[MUD-Dev] Mass customization in MM***s

[Ron Gabbard]

From: "John Robert Arras" <johna at wam.umd.edu>
> On Thu, Jul 11 2002, Ron Gabbard <rgabbard at swbell.net> wrote:

>> I guess it gets back to the original question of whether the
>> resulting game is one where the player logs off after each
>> session feeling that they were significant or if the experience
>> just didn't suck.  In other words, if the Fates were to go to the
>> beginning of a character's life and cut the thread such that they
>> never existed, would it make any difference whatsoever in the web
>> of the world?

> I think it can be done, but I wouldn't count on players to be able
> to do this themselves. It comes back to the same idea I think MUDs
> need to embrace: simulation. Massive simulation.

I would agree with you on the Massive simulation part... but
disagree in that the players can do it better than the designers.
Strange things happen to games over time when you put thousands of
people in a system.  I recently started casually playing EQ again
with some friends.  We started playing on Bertoxx which is one of
the older servers that has been around since early 1999... very
mature.

Anyhow, a lot of things have changed from my original EQ experience
back in 1999.  I had a necromancer character pay me 5 pp for 20 bone
chips I had looted from level 1 skeletons.  I could have sold them
to a vendor for 1/25th that amount.  And one of my friends was paid
120 pp by a guy to cast invisibility on him so he could sneak into
the dark elf city.  For a new level 8 character, 120 pp is HUGE.
The original EQ experience was such that players really had to work
to earn cash in order to buy their basic supplies in the beginning.
Kill mobs and sell loot to vendors and make choices between buying a
piece of armor or a spell.  Nowadays, the originally designed
economy is pretty much immaterial... there is just so much cash.
Players trade in items and services that have value to them (such as
resurrections, teleportation travel, or dropped loot) and these
things are almost never ever purchased through NPCs or the designed
economy/simulation.

I would argue that EQ is better for it.  The higher level characters
don't have to spend time on activities they don't enjoy (killing
low-level mobs) and the younger characters earn a boost in the
pocketbook while providing a service which makes the game more
enjoyable for them as well.  Through this one transaction that has
made both player's game-lives better they have both made a
'difference' in the world.  The older player just made the young
player's life much easier by allowing them to buy all their newbie
armor and spells while they're still young and the younger player
just saved the older player an hour of tedious killing of level 1
mobs.

Build an entire world around systems with these types of
player-driven transactions and you have a world where everybody has
the potential to make a difference to some extent while making the
game experience more enjoyable for all involved.

What is the material difference between a quest where NPC_Bob says
'Go kill skeletons and bring me their bones for a reward' and PC_Jim
saying 'Go kill skeletons and bring me their bones for a reward'?

<snip simulation description>

> I am also not a fan of having players controlling the world. Some
> of my reasons are:

>   1. I don't trust players not to mess up the world. If they get
>   to be the rulers of a nation and they have a bad day, they could
>   decide to destroy the nation before they quit the game forever.

>     How often do players leave the game in a huff pissed off at
>     something that happens? It happens a lot. If players get real
>     actual control of the world, they can destroy the game.

I disagree here.  Lum's quoted truism "players are broken" is just
wrong.  Players are flexible where game systems are rigid.  The
players are actually the ones 'working as intended'... it's the
systems that are breaking.  If there is a flaw in the system that
can be exploited, it will be exploited.  If advanced characters are
allowed to PK younger players, it will happen.  If a game system
requires players to exhibit the same modes of behavior and civility
that they would use in work, church, and school in order to provide
an enjoyable game experience for everyone, that system is broken.

All you have to do is look at the 'system' in which Enron/Arthur
Andersen operated and you can see the huge flaw in assuming 'the
best' in people and depending on 'honor codes'.  These two
megacorporations exploited an exploitable system where the real-life
stakes were incredibly high.  If 'players' with Enron and Arthur
Andersen were willing to face jail time and bankrupting one of the
most pretigious consulting/auditing companies in the world (as well
as destroying the retirement savings of thousands), can anyone
expect anonymous players to do otherwise in a game?  Do you think
the same thing would have happened with Enron if the CEO/CFO/Board
of Directors was accountable for those numbers and knew they would
face a minimum mandatory jail term of 30 years if they were
fraudulent?  Probably not, unless they were hardcore criminals with
nothing left to live for and didn't mind spending the rest of their
meaningful adult life behind bars.

The analogy that can be drawn from this is that players are not
broken...  game systems just don't have the sufficient checks,
balances, and flexibility to deter 'anti-social' behavior.  Is it
absolutely necessary to draw the box of possible player actions so
small that players are left with very few ways in which to interact
with each other in order to prevent 'anti-social' behavior or can
tools for checks and balances be included in the system such that
there is a player-driven penalty for anti-social behavior?  Can
players be given the responsibility for adhering to social norms if
they are also given the means to be held accountable for their
actions?

Cheers,

Ron


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