[MUD-Dev] List rituals

[Marian Griffith]

On Wed 27 Jun, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:38:41 +0200 
> Ola Fosheim <=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=F8stad?= <olag at ifi.uio.no>> wrote:
>> J C Lawrence wrote:

Lots of things in this post that are thought provocing so I will try
to contribute :)

>> Users are no longer allowed to be co-owners (which the LP/MOO
>> communities encouraged), so they co-develop their own structures
>> that engulf the game instead.

> Which, outside of the lack of control in regard to presentation
> and perception, marketing depts tend to love.

I am also not sure if this is universal, nor if this is going to
last E.g. furcadia depends heavily on player contributed content and
sooner or later the big games are going to realise that players are
willing to spend considerable amounts of money for lasting
contributions to the game.  Already for many players the reputation
is of more importance than the capabilities of their character
(though on the big games the two are still too often entwined).  It
takes no genius to predict that for main stream games capability
must matter less than reputation and content. Virtual property
instead of virtual testosterone, so to speak.

>> The net result may be that designers are no longer able to see
>> the mechanisms behind strategic game play.  Neat. :)

> Quite.  It encourages attempting detente.

And has already in at least one case, lead to the game owners coming
down rather heavy handed on player generated content entirely
outside the actual game.  We can also expect that, as cooperation
and external strategy becomes increasingly important, this
considerably heightens the barrier for new players.  For games that
rely heavily on large numbers of players entering and leaving
(churn-rate I belief the term is?) this is *not* a good development.
Of course I may also entirely misunderstand what you are trying to
say here, as will happen often in this post, I have no doubt :)

>> (Doesn't matter all that much to the MMPORPG model, because it
>> does not support strategic or creative game play to any
>> reasonably interesting degree... They are more like TV. :-(( )

Can we at least on this list sink the mmporpg term and refer to the
things as muds? The acronym is silly, and not particularly
meaningful (not to mention a bitch to pronounce)

> This will change and is slowly doing so.  There are learning and
> development curves to master first.  The biggest problem is
> building the basic vocabulary for the control and manipulation
> concepts in the player base.  On the first hand its a problem in
> invention (we really haven't figured out the area yet) and on the
> other hand the player base aren't educated into that vocabulary.

An interesting illustration of this is the observation made by Raph
Koster about six or so months ago, that we have no way to *critique*
muds. We can review them informally, but there is no way to actually
describe them.  It is even difficult to explain what makes two muds
different in terms that everybody can (learn to) understand.  E.g.
Just what is the difference between Ultima Online and Everquest or
Asheron's Call and Pernmush? We all have our ideas, but we can not
put them on paper and discuss them, let alone study if any
particular mud has a good or lesser implementation of certain
aspects.
 
> That's where we are now: still trying to invent the base language,
> still working just the other side of, "Ugg!" let alone any larger
> expressions like, "Me hungry!"  We really don't have a basic
> interface vocabulary set yet for MUDs, let alone strategic MUDs.

But then how many muds have been set up with strategic play in mind?
Do you expect to need more than one hand to count them? For an
understanding (and a vocaulary) you may have to look for other
fields like military and economic theories.  Or even at first person
games like quake (or whatever the current top of the crop in that
market is).  Those are games that have been set up to be played by
groups against groups. You could learn a lot about how players
perceive, and discuss those games between themselves.

>>> Historically this has been split into the PK good/bad threads,
>>> the how-to-implement-PK threads, and the how-to-control-PK
>>> threads.  We've not had them as incestuously knit before.
>>> There's been some integration work to going on there.  Not as
>>> much as I'd like, but enough to nod at.

Considering the amount of 'laws' that are directly or indirectly re-
lated to t he PK subject there has been a lot of thinking on this.
For a while there has been a certain amount of tiredness surrounding
the subject which had more to do, I think, with the way how it tend-
ed to devolve into a pro/con debate.  The point is that there are a
lot of fundamental sociological problems surrounding the concept of
PK that keep cropping up because they have never been dealt with. Or
at least not properly.  Given the background of the majority of the
active writers on this list that is not surprising.

