[MUD-Dev] Player malleable worlds (was Expected value and standard deviation)

[John Buehler]

Daniel Harman writes:
> From: Crosbie Fitch [mailto:crosbie at cyberspaceengineers.org]

>> Sometimes it may be enough to dig a hole in the ground fill it
>> with sand, and let the kids create the cities with their buckets
>> and spades. A dog poo and sweet wrapper elimination service will
>> cost extra - naturally. You don't always have to spend years
>> creating content, if the players are easily able to do that
>> themselves.

> Oh come off it, the average player is utterly incapable of
> creating content anyone but their mum would be interested in. Even
> professionals frequently get it wrong.

> Enough hand waving, someone show me some compelling auto generated
> content, or compelling player generated content in a commercially
> viable game.

Generally, that's true.  I'm very leery of most schemes for
user-generated content.  But that's primarily due to the tools that
are given to players.  Players are given a bit too much freedom.
They're asked to make far too many decisions.  As a result, they
make some poor choices.

But consider the games that are all about creating things.
Rollercoaster Tycoon, Caesar, Zoo Tycoon, Sim City, and so on.
These are games predicated on the creation of interesting content,
where the players are limited in their design choices, and there is
feedback on certain choices.

Players are very willing to create content for others' amusement,
but the tools for the creation of that content must be appropriately
structured.  An example of giving too LITTLE freedom can be found in
Dark Age of Camelot.  Organizing a 50-character raid on some tough
monster can be done, but the tools are poorly structured.  Those
raids could be far more entertaining if the tools for organizing
them were improved.  If the tools were there, I could see 50 level 1
characters raiding an area with level 10 monsters.  But because the
tools are so labor intensive, only the NEED for 50 characters causes
such large raids to form.

Long ago, I built a flight simulator.  Instead of building all the
models myself, I created a couple simple languages that let people
build their own aircraft, weapons and environments.  Some players
would create junk models.  Others created stunning reproductions of
existing aircraft.  This was compelling content.  And some of the
models went far beyond what I ever even thought of doing.  I never
put in nuclear weapons with a blast wave coming out from them, but
somebody figured out how to do it with the tools that were
available.  I didn't plan on live heads up displays, but the tools
could be used to create them as well.

Granted, that is all based on reproducing existing objects.  It's a
very known quantity.  And that's why design tools need to be focused
and somewhat limited.  But if that content is given a fair shake,
you can believe that your most talented players will put in the time
to make truly interesting content.  Just make the tools at a level
where they can make viable content in no more than perhaps 40 hours
of effort per design step/cycle.  That is, I must have something fun
to play with after 40 hours of work, but I can spend another 40
hours enhancing it for even more coolness.

I don't blame the players.  I blame the tools.

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