2018-03-03 09:35:28 +00:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
created_at: '2013-05-05T15:52:08.000Z'
|
|
|
|
title: 'Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs (1996)'
|
|
|
|
url: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
|
|
|
|
author: kens
|
|
|
|
points: 48
|
|
|
|
story_text: ''
|
|
|
|
comment_text:
|
|
|
|
num_comments: 39
|
|
|
|
story_id:
|
|
|
|
story_title:
|
|
|
|
story_url:
|
|
|
|
parent_id:
|
|
|
|
created_at_i: 1367769128
|
|
|
|
_tags:
|
|
|
|
- story
|
|
|
|
- author_kens
|
|
|
|
- story_5658681
|
|
|
|
objectID: '5658681'
|
2018-06-08 12:05:27 +00:00
|
|
|
year: 1996
|
2018-03-03 09:35:28 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
![](russian.gif)A translation of this article into Russian is available
|
|
|
|
[here](http://dtf.ru/articles/read.php?id=44593). ![](chinese.gif)A
|
|
|
|
translation of this article into Chinese is available
|
|
|
|
[here](http://www.joynb.net/resource/hcdsc.htm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Bartle[\[1\]](#1)
|
|
|
|
MUSE Ltd, Colchester, Essex.
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom.
|
|
|
|
<richard@mud.co.uk>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ABSTRACT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four approaches to playing MUDs are identified and described. These
|
|
|
|
approaches may arise from the inter-relationship of two dimensions of
|
|
|
|
playing style: action versus interaction, and world-oriented versus
|
|
|
|
player-oriented. An account of the dynamics of player populations is
|
|
|
|
given in terms of these dimensions, with particular attention to how to
|
|
|
|
promote balance or equilibrium. This analysis also offers an explanation
|
|
|
|
for the labelling of MUDs as being either "social" or "gamelike".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# PREFACE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most MUDs can trace their lineage directly back to Trubshaw's 1978 game
|
|
|
|
([Bartle, 1990b](#Bartle,%201990b); [Burka, 1995](#Burka,%201995)) and,
|
|
|
|
perhaps because of this heritage, the vast majority are regarded as
|
|
|
|
"games" by their "players". For the convenience of its readers, this
|
|
|
|
paper continues to view MUDs in this tradition; however, it should be
|
|
|
|
noted that MUDs can be of considerable value in non-game (ie. "serious")
|
|
|
|
applications ([Bruckman, 1994a](#Bruckman,%201994a); [Kort,
|
|
|
|
1991](#Kort,%201991); [Bruckman & Resnick,
|
|
|
|
1993](#Bruckman%20&%20Resnick,%201993); [Curtis & Nichols,
|
|
|
|
1993](#Curtis%20&%20Nichols,%201993); [Evard, 1993](#Evard,%201993);
|
|
|
|
[Fanderclai, 1995](#Fanderclai,%201995); [Riner & Clodius,
|
|
|
|
1995](#Riner%20&%20Clodius,%201995); [Moock, 1996](#Moock,%201996)).
|
|
|
|
Indeed, the thrust of this paper emphasises those factors which should
|
|
|
|
be borne in mind when attempting to create a stable MUD in general,
|
|
|
|
whatever the application; it is only the terminology which is that of
|
|
|
|
"fun" MUDs, not the subject matter. In any case, even those MUDs which
|
|
|
|
are built, from the ground up, to be absolutely straight are still
|
|
|
|
treated by users as if they were games in some respects, eg. by choosing
|
|
|
|
whimsical names rather than using their real ones ([Roush,
|
|
|
|
1993](#Roush,%201993)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is worthwhile considering for a moment whether MUDs (as they are
|
|
|
|
generally played) really are games, or whether they're something else.
|
|
|
|
People have many recreational activities available to them, and perhaps
|
|
|
|
MUDs fit some other category better? Looking up the word "game" in a
|
|
|
|
dictionary of synonyms ([Urdang & Manser,
|
|
|
|
1980](#Urdang%20&%20Manser,%201980)) elicits three related nouns:
|
|
|
|
"pastime", "sport" and "entertainment" (a fourth, "amusement", is the
|
|
|
|
general class of which the others are all examples). So it might be
|
|
|
|
useful to ask:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are MUDs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- games? Like chess, tennis, AD\&D?
|
|
|
|
- pastimes? Like reading, gardening, cooking?
|
|
|
|
- sports? Like huntin', shootin', fishin'?
|
|
|
|
- entertainments? Like nightclubs, TV, concerts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or are they a combination of all four? Perhaps individual players even
|
|
|
|
see the same MUD differently from each another?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These questions will be returned to at the end of this paper, along with
|
|
|
|
some proposed answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# A SIMPLE TAXONOMY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This work grew out of a long, heated discussion which ran from November
|
|
|
|
1989 to May 1990 between the wizzes (ie. highly experienced players, of
|
|
|
|
rank wizard or witch) on one particular commercial MUD in the UK
|
|
|
|
([Bartle, 1985](#Bartle,%201985)). The debate was sparked by the
|
|
|
|
question "What do people want out of a MUD?", and comprised several
|
|
|
|
hundred bulletin-board postings, some of considerable length, typically
|
|
|
|
concerning what the players liked, what they didn't like, why they
|
|
|
|
played, and changes they would like to see to "improve" the game. Some
|
|
|
|
15 individuals took a major part, with perhaps another 15 adding their
|
|
|
|
comments from time to time; this comprised almost the entire set of
|
|
|
|
active wizzes during that period. Although at times the debate became
|
|
|
|
quite intense, never did it lapse into the flaming which typically ends
|
|
|
|
most open-ended, multi-speaker, online discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that the people contributing to this argument were the most
|
|
|
|
advanced players in a MUD which allowed player-killing might, on the
|
|
|
|
face of it, be taken as evidence that they would probably prefer more
|
|
|
|
"gamelike" aspects over "social" ones. However, this was not the case:
|
|
|
|
the MUD in question had players of all types in it, even at wiz level.
|
|
|
|
(Later in this paper, an analysis is given as to how such a MUD can come
|
|
|
|
to be).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the participants had finally run out of new things to say, it
|
|
|
|
became time for me (as senior administrator) to summarise. Abstracting
|
|
|
|
the various points that had been raised, a pattern emerged; people
|
|
|
|
habitually found the same kinds of thing about the game "fun", but there
|
|
|
|
were several (four, in fact) sub-groupings into which opinion divided.
|
|
|
|
Most players leaned at least a little to all four, but each tended to
|
|
|
|
have some particular overall preference. The summary was generally well
|
|
|
|
received by those who had participated in the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that although this MUD was one in which player-killing was allowed,
|
|
|
|
the taxonomy which is about to be described does (as will be explained
|
|
|
|
later) apply equally to "social" MUDs. The advice concerning changes
|
|
|
|
which can be made to affect the player make-up of a MUD is, however,
|
|
|
|
less useful to social MUDs, or to ones with a heavy role-playing
|
|
|
|
component. Also, the original discussion concerned only
|
|
|
|
non-administrative aspects of MUDding; people who might play MUDs to
|
|
|
|
learn object-oriented programming, for example, are therefore not
|
|
|
|
addressed by this paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The four things that people typically enjoyed personally about MUDs
|
|
|
|
were:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i) Achievement within the game context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Players give themselves game-related goals, and vigorously set out to
|
|
|
|
achieve them. This usually means accumulating and disposing of large
|
|
|
|
quantities of high-value treasure, or cutting a swathe through hordes of
|
|
|
|
mobiles (ie. monsters built in to the virtual world).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ii) Exploration of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Players try to find out as much as they can about the virtual world.
