[MUD-Dev2] [REPOST] Value

[Sean Howard]

"Paolo Piselli" <ppiselli at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I fail to see how the argument over worldiness vs.
> parkiness reduces to a discussion of fee structure.

Because if people believe they are paying an admission fee, they are going
to expect to be able to ride on all the rides. The very fact that a
subscription fee is little more than for admission to the players would
make it hard for your discussion to ever get off the ground as people
argued over it.

> I am not talking about gameplay mechanics.  I am
> saying that, in a world, entities have properties that
> constrain their behavior.  In a world that models our
> planet, the ability of a human being to climb Mt.
> Everest is limited by things such as their physical
> hardiness, their knowledge of the ascent, and their
> posession of the neccesary gear for the trek.  These
> limitations are not arbitrary "rules" imposed by the
> system, they are inherent in the structure of the
> world.

First, you absolutely are talking about gameplay mechanics and second, a
designer has control over his own sandbox. When you introduce the concept
of that one player can climb virtual Everest and another can't, it IS
arbitrary because the only reason that is not possible is because some
geek said so. We don't have control over every aspect of real life, but we
control EVERYTHING about the virtual one. Not being able to climb Everest
because your Mountain Climbing stat is too low is roughly equal to not
being able to craft both furniture and wooden weapons.

Think of it like a building and you are the architect. A fat guy, a
jogger, and a guy in a wheel chair all need to get to the third floor. The
fat guys takes the steps into the building, but takes the elevator. The
jogger takes the steps completely, and the guy in the wheel chair takes
the handicap ramp up to the elevator. We don't just force the fat guy to
run up stairs or laugh at the handicapped guy and say, tough crap, you
suck too much to deserve the third floor.

> I disagree with the characterization of virtual world
> as "a thing which has emergent gameplay".  This may be
> a feature of a world, but it also exists outside the
> context of virtual worlds as discussed on this list.

No, emergent gameplay is a common byproduct of systematic world modeling.
The system is what makes it a virtual world. It is made up of interlocking
and interacting elements with the freedom for the player to openly
manipulate it.

> I did not mention how much content a player is
> entitled to experience in my previous message.  I
> conjected that if the user looks at an online
> experience as a virtual park, then they would expect
> to have just as much access to the "park" as everyone
> else who paid the same "admission".

So, your implication is that someone who expects a virtual world would be
completely okay to have content beyond their virtual capabilities? I think
you'll find it works exactly the opposite. In most of the virtual worlds,
there is absolutely the freedom to explore and touch all the content you
want - usually at any time you want. It's the themepark games where the
players are told, hey you can't be A and B at the same time.

> Yes there are limitations in the real world.  There
> may be no rule that says you cannot sit at the bottom
> of the ocean without breathing apparatus.  However,
> there are certain properties of your biology that
> limit how long you may engage in this behavior.

But I can get in a freaking submarine or wear a scuba tank. If there is
content at the bottom of the ocean, it is entirely within my capabilities
to see it. It's just not within my interest, which is something completely
opposite in the MMORPG universe where I want to see all sorts of things
and told to sit down and shut up, I'm playing the game wrong.

> That is very commendable, but I do not see how your
> life experiences, or traditional class-based player
> character systems contribute to the discussion of how
> looking at an online experience as a virtual world or
> as a virtual park shapes user expectations of that
> experience.

Because you are arguing that a virtual world should be viewed with
limitations as part of the price of admission, and you used examples from
real life to underscore that point. I countered by showing examples from
real life in which the real world did not force me into a class system
which dictated what I can and can't do - that in the real world, I can do
and be whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want.

> I merely assert that in worlds that simulate something like our own
> reality, there exist limitations on what a person may do.

And I disagree. I disagree that there are meaningful limitations and I
disagree that a virtual world online game introduces limitations more than
a themepark online game and I disagree that these limitations should be
modeled at all. There's not reason why you shouldn't be able to dunk in a
videogame if that's what you want to do.

> I may like to dunk a basketball using my own muscle power.  There is
> no "rule" that says I cannot. However, I cannot jump high enough to do
> that.  I do not feel entitled to be able to jump high enough to dunk a
> basketball because it is a natural consequence of the structure of my
> body and the height of a basketball hoop that I cannot.

But you CAN dunk a basketball. You are arguing that you should be able to
use whatever meathod you want. It's like arguing that a man with no legs
shouldn't be able to walk. And yet, with technological help, he can do
better than walk. He can ride bicycles and play basketball. If you wanted
to dunk, you go train your muscles and dexterity towards that cause or
perhaps you could just go grab a trampoline. Dunking is within your power.
Specific meathods may not be.

But again, an online game is something where you are allowed to choose who
you are. A man with no legs can choose to play an avatar with legs. And
since it is within the human scope for somebody somewhere to dunk, there's
no reason to say that a player can't dunk. I mean, I hate really smart,
atheletic nuclear physicists who moonlight as amateur crime solves, but
they potentially exist. You shouldn't introduce limitations that may not
exist within the player or who he wants to be virtually.

>> mostly a matter of lazy or incompetent designers who have an inability
>> to see the forest through the trees.
>
> That is an awful thing to say about hardworking people
> who may read this list.

I did specifically point out that the game designers were lazy, thus
excusing the hardworking folk... well, the competent ones at least.

-- 
Sean Howard