>> Not really sure where you see this integration (not even sure if
>> that would be good).  I don't see anything new :).  If you are
>> talking about "how to give players the maximum ability to evolve
>> the world and the culture" then maybe.  Old topic, but a good
>> one, if one points in new directions and manage to avoid "that
>> will never work" thinking.

The big problem is that several key issues that underly PK are not
well understood yet. This makes that other writers on this list are
likely to point out what they perceive as fundamental problems, and
this keeps back discussion.  It is a bit like my experience with the
math classes at school. While the teacher was explaining how to sol-
ve a particular problem, I was still trying to figure out what all
those numbers and letters in the problem statement meant.  There was
a vast gap in understanding that made communication difficult. (Yes
with vast amounts of patience from the side of teacher, friends and
familiy I managed to, barely, pass those math classes eventually)
Many of the PK discussions are similar to that experience.  Somebody
wants to discuss specific aspects of it, while others are trying to
work out the why's rather than the how's. When those two questions
mix the end result is unlikely to be productive for either.

> Previous discussions have generally been basic; dedicated to first
> principles and scoping the field.  More recently we've started
> identifying class concepts like "grief players" and are starting
> to attempt to build models around general behaviour definitions
> and then building models from there.  That's a level of
> abstraction and general algebra that the Black Rose papers never
> dreamt of.

Actually I think the concept of "grief player" as it is being devel-
oped on this list is a good contribution. It separates activity from
intent, and that will in the long run, help clarify this subject.

>>> There's raw meat still left in scoping and defining the basic
>>> structures of MUDs in terms of player goal determination,
>>> acquisition scales and approaches, player value perception, ROI
>>> etc etc etc yada yada.  We've not really backed out much to try
>>> and look at a meta level beyond a few dismissive hook and cherry
>>> models of advancement scales.

There has been a discussion recently that I let pass by without pay-
ing much attention about attempting to define when a character was
truly dead, and following that about what actually defined a char-
acter.  After a lot of arguments about how names, property and even
experiences could easily be transfered from one characte r to the
next, I began to wonder why the need to precisely pinpoint such a
concept as character and character death.  That was also the point I
stopped following that particular discussion. I tell this because at
least some of what you seem to be asking here leaves me wondering
the same question, why is it important to exactly define it?  Other
than that, there have been a fair number of discussions about alter-
natives to levels and advancement models for muds.  I have no doubt
that if the topic is brought up again it will be discussed.

>> Yes, but I'd like to question whether players actually have or
>> need to have distinct goals.

> This seems largely irrelevant.  Walks like a duck et al.  If a
> player behaves in a manner which is consistent with him having one
> or more goals, then you may as presume he does.  And IRL many/most
> clearly express that they do have goals and what they think they
> are.

I do not think it is irrelevant, nor that the duck analogy is right.
While it is true that each player sets a goal for herself, that does
not mean it must have anything to do with the game. I have played at
traditional muds for a long time without caring about the official
goal of such games.  I have worked for such diverse goals as trying
to visit a particular location, finding myself a matching outfit,
meeting friends to talk to, and trying to keep my friends alive in a
fight against nasty monsters. None of these were goals that the game
set, but they were valid goals for me, so I would argue that there
is room to discuss the validity of goals within a game.

>> Thus, you might want to somehow formalise "asynchronous" teams,
>> but that is somewhat meaningless in a world with a strong
>> real-time focus.

> Ooo!  Neat.  I hadn't really thought about disconnected
> cooperative player systems for MUDs.  Neat.  There's fun stuff in
> there.

I have to admit the two of you have completely lost me here.  Point
is that I probably do not want to know ;)

>>> Are ___ANY___ topics or threads on MUD-Dev ever really
>>> conclusive?  And, in fact sre any of the topics usually
>>> discussed capable of being conclusively answered?