|
|
|
|
Although initially this means mapping its topology (ie. exploring the
|
|
|
|
MUD's breadth), later it advances to experimentation with its physics
|
|
|
|
(ie. exploring the MUD's depth).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iii) Socialising with others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Players use the game's communicative facilities, and apply the
|
|
|
|
role-playing that these engender, as a context in which to converse (and
|
|
|
|
otherwise interact) with their fellow players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iv) Imposition upon others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Players use the tools provided by the game to cause distress to (or, in
|
|
|
|
rare circumstances, to help) other players. Where permitted, this
|
|
|
|
usually involves acquiring some weapon and applying it enthusiastically
|
|
|
|
to the persona of another player in the game world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, labelling the four player types abstracted, we get: achievers,
|
|
|
|
explorers, socialisers and killers. An easy way to remember these is to
|
|
|
|
consider suits in a conventional pack of cards: achievers are Diamonds
|
|
|
|
(they're always seeking treasure); explorers are Spades (they dig around
|
|
|
|
for information); socialisers are Hearts (they empathise with other
|
|
|
|
players); killers are Clubs (they hit people with them).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally, these areas cross over, and players will often drift between
|
|
|
|
all four, depending on their mood or current playing style. However, my
|
|
|
|
experience having observed players in the light of this research
|
|
|
|
suggests that many (if not most) players do have a primary style, and
|
|
|
|
will only switch to other styles as a (deliberate or subconscious) means
|
|
|
|
to advance their main interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at each player type in more detail, then:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i) Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main
|
|
|
|
goal, and all is ultimately subserviant to this. Exploration is
|
|
|
|
necessary only to find new sources of treasure, or improved ways of
|
|
|
|
wringing points from it. Socialising is a relaxing method of discovering
|
|
|
|
what other players know about the business of accumulating points, that
|
|
|
|
their knowledge can be applied to the task of gaining riches. Killing is
|
|
|
|
only necessary to eliminate rivals or people who get in the way, or to
|
|
|
|
gain vast amounts of points (if points are awarded for killing other
|
|
|
|
players).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achievers say things like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
"I'm busy."
|
|
|
|
"Sure, I'll help you. What do I get?"
|
|
|
|
"So how do YOU kill the dragon, then?"
|
|
|
|
"Only 4211 points to go!"
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ii) Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal
|
|
|
|
machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild,
|
|
|
|
out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and
|
|
|
|
figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter
|
|
|
|
some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a
|
|
|
|
brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive
|
|
|
|
exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run
|
|
|
|
if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be
|
|
|
|
informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people
|
|
|
|
say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery,
|
|
|
|
and making the most complete set of maps in existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explorers say things like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
"Hmm..."
|
|
|
|
"You mean you don't know the shortest route from <obscure
|
|
|
|
room 1> to <obscure room 2>?"
|
|
|
|
"I haven't tried that one, what's it do?"
|
|
|
|
"Why is it that if you carry the uranium you get radiation
|
|
|
|
sickness, and if you put it in a bag you still get it, but if
|
|
|
|
you put it in a bag and drop it then wait 20 seconds and pick it
|
|
|
|
up again, you don't?"
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iii) Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say.
|
|
|
|
The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to
|
|
|
|
players. Inter-player relationships are important: empathising with
|
|
|
|
people, sympathising, joking, entertaining, listening; even merely
|
|
|
|
observing people play can be rewarding - seeing them grow as
|
|
|
|
individuals, maturing over time. Some exploration may be necessary so as
|
|
|
|
to understand what everyone else is talking about, and points-scoring
|
|
|
|
could be required to gain access to neat communicative spells available
|
|
|
|
only to higher levels (as well as to obtain a certain status in the
|
|
|
|
community). Killing, however, is something only ever to be excused if
|
|
|
|
it's a futile, impulsive act of revenge, perpetrated upon someone who
|
|
|
|
has caused intolerable pain to a dear friend. The only ultimately
|
|
|
|
fulfilling thing is not how to rise levels or kill hapless drips; it's
|
|
|
|
getting to know people, to undertand them, and to form beautiful,
|
|
|
|
lasting relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialisers say things like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
"Hi!"
|
|
|
|
"Yeah, well, I'm having trouble with my boyfriend."
|
|
|
|
"What happened? I missed it, I was talking."
|
|
|
|
"Really? Oh no! Gee, that's terrible! Are you sure? Awful, just
|
|
|
|
awful!"
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iv) Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may
|
|
|
|
be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an
|
|
|
|
approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently)
|
|
|
|
aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players
|
|
|
|
with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style
|
|
|
|
of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's
|
|
|
|
joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as
|
|
|
|
to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and
|
|
|
|
exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to
|
|
|
|
kill people. Even socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a
|
|
|
|
recent victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or
|
|
|
|
discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an
|
|
|
|
end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is
|
|
|
|
very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about
|
|
|
|
it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killers says things like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
"Ha!"
|
|
|
|
"Coward!"
|
|
|
|
"Die!"
|
|
|
|
"Die! Die! Die!"
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Killers are people of few words).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many players typically fall within each area depends on the MUD. If,
|
|
|
|
however, too many gravitate to one particular style, the effect can be
|
|
|
|
to cause players of other persuasions to leave, which in turn may feed
|
|
|
|
back and reduce the numbers in the first category. For example, too many
|
|
|
|
killers will drive away the achievers who form their main prey; this in
|
|
|
|
turn will mean that killers will stop playing, as they'll have no
|
|
|
|
worthwhile victims (players considered by killers to be explorers
|
|
|
|
generally don't care about death, and players considered to be
|
|
|
|
socialisers are too easy to pose much of a challenge). These direct
|
|
|
|
relationships are discussed in more detail towards the end of this
|
|
|
|
paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the most part, though, the inter-relationships between the various
|
|
|
|
playing styles are more subtle: a sharp reduction in the number of
|
|
|
|
explorers for whatever reason could mean a gradual reduction in
|
|
|
|
achievers, who get bored if they're not occasionally told of different
|
|
|
|
hoops they can jump through for points; this could affect the number of
|
|
|
|
socialisers (the fewer players there are, the less there is to talk
|
|
|
|
about), and it would certainly lower the killer population (due to a
|
|
|
|
general lack of suitable victims).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making sure that a game doesn't veer off in the wrong direction and lose
|
|
|
|
players can be difficult; administrators need to maintain a balanced
|
|
|
|
relationship between the different types of player, so as to guarantee
|
|
|
|
their MUD's "feel". Note that I am not advocating any particular form of
|
|
|
|
equalibrium: it is up to the game administrators themseles to decide
|
|
|
|
what atmosphere they want their MUD to have, and thus define the point
|
|
|
|
at which it is "balanced" (although the effort required to maintain this
|
|
|
|
desired state could be substantial). Later, this paper considers means
|
|
|
|
by which a MUD can be pushed in different directions, either to restore
|
|
|
|
an earlier balance between the player types, to define a new target set
|
|
|
|
of relationships between the player types, or to cause the interplay
|
|
|
|
between the player types to break down entirely. However, first a means
|
|
|
|
is required of formally linking the four principal playing styles into
|
|
|
|
aspects of a unified whole; this helps account for different degrees of
|
|
|
|
adherence to particular styles, and aids visualisation of what "altering
|
|
|
|
the balance" of a MUD might actually mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# INTEREST GRAPH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following abstract graph:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
ACTING
|
|
|
|
Killers | Achievers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialisers | Explorers
|
|
|
|
INTERACTING
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The axes of the graph represent the source of players' interest in a
|
|
|
|
MUD. The x-axis goes from an emphasis on players (left) to an emphasis
|
|
|
|
on the environment (right); the y-axis goes from acting with (bottom) to
|
|
|
|
acting on (top). The four extreme corners of the graph show the four
|
|
|
|
typical playing preferences associated with each quadrant. To see how
|
|
|
|
the graph works, it is appropriate to consider each of the four styles
|
|
|
|
in detail:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i) Achievers are interested in doing things to the game, ie. in ACTING
|
|
|
|
on the WORLD. It's the fact that the game environment is a fully-fledged
|
|
|
|
world in which they can immerse themselves that they find compelling;
|
|
|
|
its being shared with other people merely adds a little authenticity,
|
|
|
|
and perhaps a competitive element. The point of playing is to master the
|
|
|
|
game, and make it do what you want it to do; there's nothing
|
|
|
|
intrinsically worthwhile in rooting out irrelevant details that will
|
|
|
|
never be of use, or in idling away your life with gossip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achievers are proud of their formal status in the game's built-in level
|
|
|
|
hierarchy, and of how short a time they took to reach it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ii) Explorers are interested in having the game surprise them, ie. in
|
|
|
|
INTERACTING with the WORLD. It's the sense of wonder which the virtual
|
|
|
|
world imbues that they crave for; other players add depth to the game,
|
|
|
|
but they aren't essential components of it, except perhaps as sources of
|
|
|
|
new areas to visit. Scoring points all the time is a worthless
|
|
|
|
occupation, because it defies the very open-endedness that makes a world
|
|
|
|
live and breathe. Most accomplished explorers could easily rack up
|
|
|
|
sufficient points to reach the top, but such one-dimensional behaviour
|
|
|
|
is the sign of a limited intellect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explorers are proud of their knowledge of the game's finer points,
|
|
|
|
especially if new players treat them as founts of all knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iii) Socialisers are interested in INTERACTING with other PLAYERS. This
|
|
|
|
usually means talking, but it can extend to more exotic behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Finding out about people and getting to know them is far more worthy
|
|
|
|
than treating them as fodder to be bossed around. The game world is just
|
|
|
|
a setting; it's the characters that make it so compelling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialisers are proud of their friendships, their contacts and their
|
|
|
|
influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iv) Killers are interested in doing things to people, ie. in ACTING on
|
|
|
|
other PLAYERS. Normally, this is not with the consent of these "other
|
|
|
|
players" (even if, objectively, the interference in their play might
|
|
|
|
appear "helpful"), but killers don't care; they wish only to demonstrate
|
|
|
|
their superiority over fellow humans, preferably in a world which serves
|
|
|
|
to legitimise actions that could mean imprisonment in real life.
