[MUD-Dev] Crafting/Creation systems

[Ron Gabbard]

From: "John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com>
> Damion Schubert writes:
>> From John Buehler:

>>> I have an aversion to long hours of boredom punctuated by
>>> moments of entertainment.

You just captured the essence of baseball, deer hunting, fishing,
and NASCAR in a one sentence... yet each of these activities has
millions and tens of millions of fans.  Broadening the type of
activities is all about broadening the appeal of the game to make
room for players who aren't high 'twitch factor' or even
combat-oriented.

>>> My most fundamental tenet to crafting is that the boring part
>>> has to be entertaining.  If it can't be done, then don't have
>>> players do that part.  Have NPCs do it and have the players
>>> manage them.  I could easily imagine that harvesting could be
>>> made entertaining, at least for a while, but it's not by hearing
>>> the same chopping and cutting sounds and seeing the same
>>> animation on the exact same tree graphic over and over again.
>>> Every activity in a game that a player is invited to engage in
>>> must be more entertaining than current combat systems.  And that
>>> includes combat and forestry.

This is where the Falacy of Fun enters in...

A single-player game is considered pretty good if it has what?  30
to 70 hours of solid, fun game play?  MMPs/MUDs measure played time
in DAYS.  It's not unusual to have MMP/MUD players with 30 to 70
(some even higher) played days on a character.  Even the 'casual'
player that invests 4 hours per week in a game will accumulate over
200 hours played in a year.  Relying on processes and mechanisms for
'fun' will fail in online games because no mechanism designed by God
nor man will still be 'fun' after 200, 700, or 1,600+ hours of play.
I'm not saying that the game won't still be fun, just that the
novelty and fascination with the mechanics will be gone... like the
initial 'oooooooh' factor of new, fancy graphics.  I don't disagree
with you that crafting systems could be more engaging.  I just
wouldn't remove integral components of a balanced economy because
the mechanism is perceived to be boring by some people as the 'fun'
from boring mechanics and the 'fun' from engaging mechanics will
both be the same in the long run... pretty much zero.  It's the Law
of Diminishing Marginal Utility again and isn't the goal to acquire
and retain long-term subscribers?

So, after 500+ hours of using the mechanics and processes, there
better be some reason to make another 'sword' outside of transient
'fun' because the 'fun' of the process is long gone.

>> Um, why?  I don't think at all that the fun of crafting comes
>> from the complexity of the interface of crafting.  The fun of
>> crafting is more externally-driven.

> I'm sure that's the case for you and for many who get into
> crafting.  The current player base is strongly
> achievement-oriented.  I'm not as achievement-oriented, so I
> represent those who are more interested in the crafting process
> itself.  I'm also interested in the achievement side of things,
> but not as much as you are.

The difference isn't between achievement versus non-achievement.
It's self-focused versus society focused.  What you are describing
is an 'artisan' more than a 'tradesperson'.  An artisan is more
focused on the creation and innovation process and isn't worried
about the marketability of their output.  They create items for the
fun of it and don't care what society thinks of their work.  The
tradesperson plays a role in an economy where they create their
products to meet market needs and be purchased by other players.
While the creation process may be involved or shallow, the true
reward for the tradesperson is the appreciation they receive from
others for their work. The word 'trade' in trade skills is a
commercial term with vocational definitions.  Thus, this
appreciation comes in the form of sales.  If there is no demand for
their product, there will be no appreciated tradespersons and the
tradespeople will stop crafting.  Thus, the only people doing crafts
would be the artisans who enjoy creating for its own sake and who
can afford to spend their money on non-profitable activities, i.e.,
another trade skill money sink for the trade mules of end-gamers.

>>> If you end up with recipe-based crafting, those recipes will be
>>> published and all players will know how to make the stuff.  So
>>> that cannot be the discriminator to separate serious crafters
>>> from those who just want the end-result.

>> If recipes are limited by knowledge only, this is true.
>> Consider, for example, the possibility that these recipes are
>> physical objects (didn't EQ have a 'words of power' concept
>> similar to this?)  Using real-world knowledge to create rarity is
>> always a bad plan (although its worth noting that this sharing of
>> knowledge is a fun and interesting design pattern in its own
>> right and should not be discounted).

> As described, I was fairly sure that Ron was emphasizing
> entertaining the players by having them experiment with
> components, producing player-known recipes.  I favor what you're
> talking about, which is character-known recipes.

What I am shooting for is a trade skill system that is profitable
for the tradespeople as well as appealing to a broad range of
personalities.  Some people enjoy the exploring, inventing, and
creating process like John described.  Some people don't care too
much for high involvement in creation of the items but enjoy the
selling process and visa versa.  Some people just want a steady
income so they can save up and buy a house or open a store.  Some
players don't want to do trade skills at all, others want to be 100%
tradespeople, while many are somewhere in between.  There is room
for all types of personalities and ambitions in an efficient economy
and trade skill system as long as trade skills are designed as
alternative vocations to killing 'n looting and not money sinks.

Cheers,

Ron



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