[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu 
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Richard A. Bartle
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:11 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] New Bartle article
 
> On 23 February, 2001, Raph Koster wrote:
> > http://www.edge-online.co.uk/news_main.asp?news_id=3416
> > Hey Richard, you should repost these yourself. ;)

> I didn't post a reference to it here because I didn't feel I'd said
> anything especially new that I hadn't already said in various places
> before in a less confrontational way. I'm not going to complain if
> people read it, though!

There is some lively discussion of it on the [ultima] mailing list at
yahoogroups. The archives are members-only, so I can't post a link,
but here's some of the things that got said:

----

"He lost me before this, but this put the nail in the coffin.

"They may think they know what's best, but it's for the designers to
decide what is best. Some degree of PKing is good: although players
may rail against the very concept of it, unless they do actually get
PKed on a regular basis they're not going to leave in droves."

Psychologists (well some, not all) have spent decades learning that
actually they really quite often _dont_ really know what people
'really' need.  I cant wait for game designers to do the same."

-----

"Hey, his snippit sounds completely logical to me.  Its the designers
who know whats best for the player not the player who knows.  Why?
Because its the designers game, and if you don't like it then you can
go to a game where the designers are a bit more like minded than you.
PKing is necessary to a certain degree.  Why?  Because 1. if its taken
out then it eliminates yet another choice; 2. It can controll the flow
of players through an area; 3.  In line with 2, it controlls the
growth rate of the pool of resources."

----

"UO already has rewards that accrue only to pvpers, such as
order/chaos shields. I've got no issues with them expanding on that
idea, so long as it gives the pvpers no significant competitive
advantage against the rest of the player base.

The idea that in order to become the best pizza chef you must venture
into PK territory is patently absurd. The genre has clearly passed Dr.
Bartle by, and he's trying to model today's realities in yesterday's
terms, with the incongruent result that a respected pioneer is
sounding like a PK propagandist.

Conflict drives story and action, but the point Bartle glosses over is
that in both literature and reality, most conflict between
people/characters is NON-VIOLENT. You don't have to kill anybody to
become chief of surgery at a major metropolitan hospital, but that
doesn't mean it can't make for a compelling book -- or game.

Even in the realm of fantasy, the degree of risk experienced by the
characters escalates as their ability to deal with it does. The
problem with relying on other players as a risk element is that they
will unfailingly choose inappropriate, weaker player targets in
preference to those that approach their own skill level. Gandalf might
go to battle Sauron in his dark citadel, only to find the master of
evil has gone camping outside Hobbiton, bashing newbie burglars.

PvP is a good system to have in place for people who occasionally or
constantly wish to battle other consenting players. Giving the PvPers
anything other than cosmetic advantages over other players contributes
nothing of value to the game and simply cultivates resentment among
the bulk of the player base. "Like it or lump it" is bad design,
abysmal customer relations, and reflects a small-scale, insular,
elitist attitude that should be avoided like that plague by any game
designer seeking a somewhat larger audience that the old
MUDs. Contrary to Bartle's assertions, players can and will leave the
game en masse in response to PKing, with significantly greater
velocity than they will depart due to a "lack of challenge"."

------

"Well, you pretty much said what I was feeling on the PK issue. But
now I want to hear what you think about his opinions on Permanent
Death. It wasn't the PK discussion that got me in his article nearly
as much as his belief that we need to have PD in our game to feel like
the challenge is sufficient enough. I was in utter shock that
Dr. Bartle would even suggest that we NEED that in our game to enjoy
it. The one thing he doesn't bring up, which is critical IMHO, is that
the majority of people would never even begin playing a game if they
knew PD was in it. Why exactly would I be willing to dedicate weeks or
months of my time to a character, only to have it flushed down a
toilet (worst of all, maybe even by a PK)? And I think he puts way too
much trust in the fact that addiction would keep players in the game
after losing a character like that. I for one would have the reaction
of F.U. and never touch the game again (oh wait, I would have never
started playing anyway, nevermind)."

------

"PD might enhance the "game" portion of UO, but it would definitely be
at the expense of the "world" aspect. If you invest any time in
building a character, whether it's raising skills or crafting a unique
RP persona, you're going to be reluctant to put that character at any
significant risk of deletion. What would result would be an influx of
throwaway characters, with no significant investment from the player,
as individual as the marines of Doom. Add in a new breed of griefer,
with the fantastic emotional payoff of getting somebody permanently
dead, and watch the game self-destruct."

------

There is also a thread has also begun at Lum the Mad's which can be
found here:

  http://wire2k.phpwebhosting.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=beast&Number=904&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&part=

Some sample posts from this one:

---

"Obviosuly, the man's cracked :-)"

------

"While I agree that he doesn't address any of the problems associated
with unrestrained PKing, I really don't think he needs to. He
definately wasn't arguing that the whole game should be a PK haven, as
evident through his liberal use of "badlands", referring to the area
"outside" of no-kill zones.  Rather, it appears to me that he was
trying to drive home the point that larger risk=more appreciation of
reward=longer retention."

----

Not to mention, there's some discussion of it on our internal design
mailing list here at work. :)

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