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

[Mike Sellers]

At 04:30 PM 6/26/98 -0500, Dr. Cat wrote:
>Raph Koster wrote:
>> It IS better. But the thing that I keep in mind is that the original
>> lofty, hopeless vision was of a setup where we handed the players their
>> own destinies, allowed them to determine the policing, the course of
>> events, the societal pressures. And that's a vision that is very popular
>> *even among our players who saw the hideous aftermath.* We all talk even
>> on this list about things like this, and the sad realization I came to
>> is that players aren't ready for it any more than they are in the real
>> world (how many are actively involved in their local government in real
>> life?)

The players aren't ready for it, or the designers don't understand the
ecological-psychology and sociology enough to design it?  There is no doubt
some element of the former in this, but I strongly believe that it is more
the latter.  I've discussed "ex nihilo" community formation with many
sociologists and anthropologists over the past few years and guess what --
*THEY* don't know how to do this.  The topic of wholly created societies
does not exist in the literature in any form that speaks to online
communities (beyond the level of the likes of Howard Rheingold and Sherry
Turkle, which doesn't take us very far).  Given that, it's not surprising
that a bunch of (here I go again) young white mostly-unmarried male
suburbanite refugee designers haven't been able to do it either.  Still, I
think it *can* be done -- and frankly it bugs me that people place the
blame on the consumers (the players) rather than the producers of online
game-communities. =20


>> I think a true roleplaying game can survive and thrive--as long as it is
>> small. But to grow beyond a very elite audience, it will have to accept
>> the fact that it will need to direct players very firmly along
>> predetermined ethical lines, it will have to shoulder much of the burden
>> of organization on either the code or admin side, and it will have to
>> sacrifice that sense of complete freedom. A large-scale pure roleplay
>> game would basically have to be a fascist state. :(

This is true only if you believe that Stalinist politics was the pinnacle
of human achievement -- translated to the physical world, that's basically
what you've described. =20

Dr. Cat wrote:=20
>I feel like the question of how these issues play out in an environment=20
>with no combat coded into the system is glossed over or ignored on this=20
>list. =20

I'd alter that a bit to say that I feel like the question of how to deal
with social issues has been viewed through a very combat-centric lens.  It
is not the case that every social issue needs to be solved with a sword,
nor that to find other solutions you need to remove combat from a game
entirely. =20

>... I agree that people are not totally ready for=20
>self-governance anywhere, including in the real world.  But to me that=20
>says maybe three things, none of them bad.  1) So a game like that would=20
>be about LEARNING to do that better, rather than coming in and doing=20
>something everybody knows how to do great from day one.  2) Since it's=20
>needed in the real world, there is even more value in creating an online=20
>space that can help people learn it.  3) If a small minority of people=20
>have good understanding, skills and/or motivation regarding the effective=
=20
>governance of the community, it just means that you'll end up with more=20
>hierarchal sorts of governments, rather than flatter models - just like=20

>the vast majority of forms of government tried in the real world.

YES!  Precisely.  And as you say later, if you enable people to form their
own community cells, people will find their own levels of governance.  Not
everyone wants to be king or baron or squire or sheriff -- but not everyone
needs to be. =20

>I spent last night witnessing & participating in the defense of=20
>Furcadia's largest-yet player founded community, Sanctuary, against a=20
>fellow who set out to deliberately disrupt it.  I deliberately avoided=20
>using a single iota of the power or knowledge available to me as a sysop,=
=20
>I wanted the players to continue learning how to deal with problems like=20
>this on their own.  And it gave me a chance to see how effective they=20
>could be.  I felt like I got a year's worth of education in the=20
>development of online communities in one night.  Were I an academic type,=
=20
>I could probably write a whole sociology or anthropology thesis on all=20
>the nuances of interaction that I saw coming into play.

Amazing, isn't it?  I've piqued the interest of several anthropologists by
showing them how online interactions can be viewed as a distillation of
what are generally more obscured social situations. =20

>Anyway, overall the level of unity, coordination, and effectiveness of=20
>the entire group were very impressive, heartening, and surprisingly=20
>effective.  This kind of stuff can be made to work.  When I have more of=20
>the planned support features in the server, it'll be even easier for them=
=20
>to do, and work even better.

This goes to my point earlier that we as designers/developers must provide
via technology the *mechanisms* by which the users can resolve their own
social issues.  Anyone who thinks this is limited to new types of weapons
just isn't using his or her imagination. =20


>I do think it's interesting to note that the founder & leader of=20
>Sanctuary is a woman who runs a day care center. =20

Virtually all of the major guild leaders on M59 are/were women.  I've seen
this in other muds too.  It may be that the skills needed to lead online,
where physical presence counts for so little, are those more often found in
women than men.  This may in turn teach some of us quite a bit about the
true nature of leadership anywhere, which has a great deal more to do with
listening and team-building than with egotism and bluster. =20

>...  I'll offer the=20
>opinion here that the more combat-oriented games are inherently going to=20
>attract higher concentrations of the types of people that are the LEAST=20
>conducive to developing effective self-government.  Whereas a less=20
>combat-oriented game has a better chance to attract a player base that is=
=20
>more representative of the average human being, rather than the most=20
>ungovernable extremes. =20

Good observation.  This is a doubly-strong filter too, since those who
*design* the games are far more likely themselves to be interested in
robust combat systems than elegant social systems, and so place their
emphasis there (I would contend that this covers about 98% of MMPOG
designers).  So the players that are more likely to be more attracted to
combat and combat-style social mediation are those who are more likely to
be attracted to such a game, and these are the same ones who are least
likely to be interested in or amenable to other forms of social resolution. =
=20


>The question of scale that Raph mentions is a seperate issue, by the=20
>way.  Communities inherently can only scale to certain sizes while=20
>maintaining certain levels of cohesiveness.  For each level of=20
>cohesiveness, there's a certain size-range that's about the maximum you=20
>can hope for while still maintaining it.  The important thing is to have=20
>a structure and setting that naturally allows people to keep breaking off=
=20
>into sub-communities and sub-sub-communities as the population keeps=20
>growing.  If you do that, you can still have very high cohesiveness on=20

>local levels, hopefully overlayed with a less strong but still positive=20
>feeling of "nationalism" towards the game as a whole.  Which is useful for=
=20
>branding purposes for those few of us doing this commercially.  :X)

Whew.  Again, I agree completely. This "cell division" nature of community
formation depends on some of the mechanisms for social resolution to which
I was alluding earlier, and will not occur without them.  But compare the
likelihood of this being implemented vs., say, better ranged weapons or
poisoning mechanisms.   Social engineering is a virtual unknown at this
point. :-/



--

Mike Sellers=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Chief Creative Officer=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The=
 Big Network
mike at bignetwork.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
<http://www.bignetwork.com/>http://www.bignetwork.com

             =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Fun=A0=A0 Is=A0=A0 Good =20