[MUD-Dev] Retention without Addiction?

[Clay]

I've been away, yet at the risk of undermining my relevance with
tardiness, I wanted to say a few things more:

On Dec. 7 Raph Koster wrote:

> The logic is really quite simple:

> We reward certain activities within these worlds, both
> intentionally and inadvertantly.

> Players engage in activities in these worlds based on what we
> encourage them to do.

> Players do have the choice not to do it.

> That doesn't mean that we should encourage activities that are
> pernicious.

> Just because people can choose not to jump off a cliff doesn't
> mean we should urge them to do it.

Simple, yes, but I guess that's part of my problem.  It seems a
little too simple.  It seems to involve a conflation of in-game
behavior with extra-game behavior, and although there are clearly
regions of overlap a great deal more careful thought needs to be
applied to it than your stepwise syllogism encourages.

I am tempted by, but ultimately can't accept, the strong correlation
between game behavior and real-life behavior.  Please don't
misunderstand me - this is not for want of trying.  I'd like to
think that there is some way to design a game to directly and
positively shape people's real-life behaviors.  It's only that when
I sit down to work out concrete strategies that the undergirding
assumption evanesces.

I think I haven't been clear either, so let me try to be.  I
distinguish two claims about game behavior, which I might label
"strong correlation" and "weak correlation."  Strong correlation
insists that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the real
and virtual world behaviors (e.g. that killing in one leads to
killing in the other).  I don't think either of us accept that, or
we wouldn't be doing these things.  Weak correlation is I think your
position - that game worlds can foster certain social atmospheres
and patterns of mind that may prepare the way for sociopathic
behaviors in the real world, the details of which may range from RL
social neglect to outright criminal behavior, depending on the raw
material of the individual and his/her situation.

I don't doubt that's true, on that tangled sociological level where
causality swirls, eddies and often breaks down.  But I'm wary of the
temptation, despite the best of convictions and intentions, to
forget that these MMORPG beasts end up far bigger, broader and
deeper than their designs.  A temptation to see the issue from the
top down and think you've got a grip on the reins - the falsity of
which I think is another self-evident fact.

Of course there is some influence designers hold.  I'm just
suspicious of the temptation to think we understand what it is,
exactly.  The temptation to overrate its significance, and to see
only direct lines of causation.  People may learn lessons, but
that's not the same as saying that it's the designers who teach
them.

As difficult as it is to design and coordinate a successful game
"event," to have even the simple narrative structure come off in a
way you envisaged or hoped, how much more difficult must it be to
offer moral guidance and reinforcement?  To the extent we question
the assumptions of the former (not the motives), hadn't we also
better question the assumptions of the latter?

Conscientiousness I never want to discourage.  I only want more
careful thought about what can and should be done, given our
limitations.

~Clay Fenlason


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