[MUD-Dev] Re: DIS: Client-Server vs Peer-to-Peer

[Adam Wiggins]

On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, Marc Hernandez wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
> > On 05:54 PM 12/18/98 -0800, Marc Hernandez wrote:
> > >However could one person build a 747?  
> >
> > Physically or conceptually? An awful lot of HUGE accomplishments were made
> > by one smart guy and a boatload of grunts. Consider architecture; how many
> > of the world's most fantastic buildings were conceived, designed, planned
> > by one man telling four thousand others what to put where?
> 
> 	In certain instances we have too much knowledge for one person to
> do everything.  Most large efforts are the product of many smart people
> working very hard.  Thus the party system in various games.  You cant
> expect your mage to start opening chests just as your thief wont start
> saying incantations.

I might note that grunts abound on your typical (non-RP) mud.

For example: some friends and I form a party and go adventuring.  We
decide to hit the Crypt of Golgug.  We know that after defeating the shade
of Golgug, there's a chest containing a very nice item, but it's guarded
by a trap which causes instant death should you accidentally set it off.
We have no thief in the group, so we "hire" one.  That is to say, we
find some scrub that happens to have a good 'disarm' skill and let them
tag along in exchange for trying to open the chest at the end.
This sort of thing goes on *all* the time.  This person is definitely
a grunt; they have no idea where they are or what's going on, but rather
follow along in a whirlwind of activity until the leader says, "okay go
north and disarm the chest."

It gets worse: I've run teams of grunts before.  eg: I want to join a
party, but there are no friends or other people I'd consider "good"
players hanging around.  So I get together a bunch of scrubs and give them
orders much like I would a group of charmies.

Does this work as well as a well-organized team, with all the members
knowing exactly what they are doing?  Not in the slightest.  Grunts tend
to get lost or killed at the slightest mishap.  A good team can recover
from relative disaster and get their act back together in order to deal with
the situation.

> > If the workers don't have an effect on the final result, they're not
> > actually members of a team. They're just grunts. Look at McDonald's. One
> > man came up with that. One man built it. Find me one damn fry cook at
> > McDonald's who thinks of himself as a member of a huge global team that
> > satisfies the hunger of millions! That fry cook is a dork on minimum wage
> > hoping he gets another quarter an hour raise next year, and praying that he > > gets to work full-time hours soon so he can qualify for benefits six months > > from now. And the grunts know EXACTLY what they are, no matter how many
> > claims the managers and marketers make. 
> > And that vision would be nothing without people working there.
>
> Admittadly it is not rocket science, but to be putting your best into your
> job no matter what it is is very important.  Ironically the people that
> do not put in there best do not go up the food chain (so to speak).  I was
> a 'grunt' at Taco Bell and a few months later an assistant manager.
> Perhaps the fry cooks view of work is a reflection of the american work
> ethic (or lack thereof).

(continueing my attempt to relate this back to muds...)
Big clans frequently do this.  They hire on a bunch of new recruits and
drag them around.  The good ones will make themselves known - a crisis will
hit (as they always do, sooner or later) and they will get their act together
and continue to contribute to the team.  The worthless recruits will get lost
or killed or otherwise fail to prove themselves.  The good recruits then
get 'promoted' (although it's rarely official or obvious what's happened)
into full members of the clan.

> <Disneyland snipped>

(in response to Caliban's statement that no matter how hard the management
tries, the streetsweeper at Disneyland still feels like a grunt)

Actually, there are a few companies that manage to avoid this.  Southwest
Airlines is one.  Disney is somewhat this way, although I'd say that
this effect doesn't really extend down as far as the streetsweepers.

People WILL work harder, and for less pay, if they feel like they are part
of a team, doing something worthwhile.  It just takes a LOT of work from
the higher-ups to make the 'grunts' feel this effect, probably more than
is really worthwhile in a pure business sense.

> > Design things for people like you, and only people like you will care. 

Exactly.  Is this a bad thing?


Adam W.