[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system]

[Caliban Darklock]

On 4/5/07, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>
> It doesn't matter whether there is one player with a "toy" or lots with
> a "game" - if there is /any/ disagreement about the rules, no matter the
> numbers, these problems exist.

Exactly - consensus. The lack of consensus causes a problem. Its
simplest case is where a single well-defined game is intruded upon by
a single individual. The reality, in an MMO, is that a massive game
collects together a large number of subgames which operate in parallel
under a series of consensual standards... and violations of those
standards are a problem. Where we hit a wall is in our understanding
of those standards, which are largely unwritten.

Most modern game problems, the interesting ones at least, turn out to
be social problems. The question is not so much "how can I make a game
that doesn't have this problem", but "how can I make a game that
RESISTS this problem". Resistance is not just about prevention, but
also awareness and acceptance.

> From this it follows that the best multiplayer environments encourage
> the use of toys, and impose as few limits and rules as possible. These
> are commonly termed "sandbox" games.

I disagree, largely with the term "best". You're implying that a game
which is difficult to disrupt is necessarily better than a game which
is easy to disrupt, and I don't think that's true. I believe there are
extremes of easy and difficult to disrupt, but I don't believe either
of those extremes is optimal. Indeed, I think different positions
along that continuum are optimal for different types of players,
different types of play, and different revenue models.

A sandbox game has its own problems, most remarkably the lack of
direction. Lack of direction is frequently responsible for the most
egregious breaches of consensus. I also think there is a significant
tendency for the players themselves to alter your game's position on
the continuum; even in a sandbox game, the players define social norms
of what can and cannot be "legally" done. I'm primarily interested in
understanding how this continuum works and where the balance of power
lies. What circumstances permit most of this power to lie with the
game's operator? What circumstances give most of it to the players?
What are the other implications of these circumstances?

I don't expect this process to generate answers so much as a better
understanding of the questions.