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

[John Buehler]

Marian Griffith writes:

>> The only people who are going to want to help out in the assault
>> on the Death Star are the ones who believe that they are going to
>> get some remarkable experience commensurate with their risk.

> I do not know, perhaps you are right, but I think that there are
> sufficient players around who are looking for a more meaningful
> game than you give them credit for. The problem being that after a
> while ordinary (as in: customary on muds today) gameplay tends to
> become boring and stale precisely because there is no point to
> it. The game is repetitive and resets exactly the same. All a
> player can do is wait at some point, sometimes in a queue, for a
> monster to reappear again. And again.  Some of these players may
> well be willing to risk something of real value in order to con-
> tribute.  After all, for many years now people have been willing
> to pay a lot of real money to steer some blinking dots across a
> screen in game arcades.

Don't get me wrong.  I want players to be interested in the activity
of the game world.  I just draw the line earlier than many
enthusiasts on MUD-Dev.  I want to evoke the strongest emotions in a
controlled way, as a book or movie does.  If I rely on players to
find emotional triggers amongst themselves, then I can't guarantee
much of anything in the way of entertainment value.  This is one
reason that I don't favor player-run games.  While they work to a
degree for enthusiasts, I don't see them as being applicable to the
broader market.  That is, for the casual players who really want to
be entertained more than anything else.

>> The inability to ensure that everyone gets something worthwhile
>> out of the overall encounter is the real difficulty.  If I'm
>> flying my X-Wing fighter and get blown out of the sky in the
>> first 10 seconds of the fight, am I going to be happy about
>> having simply been part of the casualties?  Especially if I've
>> lost one of my lives - which might be expensive?

> Not necessarily expensive, I would not be able to make up some
> numbers without knowing more about the players and what they are
> willing to pay, and the amount of risk they think acceptable.
> Also, while the game itself would not be out to kill the players
> (i.e.  no roving monsters that attack on sight) the same should
> not be true of the game plots.  If the death star would come pay a
> visit then the players allied with its faction would presuma- bly
> be pulled out.  The opposing forces would have a fight, and the
> players who would not want to risk their accounts can only hope
> they win, because if they lose the whole planet, and their
> character with it, is going to be blown up.  The same is true if
> the two factions happen to fight it out in their hometown.  They
> might still get caught up in the crossfire, and get injured, or
> worse.  The world might be safe, but that does not mean the game
> has to be.  The idea is, after all, to make the events matter to
> the players, and something like this certainly would.

Well, I'd leave those aligned with the Death Star on the planet for
consistency.  They made their bed, just as you suggest that two
factions fighting might kill bystanders.  Note that a spy who sticks
it out with the rebels even during the Death Star fight - and
survives - is going to be that much more trusted.

>> Disappointment and disenchantment from game encounters by the
>> player population is something that I'm particularly sensitive
>> to.  I want to be able to be sure that I can provide a certain
>> level of entertainment to the vast majority of my players - and
>> then underpromise on that experience.

> I certainly agree that potential players of the game must have a
> fair, and clear, warning that the game is not your run-of-the-
> mill mud. On the other hand, giving the players a number of lives
> to play with, and a way to limit the amount of risk they feel is
> acceptable, would help a long way for the *players* to find the
> level of entertainment they seek, without you having to second-
> guess them.  It must be possible, even easy, for players to avoid
> a fight they do not want, and if engaged in one it must be about
> strategy and tactics, not about clubbing each other to death with
> a blunt object.

I'm all for accurate marketing, strategy & tactics and avoiding the
battles of hit point attrition.  I'm not sure about disclaimers.
They suggest to me that my product is busted or I'm trying to get
the wrong people to use it.

>> The sheer volume of messages on boards that say 'such and such
>> game stinks' is, I believe, partly a result of the game
>> industry's desire to provide that emotionally-charged
>> environment, but without being able to ensure that the emotions
>> are *positive*.  Folks are getting charged up, but I suspect that
>> it's a wash as to whether it's a positive or negative experience.

> I am afraid you can not have both.  It is impossible to appeal to
> all the players all the time, and I think pointless to make the
> attempt.  You can only be honest about what your game offers, and
> about what it does not offer. You may draw less players that way,
> but they are likely to be those who want to play that particular
> type of game.

I agree with all of this.  I suspect we're just talking about
different player groups.  I want to accurately and honestly market
to a group of people who are looking for rather lighter
entertainment than you're interested in providing.  The deepest
emotional impact that I want to have on my players is through the
grand story, not through personal experiences.  I want the personal
experiences to be as entertaining as watching some light comedy or
light drama, etc.  These are games, dernit.

>> So I continue to eye a model where the players are on one side
>> and the gamemasters are on the other, each controlling characters
>> in a struggle that never gets too emotionally charged because
>> there is never that much at risk.  Players play the game because
>> it's entertaining, not because of its ability to elicit strong
>> emotions from the players.  Those who are entertained only
>> through strong emotions will simply have to look elsewhere than
>> my non-existent game :)

> Which is certainly a fair approach. After all I only came up with
> my idea as an example of how you could provide a game where the
> main conflict realy mattered to the players on a personal level.

Yup.  I think this is where we part company, as I described above.
I don't want it to "matter" at a personal level.

John

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