Rarely, but then this is a debating group rather than some form of
research. People put forward arguments and listen to what others say
about a particular topic, until there seems nothing new to be left
to say.  At that point the discussion fades away, but no conclusion
is ever reached, because there generally is no point being argued we
can reach a conclusion about. Some people may adjust their own ideas
on what they heard.  Summaries of discussions would be a good way to
formulate conclusions, however partial, but unfortunately the list
has grown too big to do something like that anymore, if only for the
sheer amount of posts you have to wade through.

> While not claiming to be posting such, its one of the reasons I
> leave short-range logical inconsistencies and unresolved areas in
> my posts.  It allows and encourages the reader to respond to fill
> in the blanks, to fix and correct.  Its not a great technique as
> the definition of "short range" is subjective to the reader and
> the list covers a wide range of such.  It also ignores the
> reputation/peerage problem yada yada and others.

I think the list has grown large enough that the reputation of cer-
tain members is no longer a real problem.  It scared me when at one
time somebody added my name to the list of people who influenced the
list, but I think I am safe of that now :).  I can not see how you
can avoid that people who post frequently are shaping the discussion
and the tone of the list more than those like me who post rarely.
One way to get out of the situation of inconclusive and fragmented
discussions, is to moderate more heavily. Not neccesarily by you but
perhaps by the person(s) starting a new subject. That however requi-
res a lot of time and effort, and will have consequences for the
list that may be undesirable for other reasons as well.

>> It is the bad arguments and the most opinionated topics that get
>> the most attention, because they are easy to attack (and of
>> course the most profiled members)... :(

> This can hardly be a surprise.  Evolution rarely proceeds by great
> leaps into new territory.  Most activity is wobbly work in the
> internices of the current edge.

It is also a consequence of the nature of a list like this.

>> So where are you going to obtain that fertilizer you like so
>> much?

> Does the list suffers from a lack of fertiliser?  Are there signs
> of a diminishing supply?

Not a diminishing reply but a large influx of new members means that
some topics that have been discussed extensively before will crop up
again, because they are new to a lot of people here. You could argue
that this is what the FAQ is for, but then we are back to the issue
of summaries, and the difficulty of creating them.

>> Unless you are actively recruiting "radical" thinkers you will
>> have problems establishing a group that is breaking free from
>> "what exists".

> Yup.  This has been one of the problems with my inactivity: we now
> have a more heavily normed population which has settled in enough
> to start attempting defence of that normality.

I think this is inevitable, no matter how hard you try to prevent it

>>> Is the field deterministic?

>> I think a group like MUD-_DEV_ could learn a lot from discussing
>> minimal MUD-concepts.  That is, not to discuss subsystems or
>> social/commercial issues, but develop distinctly different
>> hypothetical and radical full designs.  The question is if there
>> is enough radical/creative momentum on the list.

> The list has done that, and can do it again.  It merely needs
> someone to lead the discussion.

Radical is not so much the issue here, but getting enough people to
agree on something to get it working is.  I would expect that creat-
ing a mud is a lot of work, and getting something radical to a stage
where it can be tested even more so.  I think that was the problem
with dev-mud?

> Currently it is EQ.  It used to be UO.  Arguably that change was
> lead and anchored by Raph as a vocal and articulate, umm,
> pontificator.

*grin* I think he was a bit embarassed by it, and I recall him try-
ing to point at other muds and other principles on many occasions.
Of course he was a high profile member, and Ultima was in many ways
a 'first' as people perceived it.

>> I think a fork would be good.  I see way too many interesting
>> postings that dies.

> We're in an uncomfortable position right now.  My sense is that
> the we're approaching an inflection point.  I hope/trust that the
> graph on the other side of the point goes exponentially up versus
> down.

Yikes, does it have to be exponentially. I mean that is really fast
is it not? Traffic is considerable as it is (in bursts anyway). I do
not see the list falling off though

> I've long wished to grab a team out of the list and build
> something I think would actually be interesting.  Perhaps after I
> win the lottery.

*grin* I suppose it is impolite to ask who you would select?  Sorry
;)

[snipping the final comments on PK and the sociological and
psychologial argmuents, mainly because I had little to add to it :]

Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey

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