[MUD-Dev] Grouping in MMP Games

[Clay]

<Quotes from Mike Sellers' Gamasutra article of Sept. 16>:

> For most people, the only thing lonelier than playing a game by
> yourself is playing by yourself while surrounded by a virtual
> world full of other people.

I'm not really on board with this, at least not in this form.  I
think it would be nearer the truth to say that most people would
rather play in a good group than play alone, but would rather play
alone than play in a bad group.  The "groups vs. solo" binary
opposition misinterprets the situation, I think.

Research and reflection are quick to look for - and find - the fact
that interaction with other players is the most rewarding part of
MMPs (which I don't deny), and so the hasty conclusion is that group
play universally trumps solo play.  But what they are not so quick
to acknowledge is (what seems anecdotally apparent to me) that good
group experiences are in the minority, and that groups are also
often the most frustrating and repellent aspect of MMPs.

In any case, I think a richer and less rigid understanding of
"group" is called for (and I don't think breaking it into
"temporary" and "permanent" goes far enough), one which takes
different forms at different levels - party, clique, guild, society.
And then what's meant by "playing by yourself" or "the desire to be
part of a group" is not so easily resolved: Would they rather
generally be in an adventuring party as a social butterfly, and not
be bound to a particular guild's agenda and politico-historical
baggage?  Would they rather be generally self-reliant yet often take
on meaningful missions or quests with people they know and trust?
Would they rather generally be operating in the service of a guild
or nation, and be largely indifferent to spontaneous "hunts"?  Each
attitude has group-oriented and group-averse aspects.

The answer, of course, is "it depends on the player."  And I think a
design which has a single group strategy targeting a normative
attitude toward group play is the wrong one.

Mike's article seems to to suggest that:

  a) grouping is the same sort of urge at every level (from
  adventuring party on up to the largest social units), and

  b) the lower levels ("temporary" groups) are natural precursors
  for the higher levels ("permanent" groups).

I don't believe either one.

> In some games such as Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot, these
> roles are not only well-defined, but accepted to the point that
> coordination occurs via highly condensed jargon.

Yes, and this cuts both ways.  "Encouragement" to group combined
with group complementarity can divide players - and make the process
frustrating and alienating - just as easily as it brings them
together: "your character type isn't useful", "your character type
doesn't fit the strategy", "we've already got a tank".

> In UO for example, many players eventually gravitate toward what's
> called the "tank mage"-- a high-level character with enough skills
> to throw spells with the best of them, and then pull out a big
> weapon and wade into combat. The problem with this is that it
> reduces the need for getting together with others; such a
> character is essentially his or her own group.

Doesn't the popularity of the tank mage also suggest a mild
challenge to the "most players want to group" maxim?  People may be
gravitating toward it because it's most powerful, or they may be
gravitating toward it *precisely because* it reduces the need to
group.  Probably a bit of both.

I guess I'm reacting to what seems to me a serious tension in (many
of) the usual versions of the rationale: "Players enjoy groups" and
yet "Players need to be encouraged to group".  If the latter is
true, doesn't the former need to be re-examined, and vice-versa?

Clay Fenlason
clayf at bu.edu


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