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

[Koster]

On Thursday, September 25, 1997 3:17 AM, clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:
> The primary effect I see of removing the WHO command, and removing 
the
> global namespace I do both) is that of removing the sense of the
> individual players as being a member of a larger group of players 
all
> playing the same game.  It removes the sense of an instant social
> context, "All of us on the who list are players," and with the 
removal
> of the global namespace removes even the pretense of baing able to
> place oneself in any even remote sort of social relevance as a new
> player. The result is that it tends to devolve them all into more
> isolationist viewpoints where they are alone in a strange and
> confusing world without clear ability to identify or locate friends 
or
> allies, or even know who or what might be any of these things.

Yes, yes, yes. Couldn't agree more. The issue, once you have settled 
for not having a global namespace, as JCL terms it, is providing a 
rich social context quickly and easily without it.

Consider the means of social interaction we commonly build into a 
mud:

* spatially based communication (say, emote, etc)
* long-distance peer-to-peer communication (almost always bolted on) 
(tell/page)
* multichannel broadcast mechanisms (always? bolted on) (chat, gossip, 
whathaveyou)
* delayed peer-to-peer messaging (usually bolted on but sometimes 
in-context) (mudmail)
* bulletin board systems (usually in-context but sometimes global and 
therefore bolted on)

[When I speak of something "bolted on" I mean something that the 
designers concluded was necessary despite the fact that the actual 
design of the system doesn't provide for it within the environment's 
context. So if you have to buy a note in the game, mail it at a 
mailbox, and wait a while for the courier to deliver it, it's in 
context, and not bolted on.]

Obviously, the first one is the strength of a mud. And the latter is 
also very well-suited to a mud. The others are essentially very 
different paradigms that have been implemented within a mud context. 
Usually they shatter the fiction. And a global namespace is essential 
to their functioning in this bolted-on manner...

Now, given that the global namespace immediately provides social 
context, what do you do about providing the social context that tell 
or channels provide? It's a rather tough question.

> Temporarily ignoring the thematic question as to the (dis)advatages 
of
> this (both sides are arguable), it does place a premium on 
experience
> and social connections within the world, and as such, also presents 
a
> (daunting?) barrier to entry for new players to the game world.  It 
is
> probably worth noting at this point the extremely simplistic and
> generalist interfaces in this regard on UOL, DSO, EverDark, M59,
> Avalon, MUD2 etc.  There is very little barrier to entry for these
> commercial efforts to a non-socially connected player.  Logon == 
You
> have instant (if minimal) social context (Not quite so true for
> Avalon, but that's an implementation detail they've largely 
overcome
> thru other (interesting, impressive, and over-crafted) means(*))

I assume you meant EverQuest? I actually have no idea if they will be 
supporting who, tell, chat, or the like... or for that matter what 
their logon process is like (last I saw it, you just jumped in).

Now, yes, all the commercial efforts place a premium on low barrier to 
entry, of course. They have to compete within the game market with 
many games that offer the same low barrier. Gotta grab that customer 
quickly... and yes, generalist interfaces, and interfaces that lead 
you step by step through processes, are very important in that regard. 
And UO is getting criticized in some quarters anyway, for the number 
of interfaces required for the various crafts and the like, despite 
the fact that they are all either (double-click) or (double-click, 
then target). It's amazing how simplistic something needs to be for 
the general public.

However, the social context you have when logging into UO is actually 
mor ethan minimal--it's practically nonexistent. We don't have who. Or 
tell. Or mudmail. Or channels. We have the bulletin boards, but 
lacking the others, they see little use. We don't have unique names 
(which is rather disturbing to old mud hands). We also have thousands 
of people per world, less "spatial binding" because we don't have 
"rooms," and a rather large space to run around in.

Hence one of the biggest lacks in UO at the moment--social fabric. 
It's very easy to get lost in a crowd, make friends and later lose 
them altogether, be unable to find them, get somebody to even stand 
still to talk, etc. We're working on this by making more in-context 
social fabric however. Among the tactics:

"context embellishers"
- player-written books that offer permanence, which eventually can be 
auto-published to appear everywhere in the game world
- player-writable music that can likewise be published and performed, 
stored on sheet music items
- automatic posting to boards of notable events

additional communication elements:
- in-context means of magical long-distance communication
- possibly mail, dunno yet.

I mention all the above to point out that we're running into lots of 
interesting implications of the lack of global namespace that I doubt 
people have usually tended to consider.

> If you are new, and have not met other players within the world, 
then
> your ability to progress and learn is hampered.  Conversely of 
course,
> if you are experienced, you are at an advantage to the extent that 
you
> have an association of friends and the like to support and forward 
you
> and whose group understanding you can draw on and support for your 
own
> intellectual assult on the game-world.

And also, if you are experienced, you tend to then exclude those new 
people from your social sphere.

> This also creates an interesting side-effect value for perma-death. 
> If you character perma-dies then you lose all the social systems 
and
> context which that character had.  You still know of the existance 
of
> those structures and people, but you have no idea who and where 
they
> are, or any real way to causitively locate them.  Perma-death 
suddenly
> becomes an almost catastrophic occurance -- you lose a lot more 
than
> just your character.

Pfui... you assume that the social systems are character-based and not 
player-based. MOST of them are player-based. Only a few are character 
based--largely the ones in the category I call "context 
embellishment." But how many of these are truly critical to your 
social experience? Remember, mud social bonds evolve from the 
fictional towards real social bonds; if you have good community ties 
they will be OOC ties, not IC ties.

>   Aside: An interesting side effect of this removal of WHO and 
global
> namespace is that it implicitly encourages the creation of cliques,
> exclusive societies, and other "us vs the rest" social forms.  It
> tends to inculcate FWLIW this is my main complaint against the 
current
> clan and guild system on most current MUDs.  They appear and 
function
> as bolt-ons: extra, externally enforced, social constructs which 
are
> imposed on the social world in an attempt to foster a deemed 
desirable
> predetermined structure, which very little else in the world 
directly
> implicate or actually requires the existanfce of clans or guilds.

Yes, but this will also largely be a function of the scope your game 
gives said clans to operate.

>   To put it another way:  IRL clans and guilds exist for a reason.
> There are forces, physical universe survival threatening forces 
which
> clans and guilds are an attempt to contain and increase survival in
> the face of.  Putting clans and guilds into a world where such 
forces
> don't exist, or where clans and guilds are not an implicitly 
requisite
> answer grates.

Correct; however, in any game that allows for player versus player 
combat, you'll have said forces. And in addition, if you are careful 
enough in your design to have depth to the game that can be discovered 
over time, you'll get clans and guilds of explorer types too. :) These 
are really nice to have. Treasure them.

> (*)  Avalon has a very extensive (over-extensive?) system of guides
> which lead new players about the world, showing them how the world
> operates, many of its base mechanics, and suggesting how the player
> might take social advantage of the various possibilities.

We've been discussing this sort of thing recently on Ola's graphical 
mud list, actually. It wandered into the topic of newbie areas, 
training wheels, and the like, and basically ended up, i think, at the 
opinion that ifyou can provide such an experience to people crafted 
well enough that they do not feel they are being channeled, it can be 
successful. But if they start to sense channeling and restrictions, 
they rebel...

> Is lack of a social context for new players a Bad Thing?  There are
> ways to work around much of the initial barrier to entry to the
> non-social world problem (cf Avalon's guides), however that doesn't
> address the problems of entering the social world, or the question 
of
> social context.

I think it certainly can be a Bad Thing given the right circumstances. 
One such circumstance: trying to make money off of novices. ;)

-Raph

PS Woo hoo, Ultima Online hath shipped! :)