|
|
|
|
Accumulated knowledge is useless unless it can be applied; even when it
|
|
|
|
is applied, there's no fun unless it can affect a real person instead of
|
|
|
|
an emotionless, computerised entity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killers are proud of their reputation and of their oft-practiced
|
|
|
|
fighting skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "interest graph" is a representational structure which can chart
|
|
|
|
what players find of interest in a MUD. The axes can be assigned a
|
|
|
|
relative scale reflecting the ratio of an individual's interest between
|
|
|
|
the two extremes that it admits. Thus, for example, someone who thinks
|
|
|
|
that the people who are in the world are maybe twice as important as the
|
|
|
|
the world itself would lie on a vertical line intersecting the x-axis at
|
|
|
|
a point 1/6 of the distance from the origin to the left edge; if they
|
|
|
|
had little interest in bending the game to their will, preferring their
|
|
|
|
actions to have some give and take, then they would also lie on a
|
|
|
|
horizontal line at the bottom of the y-axis. The interesection of the
|
|
|
|
two lines would put them in the socialiser quadrant, with leanings to
|
|
|
|
explorer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is, of course, possible to analyse the behaviour of individual
|
|
|
|
players quantitatively by processing transcripts of their games.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, this is very difficult to do except for very limited
|
|
|
|
domains (eg. forms of communication ([Cherny, 1995a](#Cherny,%201995a);
|
|
|
|
[Cherny, 1995b](#Cherny,%201995b))). An alternative approach might
|
|
|
|
simply be to ask the players what they themselves like about a
|
|
|
|
particular MUD: even a short questionnaire, completed anonymously, can
|
|
|
|
give a fair indication of what players find enjoyable ([Emert,
|
|
|
|
1993](#Emert,%201993)). Such information can then be used to determine
|
|
|
|
the make-up of the MUD's player base, so that in times of falling player
|
|
|
|
numbers the current composition could be compared against some earlier
|
|
|
|
ideal, and remedial action taken to redress the imbalance. This "ideal"
|
|
|
|
configuration would, however, be specific to that particular MUD, and
|
|
|
|
its precise form is therefore not addressed here. Instead, the more
|
|
|
|
general issue of how to alter the balance between player types is
|
|
|
|
considered, along with the gross effects that can be expected to follow
|
|
|
|
from having done so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# CHANGING THE PLAYER TYPE BALANCE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A stable MUD is one in which the four principal styles of player are in
|
|
|
|
equilibrium. This doesn't imply that there are the same number of
|
|
|
|
players exhibiting each style; rather, it means that over time the
|
|
|
|
proportion of players for each style remains roughly constant, so that
|
|
|
|
the balance between the the various types remains the same. Other
|
|
|
|
factors are important, to do with the rate at which new players arrive
|
|
|
|
and overall player numbers, but their consideration is not within the
|
|
|
|
brief of this paper; the interaction between players of different types
|
|
|
|
is within its brief, however, and is discussed in some detail later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The actual point of balance (ie. whereabouts in the interest graph the
|
|
|
|
centre of gravity of the individual players' points lies) can vary quite
|
|
|
|
enormously; it is up to individual administrators to determine where
|
|
|
|
they want it to lie, and to make any programming or design changes
|
|
|
|
necessary to ensure that this is where it actually does. What kind of
|
|
|
|
strategies, though, can be employed to achieve this task?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to answer this question, consider the interest graph. If it is
|
|
|
|
regarded as a plane in equilibrium, it can be tilted in a number of ways
|
|
|
|
to favour different areas. Usually, this will be at the expense of some
|
|
|
|
other (opposite) area, but not necessarily. Although tilting can in
|
|
|
|
theory occur along any line in the plane, it makes sense (at least
|
|
|
|
initially) to look at what happens when the tilt lines coincide with the
|
|
|
|
x and y axes if the graph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What follows, then, is a brief examination of means by which a MUD can
|
|
|
|
be adjusted so as to favour the various extremes of the interest graph,
|
|
|
|
and what would happen if each approach were taken to the limit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## PLAYERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Putting the emphasis on players rather than the game is easy - you just
|
|
|
|
provide the system with lots of communication commands and precious
|
|
|
|
little else. The more the scales are tipped towards players, though, the
|
|
|
|
less of a MUD you have and the more of a CB-style chatline. Beyond a
|
|
|
|
certain point, the game can't provide a context for communication, and
|
|
|
|
it ceases to be a viable virtual world: it's just a comms channel for
|
|
|
|
the real world. At this stage, when all sense of elsewhere-presence is
|
|
|
|
lost, you no longer have a MUD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## WORLD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tilting the game towards the world rather than its inhabitants is also
|
|
|
|
easy: you simply make it so big and awkward to traverse that no-one ever
|
|
|
|
meets anyone in it; alternatively, you can ensure that if they do meet
|
|
|
|
up, then there are very few ways in which they an interact. Although
|
|
|
|
this can result in some nice simulations, there's a loss of motivation
|
|
|
|
implicit within it: anyone can rack up points given time, but there's
|
|
|
|
not the same sense of achievement as when it's done under pressure from
|
|
|
|
competing players. And what use is creating beautifully-crafted areas
|
|
|
|
anyway, if you can't show them to people? Perhaps if computer-run
|
|
|
|
personae had more AI a MUD could go further in this direction ([Mauldin,
|
|
|
|
1994](#Mauldin,%201994)), but it couldn't (yet) go all the way (as
|
|
|
|
authors of single-player games have found ([Caspian-Kaufman,
|
|
|
|
1995](#Caspian-Kaufman,%201995))). Sometimes, you just do want to tell
|
|
|
|
people real-world things - you have a new baby, or a new job, or your
|
|
|
|
cat has died. If there's no-one to tell, or no way to tell them, you
|
|
|
|
don't have a MUD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## INTERACTING
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Putting the emphasis on interaction rather than action can also go a
|
|
|
|
long way. Restricting the freedom of players to choose different courses
|
|
|
|
of action is the mechanism for implementing it, so they can only follow
|
|
|
|
a narrow or predetermined development path. Essentially, it's
|
|
|
|
MUD-as-theatre: you sit there being entertained, but not actually
|
|
|
|
participating much. You may feel like you're in a world, but it's one in
|
|
|
|
which you're paralysed. If the bias is only slight, it can make a MUD
|
|
|
|
more "nannyish", which newcomers seem to enjoy, but pushing it all the
|
|
|
|
way turns it into a radio set. Knowledge may be intrinsically
|
|
|
|
interesting (ie. trivia), but it's meaningless unless it can be applied.
|
|
|
|
If players can't play, it's not a MUD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## ACTING
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the graph is redrawn to favour doing-to over doing-with, the game
|
|
|
|
quickly becomes boring. Tasks are executed repeatedly, by rote. There's
|
|
|
|
always monotony, never anything new, or, if these is something new, it's
|
|
|
|
of the "man versus random number generator" variety. People do need to
|
|
|
|
be able to put into practice what they've learned, but they also need to
|
|
|
|
be able to learn it in the first place\! Unless the one leads to the
|
|
|
|
other, it's only a matter of time before patience is exhausted and the
|
|
|
|
players give up. Without depth, you have no MUD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the above list of ways to tilt the interest graph, a set of
|
|
|
|
strategems can be composed to help MUD administrators shift the focus of
|
|
|
|
their games in whatever particular direction they choose. Some of these
|
|
|
|
strategems are simply a question of management: if you don't tell people
|
|
|
|
what communication commands there are, for example, people will be less
|
|
|
|
likely to use them all. Although such approaches are good for small
|
|
|
|
shifts in the way a MUD is played, the more powerful and absolute method
|
|
|
|
is to consider programming changes (programming being the "nature" of a
|
|
|
|
MUD, and administration being the "nurture").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here, then, are the programming changes which administrators might wish
|
|
|
|
to consider in order to shape their MUD:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ways to emphasise PLAYERS over WORLD:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- add more communication facilities
|
|
|
|
- add more player-on-player commands (eg. transitive ones like TICKLE
|
|
|
|
or CONGRATULATE, or commands to form and maintain closed groups of
|
|
|
|
personae)
|
|
|
|
- make communication facilities easy and intuitive
|
|
|
|
- decrease the size of the world
|
|
|
|
- increase the connectivity between rooms
|
|
|
|
- maximise the number of simultaneous players
|
|
|
|
- restrict building privileges to a select few
|
|
|
|
- cut down on the number of mobiles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ways to emphasise WORLD over PLAYERS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- have only basic communication facilities
|
|
|
|
- have few ways that players can do things to other players
|
|
|
|
- make building facilities easy and intuitive
|
|
|
|
- maximise the size of the world (ie. add breadth)
|
|
|
|
- use only "rational" room connections in most cases
|
|
|
|
- grant building privileges to many
|
|
|
|
- have lots of mobiles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ways to emphasise INTERACTING over ACTING:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- make help facilities produce vague information
|
|
|
|
- produce cryptic hints when players appear stuck
|
|
|
|
- maximise the effects of commands (ie. add depth)
|
|
|
|
- lower the rewards for achievement
|
|
|
|
- have only a shallow level/class system
|
|
|
|
- produce amusing responses for amusing commands
|
|
|
|
- edit all room descriptions for consistent atmosphere
|
|
|
|
- limit the number of commands available in any one area
|
|
|
|
- have lots of small puzzles that can be solved easily
|
|
|
|
- allow builders to add completely new commands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ways to emphasise ACTING over INTERACTING:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- provide a game manual
|
|
|
|
- include auto-map facilities
|
|
|
|
- include auto-log facilities
|
|
|
|
- raise the rewards for achievement
|
|
|
|
- have an extensive level/class system
|
|
|
|
- make commands be applicable wherever they might reasonably have
|
|
|
|
meaning
|
|
|
|
- have large puzzles, that take over an hour to complete
|
|
|
|
- have many commands relating to fights
|
|
|
|
- only allow building by top-quality builders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These strategies can be combined to encourage or discourage different
|
|
|
|
styles of play. To appeal to achievers, for example, one approach might
|
|
|
|
be to introduce an extensive level/class system (so as to provide plenty
|
|
|
|
of opportunity to reward investment of time) and to maximise the size of
|
|
|
|
the world (so there is more for them to achieve). Note that the "feel"
|
|
|
|
of a MUD is derived from the position on the interest graph of the MUD's
|
|
|
|
players, from which a "centre of gravity" can be approximated. It is
|
|
|
|
therefore sometimes possible to make two changes simultaneously which
|
|
|
|
have "opposite" effects, altering how some individuals experience the
|
|
|
|
MUD but not changing how the MUD feels overall. For example, adding
|
|
|
|
large puzzles (to emphasise ACTING) and adding small puzzles (to
|
|
|
|
emphasise INTERACTING) would encourage both pro-ACTING and
|
|
|
|
pro-INTERACTING players, thereby keeping the MUD's centre of gravity in
|
|
|
|
the same place while tending to increase total player numbers. In
|
|
|
|
general, though, these strategems should not be used as a means to
|
|
|
|
attract new players; strategems should only be selected from one set per
|
|
|
|
axis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The effects of the presence (or lack of it) of other types of player are
|
|
|
|
also very important, and can be used as a different way to control
|
|
|
|
relative population sizes. The easiest (but, sadly, most tedious) way to
|
|
|
|
discuss the interactions which pertain between the various player types
|
|
|
|
is to enumerate the possible combinations and consider them
|
|
|
|
independently; this is the approach adopted by this paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, however, it is pertinent to discuss the ways that players
|
|
|
|
generally categorise MUDs today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# THE SOCIAL VERSUS GAMELIKE DEBATE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following the introduction of TinyMUD ([Aspnes, 1989](#Aspnes,%201989)),
|
|
|
|
in which combat wasn't even implemented, players now tend to categorise
|
|
|
|
individual MUDs as either "social" or "gamelike" ([Carton,
|
|
|
|
1995](#Carton,%201995)). In terms of the preceding discussion, "social"
|
|
|
|
means that the games are heavily weighted to the area below the x-axis,
|
|
|
|
but whether "gamelike" means the games are weighted heavily above the
|
|
|
|
x-axis, or merely balanced on it, is a moot point. Players of social
|
|
|
|
MUDs might suggest that "gamelike" means a definite bias on and above
|
|
|
|
the x-axis, because from their perspective any explicit element of
|
|
|
|
competitiveness is "too much". Some (but not most) players of gamelike
|
|
|
|
MUDs could disagree, pointing out that their MUDs enjoy rich social
|
|
|
|
interactions between the players despite the fact that combat is
|
|
|
|
allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So strongly is this distinction felt, particularly among social MUDders,
|
|
|
|
that many of their newer participants don't regard themselves as playing
|
|
|
|
"MUDs" at all, insisting that this term refers only to combat-oriented
|
|
|
|
games, with which they don't wish to be associated. The rule-of-thumb
|
|
|
|
applied is server type, so, for example, LPMUD =\> gamelike, MOO =\>
|
|
|
|
social; this is despite the fact that each of these systems is of
|
|
|
|
sufficient power and flexibility that it could probably be used to
|
|
|
|
implement an interpreter for the other one\!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequently, there are general Internet-related books with chapter
|
|
|
|
titles like "Interactive Multiuser Realities: MUDs, MOOs, MUCKs and
|
|
|
|
MUSHes" ([Poirier, 1994](#Poirier,%201994)) and "MUDs, MUSHes, and Other
|
|
|
|
Role-Playing Games" ([Eddy, 1994](#Eddy,%201994)). This fertile ground
|
|
|
|
is where the term "MU\*" ([Norrish, 1995](#Norrish,%201995)) originates
|
|
|
|
- as an attempt to fill the void left by assigning the word "MUD" to
|
|
|
|
gamelike (or "player-killing") MUDs; its deliberate use can therefore
|
|
|
|
reasonably be described as a political act ([Bruckman,
|
|
|
|
1992](#Bruckman,%201992)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This attitude misses the point, however. Although social MUDs may be a
|
|
|
|
major branch on the MUD family tree, they are, nevertheless, still on
|
|
|
|
it, and are therefore still MUDs. If another overarching term is used,
|
|
|
|
then it will only be a matter of time before someone writes a
|
|
|
|
combat-oriented surver called "KillerMU\*" or whatever, and cause the
|
|
|
|
wound to reopen. Denial of history is not, in general, a wise thing to
|
|
|
|
do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides, social MUDs do have their killers (ie. people who fall into
|
|
|
|
that area of the interest graph). Simply because explicit combat is
|
|
|
|
prohibited, there is nevertheless plenty of opportunity to cause
|
|
|
|
distress in other ways. To list a few: virtual rape ([Dibbell,
|
|
|
|
1993](#Dibbell,%201993); [Reid, 1994](#Reid,%201994)); general sexual
|
|
|
|
harrassment ([Rosenberg, 1992](#Rosenberg,%201992)); deliberate
|
|
|
|
fracturing of the community ([Whitlock, 1994](#Whitlock,%201994)a);
|
|
|
|
vexatious litigancy ([Whitlock, 1994](#Whitlock,%201994)b). Indeed,
|
|
|
|
proper management of a MUD insists that contingency plans and procedures
|
|
|
|
are already in place such that antisocial behaviour can be dealt with
|
|
|
|
promptly when it occurs ([Bruckman, 1994b](#Bruckman,%201994b)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social MUDs do have their achievers, too: people who regard building as
|
|
|
|
a competitive act, and can vie to have the "best" rooms in the MUD
|
|
|
|
([Clodius, 1994](#Clodius,%201994)), or who seek to acquire a large
|
|
|
|
quota for creating ever-more objects (Farmer, Morningstar & Crockford,
|
|
|
|
1994). The fact that a MUD might not itself reward such behaviour
|
|
|
|
should, of course, naturally foster a community of players who are
|
|
|
|
primarily interested in talking and listening, but there nevertheless
|
|
|
|
will still be killers and achievers around - in the same way that there
|
|
|
|
will be socialisers and explorers in even the most bloodthirsty of MUDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Researchers have tended to use a more precise distinction than the
|
|
|
|
players, in terms of a MUD's similarity to (single-user) adventure
|
|
|
|
games. Amy Bruckman's observation that:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
"there are two basic types [of MUD]: those which are like
|
|
|
|
adventure games, and those which are not"
|
|
|
|
(Bruckman, 1992)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the most succinct and unarguable expression of this dichotomy.
