[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:

> bricks through windows that are already smashed. When is someone
> either going to demolish the whole edifice or repair it to a
> higher standard.

Not sure, why would anyone demolish it? I probably would not focus
on stable configurations of playertypes. It is a theory that is not
really all that easy to establish or to refute. Well, you can refute
it in the sense that you can find odd cases that shows the model to
be at least incomplete, but there are so many variables influencing
the population of a MUD. Besides I am not sure if that question is
the one that bothers me the most.

>> 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> .

So, let's take a break then and revive the disussion when it is out
in the bookstore. Not that it will make any difference to me. I am
going to preorder a copy (and advise the library to pick up one as
well)!

> 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 we are in agreement then. :)

I tend to find things that I believe would be interesting to see in
a MUD when going through designs or research in related areas. I
think designers should play less EQ and do more of exploration...

> 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.

So what is the world dimension in HCDS? The rule set, or what
players perceive as the world?

> 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.

Yes, so a more complete model would have yet another dimension
then...? That being, what you can influence by persuasion and social
structures? (Like having guides, helpers, fanzines, www-presence
etc)

> 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.

Well, yes, but let me play difficult... Now you are getting out on
thin ice, because the fact that players value the score they get
from the game is a cultural issue as well. Some players value stuff
that the designers did not intend them to value.

Well, we'll se what happens to EQ in China I guess... *grin* (joke)

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

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