[MUD-Dev] Our player's keepers? (long)

[Brian Green]

Well, I decided last week I wanted to write about social
responsibility.  This is a very important topic for us to consider when
planning the future of our medium.  I'm going to try to avoid rehashing
any topic already thoroughly discussed, and hope to put some of the
issues in a new light.

One thing that really got me thinking was Dave Rickey's statement:
> "Socially redeeming"?  Sorry, maybe I checked my conscience at the
> door, but I thought my responsibility was to entertain them, give
> them good value for their money, not work for World Peace and a
> higher global consciousness.

I started thinking about what we are trying to do with our games.  I
realized, as many other developers have, that we are quickly going
beyond mere entertainment.  Many people in previous discussions point to
the fact that online game time is replacing TV time, implying that this
is a good thing.  If it is to be a good thing, we need to make sure that
our games ARE better than TV.  TV's goal is to merely entertain, I think
we need to strive higher for a higher goal.

So, what is our goal?  As the list has just been discussing, we are
trying to create a great multiplayer experience.  This means people will
come to our game to interact and socialize with other players; without
these elements, it becomes nearly meaningless to have a "multiplayer"
game.  We're bringing social interaction back to a field that had left
it behind when it became computerized.

Yet, whenever people come together, you will always have differences of
opinions and conflict.  The great PK debates show that even something as
basic as playing styles in our games can differ greatly from one player
to the next.  Should we make an attempt to mediate the disagreements
people will have?  Or, should we allow people to work out their own
differences?  Each of these options has important impacts on game
design, administrative costs, and ability to retain players.

The social issues are important because most professionals working in
this medium realize that there is a lot of unrealized potential before
us.  Some see a wild future as imagined by Gibson and other science
fiction writers, while others see our games as the first infant steps
into the realm of true "virtual reality" as promised a decade ago.  Our
development and choices will influence how this future develops; in
extreme cases, it could determine if our future even develops at all.

What about the obsessive playing styles we've read about, such as in the
recent article from the Bay Area newspaper?  Should we design games that
do not reward, or even deter, such obsessive playing styles?  Is this
something we should leave up to the individual player?  These are
complicated questions without easy answers.

Matthew Mihaly wrote:
> I'm concerned with providing my users with an experience they want.
> If what they want is bad for them, that's their issue, not mine. I'm
> not daddy, and you know what, I don't know what's best for their
> lives.

We must realize that the issue runs deeper than the problems of
individuals; it is a problem that affects others in the social
environment and a problem that will affect the industry through bad
press and negative perceptions.

A friend of mine recently told me that his parents are moving away from
Nevada.  While the cost of living is low, the ever-present gambling was
a great drain on finances.  When I mentioned I was writing an article
dealing with social responsibility in MUDs, he stated that this issue
was near and dear to his heart.  Unfortunately, gambling can "get away"
with it's destructive behaviors because some people come away better
than they started (in concrete terms of money), and gambling has a long
history behind it.  Online gaming offers neither concrete benefits
(although there are a lot of intangible benefits), nor has the history
to support it.

This is issue is an emotionally charged issue, and we risk one side of
the argument alienating the other side of the argument; no one wants to
hear that their relatives (or even they) are idiots that made foolish
choices when they misspent their money on gaming.  I will strive to
stick to more logical arguments.

Focusing on the logical side of things, we ask ourselves, "What exactly
is our liability?  If someone wastes their life away when playing our
game, are we at fault?  Even if we are not at fault, can we sustain the
negative press that this is undoubtedly going to create?"  While I am
not certain if we should take liability for someone's choice to ignore
their offline duties, I am almost certain we cannot sustain the negative
press the inevitable stories will cause.

Traditional single-player games are already under attack for the
"problems" they cause.  Senator Lieberman likes to draw attention to the
graphic violence found in games, pointing to research that links such
game violence with increases in violent behavior.  The now notorous
Colonel Grossman is making quite a living on the talk show circuits
trumpeting the harmful effects of video game violence.  

The "link" between playing a game and the disasterous effect on a
person's life is even more evident in our case; no one could argue that
the player's obsession with UO is not what caused his problems,
particularly when dealing with the general population.  Negative press
will come, my friends, and it will be a force that we may not be able to
handle.  It won't matter who is morally or legally wrong or right in the
matter, the masses will decide our fate if we allow it to come to that.

Consider the offline example of local bars.  Drinking and driving is a
tragedy, something that never ceases to get negative publicity.  While
some bars try to distance themselves, stating that they are not
responsible for the actions of their patrons, others are more
proactive.  Some have designated driver programs, offering free soft
drinks and items for someone who remains sober to drive home friends. 
Others have signs posted that offer to call a taxi for patrons should
they not be able to drive after a night of drinking.

Even before driving becomes an issue, bars will often stop serving
customers that have obviously had too much to drink.  This is not only
socially responsible, but also smart from a business point of view.  A
surly, puking drunk ruins the atmosphere for other patrons.  A customer
that dies from alcohol poisoning or an accident is lost revenue, to put
it in cold business terms.

I think we should follow the example.  It is less excusable in our case;
from a business point of view, a company running a game with a monthly
fee gains nothing when a player obsessively plays a game.  In fact, it
increases the chances the player will not be able to pay our fees if
they ignore their offline duties enough to lose their income.

We need to not be myopic, because we are setting the tone for the future
of the medium.  People will realize that our medium is useful for more
than "merely playing games", that there is a lot of useful potential. 
It is important to set the tone for how the future will develop; we need
to make sure to calm our potential opponents.

Why should we care?  Why should individuals even consider how the
industry as a whole fares?  To put it simply, because we are a
community.  Communities flourish when people contribute and wither when
people take without giving back to it.  Any person not interested in
becoming part of such a community should seriously reconsider online
gaming as a career.  Our job is stated most simply when we say that we
"create communities."

In the tradition of offering possible solutions in an effort to start
discussion, allow me to give a basic example.  I think the obvious way
to break such obsessive behavior is to destroy the link between time
invested in a game and the resulting advancement within the game's
mechanics.  This is nothing short of heresy according to many
developers.  Tradition is strong in our medium, but there are some
legacies we can stop clinging to so stubbornly.  

In the long run, we will benefit from reducing this link.  Not only will
this change help reduce the benefit of obsessive behavior, but it will
also allow casual gamers with less time to dedicate to participate in
our games.  As I stated last week, we need to attract these people to
the medium if we are to make sure we have a hand in the future of the
medium.

I think a reasonable example of a design that accomplishes this
separation of investment and return in game mechanics is UO's newly
implemented "burst hour".  For those not familiar with it, the first
hour a character is logged on during a 24 hour period gives a bonus to
skill advancement.  After that, the bonus subsides and returns to
normal.  The result is that after the first hour, the return on
investment is much lower.  I do not know specifics, but I would assume
that this reduction is significant.  Therefore, the player that plays
for six hours does not advance three times as much as the player that
only plays for two hours.  This reduces the disparity between the
hard-core and the casual gamer, while allowing both to participate in
the game as much as they desire.  If taken to a larger place within the
game, we can make sure that people playing long hours do so through
desire, not through feelings of necessity.

Could similar designs be applied to other areas such as resource
gathering?  Should we consider applying such a system to social
interaction?  Is it possible to do so, or is it even desirable?

Hopefully, this area is something we can dedicate some serious thought
to.  Even if you think we cannot dictate what our customers want or that
we should not mess with social implications, I am sure most agree we
need to avoid negative publicity for our industry.  Careful
consideration and design will help us avoid that which will harm us in
the long run.

Comments welcomed and encouraged.

--
"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