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

[John Buehler]

Hideto Koudanshi writes:

> 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".

Yes.  The playerbase that spends time in the instanced content will be of a
size that the players themselves decide upon.  If they want to run a raid
with 200 characters or 2 characters, it's their call.  It depends on the
flexibility of the provided instances.

? 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.

I'm talking about something similar.  The instances are entered by
invitation only.  I'm assuming that they are defined by the game, but may be
freely altered by the owning group of characters (not the players mind you,
the characters).  If they want to construct buildings, demolish others, burn
down forests and dig the Panama Canal, that's their business.  It's their
instance.

> > 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!"

I'd suggest that they see either a psychiatrist or a priest.

> 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!"

I think you've gotten a fairly strong response in games that have followed
Ultima Online.  Games have been locked down in many ways in an effort to
keep players out of each other's hair.  PvP, kill-stealing, monster trains,
loot stealing and so on are all things that have been greatly minimized in
the latest games.  So much so that many have decried current games as being
very care-bearish.

> 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".

They're trying to minimize grief play without crippling the game systems
that attempt to provide freedom of action to their mainstream players.  It's
been a delicate balancing act.  They could completely stop all griefing
tomorrow.  But the resulting game wouldn't permit any interaction between
players.

I'd suggest that you try World of Warcraft.  Based on your examples, I think
you'd be quite happy with the experience you'll find there.

> > 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.

Exactly.  This is the very problem that has inspired me to believe that the
way to structure a shared environment is to provide a means through which
players who are like minded get to play together.  There aren't any
disruptive players.  Only players who don't want to be in the same
environment.  This produces the best of both worlds: maximum freedom of
action for characters, and no possibility of abuse.

The only caveat to that is the particularly intent and devious player who
will be nice and friendly long enough to get into a group, and then turn
griefer.  They'll be ejected immediately by the group, but the potential
remains.

> 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.

Exactly right.  No in-game punishment will stop a griefer.  That's why you
have to do your best to ensure that they never get the opportunity.

> Designers need to decide what is valued play and what isn't, and they
> needto enforce it.

I guess my replies have been falling on deaf ears.  Designers not only don't
need to enforce character behavior, they shouldn't.  They SHOULD, however,
work to ensure that only those players who value the same play style get to
play together.

JB