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

[Sean Howard]

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

> I would argue that Bartle's classifications are useful precisely
> because they describe behavior.

But it isn't a good enough abstraction to replace real data. For
instance, using some simple and available tools, I can tell you the
exact statistical make up of character race and class for World of
Warcraft - as well as level ranges and all sorts of fancy stuff like
that. There are features which track your character completely, down
to how many seconds each level is taking you, how long you spend in
combat, and so on.

Being a mostly achiever/killer doesn't tell you anything except how
you spend SOME of your time online - data which isn't useful except
when taken from a large body of people. Bartle Types are an
unneccessary intermediate step that hides details without providing
any additional insight. It actually makes me angry when I hear
MMORPG designers quote those types as rationale for their design
decisions.

> And any system which attempts to strictly classify people is
> certain to be a failure--we are analogue beings, irrational and
> inconstant.

I have a game idea in my head right now that is unlike anything else
on the market. How do I know it will be any good without doing a
prototype?  How do I know what kind of people would enjoy it? How do
I know how deep the system is without the details spelled out? I
just know, and chances are, faced with a similar idea of your own,
you would too.

The purpose of temperments isn't to pigeonhole a person's
individuality, but to put into logic that which we already know to
be true, but can't put into words. If I see a movie, I would have a
good idea of whether or not my friends would like it - putting the
why down on paper is the tricky part.

> Bartle's classifications well predate MMORPGs, and are based on
> observation of behavior in a variety of styles of MUDs.  While
> it's certainly possible that player behavior in an entirely new
> form of game will best be described by a different set of
> classifications, the achiever/explorer/socializer/killer patterns
> can be observed in social worlds like PernMUSH, achievement
> treadmills like EverQuest, and newer innovations like ATITD or
> Puzzle Pirates.

But that's just it, isn't it? I mean, a completely social, building
organization like a MUSH is very different than a controlled theme
park like World of Warcraft - killers don't apply in the first and
socializers don't apply in the second. The problem is, the same type
of people will be playing this game - without the means to exercise
their decision making preferences in one way, they'll find another.

For instance, achievers and killers are essentially the same type of
people, though they choose different activities based on what they
self esteem needs. Achieving can be a personal, introspective thing
that has value even when nobody else is around, and achieving can be
a competitive, extrospective thing that only has value when others
acknowledge it. This isn't even socialization - this is how internal
or external someone's self esteem is.

Bartle's Types really only describe one type of player, playing in
different ways. At the time they were created, only people who
would've been familiar with computers would've been included, so
they lack the fundamental understanding of people who weren't
comfortable with technology. It doesn't deal with aspects of
intelligence, decision making, socialization, or value that exist
unmentioned both in significant and insignificant portions of the
population. Those types don't describe me or my wife at all - we can
cram into one definition or another because they are so broadly
defined, but it's not true or honest.

> Naive attempts to provide content to cater to the different
> categories usually miss the mark.

And you blame the designers, rather than the categories?

> I think that attempts to "address an audience" are doomed to
> failure. The true successes are driven by the passion of the
> designer, not a cold, calculating manipulation of the player.

I disagree. Naive attempts at either usually miss the mark.

I could design a game to specific audience as easily as I could
design a spice rack to hold my plethora of tasty, tasty spices - and
I could be just as passionate about the experience (if not more)
than anybody could ever be about anything. You don't have to create
something personal for it to be a "true success driven by the
passion of the designer". For some people, like myself, the
challenge and enjoyment isn't in what you create, but how.

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