|
|
|
|
However, in his influential paper on MUDs, Pavel Curtis states:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
"Three major factors distinguish a MUD from an Adventure-
|
|
|
|
style computer game, though:
|
|
|
|
o A MUD is not goal-oriented; it has no beginning or
|
|
|
|
end, no 'score', and no notion of 'winning' or 'success'.
|
|
|
|
In short, even though users of MUDs are commonly called
|
|
|
|
players, a MUD isn't really a game at all.
|
|
|
|
o A MUD is extensible from within; a user can add new objects
|
|
|
|
to the database such as rooms, exits, 'things', and notes.
|
|
|
|
[...]
|
|
|
|
o A MUD generally has more than one user connected at a time.
|
|
|
|
All of the connected users are browsing and manipulating
|
|
|
|
the same database and can encounter the new objects created
|
|
|
|
by others. The multiple users on a MUD can communicate with
|
|
|
|
each other in real time."
|
|
|
|
(Curtis, 1992)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This definition explicitly rules out MUDs as adventure games - indeed,
|
|
|
|
it claims that they are not games at all. This is perhaps too tight a
|
|
|
|
definition, since the very first MUD was most definitely programmed to
|
|
|
|
be a game (I know, because I programmed it to be one\!). The second
|
|
|
|
point, which states that MUDs must involve building, is also untrue of
|
|
|
|
many MUDs; in particular, commercial MUDs often aim for a high level of
|
|
|
|
narrative consistency (which isn't conducive to letting players add
|
|
|
|
things unchecked), and, if they have a graphical front-end, it is also
|
|
|
|
inconvenient if new objects appear that generate no images. However, the
|
|
|
|
fact that Curtis comes down on the side of "social" MUDs to bear the
|
|
|
|
name "MUD" at least recognises that these programs are MUDs, which is
|
|
|
|
more than many "MU\*" advocates are prepared to admit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This issue of "social or gamelike" will be returned to presently, with
|
|
|
|
an explanation of exactly why players of certain MUDs which are dubbed
|
|
|
|
"gamelike" might find a binary distinction counter-intuitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# PLAYER INTERACTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What follows is a brief explanation of how players predominantly of one
|
|
|
|
type view those other players whom they perceive to be predominantly of
|
|
|
|
one type. Warning: these notes concern stereotypical players, and are
|
|
|
|
not to be assumed to be true of any individual player who might
|
|
|
|
otherwise exhibit the common traits of one or more of the player
|
|
|
|
classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The effects of increasing and decreasing the various populations is also
|
|
|
|
discussed, but this does not take into account physical limitations on
|
|
|
|
the amount of players involved. Thus, for example, if the number of
|
|
|
|
socialisers is stated to have "no effect" on the number of achievers,
|
|
|
|
that disregards the fact that there may be an absolute maximum number of
|
|
|
|
players that the MUD can comfortably hold, and the socialisers may be
|
|
|
|
taking up slots which achievers could otherwise have filled. Also, the
|
|
|
|
knock-on effects of other interactions are not discussed at this stage:
|
|
|
|
a game with fewer socialisers means the killers will seek out more
|
|
|
|
achievers, for example, so there is a secondary effect of having fewer
|
|
|
|
achievers even though there is no primary effect. This propogation of
|
|
|
|
influences is, however, examined in detail afterwards, when the
|
|
|
|
first-level dynamics have been laid bare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## ACHIEVERS V. ACHIEVERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achievers regard other achievers as competition to be beaten (although
|
|
|
|
this is typically friendly in nature, rather than cut-throat). Respect
|
|
|
|
is given to those other achievers who obviously are extraordinarily
|
|
|
|
good, but typically achievers will cite bad luck or lack of time as
|
|
|
|
reasons for not being as far advanced in the game as their
|
|
|
|
contemporaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That said, achievers do often co-operate with one another, usually to
|
|
|
|
perform some difficult collective goal, and from these shared
|
|
|
|
experiences can grow deep, enduring friendships which may surpass in
|
|
|
|
intensity those commonly found among individuals other groups. This is
|
|
|
|
perhaps analagous to the difference between the bond that soldiers under
|
|
|
|
fire share and the bond that friends in a bar share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achievers do not need the presence of any other type of player in order
|
|
|
|
to be encouraged to join a MUD: they would be quite happy if the game
|
|
|
|
were empty but for them, assuming it remained a challenge (although some
|
|
|
|
do feel a need to describe their exploits to anyone who will listen).
|
|
|
|
Because of this, a MUD can't have too many achievers, physical
|
|
|
|
limitations excepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## ACHIEVERS V. EXPLORERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achievers tend to regard explorers as losers: people who have had to
|
|
|
|
resort to tinkering with the game mechanics because they can't cut it as
|
|
|
|
a player. Exceptionally good explorers may be elevated to the level of
|
|
|
|
eccentric, in much the same way that certain individuals come to be
|
|
|
|
regarded as gurus by users of large computer installations: what they do
|
|
|
|
is pointless, but they're useful to have around when you need to know
|
|
|
|
something obscure, fast. They can be irritating, and they rarely tell
|
|
|
|
the whole truth (perhaps because they don't know it?), but they do have
|
|
|
|
a place in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The overall number of explorers has only a marginal effect on the
|
|
|
|
population of achievers. In essence, more explorers will mean that fewer
|
|
|
|
of the really powerful objects will be around around for the achievers
|
|
|
|
to use, the explorers having used their arcane skills to obtain them
|
|
|
|
first so as to use them in their diabolical experiments... This can
|
|
|
|
cause achievers to become frustrated, and leave. More importantly,
|
|
|
|
perhaps, the number of explorers affects the rate of advancement of
|
|
|
|
achievers, because it determines whether or not they have to work out
|
|
|
|
all those tiresome puzzles themselves. Thus, more explorers will lead to
|
|
|
|
a quicker rise through the ranks for achievers, which will tend to
|
|
|
|
encourage them (if not overdone).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## ACHIEVERS V. SOCIALISERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achievers merely tolerate socialisers. Although they are good sources of
|
|
|
|
general hearsay on the comings and goings of competitors, they're
|
|
|
|
nevertheless pretty much a waste of space as far as achievers are
|
|
|
|
concerned. Typically, achievers will regard socialisers with a mixture
|
|
|
|
of contempt, disdain, irritation and pity, and will speak to them in
|
|
|
|
either a sharp or patronising manner. Occasionally, flame wars between
|
|
|
|
different cliques of socialisers and achievers may break out, and these
|
|
|
|
can be among the worst to stop: the achievers don't want to lose the
|
|
|
|
argument, and the socialisers don't want to stop talking\!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changing the number of socialisers in a MUD has no effect on the number
|
|
|
|
of achievers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## ACHIEVERS V. KILLERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achievers don't particularly like killers. They realise that killers as
|
|
|
|
a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and
|
|
|
|
worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win"
|
|
|
|
just by plodding slowly unchallenged), however they don't pesonally like
|
|
|
|
being attacked unless it's obvious from the outset that they'll win.
|
|
|
|
They also object to being interrupted in the middle of some grand scheme
|
|
|
|
to accumulate points, and they don't like having to arm themselves
|
|
|
|
against surprise attacks every time they start to play. Achievers will,
|
|
|
|
occasionally, resort to killing tactics themselves, in order to cause
|
|
|
|
trouble for a rival or to reap whatever rewards the game itself offers
|
|
|
|
for success, however the risks are usually too high for them to pursue
|
|
|
|
such options very often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing the number of killers will reduce the number of achievers;
|
|
|
|
reducing the killer population will increase the achiever population.
|
|
|
|
Note, however, that those general MUDs which nevertheless allow
|
|
|
|
player-killing tend to do so in the belief that in small measure it is
|
|
|
|
good for the game: it promotes cameraderie, excitement and intensity of
|
|
|
|
experience (and it's the only method that players will accept to ensure
|
|
|
|
that complete idiots don't plod inexorably through the ranks to acquire
|
|
|
|
a degree of power which they aren't really qualified to wield). As a
|
|
|
|
consequence, reducing the number of killers too much will be perceived
|
|
|
|
as cheapening the game, making high achievement commonplace, and it will
|
|
|
|
put off those achievers who are alarmed at the way any fool can "do
|
|
|
|
well" just by playing poorly for long enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## EXPLORERS V. ACHIEVERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explorers look on achievers as nascent explorers, who haven't yet
|
|
|
|
figured out that there's more to life than pursuing meaningless goals.
