[MUD-Dev] Multiplayer definition (was: Birthday Cake)

[Brian Green]

I actually loathed the original Gamasutra article when I read it.  I
thought it was terribly shallow.  The bulk of the article focused on a
deeply flawed model, as other people have pointed out.  Thankfully, he
didn't make it monthly as threatened.

But, JC brings up some good points.  Guess he got more out of it than I
did. :)

J C Lawrence wrote:
> 
> >> Crosbie Fitch:
> 
> >>>  There should be nothing radical or special about multiplayer
> >>>  games. Indeed, it is the game that supports only a single
> >>>  player which is the oddity.

Actually, I'd disagree somewhat.  Computer games have focused on the
single-player experience for about as long as they've been around.  In
the computer realm, the multiplayer game is the oddity, not the single
player game.  Why else are we having such problems grappling with the
issues?
 
> What was the last truly multi-player game you played?  What was it
> about that game such that being multi-player wasn't just integral to
> the system, but that the system itself was unable to exist, let
> alone function without it being multi-player?
> 
> What exactly constitutes a multiplayer game?

Hmm.  Let me muddy the waters a bit.  I'm going to propose that you
can't really classify games as purely single-player or multi-player, you
can only define the number of inputs.

Let's take a "single player" game, such as Solitaire (aka Klondike). 
The name indicates that is intended for the solitary player.  But, you
will always get someone peeping over your shoulder, suggesting moves for
you.  What if two people decide to play together,  using the single
"input" and collaborate to play the game?  Is the game still
single-player?

Okay, now take a "multiplayer" game, such as chess.  What if one player
wants to play both sides of the game?  People often do this to work out
strategies, "playing" the game to practice.  A single player is
supplying both inputs to the game.  Is the game still multi-player?

Given this, if there is an important distinction to be made perhaps we
should consider these "single input" or "multiple input" games. 
Recognizing, of course, that any number of people could be using any
number of inputs in the game.

Admittedly, I am splitting hairs here.  Games can be designed with
obvious intentions (IE, chess becomes less interesting when you know
what your opponent is thinking ;), but this definition becomes important
as I'll show below.
 
> It is very easy to consider the single player viewpoint.  We're
> quite familiar with it after all.  Do we grok the multi-player
> viewpoint fully?

I think we have a reasonable grasp on it.  The problem is, with multiple
inputs you have to define a wider variety of reactions in the game; the
game reacts in certain ways to certain "moves" in a single-player game. 
When you add additional inputs, you have to consider how both inputs
affect the game and how both inputs affect each other.  As the number of
inputs increases, the amount of stuff the game has to react to increases
exponentially.

This is why most of our multiplayer games feel like single player game. 
It's hard enough to react to an input, let alone react to multiple
inputs, let alone react to how the inputs interact.  By reducing the
interaction between players, we simplify the game.

This is something all good MUD admins know.  Player vs. Player is always
harder to work out than Player vs. Environment.  We can determine how
the Environment reacts, but we can't force Players to react a certain
way without the risk of alienating the player.
 
> Is it more than just requiring collaboration on the part of the
> players?  I've been unable to convince myself of this either way.
[...]
> But what about multi-player games?  There's more to it than just
> throwing in a couple extra inputs, of defining the goal as
> insolvable/unapproachable by single individuals.  What is the
> quality that defines a game as being multi-player?

As I demonstrated above, I don't think you can find the "multiplayer"
qualities by looking only at the mechanics.  Extra inputs can be handled
just as well by a single player.

As I alluded to above, I think what distinguishes a multiplayer game
from a single player game is the interaction between the players.  This
interaction can take place within the game mechanics (EG, combat, point
totals), or outside of game mechanics (EG, socialization, psyching out
your opponent).  Some games don't support player interaction via
mechanics, as in the case of two people playing Klondike.  In games with
single players, interaction is generally meaningless; a single player
playing both sides of a chess game rarely tries to psyche himself out. 
Basically multiplayer qualities focus on the Killer/Socializer side of
Bartle's groups; you can get Exploration/Achievement fairly easily in
single player games.

I think it's important to note that some of the more interesting games
tend to move interaction into the game mechanics.  Examples would be
Diplomacy's focus on alliances and assistance from other players and
Asheron's Call's codified allegiance system.  The benefit is that these
interactions become more predictable at the expense of added game
complexity.
 
In a to JC's article reply, Matthew Mihaly wrote:

-> I've harped on this for years. To me, most MUDs are only
semi-multiplayer.
-> they pit you against the game, just like a single-player game does.
You go
-> out, you bash monsters, you go up levels. Doesn't require that anyone
else
-> is around. Sure, maybe your system makes it impractical to go out and
play
-> against the game unless you are in a group, but that's still playing
-> against the game. 

I think cooperative multiplayer is just as valid as competitive
multiplayer.  This is something I like to harp on. :)  Too many people
instantly exclude cooperative play for whatever reason.  Although
cooperative play tends to limit interaction through game mechanics, it
is more conductive to interaction outside the game mechanics.  When not
worried about giving the other player an advantage or trying to overcome
their interaction via game mechanics, people tend to be more social.  Of
course, there's always the compromise of team-orientated play.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

--
"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...."  -"Defender", Manowar
     Brian Green, brian at psychochild.org  aka  Psychochild
       |\      _,,,---,,_      *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_  
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'  "Ritalin Cures Next Picasso" 
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)               -The_Onion_, August 4th, 1999



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