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

[Hideto Koudanshi]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, John Buehler wrote:

> Instead of throwing everyone into one arena and telling them all to behave
> in certain ways, I think it makes a bit more sense to let people tell the
> games who they want to play with.  This is the idea behind guilds.
> Characters are let in or not based on whatever factors the guild members
> deem important.
>
> Give the social network a wild and woolly central point, where everyone
> can interact with everyone else.  That central point lets people figure
> out who they want to share their entertainment time with.  The result
> is that only players who want to play together get to play together.
> Provide enough tools and players can make decisions about things like
> "friends of friends", "griefer of friend" and so on.  The techniques
> are out there.

It sounds like you're creating tools to make the playerbase smaller,
evenwithin a larger base, like having a "shard within a shard". What I'd
loveto see is something that a wonderfully goofy game called Furcadia
does.Have the main game world, but allow people to design their own
"sub-area"with a portal that is locked to members, like a UO guildstone
keeps trackof members. Even if you don't want them populating the
sub-areathemselves, laying out the loot etc. for fear of stacking their
sub-areaunfairly, make template areas. Have 10 uniquely designed types
ofsub-areas available to ALL players and allow "guild masters" or
whateveryou'd call these area owners, to pick which one they want. Once
chosen, itstays that way, for logistics, or as a way to make more money,
charge anominal fee to change the sub-area type to one of the other 9.

Then players can have a full, rewarding, and enriched environment to
playwhen they feel too threatened by the greater populace or just want a
placeto explore their particular favourite type of roleplay without
disruptingothers or4 feeling disrupted. Be keeping the types of equal
relative"value", it's harder for people to feel slighted or left out. If
the "coolkids" have a cool sub-area, you can have it too. Then it's up
to you to becool enough players that you have just as much fun as those
cool kids. The game doesn't stop you at all. Only you decide your fate.

> Games become self-moderating when players choose their playmates.  If I
> am a member of a guild, that means that I can enter virtual settings
> that are accessible to that guild.  If the guild decides to kick me out,
> I'm out.  I might lobby to get back in, but the guild has the final say
> over who they play with.  Players moderate themselves.  They visit the
> nexus of the social network to recruit new guild members when they're
> of a mind to, and the responsibility for keeping track of membership
> is theirs.

My above addresses this, I think, adequately.

> If a larger group comes along and decides to dance naked on the same
> spot, does that mean the wedding group should dance naked?  Is it
> "majority wins"?
>
> Group size is not the issue.  Player pursuit of entertainment is.
> As per the above, if the wedding group is in one instance and the
> griefer group is in another, then they don't interfere with each
> other.  Each gets the entertainment that they want.  They have
> conflicting agendas and should never have been put into the same
> environment.

I thoroughly agree here. However, how do you account for the mindset
ofplayer that says, "I pay my money so that I can disrupt the gameplay
ofothers in a manner that is very sneaky and just slides under the ToS
aneEULA! If you want to support all kinds of playstyles, support me!" We
needa more firm voice from game designers with regard to this. The sense
I gotout of early UO was, "No playstyle is invalid if the player has
paid theirmonthly fee! We can code the game to make it harder to make
other playerscry, and that will solve it! We can ask other players to
police people sothey don't make players cry and THAT will solve it!
However, every $10 isa viable playstyle!" They seemed so fixated on
numbers of players to showthey were a viable system, or maybe they liked
the money best, I don'tknow, that designers in PUBLIC CONVERSATONS WITH
THE PLAYERS openly statedthey were loathe to tell griefers to knock it
off because they knew thegriefers didn't WANT to, and griefers were just
as valued a player asnon-griefers.

Without arguing who's ultimately right or wrong, early UO basically
saidno value judgements should be officially made by the game or
itsmoderators on what is constructive and what is disruptive gameplay
beyondtangible disruptions like attacking/killing. I still can't figure
out tothis day what game designers want. Do they want the majority of
players tofeel free from "grief play" or do they want to try to either
beat griefersinto submission using game mechanics or beat down the
players enough untilthey realize being griefed is their cross to bear
and if they didn't wantto be griefed, they shouldn't go outside coded
"safe zones".

