[MUD-Dev] Re: Re[2]: "Advanced" use of virtual worlds?

[Travis Casey]

On Tuesday 05 February 2002 3:03, rayzam wrote:
> From: "Travis Casey" <efindel at earthlink.net>
>> On Saturday 02 February 2002 4:06, rayzam wrote:
>>> From: "Travis Casey" <efindel at earthlink.net>
>>>> On Thursday 31 January 2002 12:19, rayzam wrote:

>>> But then you're not playing. I hate to bring up chess, after the
>>> other discussions about it. It sounds like being in a
>>> chess-match with no time limits for moves, and deciding to never
>>> make your first move...

>> I don't agree with your analogy.  What if I make moves, but my
>> goal is to get a particular pawn to the other side of the board,
>> rather than to win the game?  One could argue that I'm "not
>> playing chess", because I'm not trying to achieve the standard
>> goal of chess -- but one could also argue that I am playing
>> chess, but playing it with a different goal than the standard
>> one.

> But in this case, you're still interacting with the other
> player. You have a different goal, but you're playing by the same
> rules and interacting with the other person. You're still playing
> chess, but you're not playing to win.

Exactly.  And I can go to a mud and play my own game which has
nothing to do with the "standard" mud goals.  For example, I might
be there to collect examples of prose writing in room descriptions.
In order to get to the rooms, I have to "play the game".  I may talk
to people in the course of finding things.  But I'm not there as any
of the four Bartle types.

And in my original example of playing an antisocial bum, I'm still
following the rules of the mud, and still interacting with people --
even if it is just through my presence.  Heck, I can even talk to
people and not be a socializer, since "being a socializer" is about
your goals and not your actions.  If I just respond "go away" to
anyone who talks to me, I'm interacting with people, but I'm
definitely not being a socializer.


>> Not intending to put words in your mouth, but that seems to me to
>> be saying, "I don't consider any differences in play style that
>> can't be mapped into Bartle's four styles to be real
>> differences".

> Actually, I don't mean it quite like that. Roleplaying doesn't
> occur in a void. I used Bartle's 4 styles as a method of lsiting
> the basic forms of play. How about this: the 2 axes are 2 of the
> principal components of describing the feature space of what it
> means to play the game.  Even by your definition, of "roleplaying
> is making decisions in character, rather than using your character
> as a playing piece" it's a matter of where the decision is
> generated/the point of view. The decision and actions or inactions
> still occur. It's those actions/inactions that get deemed one of
> Bartle's 4, or more, if you want to define more.  I'm not saying
> that anything other than Bartle's 4 isn't a real difference. I'm
> saying that roleplaying or not [the point of view for making a
> decision] is separate from the action. That action or inaction is
> playing the game, however you define it.  I can't seem to
> articulate it any better than this, though re-reading it, it is
> still a little bit unclear where I'm making this distinction...

Interesting -- sort of a behaviorist definition, talking only about
actual actions, and not about motivation or any other mental
process.

Personally, I think that "playing the game" extends beyond just the
actions taken.  Is a chess player only "playing the game" when
he/she reaches out, takes a piece, and moves it?  Or is the chess
player "playing the game" even during the time that he/she is
sitting there deciding what move to make next?  Is choosing a
strategy during the game part of playing the game?

I'd say all of these are "playing the game" -- but I can see where
others could differ in their opinion.

> Again, each is a different component. In some ways, classifying
> players is like classifying bacteria. Just give me a second on
> this one :)

I'm not talking about classifying players, though -- I'm talking
about classifying styles of play.  A single player may use different
styles in different situations.

> What I've been seeing is the discussion relegate role-playing to a
> different type of critter [bacteria], without acknowledging that
> the roleplayer can still be any combination of these other
> variables. Being a roleplayer is not the single defining point of
> that player, and thus roleplaying shouldn't be relegated as: it's
> completely different. It's just another axis. It's just another
> feature to classify the player. Being classified as a role-player
> or not does not change the other classifications for that player.

I agree.  Roleplaying is different from non-roleplaying, but there
are other differences that can be as or more significant.

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_     Travis S. Casey  <efindel at earthlink.net>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-' 
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) 
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev