[MUD-Dev] NEWS: Why Virtual Worlds are Designed By Newbies - No, Really (By R. Bartle)

[Martin Keegan]

Bartle's recent article is a very good read, and has provoked quite
a bit of interesting discussion and a Slashdot thread. The
conclusion from the four premises is supposed to be that we should
expect muds to suffer from design decisions taken to attract or
retain newbies. It's not my purpose to call into question the
reasoning to this unhappy end; I'm more concerned by the original
four statements. If they're all true, they have implications far
beyond the design of muds, and it's entirely proper that they have
provoked yet another debate on the definition of "mud".

What do these four points boil down to? And how much do they really
relate to muds as opposed to constituting more general observations
about human behaviour?

I do not dissent from Bartle's Points #2 and #4, though I believe
they are at heart nothing to do with muds per se.  To my innocent
eye, #2 and #4 are expressions of human nature. People don't know
what they want, or at least it's not worth finding out what is in
one's interests in many cases.  People also desire things which are
contradictory: both to live near the art and culture largely to be
found in sizable conurbations and the tranquility of the countryside
- even could one afford both, both cannot be enjoyed
simultaneously. The mudder seeks the challenge of combat,
exploration or politicking, but would that they were easier. Too
easy, however, and the challenge itself is lost and with it the
incentive to play the mud in the first place. Desiring both
challenge and ease in a mud, it is little surprise newbies do not
know what features are good for them and react so strongly to
features they dislike. In economic terms, I guess the mudder's
utility function is mistaken.

The economic aspects of muds which have interested me for a long
time are not answers to the question what players think they want,
but the switching costs associated with substituting one mud for
another, and the cost of selling reusable experiences. (see below
for two references) Switching costs are the subject matter of Point
#3. Here I believe Bartle is homing in on something quite peculiar
to muds - it's really very hard to substitute any mud for the
experience a player had on his first mud, though he declines to
share with us his reasons for this point and refers us instead to a
book the purchase of which I was immediately encouraged to
undertake.

In and of itself, Point #3 has a huge impact on the evolution of
muds. Muds from similar codebases can more easily attract each
other's players than those which are dissimilar, but even where the
code is forked, parallel evolution is encouraged by the demands of
migrating players. Part of the success of a given mud feature is
determined by whether it is a feature of other muds, as opposed to
its own actual characteristics. Point #1, on the other hand, by
implication concerns the characteristics of features themselves
rather than their place in some mud ecosystem: features succeed
according to their attractiveness to a particular species of player,
the newbie, who is identified elsewhere as a undesirable source of
demands for mud features congenial to developers.

Point #3 is not some absolute law. Its consequence is only that a
mud must be strikingly superior to a player's first mud in order to
be accepted, not that such acceptance can never obtain. In general,
however, such striking advances are hard to come by and the
benevolent developer is constrained to gradual evolution and
cultivation of his playerbase.

The strength of the effect with which Point #3 concerns itself means
that Point #1 *matters*. Point #1 is a consequence of the finite
entertainment possibilities of experience on muds. Eventually, all
the new experiences the mud has to offer will be "used up" (see Mike
Rozak's various excellent articles on this, some of which I only
discovered in the course of writing this piece) and so maintaining
the playerbase becomes a matter of marketing features and players to
those prepared to enter the mud for the first time thereby becoming
newbies.

To me this calls into question the benefits of muds which are
expected to sell new experiences indefinitely. There's something
wrong with this "neverending story" narrative structure, and maybe
muds with a defined endpoints should be explored.

Mk

References:

  On switching costs, see "Information Rules" by Varian and Shapiro

  On the cost of producing experience goods targeted at different
  types of consumer, see Mike Rozak on "The trouble with explorers",
  at http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/TroubleWithExplorers.htm
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev