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

[Mike Sellers]

At 11:03 AM 6/29/98 -0500, Koster, Raph wrote:
>> From:	Mike Sellers [SMTP:mike at bignetwork.com]
>> >Raph Koster wrote:
>> 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=20
>> >> life?)
>>=20
>> The players aren't ready for it, or the designers don't understand the
>> ecological-psychology and sociology enough to design it? =20
>>=20
>Touche. :) Does anyone, would be the next question.

Basically, no.  There are a few people that I think have a line on
different aspects of this, but we're definitely in a pre-Newtonian age here.=
 =20

>>  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.
>>=20
>FWIW, I don't really fit that profile. :) Hispanic background on my
>mother's side, married, and spent most of my formative years in
>locations such as Haiti and Peru, usually not cited as models of good
>governance.

Doesn't surprise me a bit that you don't fit the classic profile. :-)  The
places you've spent time and the way you live your life now no doubt have
afforded you experiences that give you perspective that is largely missing
in others.  This is also why, IMO, people with a background in theatre,
philosophy, english, and other perspective-widening domains often do well
if they can transfer those skills to building online software. =20


>>   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
>>=20
>I think we have to share the blame. For that matter, I don't consider it
>"blame" as such as a plain old recognition of facts.

I guess it slides from facts to blame for me when I'm on the receiving end
of a dismayed, disgruntled player who feels like they didn't get what they
thought they were going to get online (would you believe that I've even had
some disgruntled UO players complain to me!? ;-) ). I think we need to
provide a better experience, and a better environment.  It won't happen
tomorrow, but it will happen.

> I do not think the
>average Internet gamer who plays a mud is ready for self-governance. I
>also do not think the average real world citizen is fully engaged with
>their local community or participates in THEIR governance either. Did
>you vote in your last local election? I didn't, and thus I am pointing a
>finger at myself as well.  I am not saying that I have all the answers.

Nor I.  But I guess I take a somewhat more Jeffersonian view: people _will_
rise to the self-governance we allow them to have.  Not all of them of
course, but enough to make it work for all (or almost all) of them. =20

Incidentally, it is the fact that most of us are *not* engaged in our local
communities that makes me think that building viable Internet communities
is so vitally important.  Not as a replacement, but as sort of a grass
roots social remedial action.  If we can get people to see the benefits of
being involved in online community governance, we may be able to encourage
transference of that to their off-line communities.  OTOH, the risk we run
is that we'll encourage the formation of a whole new group of shut-ins who
spend all their time in dim rooms staring at their CRTs, rather than
actually experiencing the world around them. =20



>Urgh. I most definitely do NOT think that Stalinist politics was the
>pinnacle of human achievement. Hardly. I believe in freedom of thought,
>freedom of action within reasonable bounds, freedom of expression,
>choice, and so on. I also believe that if we are creating an environment
>which curtails some or all of these, then we are CODING a Stalinist
>government.=20

Agreed.  That's why I think it's so important that we code the mechanisms
by which people can govern themselves, and not continue to take on that
role ourselves. =20

>What's even less palatable to me is that we kinda HAVE to,
>at the moment, because it's the best we can do. And the impetus to get
>beyond that stage of development underlies a great deal of what I'd do
>in designing a virtual environment.

I think really that we are in hearty agreement.  I just want to get past
the "at the moment" as quickly as possible, and am straining to do so. =20

>If you are coding a system whereby nobody can strike another person
>*even in justifiable circumstances*, what sort of society have you made,
>and what sort of ruler are you? A system where it is not even possible
>to rebel against the thoroughly oppressive government, for that matter.

Again, we agree.  And I think that, like may benevolent dictators, many
mud-admins are a bit befuddled by those who agitate, however gently,
against their iron/silk-fisted rule. =20


>To get back to what you said, I think that a pure roleplay game of large
>size will have to be a Stalinist setup, yes. And I don't LIKE it. Then
>again, I think that MANY muds currently use such a restrictive setup.

Here we disagree.  I think I understand where you're coming from, but in
fact I believe that to make large role-playing games viable (business-wise)
we will *have* to move beyond the neo-Stalinist setup with which we are all
currently saddled.  It won't be easy, but I think it will ulitimately be
extremely rewarding. =20


> ...
>There hasn't been a government I know of that has not wielded the sword
>in order to enforce its mores. That's what police are: the government's
>sword.=20

Precisely.  To some varying degree, we enjoy the freedoms we do *because*
someone somewhere stands ready to subdue others with some degree of force
ranging from nightsticks to carpet bombs.    Not all of us act within the
law out of fear of reprisal, but even those of us who don't are able to act
as we think we "should" because others are constrained by their fear of the
force of law. =20

>... Right now, virtual worlds (and other Internet games)
>are basically full of roving warbands with no allegiance to any form of
>government, and the odd occasional peaceful village that has moved
>beyond pillaging and into a more stable form of society.=20

True.  One of my biggest issues is that we are not providing the mechanisms
by which people can move beyond this stage.  A variety of forms of
mechanisms for self-governance will be needed before that can happen. =20

>...There are many many non-combat related thing s we can do to
>help player self-governance. Providing basic models for organizational
>structures is a good example. (Though a concern of mine is whether we
>will be limiting the possible forms of governments too much by dictating
>structure too much).

Ah yes.  This is a huge topic.  I've actually spent a great deal of time on
this problem, and I *think* may be on to a solution that provides
descriptive structure without being (overly) prescriptive.  I'd love to
talk with you about this further... maybe soon I'll be able to. =20


--

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