[MUD-Dev] Weaknesses in the HCDS player type model (was: 3rd Axis for Bartle's 2 axis theory of MUD players)

[Richard A. Bartle]

On 19th October, 2002, Ola Fosheim Grxstad wrote:

> Uhm. There are more than a 3rd axis obviously!

There are as many as you want. Excepting works of art, the success
or otherwise of a model depends on what you can use it for.

> It was based on what players reported to enjoy doing. ...
> Unfortunately players are not very good at reporting what they
> enjoy and why.

Yes, but debating the subject for several months allowed for them to
introspect more than simply buttonholing players and asking them
would.

> They are also easily influenced by what other players say.

Well yes, but that's true of anything. You, as a researcher, are
influenced by what other researchers say. It's the interplay of
influences from what different people say that helps people form
their own opinions on a matter.

> If the sample is self-selected, then you are likely to get people
> that feel a need to make themselves seen.

Again, this is a valid criticism but it's present in any forum for
debate. MUD-DEV is a self-selecting group; do you feel that you need
to make yourself seen? Not everyone does, but they can still
participate.

> Anyway, I think one should keep in mind that the underlying study
> did not measure motivation, or the needs that players brought into
> the game, but what has become of them after being exposed to the
> game.

Yes, that's correct.

> One may of course use the HCDS model for many purposes, but I am
> not sure if it opens or closes ones eyes for the phenomena one are
> thinking about. What is it trying to cover?

It was trying to make people think about virtual world
design. People may or may not (usually the latter) agree with it,
but if it in any way helps them advance their understanding of
virtual world design then it's done its job.

> The HCDS may cover some static, ever-growing, PK MUDs quite well.

One of the things it does (by considering the dynamics between
player types) is to predict what configurations may be stable. In
this sense, it at least gives an explanation as to why MUDs tend to
be "gamelike" or "social" in their approaches.

> Furthermore, one should be able to distguish between socializing
> achievers and exploring killers!

This is a possible refinement, yes. Many psychometric tests rate
people along several orthogonal dimensions at once. Even character
in games tend to be defined in terms of several dimensions -
strength, dexterity, intelligence etc..

> The "Killer" is a misnomer

Yes, I agree. Too many people take it literally.

> What is the world? Is it everything that is not players?

It's what's there when the players aren't.

Richard



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