|
|
|
|
They are therefore willing to furnish them with information, although,
|
|
|
|
like all experts, they will rarely tell the full story when they can
|
|
|
|
legitimately give cryptic clues instead. Apart from the fact that they
|
|
|
|
sometimes get in the way, and won't usually hand over objects that are
|
|
|
|
needed for experiments, achievers can live alongside explorers without
|
|
|
|
much friction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explorers' numbers aren't affected by the presence of achievers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## EXPLORERS V. EXPLORERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explorers hold good explorers in great respect, but are merciless to bad
|
|
|
|
ones. One of the worst things a fellow explorer can do is to give out
|
|
|
|
incorrect information, believing it to be true. Other than that,
|
|
|
|
explorers thrive on telling one another their latest discoveries, and
|
|
|
|
generally get along very well. Outwardly, they will usually claim to
|
|
|
|
have the skill necessary to follow the achievement path to glory, but
|
|
|
|
have other reasons for not doing so (eg. time, tedium, or having proven
|
|
|
|
themselves already with a different persona). There are often
|
|
|
|
suspicions, though, that explorers are too theoretical in most cases,
|
|
|
|
and wouldn't be able to put their ideas into practice on a day-to-day
|
|
|
|
basis if they were to recast themselves in the achiever or killer mould.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explorers enjoy the company of other explorers, and they will play more
|
|
|
|
often if they have people around them to whom they can relate.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, not many people have the type of personality which finds
|
|
|
|
single-minded exploring a riveting subject, so numbers are notoriously
|
|
|
|
difficult to increase. If you have explorers in a game, hold on to
|
|
|
|
them\!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## EXPLORERS V. SOCIALISERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explorers consider socialisers to be people whom they can impress, but
|
|
|
|
who are otherwise pretty well unimportant. Unless they can appreciate
|
|
|
|
the explorer's talents, they're not really worth spending time with.
|
|
|
|
There are some explorers who treat conversation as their specialist
|
|
|
|
explorer subject, but these are very rare indeed; most will be polite
|
|
|
|
and attentive, but they'll find some diversion if the conversation isn't
|
|
|
|
MUD-related or if their fellow interlocutor is clearly way below them in
|
|
|
|
the game-understanding stakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The explorer population is not directly affected by the size of the
|
|
|
|
socialiser population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## EXPLORERS V. KILLERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explorers often have a grudging respect for killers, but they do find
|
|
|
|
their behaviour wearisome. It's just so annoying to be close to
|
|
|
|
finishing setting up something when a killer comes along and attacks
|
|
|
|
you. On the other hand, many killers do know their trade well, and are
|
|
|
|
quite prepared to discuss the finer details of it with explorers.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes, an explorer may try attacking other players as an exercise,
|
|
|
|
and they can be extremely effective at it. Explorers who are
|
|
|
|
particularly riled by a killer may even decide to "do something about
|
|
|
|
it" themselves. If they make such a decision, then it can be seriously
|
|
|
|
bad news for the killer concerned: being jumped and trashed by a
|
|
|
|
low-level (in terms of game rank) explorer can have a devastating effect
|
|
|
|
on a killer's reputation, and turn them into a laughing stock overnight.
|
|
|
|
Explorers do not, however, tend to have the venom or malice that true
|
|
|
|
killers possess, nor will they continue the practice to the extent that
|
|
|
|
they acquire a reputation of their own for killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The affect of killers on the explorer population is fairly muted,
|
|
|
|
because most explorers don't particularly care if they get killed (or at
|
|
|
|
least they profess not not). However, if it happens too often then they
|
|
|
|
will become disgruntled, and play less frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## SOCIALISERS V. ACHIEVERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialisers like achievers, because they provide the running soap opera
|
|
|
|
about which the socialisers can converse. Without such a framework,
|
|
|
|
there is no uniting cause to bring socialisers together (at least not
|
|
|
|
initially). Note that socialisers don't particularly enjoy talking to
|
|
|
|
achievers (not unless they can get them to open up, which is very
|
|
|
|
difficult); they do, however, enjoy talking about them. A cynic might
|
|
|
|
suggest that the relationship between socialisers and achievers is
|
|
|
|
similar to that between women and men...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing the achiever/socialiser ratio has only a subtle effect:
|
|
|
|
socialisers may come to feel that the MUD is "all about" scoring points
|
|
|
|
and killing mobiles, and some of them may therefore leave before matters
|
|
|
|
"get worse". Decreasing it has little effect unless the number of active
|
|
|
|
achievers drops to near zero, in which case new socialisers might find
|
|
|
|
it difficult to break into established conversational groups, and thus
|
|
|
|
decide to take their play elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: although earlier it was stated that this paper does not address
|
|
|
|
people who play MUDs for meta-reasons, eg. to learn how to program, I
|
|
|
|
believe that their empirical behaviour with regard to the actions of
|
|
|
|
other players is sufficiently similar to that of socialisers for the two
|
|
|
|
groups to be safely bundled together when considering population
|
|
|
|
dynamics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## SOCIALISERS V. EXPLORERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialisers generally consider explorers to be sad characters who are
|
|
|
|
desperately in need of a life. Both groups like to talk, but rarely
|
|
|
|
about the same things, and if they do get together it's usually because
|
|
|
|
the explorer wants to sound erudite and the socialiser has nothing
|
|
|
|
better to do at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The number of explorers in a MUD has no effect on the number of
|
|
|
|
socialisers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## SOCIALISERS V. SOCIALISERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A case of positive feedback: socialisers can talk to one another on any
|
|
|
|
subject for hours on end, and come back later for more. The key factor
|
|
|
|
is whether there is an open topic of conversation: in a game-like
|
|
|
|
environment, the MUD itself provides the context for discussion, whether
|
|
|
|
it be the goings-on of other players or the feeble attempts of a
|
|
|
|
socialiser to try playing it; in a non-game environment, some other
|
|
|
|
subject is usually required to structure conversations, either within
|
|
|
|
the software of the MUD itself (eg. building) or without it (eg. "This
|
|
|
|
is a support MUD for the victims of cancer"). Note that this kind of
|
|
|
|
subject-setting is only required as a form of ice-breaker: once
|
|
|
|
socialisers have acquired friends, they'll invariably find other things
|
|
|
|
that they can talk about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more socialisers there are in a game, the more new ones will be
|
|
|
|
attracted to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## SOCIALISERS V. KILLERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is perhaps the most fractious relationship between player group
|
|
|
|
types. The hatred that some socialisers bear for killers admits no
|
|
|
|
bounds. Partly, this is the killers' own fault: they go out of their way
|
|
|
|
to rid MUDs of namby-pamby socialisers who wouldn't know a weapon if one
|
|
|
|
came up and hit them (an activity that killers are only too happy to
|
|
|
|
demonstrate), and they will generally hassle socialisers at every
|
|
|
|
opportunity simply because it's so easy to get them annoyed. However,
|
|
|
|
the main reason that socialisers tend to despise killers is that they
|
|
|
|
have completely antisocial motives, whereas socialisers have (or like to
|
|
|
|
think they have) a much more friendly and helpful attitude to life. The
|
|
|
|
fact that many socialisers take attacks on their personae personally
|
|
|
|
only compounds their distaste for killers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It could be argued that killers do have a positive role to play from the
|
|
|
|
point of view of socialisers. There are generally two defences made for
|
|
|
|
their existence: 1) without killers, socialisers would have little to
|
|
|
|
talk about; 2) without evil as a contrast, there is no good. The former
|
|
|
|
is patently untrue, as socialisers will happily talk about anything and
|
|
|
|
everything; it may be that it helps provide a catalyst for long
|
|
|
|
conversations, but only if it isn't an everyday occurrence. The second
|
|
|
|
argument is more difficult to defend against (being roughly equivalent
|
|
|
|
to the reason why God allows the devil to exist), however it presupposes
|
|
|
|
that those who attack other players are the only example of nasty people
|
|
|
|
in a MUD. In fact, there is plenty of opportunity for players of all
|
|
|
|
persuasions to behave obnoxiously to one another; killers merely do it
|
|
|
|
more openly, and (if allowed) in the context of the game world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of socialisers
|
|
|
|
by a much greater degree. Decreasing the number of killers will likewise
|
|
|
|
greatly encourage (or, rather, fail to discourage) socialisers to play
|
|
|
|
the MUD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## KILLERS V. ACHIEVERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killers regard achievers as their natural prey. Achievers are good
|
|
|
|
fighters (because they've learned the necessary skills against mobiles),
|
|
|
|
but they're not quite as good as killers, who are more specialised. This
|
|
|
|
gives the "thrill of the chase" which many killers enjoy - an achiever
|
|
|
|
may actually be able to escape, but will usually succumb at some stage,
|
|
|
|
assuming they don't see sense and quit first. Achievers also dislike
|
|
|
|
being attacked, which makes the experience of attacking them all the
|
|
|
|
more fun; furthermore, it is unlikely that they will stop playing after
|
|
|
|
being set back by a killer, and thus they can be "fed upon" again,
