[MUD-Dev] What I want, what players want

[adam at treyarch.com]

On Sun, 28 May 2000, Andrew Ritchie wrote:
> Over the past few years, I have been contemplating my 'dream' MUD, as I
> never really have played any ORPG that I've viewed as incredible.

Sounds familiar.  Orion and I oft said while working on our "ultimate mud"
project in college that we were writing the mud that we always *thought*
we were playing, until we saw behind the curtain and realized that it was
a horrible jury-rig that managed to fool us for a while.

> [snip]
> This brings me to my question. I can spend years on my Xanadu, and finish
> designing my dream. However, I believe that my dream is not similar to the
> majority of MUDders, and would only attract a very small playerbase.
> Alternatively, I can create a fun MUD which has 'player-friendly' features,
> which could attract many players.  However, there still would be something
> missing for me, because I would not have created my dream.  Which path
> should I follow?

First of all, this is hardly the binary choice that this statement makes
it out to be.  It's rather a gradient, and one that all creators face:
accessability to a wide audience, versus gratifiction for the creator.

It's also one that strikes close to home for me.  I have oft said, on
this list and off, that I am making a game strictly for myself and those
like myself, and I have no interest in catering to anyone else.

My attitude has changed somewhat since I took my mud public.  No, I haven't
"gone soft" - I realized that part of what I want are a variety of players.
I want the stupid and lazy players, because we use them for cannon fodder.
I want the annoying players, because they make attractive PK targets.  I want
noble players, because they rescue newbies from bad situations.  I want
mean players, because they make great bad guys, and therefore someone for
all the "good guys" to go after.  I want the overly emotive, socializing
players (Hi Marian!) because they lend context and drama to the actions of
the other players.  I want crazy players (Hi Caliban!) because they do
unpredictable stuff and lend freshness to the game.  I want players who
get people riled up on purpose (Hi Matt!  Hi JC!), because I want people riled
up from time to time.

And, maybe most of all: (almost) every creator wants their creation to be
viewed, and appreciated.  There's little I enjoy as much as tagging along
incognito with a group of players tackling one of my areas for the first time.
Watching them explore its crooks and crannies is intensely satisfying.  Hearing
them curse and swear at the area's creator for including such fiendish and
wicked traps and pitfalls is even better.

I think this is true for most everyone with the urge to create, whether they
admit it or not.

So, to address your question:

     Create the mud that YOU want to create.  Otherwise it will
     suck.  But - don't think that you don't need to cater to
     players at all.  You do.  You need to make things
     accessable (especially to newbies).  You need rewards that
     are just far away enough to be satisfying, yet close
     enough to be reachable.  You need a game that is easy to
     *use* and fun to *play*, but difficult to master.

I think the simplest way to make sure you follow these criteria is to play your
own mud.  Put yourself into "player mode".  Is there anything that is annoying,
too difficult, too easy, too restrictive, too abstract?  Do you find yourself
wanting to play frequently, or is it a chore?  What parts jump out at you and
make you say "Wow!  This rocks!" and which parts fade into the background?

Conclusion: make the game that you want to PLAY, not the game that you want to
MAKE.  The two are probably very similar, but it is an important distinction.

Adam





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