[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun

[Marian Griffith]

On Tue 28 Jul, Koster, Raph wrote:

> From: Marian Griffith [mailto:gryphon at iaehv.nl]

> It's worth noting that as much as UO gets brought up as an example of
> the freewheeling highly dangerous game (and the "kitchen sink" too) its
> original intent was actually fairly easily summed up. We wanted to make
> an alternate world. A microcosm. That meant we wanted to have in it as
> much as we could to get the feeling of having an alternate world. Some
> of us were from MUSH backgrounds, others from LP backgrounds, and some
> from Diku backgrounds. Some weren't mudders at all. But the intent was
> always to make an alternate world. Some features clearly were
> overdesigned, others underdesigned, others missing, but on the whole, we
> ended up with precisely the sorts of problems one would expect from
> having an alternate world. I was quite mesmerized by the possibilities,
> and wanted to take some steps towards virtual reality, and towards
> virtual environments that were dynamic, rather than static. Similarly,
> all my postings about the need for player-driven social controls and the
> necessity for combat and all that arise from that perspective.

I am sorry if I am partly guilty in using ultima examples too much, and
never having played that game myself at that.  I will try to find other
examples I promise.
I do suspect however that part of the PK image ultima has is because of
the media coverage of those things that are most likely to draw attent-
ion. Have you any idea how large a part of the players spend their time
in the safety of the cities as opposed to those who go out and fight?

> Legend wasn't about an alternate world. It was about strong narrative
> experiences. It in fact regularly committed that room description thing
> that has been cited as a cardinal sin here: telling the player how they
> felt. It was actually a design principle (and I'll gladly argue why it
> was a valid one, and why Legend's descs won't be matched by a
> description-generation system anytime this century). Quests were specced
> to feel like movies. Rooms were vetted to read like descriptions from a
> novel. Yes, there was an interesting degree of freedom in the skills
> system, and in other areas, but the game was very much about being a
> game, being a carnival ride through history, or a history-themed theme
> park. Quite a far cry from UO.

I guess that is why I never could get really into that game. I like muds
but not for the killing of ever more mythical monsters but for the group
play. Getting to do things together like facing danger and attempting to
keep everybody alive and cooperating,  and in between chatting with each
other.
The other half of me wants to play a tailor  and create fashion.  I have
yet to find a game that allows me to do that in a meaningful way.

> It's sort of bizarre for me now to see UO as such a touchstone on the
> list (is this the longest thread in the list's history yet?), defining a
> certain approach or something to the social issues.

Possibly because it is the only game for which there is somebody on this
list  who wants to talk about it  and that has to deal with the range of
social issues that crop up on the various topics on the list.  And maybe
it is just easier to take an example from ultima  instead of thinking up
another buffo and biffy example.

> My personal preference at this point in my gaming career would be for a
> full-bore RP environment that supports PK for roleplay purposes only. I
> don't see myself designing such a game, however. I don't design to my
> audience, in this case. There are too few people who want to play like I
> do (which is in a manner I suspect quite akin to how Marian plays,
> actually!).

Afraid so yes ;)
But I think you underestimate  the number of players who would like to
play a game like that. There are myriads of white wolf mushes that are
in essence just what you describe. The hard part, and the social engi-
neering part, is to make the pk a very limited thing on a game.

> > But then I think that games like ultima online fit very well into the
> > scheme of Mr. Bartle  and needs a small amount of disruptive players.
> > Of course the catch is that it needs a small amount of such behaviour
> > or it will totally overpower the social fabric of the game.

> Yep. And Richard's (can I call you that now, Richard? :) essay was right
> at hand when I was working on UO. As were a heck of a lot of other
> resources. Given a "sandbox" design we NEED that sort of thing. We also
> need the "kitchen sink" for the same reason. It's a sandbox, and the
> more toys we toss in there, the longer people keep themselves amused.
> (but of course, some toys are more fun than others). I suspect that the
> value of "recess squabbles" is very high in such a playground
> environment. It's not a very PLAYFUL environment, though. In most ways
> it's taken deadly seriously--something I'd love to change for the next
> thing I do.

*grin* Like the fishing skill? I still believe that the players had a
certain right to be upset about that, though not for the reasons they
apparently were ;) Whether or not fishing is profitable is not at all
relevant, but if it is enjoyable and in a way a career should be.

> > On the other hand,  as Dr.Cat pointed out,  there is a huge amount of
> > people  who would not be attracted to a game like that  and who would
> > prefer something far more safer for their game environment.
> 
> Absolutely. Massive quantities of them. And as I have stated before, I
> have a LOT of respect for Dr Cat and his work, and think his comments on
> overdesign, and on attention as currency, are dead on. In fact, I feel
> somewhat uncomfortable feeling put in opposition to him, as this thread
> seems to have done...

Please do not. I am certain nobody intentionally put ultima and furcadia
as opposites. They are apples and pears.  Perhaps accidentally different
in their attitude towards conflict and combat in the game but to me that
is only a very small part of two very different games for very different
audiences.

> If we are working towards virtual realities, as I think we are, then I
> think that there's a problem set there to solve. And we can reduce it by
> going with a smaller design, sure--one tailored to that vast group of
> people who would rather not deal with certain aspects it is possible to
> simulate, such as violence. As Dr Cat said, we can choose not to add in
> combat.

Personally I believe it must be possible to make combat less of an over-
whelming factor of a game  by giving similar detailed attention to other
aspects.  If there are 50 levels and hundreds of ways to attack monsters
and players alike and you can also learn carpentry skill and make tables
then it is obvious that you are expected to go out and fight things.

> But *somebody* is gonna add combat. And since I was (and still am,
> though my interest is shifting) interested in tackling many of the
> problems that arise with an environment that includes as many of the
> experiences life offers as can be made interesting, I regard it as
> "leaving it out." That's not intended to be derogatory towards those who
> leave it out; they are not trying to address the same problem set, is
> all. I want to tackle the problem set of the day when we have a MUD
> (read: spatial, multi-user) interface to the entire Internet, which I
> don't think is that far away.

*shudder* I am not sure I like to see that happen.

> Quite beyond that, I have serious doubts about the commercial
> feasibility of a server that's completely safe. Not because of the lack
> of interest, but because of the amount of cops you have to pay to keep
> it safe. I use as my rule of thumb whether or not we're willing to pay
> enough cops to keep us safe in the real world, where the stakes are a
> lot higher. :(

What I am hoping for is that if fighting is sufficiently rare it will be
easier to deal with the problem players. You do not need as many cops to
police a group  that is basically behaving itself  with a few exceptions
as it is to control a band of anarchists.

> Because fundamentally,
> that's what a safe environment is promising: nobody will screw you over.
> And I can't currently design a way around that. I doubt I will ever be
> able to. You can reduce the problem set, but the problem doesn't go
> away... what's worse, the safer you say you are, the more of a target
> you paint on your chest. A nasty dilemma.

It is that. And you are right that you can not promise an entirely safe
environment.  But perhaps you can empower the online society so that it
can deal with most of the problems  and only requires the staff in more
extreme cases of players who will not listen to reason  and will not be
deterred.
On a more cynical note.  You do not have to do things as much as giving
the impression that you are dealing with the problem.  Players will put
up with a lot of things if they feel their complaint is taken seriously
and the staff is working on it.

> Whew, that was an outpouring. Basically, I cheer on the "safe game"
> designs. Love to see how you do it. Am openly skeptical about how you'll
> do it. Hope you prove me wrong. And I go about it in a more cynical way.
> ;) UO was intended as just a microcosm, you see. The fact that it is as
> dangerous as it is speaks, IMHO, more to human nature than anything
> else...

Sad but probably true :(

Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey