[MUD-Dev] Permadeath or Not?

[Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services]

> From: "Travis Nixon" <tnixon at avalanchesoftware.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Corey Crawford" <myrddin at seventh.net>
> To: <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 4:07 PM
> Subject: [MUD-Dev] Permadeath or Not?
> 
> 
> > Hi all!
> >
> > There's an interesting discussion about permadeath going on, on the
> > new Star Wars Galaxies site, at
> > http://www.station.sony.com/starwars/.
> >
> > The link to the actual thread is:
> > http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/starwars/Forum2/HTML/000280.html
> >
> > If anyone is interested :)
> 
> 
> My god!  Are they mad!  Are the developers actually considering
> perma-death, or is this just something brought up by players?
> 
> The primary reason EQ seems so tedious to so many is because the
> penalty for death is seen by many (including myself, considering the
> high probability of random unavoidable death) as being extremely
> steep, and therefore people take the safest, yet most boring, route to
> advancement.  I don't personally subscribe to this, and try to have
> fun in the game whenever possible, but then, I don't really advance
> much (if at all) any more either. :)
> 
> But to raise the stakes even further?
> 
> *shudders*


Negative consequences are only one part of the playability equation.
To be honest, I don't think that they are usually the primary source
of player frustration.  To explain what I mean, here's an excerpt from
a PvP article I wrote recently.

--->begin excerpt

It's all about control.

At its heart gaming is about presenting the player with a number of
interesting choices, allowing the player to actualize a particular
choice, and rewarding the player with appropriate positive or negative
feedback. Taken together, these three things really sum up a game?s
playability. And being able to actualize one of a number of
interesting choices is usually discussed simply in terms of
control. Here?s an example. I?m moving the puck down the ice in my
favorite hockey title. I have many choices. I can pass, shoot, deke,
skate in different directions and at different speeds, etc. Suddenly,
my left wing shows open just outside the crease on the far side of the
goal. I mash the buttons on my gamepad just right and watch the puck
snake through the defense for the "one timer." Goal!

This game is very playable because I feel that I have a good amount of
control over what occurs. Note that I don?t have to score every time I
shoot the puck in order for this to be true. Not only are negative
consequences OK, they are a vital part of any challenging or
competitive game. It is only when negative consequences seem
unavoidable that I begin to feel frustration.  And when I am not able
to actualize an appropriate choice, negative consequences become
unavoidable.

Suppose I played a different hockey game without as many choices. I
might have a very different experience. Perhaps the game does not
allow one timers. My left wing is wide open, but when I pass to him,
instead of immediately slapping the puck past the ill-positioned
goalie, he controls the puck first and then tries to shoot. But the
goalie always has plenty of time to recover, so my winger never
scores. This is not fun. This is frustrating. Or maybe one timers are
featured in the game, but it is all but impossible to actualize this
choice. There is a delay in my pass so that every time I spot an open
winger, the defense has closed on him by the time the puck arrives. I
have no control. I cannot actualize an appropriate choice. Negative
consequences are unavoidable. This is not fun. This is extremely
frustrating.

We usually think of control only in conjunction with twitch based
games, but I think that playability principles are applicable to any
type of game. Although we use different terms when referring to these
principles, they work for MMRPG?s just like they do for sports
titles. In slower paced games, we tend to talk in terms of balance
instead of control when we are discussing playability, but it still
boils down to allowing the player to actualize an interesting
choice. Recent discussion on an Atriarch Stratics Forum brought this
into focus when Stromko pointed out that imbalances could actually
bring a "dynamic theme" to a game. The important thing was that these
imbalances did not lead to permanent superiority. We concluded that
what we term "unbalanced" really just refers to a dynamic game
situation in which players are not given the ability to address
changes. On the other hand, what we laud as "dynamic" is simply an
unbalanced game situation in which players are given the ability to
address imbalances. Giving players the ability to address imbalances
is about giving them control.

Some form of semi-death (with concurrent losses of skill, experience,
or items) typically provides the groundwork for negative consequences
in many MMRPG?s. What we often fail to realize, is that a game is not
frustrating simply because it has death or skill loss, although these
things usually provide a focal point for expressing our
disappointment. The knee-jerk reaction is to lessen negative
consequences in response to frustration, but this is akin to taking
the frustrating hockey game above and simply making a higher
percentage of pucks go into the net despite the goalie?s position and
for no apparent reason. If we take this approach instead of adding
interesting and executable choices like one timers, does this really
make the game more fun to play? I don?t think that it does, since it
removes from the player even the possibility of feeling like they?ve
perfectly executed a difficult play. Instead of "dumbing down" the
challenge, perhaps it would be more appropriate to raise the level of
control. In fact, I maintain that a MMRPG with extreme challenges like
permanent death could be just as much fun, if that death were
immanently avoidable. I imagine there are many methods for making
death avoidable, but three stand out in my mind as particularly
intuitive. I think MMRPG?s should give players more control through
occupational choices, territory, and justice systems.

<--- end excerpt

Actually, I wouldn't mind some feedback on the entire article.  If you
are interested, it is located here:

http://at.stratics.com/sections/lore/articles/phinpvp.shtml

--Phinehas


-----------------------------------------------------------------
		"All things are permissible,
			but not all things are expedient."
-----------------------------------------------------------------                 

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev