[MUD-Dev] Re: Remote client connection (J C Lawrence)

[Dmitri Zagidulin]

J C Lawrence wrote:
>I argue that one of the prime values in a MUD, and this is the thing
>which elevats it in various essential fashions, is that the player
>is continually confronted with the question, "What shall I do now?"
>and there is nothing and nobody to tell him that answer but him.

>The player is the one who creates the game for himself.  Not you,
>not other players, not the game designer, not the implementors, not
>the mass media, advertising agencies, or any other third party --
>only the player.  He may be influenced by all the aforementioned,
>but in the end, its just him creating something that has meaning to
>himself.

>Consider the problem of the Stamp Collector (see the Laws and then

I agree wholeheartedly.
How many of us play the _same_ video game or online game twice?
And when we run out of programmed-in options (e.g. played through all 
the different classes in Diablo), how many times have
we gone back and played our own version?

I think this ties in rather well with the discussion regarding 
games vs. simulations.

Both sides of the debate agree that we're mostly in the business of
_entertaining_ people (with some teaching/artistic expression/whatever on
the side). When and how are players the best entertained?

The "game" camp argues that:
1. Excessively detailed simulations detract from the _game_, the
entertainment aspect of it.
2. Time and effort spent on simulating well detracts from the time and
effort spent on game design - plots, settings, game mechanics, etc.
3. Even when given enough details and freedom, most players don't
entertain themselves that well - that's why they came to us in the first
place.

The "simulation" camp maintains:
1. The players can play faster than we can design, and so outgrow games
very quickly. Territories are exlored, puzzles are solved, foes are
vanquished, UPS parcels delivered, etc, at lightning speed -- and then
what?  In a multi-player world, continuously creating & updating a game to
keep up with all (or most) of the players requires omniscience (since each 
player plays a slightly different game for different reasons) and
omnipotence.  Even then, players will explore & conquer what they feel
like, completely miss the existence of the rest, and even go and decide
that _they_ can make a better game out of your world doing their own thing
- socializing, harassing newbies, stamp collecting, whatever.
2. All in all, players are fairly ingenious at entertaining themselves. 
Hey, look at the real world - it's more of a simulation than a game 
(it's pretty detailed, non?), and humans have kept themselves entertained
for millenia (just read some history books).

What we have to realize is why both paradigms - simulation and game - are
valuable (even crucial), and that they don't necessarily oppose each
other.

Consider:
1. Sometimes players will want us to entertain them. 
You want a sticky game/world? Then provide them with every opportunity 
to be entertained. Put in quests. Dungeons. Plot items. Random side-games 
that have nothing to do with anything (like playing poker in the tavern,
or racing against a little green troll to gain more spell points or
something). Some kind of goals & progress indicators (points, xp, gold,
whatever).  Give them _games_!
2. When they whip through your games, but still want to be entertained,
set up a system where the _world_ (which includes other players) can
entertain them in your absense. 
Whatever you're clever enough to do.
Self-generating terrain and plot? Go for it.
Evolutionary-programming monsters & NPCs that evolve and mutate? Hey, if
you can manage it.
A battle arena where they can fight each other as well as pre-set beasts?
Hey, it'll keep 'em entertained for ages. Want to make it isolated from
the world proper (i.e. you only get to keep the eq./treasure you've won
within the arena, and deaths don't count)? All the better.
Chickens, cows, other monsters players can catch, herd & amuse themselves
with.
Guilds, religions, political factions, light vs. dark.
Again, anything you can think of, as long as it can be self-sustaining &
not require _too_ much of your supervision.

3. And sometimes the players will want to do whatever the hell they want.
Hey, can we kill Lord British?  What level can I reach using nothing but
this rusty dagger & cloth armor?  What if I want to just be a beggar on
the street of your city & become the master of the rumor mill?
Insert the infinite variety of random ways players amuse themselves.
LET THEM!
Provide every opportunity within reason for them to mess with the world.
That's what the simulation aspect is for - to provide a realistic and
persistent enough world for them to find new games and new meanings for
themselves.

- Dmitri Zagidulin




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