[MUD-Dev2] Specialization

[Michael Hartman]

Sean Howard wrote:
> Really? I do that all the time. I am completely capable of following my
> skills to my level of interest. If I'm interested in being a master at a
> highly skilled profession, I will be. And have been. I won't let some
> "game designer" tell me what I'm capable of.

In what entirely different careers are you a master of? And by master, I 
mean a world famous, top .01% master. Because that is what player 
characters are, generally. They are heroes of the world performing epic 
acts that would be utterly impossible for "normal people." Not just 
difficulty... completely impossible. RPG characters save the world like 
every other day, and sometimes twice on Sunday.


 >  And, as I recall, he was a pro for a
> short period of time. Maybe not the best, as he was in Basketball, but he
> was certainly a capable baseball player.

Nope. He never made it out of the minor leagues, and the main reason he 
was even allowed to mess around there for so long was the simple fact 
that he was Michael Jordan and his fame resulted in people buying 
tickets to view the spectacle.


> But sports metaphors are so... lame. 

And they are lame because they illustrate a flaw in your logic, right? :)

Sports actually makes for good metaphors for computer games because, 
well, they are games as well. They have strictly codified rules, 
statistics, measurable results, etc.


 > Why don't you try explaining to me
> why Leonardo da Vinci couldn't be an engineer, artist, mathematician,
> scientist, sculptor, botanist, writer, or musician? 

Why don't you try explaining to me how Steven Hawking could set a world 
record in the marathon, or how Albert Einstein could have played for the 
1936 World Champion Green Bay Packers?

The overwhelming majority of the time, people are lucky if they are 
great at even one thing. Most are never great at anything. At least in a 
game, you have the option of having multiple characters. You don't get 
that chance in life.

There are scientific and psychological reasons for this as well. Studies 
have shown that the longer you engage in a certain activity, your brain 
forms patterns and pathways that make it harder to learn a different 
activity. The old expression "it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks" 
actually has a basis in modern scientific study of the brain.

 From the field of psychology, there is the concept of proactive 
interference: "Proactive Interference: Difficulty in learning new 
information because of already existing information. For example, an 
English speaking person may have greater difficulty learning Spanish 
because of his or her tendency to want to apply English grammar to the 
new language. Some people have a harder time learning how to drive an 
automatic vehicle because of their preexisting knowledge of how to drive 
a stick shift. The driver may want to use his or her left foot for the 
break where they are used to having the clutch. The same person may have 
learned to drive an automatic more easily without his or her knowledge 
of a standard car."

> Third, you are
> assuming that it takes 50 years to master anything. This is simply not the
> case. 

Let us not forget that you claimed it is "absolutely insane" for a game 
to limit someone to greatness in only one career path. So yours is the 
absolute that is being challenged here. I just want to make sure we are 
keeping things in perspective here.

To the degree a character in an RPG masters things, yes it is very 
possibly the case that it would take decades to attain that level of 
mastery. Player characters in every RPG I have played and enjoyed are 
the extremes of their world, and they go far beyond any level of mastery 
we have in our real lives. 1,000 peasants could not hope to even scratch 
a high powered CRPG warrior. So yes, it is very believable for a world 
to require serious, single minded devotion to attain that level of 
greatness. I am not saying a game world has to go this route, but if the 
designers choose to, it is most certainly reasonable, rational, and not 
"absolutely insane."


 > There is no skill on heaven or earth that requires that sort of time
> to reach master of, unless you dedicate only a small portion of your
> attention to it. 

In RPGs, characters have powers that are often beyond "heaven and 
earth." In fact, they are often expressly beyond "heaven and earth" in 
potency.


> Finally, you are exaggerating the point considerably by selecting two
> completely separate professions that require the most amount of schooling
> with zero overlap. 

Do you realize how silly this statement of yours is? You criticize me 
for choosing two modern professions that have very little overlap when 
we are comparing them to careers in RPGs that are even more diverse and 
fantastical?

How much overlap is there between wizard and warrior? Or how about 
cleric and shapeshifting garou? They have even less overlap than doctors 
and lawyers. At least lawyers and doctors share skills like dealing with 
clients, writing papers, dealing with government regulation and... 
interestingly enough... being sued for malpractice. Wizards and warriors 
share almost nothing.


 > why can a mage and cleric not learn the same spells?

Why is this even a question? In most game worlds that have clerics and 
mages they are not even moderately similar in how their powers operate. 
So you are basically asking "How come my Nobel Prize in Chemistry 
doesn't make me a world class pianist!?!?!?!" In many game worlds, mages 
control magic and clerics channel divinely granted energy/power. Those 
do not have to be similar things at all. But most importantly, this is 
an issue of world design, not an issue of real world logic. Thus it is 
not "absolutely insane" for magic spells and divine powers to be 
completely different from each other.

