented toward the character/player 
engaging
> in his own freedom of choice in determining his goals, actions, and
> experience.

I find this jarring, just because I have become used to the standard 
standalone computer game definition of "adventure game," which 
generally implies a fixed narrative line, few choices, and little 
freedom to wander off, as opposed to computer "RPG" which supposedly 
provides more (though usually just means the above, with stats 
evolving). That's just me, though.

I'd also go against the notion that a roleplaying game must encourage 
positive social behavior. Groups with strong ties can form to engage 
in anti-social activity (very common), and one may engage in 
make-believe and roleplay quite satisfactorily without building social 
ties (fairly uncommon).

-Raph