[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 22 October, 2002, Ola Fosheim Grxstad wrote:

> Vocal, but not influential. Unfortunately! ;}

I think you underestimate yourself.

> 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...

Yes, but people have had 6 years to take that second step. To date,
only Nick Yee has done so. All we're seeing now is people throwing
bricks through windows that are already smashed. When is someone
either going to demolish the whole edifice or repair it to a higher
standard?

> Oh, I have come up with sketches of plenty over the years, but you
> turn them all down. ;)

I don't have a monopoly on virtual world research, you know. If you
were to publish something yourself on the subject (the JOMR is still
accepting papers, and Gamestudies is also peer-reviewed) then maybe
it'll be me worrying about whether you turn my ideas round, rather
than the reverse?

> Plenty of discussion is good, then you will at least sell lots of
> copies... > ;}

Not if the discussion has taken place beforehand and everyone has
decided it's not worth buying <wink> .

> 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.

Oh, what I WANT is freedom for players to BE. I see research as a
necessary step towards that, though. Besides, it might throw up
something else that I realise I want even more!

> 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?

I think I perhaps missed some of the argument here.

When I say (virtual) "world", I mean in absolute terms, independent
of player or designer. However, when it comes to player types, it
would be absurd to say that the way the world is actually
implemented is the crucial thing, because players can never know how
it's implemented; they can only act in terms of their experiences,
which are (as you say) the result of how they perceive the world
(based on how it is presented). The world can shape what players
think about it, but not totally.

> 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?

I choose to view it as that which is tangible (in virtual terms), as
opposed to that which is intangible (such as what a player thinks
about some other player).

As for why, well it's a useful distinction. If you don't like the
label, fair enough, but as a designer it's very handy to be able to
distinguish between what you can implement by decree and what you
can implement only by persuasion.

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

It may be embodied in artefacts, yes, but those artefacts have no
meaning without the culture. To me, a harp is a musical instrument;
to an Irish person, it's a symbol of nationhood.

Richard



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