And furthermore, the point is that it is more fun for characters to have 
different things they are good at. It is no fun if everyone can do 
everything.

Thus, it is *NOT* "absolutely insane" for a game to decree that 
characters cannot change career paths. Firstly, because there are 
actual, legitimate, real world analogues. Secondly, and more 
importantly, because for a lot of people it is actually more fun this 
way. That is why games almost universally go this route.


> Okay, but what if he dedicated his life to swordcraft AND magic? You are
> working backwards. Your position assumes that in order to be an expert at
> magic, one can only have studied magic. It refuses to take into account
> the exceptionally smart or talented or into alternative practices that,
> while perhaps more difficult, are no less effective.

There is only so much time in a day. It doesn't matter how talented you 
are if a body cannot withstand the physical rigors of weapon training 
and the strain of magical training. Once again, this is a question of 
the mechanics and realities of the game world. And it is not "absolutely 
insane" if the game world is such that magic drains the body too much to 
train in magic while also training in physical endeavors like weapon 
combat mastery.


> One would assume that in a world populated by goblins and demon knights,
> all kids would. 

Why would you assume this? Most kids in such a world probably don't have 
the free time to learn such things. If the game is at all comparable to 
medieval times (as is common for fantasy RPGs), most kids do not have 
access to such training, nor do they have time for it. Most of their 
time goes towards helping put food on the table.

I notice, however, that you are conveniently unopposed to making 
assumptions when they help your argument. Interesting. :)


> I played cowboys and indians as a kid. I didn't grow up to
> be a marksman. 

You weren't shooting actual guns at anything, were you? Sons of knights 
actually practiced with weapons, for real. I also bet you didn't play 
Cowboys and Indians for many hours per day, every day, year after year. 
If you were like most kids, you probably didn't even play Cowboys and 
Indians a total of 100 times in your whole life.

But there are kids, whose lifestyles are such that they do things from a 
young age that have a profound effect on the skills they possess in 
adulthood. Children on farms "play" with and learn to use guns, and 
actually use them to shoot vermin, varmints, predators, and small game.

Take the example of Audie Murphy - the most decorated soldier in 
American Military History.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy

"He grew up on farms between Farmersville and Greenville, as well as 
near Celeste, Texas... ...He became very skilled with a rifle, hunting 
small game to help feed the family. One of his favorite hunting 
companions was neighbor Dial Henley who noticed that young Audie never 
missed when he shot at squirrels, rabbits, or birds. When that was 
pointed out to him, Murphy remarked, "Well, Dial, if I don't hit what I 
shoot at, my family won't eat today.""

He then put that to use killing Axis soldiers.  "Audie Murphy was 
credited with destroying six tanks in addition to killing over 240 
German soldiers and wounding and capturing many others."

I highly recommend reading his entire Wikipedia entry. Audie Murphy is 
really quite amazing. I am going to see if our library has a copy of his 
autobiography.


> Again, you are working backwards. One could easily study magic and
> swordcraft simultaneously 

How can they "easily" do this if it is actually impossible? How can you 
just declare this is "easily" possible when there is absolutely no 
foundation for this? Are you saying that you can determine how magic 
works in every single game that has ever been made and will ever be 
made? Isn't that a little presumptuous?

What if studying magic is so physically draining that it is all you can 
do just to stumble into bed and sleep until you are well enough for the 
next day's practice. How then are you supposed to also train in 
weaponplay, horseback combat, jousting, and other physical training?

Brace yourself for another sports analogy. When I was training for the 
Olympic team in rowing, I was so worn out every single day that I could 
barely even take a shower. Lifting my arms hurt. Walking up stairs felt 
almost impossible by the end of the day. There is no way I could have 
trained at the same time in archery, or track and field, or nuclear physics.

If you don't like something, that's fine. But it is inappropriate and 
inaccurate for you to just declare something "absolutely insane" when 
there are many very reasonable and logical explanations for how 
something could work a certain way. The fact that you do not personally 
like something does not make it "absolutely insane."

And you might want to face up to the fact that the overwhelming majority 
of gamers have voted with their wallets and their eyeballs: they prefer 
specialization. It is just more fun for most people, and tends to make 
for a more fun, more successful game.




-- 
Michael Hartman, J.D. (http://www.frogdice.com)
President & CEO, Frogdice, Inc.
University of Georgia School of Law, 1995-1998
Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 1990-1994