[MUD-Dev] Crafting/Creation systems

[John Buehler]

Ron Gabbard writes:

> 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.

None of those activities are long hours of boredom punctuated by
moments of entertainment.  They are long periods of one type of
entertainment punctuated by moments of another type of
entertainment.  Current games truly do consist of lots of boredom,
primarily due to the lack of variation in the experiences.

>>>> 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?

Hmmm.  Software engineering has kept me 'entertained' for 20 years.
Dancing kept me entertained for 5 years.  I still play cards and
board games with friends.  I've helped any number of friends with
moving, painting, gardening, etc, etc.  As have we all.  Yet these
things remain entertaining.  Why?  For me, it's because they permit
socialization.

The idea that whacking on a chunk of metal in order to make a sword
is supposed to be great fun is not what I was getting at.  But
whacking on that chunk of metal should be engaging, all the while
knowing that each whack on the iron relates to some future social
interaction.  I can talk to other smiths about what I did.  I can
point out flaws and finery of the sword to customers.  I can sell
the sword at a low price as a 'second' of my work.  But none of that
is possible if every sword is identical and every sword was created
in exactly the same way.  There must be entertainment inherent in
the crafting else there is no socialization value to any given
sword.

This is why I harp on the idea of voice communication between
players.  To permit greater socialization.  This is why I harp on
complexity of game systems.  Linearity limits the fodder of
socialization that these games can provide.  So the actual crafting
of a sword must be entertaining.  It must be variable.  It must be
engaging.  I don't really know a word for what I'm after, I guess.

> 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.

I agree with the general sentiment here, but the caveat remains that
fun remains in the process because of things that get implicitly
tied to the process.  I'm hammering out a shorter sword because of a
specific reason.  That makes it entertaining.

>>> 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.

Hmmm.  Well, my points above would suggest otherwise.  Perhaps this
is all just miscommunication on my part.

> 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.

I agree with all of this.  Removing the attitude of 'crafting as a
money sink' would be a great first step.

Note that I'm not really interested in the exploration, invention
and creation process as you seem to think I am.  I want that process
to be entertaining if some player is going to do it.  And making it
entertaining doesn't mean that it is a great single-player game, but
rather it remains a multiplayer form of entertainment, through
socialization.  Smiths won't talk to each other about what they did
if there isn't any content to the crafting.  Just as warriors don't
talk to each other about tactics or techniques of combat because
there isn't much content there.  Instead, players talk about class
balance, pretty art and the occasional flub by a player that
produced an atypical (and usually disastrous) result.

JB


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