[MUD-Dev] Levels, classes and choice

[Sean Howard]

"cruise" <cruise at casual-tempest.net>

> Thre reasearch involved described people along a range, from
> "maximisers" to "satificers", who, respectively, must always make
> the best possible decision, to simply what is good enough.

I've always been a fan of Meyers-Briggs temperments, and the Kiersey
book.  The fundamental idea is that people are split up into four
groups of people by their appeal for logistics, tactics, strategy,
and diplomacy - with each group having one as a favorite and the
others to varying degrees.

> Maximisers will spend hours agonising over the best possible
> choice, and even when they finally decide, they worry that it
> might not be the best, and wistfully think of the benefits they
> missed out on the alternatives.

This would be logistics, which is finding the best way to manage
one's resources within the confines of the closed system. However,
tactics has a similar outcome, if not the same purpose. They don't
confine themselves to the closed system, typically looking for tools
which might be considered cheating, but yield a better maximum.

> In a nutshell, while limited choice is good, past a certain point,
> the more options available, the more anxiety results (for
> everybody, though the effect is more pronounced in
> maximisers). With too much choice, the array of options becomes
> immediately depressing.

This is true, but mostly at the beginning. The problem isn't
unlimited choice, but seemingly unlimited choice. When you've got
1,000 options that all look equally important - but you don't know
which ones really are - you are always going to have a little voice
questioning each choice you make. That may actually lead to you
quitting the game.

However, with 1,000 choices, but you can still make an informed
decision, that's different. All you need to do is provide better
documentation of each choice, more over metaphors to handle the
situation, limit the circle of realisticly viable choices, and make
each decision reversable or at least recoverable.

> I'm curious as to other's thoughts on how this applies to
> character design in an RPG. Does this mean that the limited
> class-based system is actually better, because it limits choice?
> Or does the replayability mean that agony over
> "what-might-have-been" is reduced, because a player can simply try
> another character at any time?

I would say that it is almost always a bad idea to design your
character BEFORE you've played the game. Even in a system like DnD,
where you may be intimately familiar with the game mechanics - some
of those may not make it into the game, and some, because of their
introduction into a different combat mechanic (ie realtime) take on
greater strengths or weaknesses depending on the game.

If you want a good idea of what logistics personality really like,
take a look at the following games: Disgaia, Final Fantasy Tactics,
Dark Cloud 2, Grand Theft Auto 3 - all games where you can progress
in multiple areas (sometimes supporting progress in others). For
instance, in GTA3 you can do cop missions which will unlock police
bribes at your hideout.

For the tactics folks (the maximizers), they are going to read ahead
of time which balance choice is out of wack and pick that class,
even if they don't really want to be a female elf wizard. They are
playing a game to win, not make interesting choices. For them, their
source of pride is finding the exploit, not working within the rules
of the game.

> I have always felt that the difficult choices in a game were the
> source of enjoyment

Games a nothing if not interesting choices.

> Would a completely even playing field cause them more agony as
> they tried to find the non-existing best, or would the release
> from searching be more fun?

It depends on what you mean as completely even. Animal Crossing is a
completely even playing field, but it tends to suck people in for
some time. It's not an either or thing. It isn't the level mechanics
they enjoy, but the result of the level mechanics - something which
can be equally taken care of by a new metaphor.

> What proportion of a playerbase is strongly maximising compared to
> "satisficing"? Anybody with any figures that might indicate what
> type of games these different personalities prefer?

Well, it all depends on what model you use. I prefer the
Meyers-Briggs model to the Hearts/Clubs/Diamond/Spades because it
organizes based on self esteem and motivation rather than
actions. Two people can do the same thing for two completely
different reasons. Plus, I've found that the MB is surprisingly
accurate and has been reinforced with the exact same core 4
personality types since Plato.

According to Kiersey's book, with some personal speculation
regarding the games:

Artisans (tactics) - roughly 45% of the population. Prefer enjoyable
games with frequent short term goals. They play because it is fun,
and get better because they play. Extremely good with technology and
typically on the cutting edge of games. Probably 90% of the hardcore
game market. These are your core group of game players in every way
- everything that is good and everything that is bad (rampant PvP,
cheating, etc). If you read Penny Arcade, this is where Gabe goes.

Guardians (logistics) - roughly 45% of the population, though
probably only 20% of the game playing population (and growing). They
prefer games with constant improvement. Going up levels. Getting new
skills. Being able to move things around. They like to get better,
so they want the games to get easier because of their
improvements. They want things, and lots of them. The more things
they can have, the better able they are to make sure every thing
goes in its place.

Idealists (diplomacy) - 5%. They tend to gravitate towards social
groups, so prefer MMOGs. They are the ones who spend hours on the
game without ever participating in combat, or if they do, they are
probably the clerics and healers. They tend to be the ones who
manage guilds or player cities.

Rationals (strategy) - 5%. More intested in how the games work than
playing the games. While Idealists are interested in social groups,
Rationals are interested in systematic groups - always looking to
improve the greater system, or at the very least understand
it. Playing games is a deliberate learning process and their
enjoyment is dependant on what they are learning. Your best bet is
to create a game which has something new and interesting to learn -
the more complicated and intricate the better.  If you read Penny
Arcade, Tycho seems to fit here.

--
Sean Howard - www.squidi.net
Webcomic: A Modest Destiny
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev