[MUD-Dev] Types of game

[Adam Wiggins]

[Caliban:]
> On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 07:22:18 PST8PDT, Matt Chatterley
> >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.

Actually, I think 'game-oriented' is a much better term.  Although
combat/killing is usually the focus, especially on muds, this type of
game includes much more than this.
Basically it's where the goal of the game is to advance your
character, faction, or whatever you control, judged on some scale.
This is also usually a competative environment in a multiplayer game:
you judge yourself in comparisson to other players, rather than on a
fixed scale.  Most single player games for the PC fall into this category,
simply because it's the easiest thing to implement in a game where
elements like role-playing cannot exist.  Master of Orion is power-oriented,
but it's perfectly possible to 'win' the game without killing a single
person in the game.  SimCity is another - instead of power, you have
the happiness of your residents.  Populous doesn't really allow you to
kill anyone directly; instead you try to make the environmental
conditions ideal for your own followers and worse for your opponent's
followers, with the goal being to have your followers as the only people
living on a given continent.
Note that there are many competative games which don't fall into this
category at all, simply because they have no way to actually advance your
character.  There's nothing to amass; you just want to win.  Some examples
include chess, checkers, or blackjack.  On the computer you have just
about any arcade game, including multi-player games like Quake.  Naturally
in these games you are gaining kills (Quake) or pieces (chess, checkers)
or money (blackjack), but they are strictly scoring methods.  In order
to fit into this category, whatever you amass must benefit you in-game
somehow.
Ideally the more different 'things' you can amass, the more interesting
the game (IMO).  Typically you can use some combination of diplomacy,
stealth, skills/spells/abilities, equipment/technology, and whatever else
you like to make it to the 'top'.  In this area RPGs excel; a 'good' bard
is completely different from a 'good' warrior, which is completely different
from a good mage/cleric/thief/whatever.

> >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

I don't think it's that simple at all.  What about a game which combines
all three equally?  I've seen some that do a very good job at it, although
usually one aspect or other pushes itself to the head a little bit.
Not only this, but each player can decide to play the game however they
like.  Naturally they do less well as they try to play differently from
how the game is set up.

> The distinction I draw here is as follows. A hack and slash game
> actively encourages anti-social behavior (fighting and killing). A

Again, see the above.  I don't agree.
IMO, adventure is the most anti-social.  See my previous gripes about LPs.
Of course, I consider pick-pocketing other people (particularly my friends)
to be both fun and perfectly social.  Naturally this doesn't work if people
aren't 'in' to that aspect of the game.  For that matter, I played a fair
amount of multi-player Doom years ago, and I recall it being extremelly
social.  Or go down to the Mac lab at the university I used to attend:
you'll always find a gaggle of bespeckled nerds playing Marathon that are
more than happy to let you hop into their game.  They have a grand old time
blowing each other away.  This only works, of course, if you consider
social to be interacting with others.  If social is only 'Wow, we're such
good friends, I'm so glad' than I guess this doesn't work.

> 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 strongly disagree.  Adventure games could be multi-player or not, and
it makes no difference.  In fact, you're better off with someone looking
over your shoulder helping you figure out puzzles than you are with another
player in the game-room with you, since most puzzle-oriented games
frown upon players working together on solving quests, and certainly
disallow any sharing knowledge of previously solved quests.

> 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:
> 
> 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.

It's very important to me that I create a server which is completely
automated.  Naturally I'll probably spend quite a bit of time overseeing
player activities (invisibly, of course) and tweaking things around, but
if I'm not around I want everything to continue to function normally.
Thus the middle option is out completely for me.  However, I don't see
why this has to limit role-playing at all.
Then again, we have no freeform experience at all.  We have a complex
skill system which I would certainly never fool with manually short of
an actual bug in the system.  The kind of intervention I would make would
be possesing NPCs to give them a bit more life, or moving certain objects
into the players' path in order to spice things up a bit.  Or even echoing
things to players, like 'You get the feeling someone is following you'.

> 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

How do you define socializing?  As I said, I consider it to be interacting
with others.  Personally I wouldn't bother playing a mud unless I was
going to do this, yet I manage to play hack'n'slashers just fine.  I find
it much more interesting to *do* things with other people, rather than just
hang around and chat.  If you want that, you might as well play a talker.
Of course, people like to hang around and tell tall tales or other
in-game sort of chatter, so we've provided plenty of social gathering
points, as well as things to occupy yourself idly with there - card games,
gambling, interesting NPC bar patrons, etc.  But this is not the 'point'
of the game, and hanging out in a bar all the time will do little more
than causing you to become a better gambler and drive up your resistance
to alcohol a little bit.

> 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.

You don't have to stand around idly in order to RP.  But certainly
with an RP element you start to diminish the importance of gaining power
(or whatever is the focus for amassing, as described above).  Mainly
I try less to 'force' people to role-play via some sort of point system, and
instead throw in lots of elements that are fun to fool with but don't have
any specific effect in the game world.  For instance, clothing that is worn
only for looks.  If you have to give up +1 damroll on your legs in order to
wear those spiffy new pants you got, it's not really worth it.  If pants
do nothing but cover your legs, than looks are about the only thing.
Again, in keeping with our 'realism' theme, equipment does very little
except provide some small protection from the elements and physical attacks.
There is certainly no plus-whatever gear.  Player that are interested in
their apperance can make it whatever they like without any penalty as
far as their character's "power".  Those that don't care can ignore this
aspect and just walk around in a shirt, pants, and boots, or whatever armor
they desire.

> 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.

Players play the game you make.  I'll say it before and I'll say it again:
calling someone a power-gamer or an RPer is about as silly as accusing someone
who happens to be eating at a mexican restaurant a Mexican.  When I'm on
a hack and slash mud, I powerplay.  When I'm on an RP mud or playing Rolemaster
with my friends, I role-play.  Trying to force players to role-play on a
game not designed with this element at its core won't work.  If players
aren't playing the game the way that you desire/think it should be played,
then you need to check your design, not the players.