[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[Richard A. Bartle]

On 19th March, 2001, John Buehler wrote:

> Predicating a game world on a single set of rules seems so
> all-or-nothing with respect to the success of the game.

The game IS all run to one set of rules, of course - the program that
underlies it. From the players' point of view, though, I guess it
could perhaps look like there were several different sets of distinct
rules.

> Or who like to practice diving off the nearby cliffs into the ocean.
> They do it just because they're amused by it.

I've no objection to players doing that kind of thing, either. I just
don't see how having PD elsewhere in the game would somehow stop them
from doing it.

> The point of the example was to suggest the damage done to context
> when out-of-context activities are presented.

Like getting up sraight away after having been "killed"?

> > And I've mentioned before that it doesn't if you have PD.  Could
> you repeat the rationale?  Power levels seem to produce social
> stratificiation, and reseting a player's character to newbie power
> wouldn't seem to affect that structure.

I believe it would have that effect. It would blur the strata.

> I'm working up my first time character, experiencing the world.  But
> if I'm travelling with a player who has already developed an
> advanced character and he's now running his second newbie character,
> his character already knows all the answers - despite the fact that
> the character shouldn't know them.

OK, well if you're deeply into role-playing then you would shy away
from such people, yes. However, if you're just a newbie exploring the
game then getting a bit of help from someone who already knows some of
it doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing. Indeed, this is how the
"culture" of a game develops.

> When someone screws me up, is that because of what I did or because
> of what they did?

Yes.

> When the game screws me up, is that because of what I did or because
> of what the game did?

Yes.

However, if the game screws you up, it's not because of what someone
else did.

> Given human nature, what percentage will opt to go each route?

Well if they have no choice, all of them. If they do have a choice,
most would try, but then if they make new friends on the way then they
may not care to go in the same direction as they were going in before.

> Entertainment need not be mindless.  If I permit all characters to
> possess all skills simultaneously, then I have given them exactly
> one set of entertainment.

Surely you've given them a huge range of entertainments? Just because
they CAN permit all skills simultaneously, that doesn't mean they have
to.  Even if they do have them, it doesn't mean they have to play the
same way.

> By saying that only some subset of skills can be accumulated at any
> given time, players will slowly experience the game from a variety
> of angles.

But there are so many angles they CAN'T experience, because you limit
the number fof skills they can have simultaneously.

> Do you have a hobby that you return to every now and again?  The
> hobby mentality is the one I'm trying to focus on.

I do, but not one that I'd want to pay $10 a month for just in case 3
months from now I do.

> I want no addictive elements to my game.

So you'll be stopping people from communicating with one another,
then? That's the most addictive element of all.

> Yeah, but you want it for the exact reasons that I don't.  It makes
> in-game activities more valuable to the players.

Only to the players who rate those activities as important. It doesn't
to the other players, but they aren't going to risk being PKed anyway.

> I'm not creating a game so that the game satisfies its own goals.
> I'm creating a game so that people are entertained.

Yes, but if you're perpetuating a fiction where "what the character
knows" is important, then "what the game knows" must also be
important, as characters are part of the game.

> I'm all for dumping the fixed structure of games along the lines of
> classes and races.

But doesn't that run counter to your earlier argument about
encouraging diversity? Limiting the number of skills that players can
have is just classes and races through the back door.

> If gaining (and keeping) a powerful character is such a massive
> accomplishment, then I would assume that everyone would be charging
> ahead to figure out how to reach that goal.

Only the ones who think it's important. When players start off, they
will attempt to proceed towards the goal, because that's the "aim of
the game", it's what you do when you have nothing else to do. Most of
them will indeed find something else to do, but unless there's a
formal, stated goal then they'll wander around aimlessly without even
figuring out the interface.

> That map doesn't have per-character push-pins and it doesn't give
> the cross-section of information that the player wants to see based
> on his character's skills.

Your game has a map. Presenting it with different overlays isn't going
to be all that hard, just tedious.

> New exploration experiences can be handled through automated content
> creation

Er, are you sure this is going to make for content that's remotely
entertaining?

> I have a terrain generator for a planet the size of the moon

Yeah, I wrote one of those a while back too.

> I'm not worried about that case.  I'm worried about the case of
> people who don't deserve it, but get whacked anyway.  I identify
> with them because I fall into that category.

Is it really for you to say whether you deserve to get whacked or not?
No-one really thinks they deserve to get whacked, but as some people
do deserve to get whacked, well, those people are labouring under a
misapprehension.

> I like competition, but I don't like winning and losing.

Er, so what DO you like about competition then? Participating? But if
there's no sense in which any competitor can be said to have won or
lost the competition, it doesn't matter what you do. Indeed, you can't
actually tell you ARE competing can you?

> Have you ever thought of assembling a full design statement of your
> world?

Rather more often than anyone has ever thought of paying me for the
months it would take to do it.

> I'm getting more and more to the point where I think everyone who
> posts here needs to make such a document available before opening
> their mouths here :)

I've had to write 20 times the original length of my article in Edge
Online to follow it up. If I were to put together a design document,
the very last thing I would do with it is show it to anyone else!

Richard

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