An example, if you will, again from UO (my obvious area/game of
greatestknowledge/play). Players cried long and loudly enough to get UO
designersto make a PK-free zone called Trammel. The "original game"
rules, as thegame used to be played, became Felucca. Immediately, the
griefers calledit "CareBearLand" and other sorts of disparaging
monikers. They thenfollowed the non-griefing players' methods and cried
that because Trammelwas so complete and an exact copy of the original
game, Felucca, "TrammieNoobs" had no more reason to go into Felucca to
become "sheep for theslaughter" (or as many of us termed it, "sheeple").
How can a killer killin MurderLand if no victims ever need to go there?
UO heeded their calland put higher-level dungeons or other plots/NPCs in
Felucca to encouragethose players looking for a little more excitement,
to go there. These newplots/whatever literally gave more
powerful/valuable rewards. They wererewarding people for suicidal play.

To use someone else's words here, though, they were PENALIZING
thoseplayers who didn't WANT a risk of griefing. "Life is all about
risks!Rewards should go to those willing to take the biggest risks! You
don'treward the lazy or cowardly!" Games need to decide what is more
important;player comfort or player discomfort? Risk is not comfortable,
especiallyrisks we didn't ask for or plan for. I don't plan for the
dragon to killme, but I do plan for the fact that he MIGHT. That's a
risk I'm willing toaccept. I'm not willing to accept that while I'm out
picking daisies,someone comes along and chops off my head so they can
steal my socks forthe sheer joy of knowing I'll have to go back and get
more socks; sockswhich have a game value of 2 cookies, and you'd need
1,000 socks to beable to sell them back to afford a felt hat with no
protective or melee  value unless you count "being ugly" as an offensive
value that lowersan opponent's ability to concentrate or otherwise
function in a meleecapacity.

> I'm growing uninterested in massive games because they have the
> inherent problem of picking a THEME and then trying to figure out
> how to CONTROL dissimilarly-minded players into sticking to that
> theme.  Obviate the problem by giving all players the theme that
> they want without any controls by the game publisher.  Give them
> the content and let them play with it as they like.  Doing that
> should produce a short-cycle learning experience, where the game
> designers will find that the ability to create a flexible environment
> is probably the best way to go.  That, instead of linear tracking
> players through one defined experience.

The real issue, to me, is designers need to decide what sort
ofplayer/gameplay is desired in their system and what sort of play is
not,and code methods to deal with those who deliberately act
undesireably. Ifyou take swords away from griefers because they can kill
people with them,they'll pick up sticks and poke people so they can't
meditate, can't castspells, can't finish a potion, or whatever. If you
take away their sticks,They'll use pies and throw them at people to
disrupt their sense ofimmersion in a fantasy game, leave them as
obstacles on the ground thatpeople have to maneuver around or stop to
pick up all the time, etc. Ifyou take away their pies, they'll run
circles around people and make aruckus so tamers can't get animals to
trust them, or they'll run and go"Oogity-boogity!" at monsters so
they'll follow and lead them back to agroup who is not powerful enough
to kill them. Griefers can grief withnothing at all. No in-game
punishment is strong enough to discourage thembeyond completely
disabling their ability to interact with the game world.They'll always
find some way to be annoying to others.

Designers need to decide what is valued play and what isn't, and they
needto enforce it. If they don't wish to enforce it, they need to accept
thatplayers will be disruptive, however simply, like all those
Japanesedancing as chickens, and have the playerbase accept it. The
minute ANYdesigner or moderator tells ANY ONE PLAYER that his style of
play isundesired and he needs to stop or he will be removed, you've made
a valuejudgement on playstyle. The minute the players find out you've
done so,you will have a riot on your hands. "Make these other guys
stop!" "Tellthose guys we have a right to play as we wish and they
should stopcomplaining about us and just deal with our actions!"