[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 25th October, 2002, Ola Fosheim Grxstad wrote:

> Not sure, why would anyone demolish it?

Because they had a better one?

> So, let's take a break then and revive the disussion when it is
> out in the bookstore.

It's a deal <grin> .

> 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...

One part of me says, "yes yes yes!" and another part says "hmm, but
the more designers who work on EQ clones, the more chance there is
of my designs succeeding if I could find anyone to fund me,
muahahaha".

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

The dimension is world/players, not world (which is just an
extremity of the axis). Just as characters have "real" players
behind them, so the virtual world has "real" code behind it. Players
can only work with what they perceive or what their imaginations
tell them, so of course it's their interpretation of world or player
that they use. The real world and the real players project what is
perceived, but can't define how it's interpreted.

> Yes, so a more complete model would have yet another dimension
> then...?

It could have an indefinite number of extra dimensions. It's just a
question of what they buy you.

> 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.

That's true. A good designer should give players many things to
value.  The only reason that one tends to dominate is because
newbies need to have some idea of what the "goal" is, so there has
to be one for them.

Richard



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