[MUD-Dev2] Specialization

[Sean Howard]

"John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:
> The most extreme Socialist designers have a belief about players that they
> are directionless, uncreative, unmotivated players.  As people, they may
> be highly dynamic, intelligent and so on, but as players their drive is
> not in gear.  Such players just want to be shown what to do.  Like
> watching a movie, they get to sit and be entertained.

I am the most extreme socialist designer (well, fake designer) there is.
In fact, I purposely designed a MUD concept around communism and the lack
of individual identity. And I believe you've misrepresented the point.

Socialist game designers believe that all players are equally entitled to
all game content without the designer forcing them into one behavior or
another. You shouldn't have to grind reputation or do raids for ever to
get the content that such narrow requirements enforce. In other words, a
single player should be able to enjoy a raid-like experience and certainly
the raid-like rewards without having to actually get together with 40
other players and go through the exact motions as the designer intends.
So, in a way, the purpose of a socialist designer is to empower the player
to be his own master and to solve problems in whatever manner he wishes.
All players are equal. All content is equal. The worst players deserve the
best content too. Hardcore gamers don't deserve more attention or praise
for being hardcore, and casual gamers don't deserve to be treated as
second class citizens.

At the other end of this spectrum is, I believe, authoritarian design. The
designer says that no, there is a wrong way to eat a Reese's Peanut Butter
Cup. I don't believe that the caste system in online gaming comes from a
capitalist point of view. I think there is perhaps an undercurrent of
players who work hard deserve more, but I really think the major division
instead comes from players who are willing to play the game as the
designers encourage them are rewarded for it. The designer says do A, then
B, then C. In many games, especially quest driven ones, the player has
very little choice in the matter. They can decide which of the dozen
things to do that they want to do at any one time, but at the end of the
day, every player that succeeds does so in exactly the same order through
the exact same steps as everyone else - just as the designer intends.

I don't like that. I think players shouldn't be locked out of content
based on philosophical decisions. The solo player becomes a second class
citizen. In some games, they are unable to see as much as half (or more!)
of the game's content. I don't care for that approach at all. Perhaps
people who sweat more should earn more, but I also believe that it's a
game and that sweat, when it stops being fun, should not be rewarded.
Unfortunately, the only way to absolutely ensure that all players are
equal - that all players have equal access to all content - is to leave
the final decisions up to the player. To have an open ended environment
that is controlled completely through the actions of the community. You
can not force the players to be someone they aren't and not expect to
abuse players. It's not about motivation. It's about some players being
more natural in tune with the demands of the designer and being rewarded
handsomely for it.

-- 
Sean Howard