[MUD-Dev] 3rd Axis for Bartle's 2 axis theory of MUD players

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

Gee, good to see that I am not the only one that would like to see
more extensive models of player dimensions.

Paul Boyle wrote:

> Face players accept the game world.  They want to present and in
> game face, a persona.  Many would categorize this as the 'RP' type
> player, but it can also represent the player who carries certain
> ideals, whether they fit the game world's role playing motif or
> not, with their characters.

Hm, wouldn't this be correlated with an socialiser-achiever axis, or
perhaps the interacting/acting axis?

I think one need to keep in mind what the use-context of a model is.
I prefer to view the Bartle model as a design oriented model, rather
than a purely descriptive model. I basically think there is a
difference between being purely descriptive and being design
oriented, as all models represent a simplification of the
virtual/real-ity based on a certain perspective. A model for design
should allow designers to see opportunities (i.e. point at
actions/designissues) or help them structure the designspace in a
useful way. The ideal descriptive model ought to cover the entire
space and be complete, and hopefully in some harmony with
established theories in fields which it draws upon.

I believe the Bartle model reflects a particular (but widespread)
MUD design and its functionality, game design etc. I doubt that it
would be the most useful model for a dating-oriented mud for
instance. Yes, you may still apply it, but it might not be a good
model for thinking about improvements to the design.

THE FICTIONAL/GAME WORLD DIMENSION

Producers

If we limit ourselves to RPG style MUDs then I think the usual
complaint is that the (HDCS) Bartle model does not cover roleplayers
(the actors and inventors, not the dice rollers) in a convincing
fashion. A small, but desirable, subgroup of players which among
other things tend to stage events, invent subgames, play roles and
generally add atmosphere to the fictional/game world. I.e. they tend
to bring (a) fictional world(s) to life, rather than suppress it's
existance (although they may break with the intended fictional
world). Let's call these players "producers".

Consumers.

Then you have a group of players that just tag along, doing whatever
they think the designers intended them to do. The fictional world
does matter to them, but they do not influence it as
invdividuals. They are largely parasites, or let's choose a more
neutral name for them and call them "consumers". I.e. they strongly
depend on other people's ability to keep the fictional/game world
alive. Most players probably belong in this group. Other people
could be "producers" or the designers.

Detractors.

The last group is those that detracts other players from the
fictional/game world by invalidating the world and generally sending
out strong messages about the fictional/game world not having any
real value.  "detractors".

So basically, I would propose that at least one additional dimension
should be related to the construction/destruction of the
fictional/game universe. (The fictional universe largely resides in
the minds of the players, while the game universe largely resides in
the representation of the world governed by the mechanics of the
system)

GRIPES

That was one important aspect that is not present in the current
model IMO. However, the main problem I have with the model is that
it mimics the action-functionality typical of MUDs i.e. "kill",
"say", "look/explore", "get". I think people in general don't really
know what is fun and what isn't, so if you ask them they will point
at the established break down of activities in their own
community. I think the "whys" ought to be more interesting than the
"whats", because it might reflect that different roles a player is
capable of assuming in the world. I.e. people are not neccessarily
killers per se, but become killers because that is an available role
in the system that they somehow slipped into, and that role wasn't
incompatible with their personality profile and vision of what is
valid activiites in that particular world. Granted, the "whys" are
rather complex.

Although the Bartle model seems to imply to be based on
(inter)action profiles, it also seems to imply that it is related to
identity issues. While this probably will make Richard cringe, I
think it actually would be useful to base a classification scheme on
identity issues, and even interpret the HDCS model as such. Or
rather assumed role-identity in the world. The reason for making
this distinction is that people may adopt the role of consumers
(especially if they pay to play) even though they are rather
creative or productive in other settings. I.e. we cannot talk about
identites and personalities, but what kind of role does the world
play in peoples lives and what kind of roles does the world offer
them. This is further supported by the fact that some players have
multiple accounts, and may very well be using one for empathic
socialising and another one for brutal killing, and they mix
playstyles, empathise with guild-members, but relentlessly kill
non-guild members etc etc.

> Number players (the faceless) , conversely, don't care about
> having an in game face.  These are the players who 'game' the
> game, treat it as a collection of 1's and 0's on the computer,
> rather than as a story or environment.  They are not necessarily
> power players. That would fall under the diamond number-style
> players, and by extension the club number-style players who use
> diamond methods to become better killers.

I think you have have "dablers" and "powerplayers" in all the
different categories though. Actually, as described in the paper (if
my memory serves me correctly) most types tend to be described in a
powerplay fashion, as if they are heavily nurturing their own
identity. I.e. killers confirm their own ability to influence/win
over other people directly, achievers confirm that they rule/win
over other people indirectly, explorers confirm that they master the
entire system and thus possess the knowledge to rule/win over other
people. You might even describe socialisers in a similar fashion, as
players who rule other players by having social control/lots of
friends/not sinking down to the level of tweaking the mindless
mechanics of the game.

DESIRE FOR VISIBILITY DIMENSION

Another dimension would be "desire for visibility", that is whether
the player plays in order to be seen or in order to look. This tends
to overlap somewhat with detractor/consumer/producer, but is still a
separate dimension.

>   The extreme Face Heart players are the hard core role players,
>   the ones who will come up with an in depth in game rational for
>   why their character stops interacting when they have to visit
>   the bathroom in RL.

Oh, but they could be Face/Clubs. In fact I think they often are!!!
Or Face/Explorers. They often are that too!!!

>   The extreme Face Diamond players are the fame players.  They
>   seek to advance not only their character, but their character's
>   reputation, as part of the end to maximize their perceived
>   value.

With the system or other players? If with other players, then they
are socialisers.

>   The extreme Heart Club players are the PvP folks, who engage in
>   in-game tournaments and competitions, and create a motif to
>   their kills.

I think you meant Face Club. See... Face is a bit close to Heart...

--
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/

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