[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[Richard A. Bartle]

On 23rd February, 2001, Raph Koster wrote:

> There is some lively discussion of it on the [ultima] mailing list at
> yahoogroups.

My experience of such groups in the past is that they discuss and
discuss and discuss until they all agree that the way whatever game
they happen to play does it is, although it has its flaws,
nevertheless on the right track.

If I were to participate, I dare say I may be able to change a few
minds, or maybe have my own mind changed, but I'd be basically setting
myself up for a fall. In the past, it's taken me 2 or 3 weeks to
extracate myself from these kinds of discussions.

I'm not too bothered, though, in that the point of the article was to
get people to think. Even if most of them think the same thing (and
disagree), that's not a bad thing. So long as it gives a few people
ideas on how to address some of the issues it raises, that's good
enough for me.

>  here's some of the things that got said:

Yes, this does look like it would be like walking into a lion's den if
I were to try to participate <grin> .

I'll answer some of the points here, in the hope that subscribers to
this list don't go away with the impression I'm quite the complete
dork that many of the members of the UO discussion group apparently
think I do.  I'm not entirely convinced it'll work, but hey, it's
worth a try!

> 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."

Game designers don't know what people "really" need, but at least they
KNOW they don't know it.

They do tend to know what's better for their game than the players do,
but it is a dialogue, and they can be wrong. Designers tend to be
wrong a lot less often than players, though.

> The idea that in order to become the best pizza chef you must
> venture into PK territory is patently absurd.

It depends on the game, of course. Some might say that having pizzas
in a game with a medieval setting is absurd.

On the whole, though, yes, it's going to be absurd if people have to
risk their lives to be the best pizza chef. It's not necessarily
absurd for people to risk their lives to become head of the mighty
guild of bakers. It is very likely to be absurd for people to get to
be warlord of the golden steppes without ever being remotely at risk.

> The genre has clearly passed Dr. Bartle by, and he's trying to model
> today's realities in yesterday's terms

I'm attempting to show aspects tomorrow's realities.

> with the incongruent result that a respected pioneer is sounding
> like a PK propagandist.

I meant the article to be more pro-PD than pro-PK. I guess it depends
on how you read it.

> 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.

No disagreement from me there. Of course, that would be a game where
the whole point wasn't to go out and kill things. It would be a game
which didnt have ten times the number of skills for weapon use that it
had for anything non-violent. It wouldn't be one with a story arc that
involved the destruction of evil beings. It wouldn't, in short, be a
game like any of the ones we have out there at the moment.

> Giving the PvPers anything other than cosmetic advantages over other
> players contributes nothing of value to the game

Its a little worrying that lines like this can be stated axiomatically
without any discussion.

> Contrary to Bartle's assertions, players can and will leave the game
> en masse in response to PKing

Hmm, I thought I asserted that very point near the end of my article?

People arguing against what they think my point of view is, rather
than what it is, doesn't really help (sigh).

> I was in utter shock that Dr. Bartle would even suggest that we NEED
> that in our game to enjoy it.

I wasn't suggesting THEY needed it in their game to enjoy it. Clearly
they enjoy it, or they wouldn't play. I was perhaps implying that
there may be other people who might have enjoyed their game more if it
had some degree of PD, and that the game's lifespan might be naturally
longer with some carefully controlled PD aspects.

> 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.

;If only I'd said "The flaw in this argument is that that although
current players may not leave a game that has PD or PKing, new players
might not even start it."

Oh! I did!

> 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

Why indeed? So you wouldn't. You wouldn't put your character into a
position where it would be at risk of PD. You just wouldn't get access
to that final 1% of the game unless you did.

> I for one would have the reaction of F.U. and never touch the game
> again

And then 2 weeks later be back playing, unless this was a "last straw"
death at the end of a sequence of them.

Some people do leave after being killed, but not many. The key is,
it's being killed TOO OFTEN that drives players away. For some
individuals, once is too often. For most, though, it takes more than
that.

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

I may respond to that directly, as they get a cross section of players
there from different games, rather than people banging the drum for
their own favourite game in particular.

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

My consultancy rates are very reasonable, especially since they just
closed down the office I work in and as of 1st March I'm out of a job
<grin> .

Richard

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