[MUD-Dev] [DGN] Socialization against the fun [was: MMO Communities]

[HRose]

Jeff Freeman wrote:

> I think we've wandered pretty far away from the topic of "forced
> grouping increases retention", though.

I agree :) Let me gather back the two parts to go back to the topic:
I think you are a special case because you are a dev, even if not
*that* special, so you like to jump from one game to another, trying
different things and follow the "mmorpg community" as a whole, and
not specific to a particular game. I really think that this
behaviour is going to increase with the time but, till now, the
communities seem quite steady, in particular when it comes to the
big guilds.

Passionate players don't like at all moving from game to game, they
like a lot more to settle down, build their name and consolidate, if
they are able to find a place they like. Instead, if they move is
not because they like to, but because they are generally pissed off
by how a company manages the game. It's not the curiosity to move
them, but the disappointment and the hope for something better. In
particular this is a genre where the dedication is always
rewarded. The gameplay itself wants you to stay and open your
possibilities with the time, otherwise the experience is bland.

What I meant is that this "nomadic" attitude isn't common, at least
I dont think it was till now. Forced grouping increases nothing by
itself. This is the same infinite discussion going on at
Grimwell. The relationship between the players *is* one of the
strongest elements to determine the health of a game, and so the
number subscribers, but it must be considered from the right point
of view.

I think that the players like to find a "home" and settle down. If
the gameplay supports this I'm quite sure it will have a strong,
positive effect on the raw success, in particular in the long
period. The point is that this consideration has been translated
into a poor application. The socialization is important, but it must
be supported from *inside* the game. It's what I wrote about
breaking the "third wall".

As a designer you surely have to look at the socialization as one of
the most important part of the game (the most important along with
the accessibility, I think). But when you start to define its role
into the game you must do this from *inside* the game layer. The
discussion on Grimwell demonstrates how the focus on the
socialization part always happen at the *expense* of the fun. The
fun, in this case, is simply the "gameplay" level. So you accept
compromises, exactly what is explained into Raph's essay:
http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/socialization.html

The rule is that the "socialization *requires* downtimes". So, or
you simply build a fighting game, where the social layer is
sacrificed. Or, if you want to give depth and prevalence to this
other part, you need to accept compromises and take design choices
that go against the fun. This happens exactly when we consider the
forced grouping or when we consider the "wounds" in SWG, or all the
various interdependencies in it to excuse the various classes
together. You are forced to go back in a cantina after a fight to
cure the wounds so that the socialization has a "space". To open
this space Raph choosed to sacrify the gameplay.

What I think is that this breaks the "third wall". In the design
stage the socialization takes over the game, but the game is also
our frame, we cannot break it because we are going to break a basic
rule: the third wall itself. The common belief (that brings to
ignore this warining) is that you can then excuse the design
decision inside the game (I call this process "dressing"). So that,
first, you take a design decision, outside the game layer. Then, you
work on the excuse to "dress" the idea and make it fit into the
setting. The third wall seems not broken because the idea seems
believable. Well, my idea is that this "dressing" process isn't of
any use. Every single player is able to see that the third wall was
broken, because every single player is able to understand where and
when the gameplay is sacrificed. Exactly where the devs have choosen
to take the compromise to push on the socialization at the expense
of the fun.

This isn't just Raph. This is everyone. Too often design decisions
have been taken as compromises against the fun. In their eyes this
is a compromise that you *have* to accept. Another part needs the
focus, if you want it you need to make a choice. Instead I think
this is just an *alarm* that tells you that there's a problem
*before* this stage, before you arrive at this point. The problem is
about breaking the third wall. It's an error in the approach, not in
the implementation. The error in the implementation is derivative of
the approach. The solution I've found is that everything you want in
the game must be considered, analyzed and implemented from *inside*
the game itself.

Academic discussions absolutely missing any kind of context are
foolish. You cannot define how long should be a treadmill or how
much time players should spend socializing, *without a context*. It
could be interesting for the discussion but it's absolutely avoid of
any use. Designing a game from the outside to the find then excuses
to dress the idea, doesn't work. It breaks a basic rule, it shatters
the game, it isn't fun, it feels faked, it feels forced and we can
go on. A long list of side-effects because there's a mistake at the
origin.

I really believe that the socialization can be a strong gameplay
element that doesn't hinder the fun, fighting against the "game"
part, but that it's coordinated with the other part. The tricks is
about finding solutions from inside the game and not starting from
general academic reasoning out of context. The socialization
shouldn't be "excused" or "well dressed". The socialization must be
concrete, not simulated.

The example: The common treadmills are about personal goals. The
mistake is that the goal is personal, but the process to achieve it
is communal. It's a strongly egoistic society that still forces
peoples together, helping each other. This is broken. The opposite
should happen. Players should have *communal* goals that can be
achieved both solo and in group. "Magically" a faked design that
*enforces* the socialization at the expense of the fun, becomes
completely natural. Asking cooperation where the damn objective
(goal) is about the cooperation itself.

This is the good way to bring peoples together. This will create
ties between the players, this will make them more involved in the
life of a community. You don't work anymore just for yourself. You
work on a bigger scale but where your role must always be valuable
and perceptible. Being part of a community with communal goals to
achieve adds a lot of depth to a game. The socialization isn't
anymore an external part of the game. Out of context because it is
used to reach a personal goal. The socialization becomes the game
itself. It's both "means" and "end". And you'll never be forced to
take decisions against the fun because the socialization doesn't
rule the game. It's the game to rule and define the socialization.

It's *stupid* to give the players an egoistic goal and then tell
them they have to group. Every damn game I know is based on this
mistake at the origin of the design: academic reasoning without
coherence and cohesion with the rest of the game. A list of damn
"features" linked together with excuses.

This is flawed. If you want a MMORPG to be "healthy" you cannot plan
it as a collage.

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