|
|
|
|
later. The main disadvantage of pursuing achievers, however, is that an
|
|
|
|
achiever can get so incensed at being attacked that they decide to take
|
|
|
|
revenge. A killer may thus innocently enter a game only to find a
|
|
|
|
heavily-armed achiever lying in wait, which rather puts the boot on the
|
|
|
|
other foot...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that there is a certain sub-class of killers, generally run by
|
|
|
|
wiz-level players, who have a more ethical point to their actions. In
|
|
|
|
particular, their aim is to "test" players for their "suitability" to
|
|
|
|
advance to the higher levels themselves. In general, such personae
|
|
|
|
should not be regarded as falling into the killer category, although in
|
|
|
|
some instances the ethical aspect is merely an excuse to indulge in
|
|
|
|
killing sprees without fear of sanction. Rather, these killers tend to
|
|
|
|
be run by people in either the achievement category (protecting their
|
|
|
|
own investment) or the explorer category (trying to teach their victims
|
|
|
|
how to defend themselves against real killers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing the number of achievers will, over time, increase the number
|
|
|
|
of killers in a typically Malthusian fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## KILLERS V. EXPLORERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killers tend to leave explorers alone. Not only can explorers be
|
|
|
|
formidable fighters (with many obscure, unexpected tactics at their
|
|
|
|
disposal), but they often don't fret about being attacked - a fact which
|
|
|
|
is very frustrating for killers. Sometimes, particularly annoying
|
|
|
|
explorers will simply ignore a killer's attack, and make no attempt
|
|
|
|
whatsoever to defend against it; this is the ultimate in cruelty to
|
|
|
|
killers. For more long-term effects, though, a killer's being beaten by
|
|
|
|
an explorer has more impact on the game: the killer will feel shame,
|
|
|
|
their reputation will suffer, and the explorer will pass on survival
|
|
|
|
tactics to everyone else. In general, then, killers will steer well
|
|
|
|
clear of even half-decent explorers, except when they have emptied a
|
|
|
|
game of everyone else and are so desperate for a fix that even an
|
|
|
|
explorer looks tempting...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing the number of explorers will slightly decrease the number of
|
|
|
|
killers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## KILLERS V. SOCIALISERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killers regard socialisers with undisguised glee. It's not that
|
|
|
|
socialisers are in any way a challenge, as usually they will be
|
|
|
|
pushovers in combat; rather, socialisers feel a dreadful hurt when
|
|
|
|
attacked (especially if it results in the loss of their persona), and it
|
|
|
|
is this which killers enjoy about it. Besides, killers tend to like to
|
|
|
|
have a bad reputation, and if there's one way to get people to talk
|
|
|
|
about you, it's to attack a prominent socialiser...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing the number of socialisers will increase the number of
|
|
|
|
killers, although of course the number of socialisers wouldn't remain
|
|
|
|
increased for very long if that happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## KILLERS V. KILLERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers, except in
|
|
|
|
pre-organised challenge matches. Part of the psychology of killers seems
|
|
|
|
to be that they wish to be viewed as somehow superior to other players;
|
|
|
|
being killed by a killer in open play would undermine their reputation,
|
|
|
|
and therefore they avoid risking it (compare Killers v Explorers). This
|
|
|
|
means that nascent or wannabe killers are often put off their chosen
|
|
|
|
particular career path because they themselves are attacked by more
|
|
|
|
experienced killers and soundly thrashed. For this reason, it can take a
|
|
|
|
very long time to increase the killer population in a MUD, even if all
|
|
|
|
the conditions are right for them to thrive; killer numbers rise
|
|
|
|
grindingly slowly, unless competent killers are imported from another
|
|
|
|
MUD to swell the numbers artificially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killers will occasionally work in teams, but only as a short-term
|
|
|
|
exercise; they will usually revert to stalking their victims solo in the
|
|
|
|
next session they play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two cases where killers might be attacked by players who,
|
|
|
|
superficially, look like other killers. One of these is the "killer
|
|
|
|
killer", usually run by wiz-level players, which has been discussed
|
|
|
|
earlier. The other is in the true hack-and-slash type of MUD, where the
|
|
|
|
whole aim of the game is to kill other personae, and no-one particularly
|
|
|
|
minds being killed because they weren't expecting to last very long
|
|
|
|
anyway. This type of play does not appeal to "real" killers, because it
|
|
|
|
doesn't cause people emotional distress when their personae are deleted
|
|
|
|
(indeed, socialisers prefer it more than killers do). However, it's
|
|
|
|
better than nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only effect that killers have on other killers is in reducing the
|
|
|
|
number of potential victims available. This, in theory, should keep the
|
|
|
|
number of killers down, however in practice killers will simply attack
|
|
|
|
less attractive victims instead. It takes a very drastic reduction in
|
|
|
|
the number of players before established killers will decide to stop
|
|
|
|
playing a MUD and move elsewhere, by which time it is usually too late
|
|
|
|
to save the MUD concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# DYNAMICS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the discussion in the previous section, it is possible to summarise
|
|
|
|
the interactions between player types as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To increase the number of achievers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- reduce the number of killers, but not by too much.
|
|
|
|
- if killer numbers are high, increase the number of
|
|
|
|
explorers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To decrease the number of achievers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- increase the number of killers.
|
|
|
|
- if killer numbers are low, reduce the number of
|
|
|
|
explorers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To increase the number of explorers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- increase the number of explorers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To decrease the number of explorers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- massively increase the number of killers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To increase the number of socialisers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- slightly decrease the number of killers.
|
|
|
|
- increase the number of socialisers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To decrease the number of socialisers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- slightly increase the number of killers.
|
|
|
|
- massively increase the number of achievers.
|
|
|
|
- massively decrease the number of achievers.
|
|
|
|
- decrease the number of socialisers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To increase the number of killers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- increase the number of achievers.
|
|
|
|
- massively decrease the number of explorers.
|
|
|
|
- increase the number of socialisers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To decrease the number of killers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- decrease the number of achievers.
|
|
|
|
- massively increase the number of explorers.
|
|
|
|
- decrease the number of socialisers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are the dynamics of this model? In other words, if players of each
|
|
|
|
type were to trickle into a system, how would it affect the overall
|
|
|
|
make-up of the player population?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following diagram illustrates the flow of influence. Each arrow
|
|
|
|
shows a relationship, from the blunt end to the pointed end. Ends are
|
|
|
|
marked with a plus or minus to show an increase or decrease
|
|
|
|
respectively; the symbols are doubled up to indicate a massive increase
|
|
|
|
or decrease. Example: the line
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
killers + ------------\> - achievers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
means that increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of
|
|
|
|
achievers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
+ <------------ +
|
|
|
|
- <------------ -
|
|
|
|
killers + ------------> - achievers
|
|
|
|
- + + - - ------------> +
|
|
|
|
^ ^ | | - + ++ ++ --
|
|
|
|
| | | | ^ ^ \ / /
|
|
|
|
| | | | | \ \ / /
|
|
|
|
| | | | \ \ X /
|
|
|
|
| | | | \ \/ X
|
|
|
|
| | | | \ / \/ \
|
|
|
|
| | | | / \ / \ \
|
|
|
|
| | | | / / \ \ \
|
|
|
|
| | | | / / \ \ \
|
|
|
|
| | | | | / \ \ |
|
|
|
|
| | v v v v \ | v
|
|
|
|
- + --++ - - ++ -- -
|
|
|
|
socialisers explorers
|
|
|
|
+ - - + + +
|
|
|
|
^ ^ | | ^ |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
|
|
|
|
\ \___/ / \___/
|
|
|
|
\___/
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A graphical version of the figure appears at the end of the paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From this, it can be seen that the numbers of killers and achievers is
|
|
|
|
basically an equilibrium: increasing the number of achievers will
|
|
|
|
increase the number of killers, which will in turn dampen down the
|
|
|
|
increase in the number of achievers and thereby reduce the number of
|
|
|
|
excess killers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The explorer population is almost inert: only huge numbers of killers
|
|
|
|
will reduce it. It should be noted, however, that massively increasing
|
|
|
|
the number of explorers is the only way to reduce the number of killers
|
|
|
|
without also reducing the player numbers in other groups. Because
|
|
|
|
increasing the number of explorers in a MUD generally encourages others
|
|
|
|
to join (and non-explorers to experiment with exploration), this gives a
|
|
|
|
positive feedback which will eventually reduce the killer population
|
|
|
|
(although recall the earlier point concerning how few people are, by
|
|
|
|
nature, explorers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most volatile group of people is that of the socialisers. Not only
|
|
|
|
is it highly sensitive to the number of killers, but it has both
|
|
|
|
positive and negative feedback on itself, which amplifies any changes.
