[MUD-Dev] Types of game

[Matt Chatterley]

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 07:22:18 PST8PDT, Matt Chatterley
> <root at mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
> 
> >There are basically three types of game. Or rather, three types of game
> >element. Each game is composed of these elements, which places it
> >somewhere inbetween all three points, on a sliding scale with three ends
> >(a three dimensional model works best if you want to actually draw this).
> 
> A triangle works well, viz. the objective scale in SSI's 'Stronghold'.
> You might also consider this something like RGB color codes,
> hue/saturation/brightness, or something like that. I think RGB works
> best as a representation.

Thats an interesting way to view it, actually; I hadn't really considered
that beyond the vague notion that all this is 'grey space'.
 
> >Roleplaying, being those games with a very strict, hardcore roleplaying
> >environment, total separation of IC/OOC, and many characteristics often
> >associated with what people like to call "MUSHes". 
> 
> I think I'd characterise things a little differently here... I'll do so
> a little later.

I await with interest. :)
 
> >Hack'n'Slash, being the other far end of the scale, games which are soley
> >based around killing things, be it other players, or NPCs. 
> 
> Or any game in which killing things results in more immediate and/or
> extensive benefits to the character.

This is another fairly good way to phrase similar notions (if a little
more expansive); this is certainly what I had in mind.
 
> >Adventure, being the third (and often seen as intermeditary type, although
> >I would argue that it stands on its own as a separate and different entity
> >as much as the other two). This is an altogether greyer area, or rather
> >appears that way since it is hard to define. 
> 
> I've looked at this, and it occurs to me that this fits very well on a
> linear scale when you look at it a little differently...
> 
> 	HnS ----- Adv ----- RP

Yes and no - it does get dodgy here, because it can be hard to argue that
Adv is truly composed of elements from RP and HnS.
 
> 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. 

Exactly how I see the defintions (this is why the linear model, and the
notion that Adventure is somehow central arise) fitting together.
 
> Your distinctions, I must add, are very well thought out and very well
> put together. It's true that all of these are shades of grey, but it's
> very difficult to classify this in any sort of 'perfect' fashion. The
> alternate view I propose here is certainly a good deal more abstract,
> and carries very little in the way of specific example. The way I see it
> in game mechanics terms is:

Looking at levels of automation, and implementational styles of mechanics
is about as close as you can get, because not only can everything be done
in innumerate different ways; but people can also perceive each
implementation in a vast number of ways. Hence what I think is an
'appropriate description' you may vastly disagree with (and rightly,
because in your opinion it might be wrong).
 
> Hack and slash generally provides a fully automated experience system.
> Roleplaying generally provides a fully human-moderated experience
> system.
> Adventure generally provides something in the middle.

Or in the latter case, something completely different. Fully skill-based
models (with complex skill interaction aka Nathan's webs) often arise as
the latter. Note that a lot of modern games which began life as HnS tend
to veer this way now, and the margins are slowly blurring.
 
> If, in the average hack and slash game, I were to spend all of my time
> socialising with other characters... I would not advance. If in the
> average roleplaying game I were to spend all my time going around
> picking fights and killing things, I would not advance (in fact, I may
> even be disciplined for such behavior). In an ideal adventure game, I
> could advance satisfactorily with either course of action.

Absolutely.
 
> Or at least that's how I see it. The problem is balance; if I were to
> discover that hack and slash gaming allowed me to progress more quickly,
> I would probably pursue that. If I were to find that roleplaying allowed
> me to advance more quickly, I would pursue that. If both were about
> equal in terms of advancement, then I would have to decide which was
> more appealing to me; chances are some balance of the two would work
> best, as going around killing things is just plain boring. As in the
> 'real' world of P&P gaming, there are spurts; you go out killing things,
> you go back to town and rest. This just makes sense. So I'm a big
> proponent of the 'adventure' type, although I tend to push RP sorts of
> things a lot -- RP tends to suffer the most in online game design.

Agreed without question here too, with the note that 'adventure' is
perhaps also the most 'experimental' type.

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics." -?