[MUD-Dev] Remote client connection

[J C Lawrence]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:01:34 -0400 (EDT) 
Paul Schwanz <- Enterprise Services <Paul.Schwanz at east.sun.com>> wrote:

> JC said:

>> 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.

> Actually, I think that this question can be taken too far.  

Of course.  One of the other ends of the scale is the classic,
"Guess the verb," puzzle.  Arguably, there must be mechanics and the
machanics must be known to the player, or the player must be
(correctly) certain that he can discover the mechanics with
reasonable (dilettante player) effort.

> There comes a point when I feel like I am entertaining myself and
> that's not necessarily what I'm looking for in a MUD.

Yup, that's our problem as game designers.  We must either present
the player with a pre-canned game that he can co-opt, or we must
present him with enough game fragments that plug welle nough
together that he doesn't notice that he's doing all the heavy
lifting.

<ponder>

Actually I'd argue that one is the outgrowth of the other.  We start
by giving the player a pre-canned game.  Something he can understand
instanty and go and DO, with some success and some learning, in our
game.  Barriers to entry, introductions, and all that rot.  Then we
start going, "Okay, know you know about this place, and you have
some idea what's going on, what would you like to do?"

The transition between the two states can of course be quite
gradual, very abrupt, or in certain cases (this was one of the early 
complaints about UO) the first stage can be (largely) missing.  

ObNote: One of the basic functions of the PK wars on UO and the many
UO fan sites was to provide and define that early pre-canned
game/purpose/learning curve experience: "Hey, come be a PK'er!",
"Hey, come whack the PK'ers!", both dealt along with well documented
HOW-TOs and well in-game assisted (guilds etc) on how to achieve
those goals.  The secondary advantage of the entire PK fracas being
instantly and natively familiar to the players via FPS just made it
all easier.

> I think that the designer should present the player with plenty of
> choices, but I also think that it is up to the designer to make
> sure that the choices are not too arbitrary.  The game should not
> remain silent when I ask, "What shall I do now?"  But neither
> should it scream back a single response.

I see this as part of the transition between the two states/stages
mentioned above.  

> And I'd certainly like to see more flexibility in *how* I can go
> about reaching the goals which the game presents to me.

During the middle stages, yes, we're still in the process of
hand-holding, giving a partially canned experience, and of acting as
Disney-esque tour guides.  Arguably, this is the basic function of
having the newbie levels on many GoP MUDs being protected from other
higher level players.  You're still hand-holding and waiting for
them to learn the ropes.  The problem is that there gets to be a
point where you as game designer are largely out of the picture in
terms of defining the game.  You have succeeded: you are now
irrelevant -- the player is playing some other game inside your game
that is of his own devising.

At this point, WHY should the game either present or offer you
goals?  

My basic argument is that presentation of goals to players (as
versues player derived and defined goals) is a pre-canned thing, and
is thus largely a learning curve lubrication.  You offer the player
pre-canned goals and micro-games to play such that he learns and
grows into your game.  The games, and the steps involved, can be big
or tiny, and they can be very obvious to the player (quests,
numbered lessons, traning areas, talking newbie swords, etc), or
quite hidden and implicit.  This is not to say that these
lubricative steps are unimportant (without that learning curve you
have no players), just that the are transitional stages and needs to
be recongnised as such.

What this concentrates attention on is the post-game problem; one of
the basic problems of all advancement based games (and learning is a
form of advancement, even if usually not quantified).  What does the
player do after he has maxxed, after he has learned your game?  You
don't want the game to be over and him to move on to some other
game.  You've managed to produce a well educated (in your game)
player.  It seems a pity to waste that by throwing it away as almost
every other game out there does.

This is where the whole bit about expressive fertility comes in.

--
J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw at kanga.nu
----------(*)                              Other: coder at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--


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