[MUD-Dev] Removing the almighty experience point...

[Matt Mihaly]

Travis Casey wrote:
> On Friday 24 September 2004 01:48, Matt Mihaly wrote:

>> My point is that this is an issue that MMORPGs solved well over a
>> decade ago. The problem is that most players -want- a grind,
>> whether they know it or not. Obviating the grind requires, in my
>> opinion, adding in enough of a free-form element that the very
>> players you are trying to please will be turned off. For example,
>> roleplaying is a grindless activity that is far more interesting,
>> in my opinion, than bashing monsters. It's got literally endless
>> variety to it, it's got drama, it arouses strong, substantive
>> emotions, etc. And yet, the vast majority of players, who say
>> they want all the things roleplaying gives, will not roleplay
>> beyond some lame "these" and "thous". Same with PvP. Most players
>> don't want challenge. They want to just win 99% of the
>> time. Thus, the grind.

> Here's a thought...

> It's the roller-coaster principle.  If you ran a roller-coaster
> where, say, 1 in 100 people riding it actually died, almost no one
> would want to ride it.  Roller-coaster customers don't want real
> danger -- they want the illusion of danger.  They want to be
> scared, to *feel* like they're in danger, but never *really* be in
> danger.

Yes, I agree completely with that.

> In the same way, the majority of MMORPG players don't want a real
> challenge; they want the illusion of challenge.  They want the
> feeling that they could lose... but they don't want to really
> lose.  Sometimes they don't even want the feeling that they can
> lose -- they just want to *win*, to get a feeling that they've
> accomplished something.

Enjoying losing requires a feeling that you've gained something even
in the loss. That even though your opponent has won, you've learned
how to increase your chances of not losing next time or gained some
other sort of satisfaction out of it.

> This isn't unique to MMORPGs; you can see it in classic D&D as
> well.  The "Monty Haul" campaign is an expression of it -- the PCs
> are set up to be able to take down even gods with massive
> overkill, and rack up treasure and levels as if they're points in
> a video game.

Yep.

> Even outside if Monty Haul campaigns, GMs are often given the
> advice that they should set up adventures so that the players
> can't actually lose.  It should *look* like they could lose, they
> should have to plan and stretch their resources to do it... but
> they shouldn't actually lose.

> What most players want to be is a hero, like in books, TV, and
> movies -- and, of course, they believe that heroes don't lose.

The difficulty is that you can't fool players forever. If they
always win, they will pick up on that and the illusion
disappears. If they don't always win, they complain. I think the
grind as implemented in most games does a decent job of catering to
what players want. Yes, they theoretically can die in many
encounters and perhaps if they didn't drink enough coffee that day
they'll fall asleep at the keyboard and it'll actually happen.

An exception to this, I think, is 'epic' encounters. You can
convince players, just like gamblers, to take great risks if the
potential reward is high enough.

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