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

[Damien Neil]

On 7/28/05, Sean Howard <squidi at squidi.net> wrote:
> "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.

I'm not certain what your point is here.  Analysis of characters and
levels is certainly useful, but it's orthogonal to what Bartle's
categories attempt to describe.  (For one thing, Bartle's categories
apply to MUDs that have neither character classes nor levels.)

> 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.

All I can say is that I disagree that Bartle's types don't provide
any insight.

I agree that designers often misuse the types when designing--I
listed several examples from CoH in the post you're responding to.

> 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.

It's not uncommon for people to apply logic and behavioral models of
the audience to the design of movies.  We generally call that
"design by committee" and the movies that result "bad".  The good
stuff--in both games and movies--comes from artists pursuing a
personal vision.

The Sims wasn't made because Will Wright came up with a better model
of his audience.  (In fact, models of the audience almost resulted
in it not being made at all--from what I hear, the project had
difficulty finding funding.)

>> 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.

But you find killers in social MUSHes and socializers in WoW.

I think you're making the common mistake of thinking that a "killer"
is someone who engages in PvP, by the way.  While that's the most
common expression of killer behavior, it isn't the only one.  As
Richard Bartle put it in his original paper: "Killers are interested
in doing things to people, ie. in ACTING on other PLAYERS."  He goes
on to list a number of examples of killer behavior in social MUDs.

> 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.

Achiever and killer behavior is completely different.

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

> And you blame the designers, rather than the categories?

Yes.

As I explained, the categories describe how people interact with
content.  They are commonly misunderstood to describe the content
that people want.  This is a flaw on the part of the designer, not
the misunderstood category.

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