[MUD-Dev] PVP and perma-death

[HRose]

Raph Koster wrote:

>>  It's like making a movie asking the peoples what they want to
>>  see before going to the cinema. Peoples don't want to be
>>  satisified, they want to be surprised. Noone should expect
>>  something from a game before being in it.

> Most everything that is made has in mind someone who wants to use
> it, see it, etc. Pretty much all movies are made with the
> assumption that someone (a specific sort of someone) wants to see
> them.

The starting point is that I consider games as "art". For "art" I
use Niklas Luhmann definition: "Something that reveals a new aspect
of the world".  This means that "art" is about two concepts: 1- The
fact that art must be somewhat original (because it must be "new")
2- The fact that is still based on something we share (the "world"
intended in its widest meaning. Emotions, sensations and all the
rest. In sociology they are defined as "irreducible spaces")

When I was ten I started "designing" my own game in my mind. It was
about a mix between a platform and an RPG. Where you could go back
and forward throughout the levels. It had a realistic night and day
cycle and a strong role about the use of items, from different
weapons to torches for the night and food. As you can see not too
far from the idea of a mmorpg.

There's nothing *extremely* new. Most of the ideas are already in
the air from a lot of time but they are still not implemented. The
important part, now, is about the second part of the meaning of
"art". The fact is that, in a game world, we share the world. We
are, as characters, inside a world.

Continuing:

> And by large, people like small surprises, not big ones. Big ones
> are confusing and a turnoff.

> Thinking that players have no expectations of a game is a nice
> ideal, but completely unrealistic. Players come to games with
> expectations, and you violate them carefully and with full
> foreknowledge, or you're in big trouble.

Do not confuse between "immersion in a game world" and "hype". I'm
talking about the first because the second is an issue on the mind
of a game designer. It's the pression you feel about your
work. Instead the first is our new world. I'm not violating ANYTHING
till I respect the game-layer. In the message I have here below
Seven King says: "For Virtual Worlds (where the game intends to
model reality), breaking immersion should be the last thing a
designer should do."

That's the "world" we share. That's the whole and only expectation
you have to assume from your players. My focus isn't on the
"language you use" but in "what you say". When you consider "big
surprises that are confusing and a turnoff" you are considering the
"language you use". This is why, as I said in the other message to
Ola, the newbie experience is *crucial*. Because is *crucial* the
accessibility. Something that is always ignored in this genre.

In the same way movies had problems because not everyone shared and
knew the language. The "language you use".

But when we solve the problem of "the language you use" with a good
newbie experience that makes a player learn, we still have the
second problem: "what you say". It's here that I consider the
immersion the ONLY limit to the design. Till something seems
pertinent to that game world everyone will accept it. Even if it
will be revolutionary for the mmorpg genre. Because we aren't
supposed to use the mmorpg-language, we are supposed to use the
language coming from THAT game world.

And it's fun because I'd be a lot more interested to appeal new
players than mmorpg veterans. Even from a commercial point of view.

>>  The discovery of something new is way stronger than the
>>  discovery of what you expect.

> This is, alas, untrue. You may want to read up on everything from
> the "adoption gap" to the history of art.

I agree, I'm just not explaining myself. I'm not aiming for
something that must be absolutely new. The recreation and rediscover
(and improvement) are basic elements of a mmorpg (and art). I'm just
saying that the aim itself should be also recreated but not simply
cloned. If EQ was successful isn't a good way to simply stick with
it forever without trying different ways, even by learning from it.

This is why a designer should surely observe what's behind, but not
as a STRICT bond that defines everything that will happen in the
creation process. I hate "play styles" because I think they limit
your possibilities if you create stirctly after them. The world
isn't perfectly "boxed". Analysis drawing lines everywhere are
useful but they aren't all. They are still a wrong and imperfect
process that you need to understand something else. But then you
absolutely need to free yourself from them, or you'll remain
blocked.

Wittgenstein's most famous book tells this same concept. Read this
book because it will help you to understand various things. But when
you'll reach the end you should throw it away and forget it, or
you'll be imprisoned again. The concept of a "ladder". You use it,
reach the top and, then, throw it away. A designer should do the
same thing. Learn all these basic analysis, study what the market is
offering, study the problems, the solutions. Then, when it's time to
create, you have to "forget" everything to free yourself of the
bonds.

>>  It's the designer that tells the player how to play through the
>>  game. Not the player that tell the designer what he wants to do.

> Anyone who has watched people play a game they made knows this is
> manifestly untrue. :)

I know. That's why the community is a resource and why I consider a
MMOG an unending process. The duty of the designer is to observe how
players react. If they react in the wrong way you need to fix the
game. If they react in an unexpect but positive and interesting way
you should use that as a new potential.

I see the design as a collective effort between a designer and a
community. This is a challange, I never saw this before in the
market.

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