[MUD-Dev2] [Design] 4Cs (was Who to design for?)

[Sean Howard]

"Mike Sellers" <mike at onlinealchemy.com> wrote:
> We differentiate those interested in a high-time vs. low-time commitment,
> and those who enjoy an aggressive, direct experience in the world vs.
> those who want a more indirect, non-aggressive, and/or arms-length
> experience.

First, let me say that I think you are on to something with the high-time
vs low-time. However, I'd extend it to a per-task basis. For instance,
somebody may want a low-time commitment to crafting but a high-time
commitment to combat. Personally, I'm all about low-time commitment, but
to every task available to me, which usually ends up with my playing for
long times but never very long at any one activity. Maybe time is not the
best measure in the first place, but I think commitment describes it well
(especially when it could also involve one's commitment to his social
responsibilities)

Second, I'm not sure I'd go down the aggressive/direct experience
approach. Pretty much all gameplay is an "arms-length experience". I mean,
any combat system where you queue combat actions can't be considered a
direct experience. I think you are grouping several different things under
one umbrella, and perhaps things would work better if you had three or
even four binary switches.

I think competitiveness may be something worth factoring in.
Socialization, perhaps (for all intents and purposes, small, closed social
groups like duoing with your wife or friend should be considered asocial
to the greater community). Maybe one more... I'm against achievement
because I think everybody like achievement systems even if they don't
gravitate towards them or engage in them if they are stupid.

Perhaps, curiousity? One's comfortability with unknown factors,
randomness, or new systems. Usually, curiosity is the opposite of
competitiveness, since the unknown makes it difficult to defeat an
opponent. If not curiosity, then how about creativity? Either one
min-maxes towards the superior solution or one tries to find unique and
interesting solutions that have values beyond winning, like the aesthetic
or the ingenious?

> Commando - low-time, aggressive.  Sometimes you just want to shoot
> something. :)  This focus is barely supported in current MMOs.

I would not describe anybody with a low commitment as aggressive. This is
where I think your system falls apart. But since your system does make a
distinction between the two or three more common MMORPG player types, I
guess it is probably good enough for practical purposes (as long as those
three common types remain the only three common types).

> The trick to using it is in giving all four types significant gameplay,
> and even more so, making their gameplay relevant to one another without
> making them play each other's way.

The problem with using a system like this for game design is that it tends
to make you blind to those the system ignores or otherwise doesn't
understand, just like those stupid Bartle types. There's always a Joker.
Sometimes, there's a lot of them. It's admirable to try to understand why
people are like they are, but if you decide to use that for a measure or
goal, you'll be doing a disservice to yourself and to those you supposedly
are designing for.

-- 
Sean Howard