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

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

"Richard A. Bartle" <richard at mud.co.uk> writes:
> On 21 October, 2002, Ola Fosheim Grxstad wrote:

>> Nngh! I am not interested in people's opinions!!
 
> So maybe you're one of the influential and vocal members of the
> group, then? <grin>

Vocal, but not influential. Unfortunately! ;}

> Simple it may be, but remember that when it was created it was
> also the most complex model, on account of how it was the ONLY
> one. If its presence and its many flaws spur people to create
> better models, then it has succeeded.

One should try to identify the flaws in order to come up with a
better model? So the first step will be to pick this one to
pieces...

> Unfortunately, it's all-too easy to criticise the model and not
> come up with any replacement. Indeed, I frequently encounter
> people who criticise the model without even having read the paper!

Oh, I have come up with sketches of plenty over the years, but you
turn them all down. ;) Anyway, I've promised myself to write up
something now. Whether I can use it or not...

> I don't doubt that there will be plenty of discussion about my
> latest flawed model when it appears in print next year.

Plenty of discussion is good, then you will at least sell lots of
copies... >;} Actually, the addition of direct and indirect
influence would be interesting (if that is what you have in mind).

> because I want research into virtual worlds, not because I want
> people to know what I think about virtual worlds.

I don't want research, I want more empowering worlds and more
diversity (i.e. new paradigms), but that is obviously not going to
happen just like that... Hopefully research will eventually be able
to break that door open.

What is annoying is that there seemed to be a willingness to explore
the domain in the mid nineties. Probably because nobody made lots of
money off them at that point in time... The DIKU-styled MUD was
viewed as kinda retro, somewhat boring and old-fashioned, but after
EQ it seems to be viewed as state of the art... *confused*

> Players carry the culture with them, therefore culture is not part
> of the world.

> The state is meaningless without the code that implements it,
> therefore the code is included. I'd call the code the "world" and
> the changeable data a "world state".

So, your model covers player-types, but the formalized world, not
the perceived world is the dimension which separates them? Isn't
that a bit odd?

> Neither the intended nor the assumed reality is the "world". What
> actually exists is the world. Players and designers may interpret
> it in different ways, but they're talking about the same thing.

What thing? The code? :) I think not!

I am not going to argue this much further though... You choose to
view the code as the world, perhaps because that is what you most
easily can influence? Some designers try to influence the perceived
world by other means than changing the rules, but it is obviously
more challenging.

Just some comments:

Culture is hopefully inscribed/reflected in the formalized world
over time.

If the world is heavily populated, then the world without players is
less relevant? Or do you suggest that players are able to see the
world-without-players when they keep bumping into them?

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

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