[MUD-Dev] DGN: Reasons for play [was: Emergent Behaviors spawnedfrom...]

[Sean Howard]

"Damien Neil" <damien.neil at gmail.com> wrote:

> Money is a form of advancement in the Sims, but it's different
> than a MMOG advancement treadmill--in particular, there isn't a
> strong circular feedback loop.  (Why do you want to gain levels?
> So you can kill bigger mobs.  Why do you want to kill bigger mobs?
> So you can gain levels.)  After a certain point, you've got more
> money than you need and you stop thinking about it.

Advancement doesn't always happen on treadmills, and collecting is
probably one of the most sincere and addictive forms of advancement
out there. I'd say the collecting aspect is more important in Animal
Crossing (where furniture comes in themed sets and frequently
requires absurd conditions to collect) than the Sims (few people
tend to play the Sims for real - either they drown the characters in
the swimming pool or leave them in a room without doors to die in
their own urine, or they use cheat codes to access unlimited weatlh
and simply design houses, neither of which would really constitute a
game - as a game, the Sims is advancement based).

> Did you play TSO?

I was given a guided tour of it at an E3 a while ago. When Will
Wright came into our room naked except for chaps and clown make up
and started molesting our characters, it became pretty obvious real
quick what the game would become.

> I ask because this sounds very similar to, for example, stories
> about teenaged Japanese girls who turn to prostitution to buy
> expensive handbags--which may be true, but is a vanishingly rare
> occurrence and of no use in describing what it's like to be in
> Japan. However because of the very rareness of the event, it's
> shows up more in news reports than more mundane aspects of the
> society.

You are talking about a serious social issue in big Japanese cities
called "enjou kosai" - and it wasn't that vanishing or rare when I
lived there.  In fact, if I were to describe to you the female youth
culture of Japan (which is currently the defining consumer interest
there), it would be impossible to not mention it. Just like it would
be impossible to discuss Japanese men's opinion of women without
talking about how their pornography is almost entirely rape and
sexual violence.

> (I also ask because I didn't play TSO, and am entirely dependent
> on second hand descriptions of it--which I don't entirely trust,
> for the above reason.)

Do a search on "sims online" and mafia and you'll find plenty of
reputable news sources reporting it, as well as the blog of one of
the guys who ran one and got banned over it. I'm not saying you
should trust my descriptions, but with Google out there, you never
again have to rely on second hand descriptions.

> Even assuming the above description of TSO's social ills is
> entirely correct, I'd be inclined to blame that on a failure to
> give players adequate social tools.  The technology of a social
> environment will define interactions within it to a large degree.

I disagree. I think that the technology can influence it, sure, but
define it to a large degree? I don't know how well read you are on
the social aspects of MMORPGs, but no matter what you read, you'll
see the same issues pop up again and again and again. Read about
Habitat/Club Caribe and you see players pulling the same crap on
MUDs (ie "My Tiny Life"), which is then being complained about still
in blogs about things as recently as World of Warcraft.

No matter how you design your game, certain problems won't go
around, and those problems are a requirement of two strangers being
able to talk to each other. Gameplay devices can only really prevent
these problems from leaking over into tightly controlled gameplay
experience (ie exploits, griefing, etc) - which is important, don't
get me wrong, but it's just a branch of the tree getting cut off,
not pulling it up by the roots.

> For example, traditional IRC's handling of moderation, where "ops"
> privileges are lost whenever one disconnects and must be granted
> by another op when you reconnect, is conducive to a very different
> social environment than found in a chat system where moderation
> privileges persist across sessions.

I disagree. The only thing that truly matters to an online community
is the anonymity of a member (ie how long the stigma of his actions
will remain with his character). Moderators only really exist for
AFTER the offenses have been committed and as a deterant against
future offenses (namely by increasing the long term affects of such
actions), so naturally, the only thing relevant to the discussion of
such things is under which circumstances such things are indeed
committed.

> You can avoid the need for much moderation by giving players the
> tools to moderate themselves.

First, that sentence contradicts itself. Second, players can not, on
the whole, be trusted to moderate themselves just like our
government can't be trusted to moderate themselves. That's why
checks and balances are in the constituation (for now). For
instance, can you give the players the ability to ban each other? It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that would be abused
(much like how the first arcade game that took your photo had a
picture of a butt on the high score list within minutes of hitting
the test audience).

You forget that players don't have the power. They don't have access
to source code or abilities for true moderation - and if they do,
they will abuse them. Even if you hand select moderators to take
care of your society based on their integrity, you still might end
up getting sued by them because they contend that they were working
for you unpaid (was that Ultima Online or Everquest where that
happened?). No, the moderation responsibility lays in the hands of
the Live team, and trying to pass the buck isn't going to save you
ANY time or effort.

> No, TSO's failure is certain proof that TSO failed. Nothing more,

Technically, yes. But that's like saying that an apple falling to
the ground is proof that apples fall to the ground. We have theories
about gravity so that we can predict whether or not other object
fall as well.

> unless you can prove that changing the "social models" it
> used--and nothing else--would have led to it succeeding.

Prove? Hell, there are people out there who still think gravity is
"just a theory". I couldn't prove anything, but I could certainly
write many, many, many, many (I'm verbose and proud of it) pages on
the subject of online societies, from personal experience, that
could make a very strong case for it.

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