[MUD-Dev] Homogeneity and choice (Was DESIGN: Why do peoplelikeweather in MMORPGs?)

[John Buehler]

Raph Koster writes:
> John Buehler wrote:

>> The denial of service that this brings to mind is mana.  When a
>> mana class has consumed its mana pool, that class is out of
>> action. That's denial of service.  It's taking away the very
>> entertainment that the players are paying for.  It's a flaw in
>> the way that magic has been introduced into the game.

> This is crazily reductionist. When a piece has been taken out in a
> chess match, that's a denial of service. I wanted to use my queen,
> dammit!  It's taking away the entertainment I expected, and it'as
> flaw in the way chess is designed.

> Ahem.

> Managing limited resources (including time) is an important
> ingredient of gamepay, and making this a blanket principle is
> ridiculous.

The blanket principle is that players should be permitted to
continue accessing the entertainment that they enjoy.  In chess,
loss of pieces is part and parcel of the entertainment of the game.
Pieces can continue to be moved even those some are lost.  A mage
without mana is a chess player without pieces.  The mage is no
longer playing the game as a mage.  In many games, they become pure
targets.  Is something continuing to happen in the game?  Sure.
Does the mage find it entertaining?  I wonder.

But that's just debating a specific application of the principle.
If you believe that it is entertaining to manage the resource of a
mana pool - and the players agree - then that is consistent with the
principle.  I assume that most designers see the experiences that
they offer players as entertaining from soup to nuts.  I made my
posts in an effort to nudge designers that they should see the
entertainment through the eyes of their players.  Their players
don't see the game as a tapestry in which they are creatively trying
to do something or other more or less neat.  They're trying to find
entertainment.  Once started on a certain path, they should be
permitted to pursue that path - whether physical or logical.
Interruption of service to a player's desires should be avoided
whenever possible.  That, as opposed to in-game challenges to their
character, which can serve as a vehicle to entertainment when done
right.

> The snowed in pass CAN be a fun and compelling gameplay
> experience, clearly. I'll even accept the principle of
> orthogonality you imply when you say "make it only matter to
> people who consider the pass a resource to manage" such as people
> with heavy carts (though it open all kinds of doors for exploits).

ANY event that can happen CAN be part of a compelling gameplay
experience.  That's pretty much my point.

A blacksmith running a successful shop is not entertained when a
giant drops a boulder on it.  A designer is entertained by it
because it's consistent with the fiction of the world that he or she
is trying to produce.  Just the coding involved with having a
boulder dropped on a building is astonishing work.  But to claim
that a blacksmith should be entertained by it is off the mark in my
opinion.

A slumlord trying to keep as many buildings in operation as possible
in the land of giants IS going to be entertained by the challenge of
the dropping boulder.  It's something that he expects to happen.  It
is consistent with his game experience, and he will find it
entertaining to get that crushed building rebuilt or relocated.

I don't believe that taking any event and popping it into the
experience of any player necessarily produces a compelling gameplay
experience.  Thus my argument against 'claiming the excuse of the
tapestry'.

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