[MUD-Dev] Re: Ugh, IS Diablo a mud?

[Raph & Kristen Koster]

At 7:51 PM 9/25/98, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
>On 08:53 PM 9/25/98 -0500, Raph Koster wrote:
>>Here's one to add to the list that my wife Kristen (occasional poster)
>>came up with:
>>
>>- an expectation that the social experience occurs within the game, and
>>not outside it.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>
>Excellent point. There *are* social aspects to Quake, Diablo, and their ilk
>-- but they tend to take place in another window on an IRC server. Perhaps
>this is one of the most telling factors, but I have to question: does she
>mean within the game *context* or within the game *server*? For example, if
>people discuss things on your MUD, is it considered part of the social
>experience of that MUD when they discuss things that aren't directly
>related to the game like what movie they saw last month and what CDs they
>just bought?

Ideally, it means both in the game context as well as on the game server. But
we don't live in an ideal world. =) But I'd say that most people have an
expectation of being able to meet and talk with new people by logging into a
MU*. Whether they get to meet the character or the person behind the character
doesn't mean it's not social interaction. =)

So the distinction I was thinking of was this:

Connecting to a Quake-like server: Are you going to have the expectation of
being able to go sit in a nice quiet corner with a friend and either plan your
upcoming strategies or talk about the movies or CDs?

I doubt most people would have that expectation with Quake, Diablo and their
ilk. I'd also argue that the hardcore pk "muds" are nothing more than textually
presented "Quake" servers.

>And if people discuss things elsewhere, like on the
>aforementioned IRC server, is it *outside* the social experience when they
>actively discuss things directly related to the game?

Ok. Here's the tricky part.

I've seen many people use speaker phones to coordinate strategies on all kinds
of games like Quake/Doom, C&C, etc. Even UO. But more on that in a second.

Is solely discussing how to best beat the game or another player by number
crunching statistics that the character wouldn't have the slightest clue about
really "social interaction" whether it occurs on the game server, on irc, on
the phone or in person?

What I was thinking of by "social interaction" was either the players or the
characters capable of interacting in ways that were independent of game
mechanics that furthered their relationship with one another (either better or
worse). And by game mechanics, I'm referring to fight systems and other ways to
advance in the game as opposed to just game interface.

Also wanted to respond to JCL's comment:

At 8:15 PM 9/25/98, J C Lawrence wrote:
>Which in turn begs comparison with ICQ's and similar service's heavy
>use with UOL players.

As always, Bartle's suits of players concept applies. I'd expect most of those
type to be the killers with some achievers and explorers in the mix. But
there's a huge community of socializers in UO that revel in the promised social
interactions available to them. Take a look at some of the player built cities
and taverns sometime. I doubt many of them have an IRC window open to plan
their next move.

-Kristen Koster
Kaige at LegendMUD

Fine Print: Opinions above are those of an Socializer/Explorer so may be skewed
that direction. =)