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

[Boyle]

From: Ola Fosheim Grøstad [mailto:olag at ifi.uio.no] 

> 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.

Well, I never set out to refute or destroy it.  I think the model
has value, is easy to remember, and provides a useful 'rule of
thumb' for a designer when evaluating features of his MUD.  It is a
common occurrence in game design for the big picture to be lost once
one starts digging into the details of the game, and having Bartle's
model around to remind one of the different player types and playing
styles one is trying to encourage or discourage is a useful thing.
I just thought another axis, especially how I formulated it with the
faces and numbers, sticking with the playing card theme, would make
for an even better rule of thumb.  Certainly it started an
interesting discussion.




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