|
|
|
|
An increase in the number of socialisers will lead to yet more
|
|
|
|
socialisers, but it will also increase the number of killers; this, in
|
|
|
|
turn, will reduce the number of socialisers drastically, which will feed
|
|
|
|
back into a yet greater reduction. It is possible for new socialisers to
|
|
|
|
arrive in large enough quantities for a downward spiral in numbers not
|
|
|
|
to be inevitable, but it is unlikely that such a system could remain
|
|
|
|
viable in over a long period of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This analysis of the dynamics of the relationships between players leads
|
|
|
|
naturally to a consideration of what configurations could be considered
|
|
|
|
stable. There are four:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1\) Killers and achievers in equilibrium. If the number of killers gets
|
|
|
|
too high, then the achievers will be driven off, which will cause the
|
|
|
|
number of killers to fall also (through lack of victims). If there
|
|
|
|
aren't enough killers, then achievers feel the MUD isn't a sufficient
|
|
|
|
challenge (there being no way to "lose" in it), and they will gradually
|
|
|
|
leave; new killers could appear, attracted by the glut of potential
|
|
|
|
prey, however this happens so slowly that its impact is less than that
|
|
|
|
of the disaffection among achievers. Socialisers who venture out of
|
|
|
|
whatever safe rooms are available eventually fall prey to killers, and
|
|
|
|
leave the game. Those who stay find that there aren't many interesting
|
|
|
|
(to them) people around with whom to talk, and they too drift off.
|
|
|
|
Explorers potter around, but are not a sufficient presence to affect the
|
|
|
|
number of killers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2\) A MUD dominated by socialisers. Software changes to the MUD are made
|
|
|
|
which prevent (or at least seriously discourage) killers from practising
|
|
|
|
their craft on socialisers; incoming socialisers are encouraged by those
|
|
|
|
already there, and a chain reaction starts. There are still achievers
|
|
|
|
and explorers, but they are swamped by the sheer volume of socialisers.
|
|
|
|
The number of socialisers is limited only by external factors, or the
|
|
|
|
presence of killers masquerading as socialisers. If the population of
|
|
|
|
socialisers drops below a certain critical level, then the chain
|
|
|
|
reaction reverses and almost all the players will leave, however only
|
|
|
|
events outside the MUD would cause that to happen once the critical mass
|
|
|
|
had been reached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3\) A MUD where all groups have a similar influence (although not
|
|
|
|
necessarily similar numbers). By nurturing explorers using software
|
|
|
|
means (ie. giving the game great depth or "mystique", or encouraging
|
|
|
|
non-explorers to dabble for a while by regularly adding new areas and
|
|
|
|
features), the overall population of explorers will gradually rise, and
|
|
|
|
the killer population will be held in check by them. The killers who
|
|
|
|
remain do exert an influence on the number of socialisers, sufficient to
|
|
|
|
stop them from going into fast-breeder mode, but insufficient to
|
|
|
|
initiate an exodus. Achievers are set upon by killers often enough to
|
|
|
|
feel that their achievements in the game have meaning. This is perhaps
|
|
|
|
the most balanced form of MUD, since players can change their position
|
|
|
|
on the interest graph far more freely: achievers can become explorers,
|
|
|
|
explorers can become socialisers, socialisers can become achievers - all
|
|
|
|
without sacrificing stability. However, actually attaining that
|
|
|
|
stability in the first place is very difficult indeed; it requires not
|
|
|
|
only a level of game design beyond what most MUDs can draw on, but time
|
|
|
|
and player management skills that aren't usually available to MUD
|
|
|
|
administrators. Furthermore, the administrators need to recognise that
|
|
|
|
they are aiming for a player mix of this kind in advance, because the
|
|
|
|
chances of its occurring accidentally are slim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4\) A MUD with no players. The killers have killed/frightened off
|
|
|
|
everyone else, and left to find some other MUD in which to ply their
|
|
|
|
trade. Alternatively, a MUD structured expressly for socialisers never
|
|
|
|
managed to acquire a critical mass of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other types could conceivably exist, but they are very rare if they do.
|
|
|
|
The dynamics model is, however, imprecise: it takes no account of
|
|
|
|
outside factors which may influence player types or the relationships
|
|
|
|
between then. It is thus possible that some of the more regimented MUDs
|
|
|
|
(eg. role-playing MUDs, educational MUDs, group therapy MUDs) have an
|
|
|
|
external dynamic (eg. fandom interest in a subject, instructions from a
|
|
|
|
teacher/trainer, tolerance of others as a means to advance the self)
|
|
|
|
which adds to their cohesion, and that this could make an otherwise
|
|
|
|
flaky configuration hold together. So other stable MUD forms may,
|
|
|
|
therefore, still be out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It might be argued that "role-playing" MUDs form a separate category, on
|
|
|
|
a par with "gamelike" and "social" MUDs. However, I personally favour
|
|
|
|
the view that role-playing is merely a strong framework within which the
|
|
|
|
four types of player still operate: some people will role-play to
|
|
|
|
increase their power over the game (achievers); others will do so to
|
|
|
|
explore the wonder of the game world (explorers); others will do so
|
|
|
|
because they enjoy interacting and co-operating within the context that
|
|
|
|
the role-playing environment offers (socialisers); others will do it
|
|
|
|
because it gives them a legitimate excuse to hurt other players
|
|
|
|
(killers). I have not, however, undertaken a study of role-playing MUDs,
|
|
|
|
and it could well be that there is a configuration of player types
|
|
|
|
peculiar to many of them which would be unstable were it not for the
|
|
|
|
order imposed by enforcing role-play. It certainly seems likely that
|
|
|
|
robust role-playing rules could make it easier for a MUD to achieve type
|
|
|
|
3) stability, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this point, we return to the social/gamelike MUD debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ignoring the fourth (null) case from the above, it is now much easier to
|
|
|
|
see why there is a schism. Left to market forces, a MUD will either
|
|
|
|
gravitate towards type 1) ("gamelike") or type 2) ("social"), depending
|
|
|
|
on its administrators' line on player-killing (more precisely: how much
|
|
|
|
being "killed" annoys socialisers). However, the existence of type 3)
|
|
|
|
MUDs, albeit in smaller numbers because of the difficulty of reaching
|
|
|
|
the steady state, does show that it is possible to have both socialisers
|
|
|
|
and achievers co-existing in significant numbers in the same MUD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's very easy to label a MUD as either "hack-and-slash" or
|
|
|
|
"slack-and-hash", depending on whether or not player-killing is allowed.
|
|
|
|
However, using player-killing as the only defining factor in any
|
|
|
|
distinction is an over-generalisation, as it groups together type 1) and
|
|
|
|
type 3) MUDs. These two types of MUD should not be considered as
|
|
|
|
identical forms: the socialising which occurs in a type 3) MUD simply
|
|
|
|
isn't possible in a type 1), and as a result the sense of community in
|
|
|
|
type 3)s is very strong. It is no accident that type 3) MUDs are the
|
|
|
|
ones preferred commercially, because they can hold onto their players
|
|
|
|
for far longer than the other two forms. A type 1) MUD is only viable
|
|
|
|
commercially if there is a sufficiently large well of potential players
|
|
|
|
to draw upon, because of the much greater churn rate these games have.
|
|
|
|
Type 2)s have a similarly high turnover; indeed, when TinyMUD first
|
|
|
|
arrived on the scene it was almost slash-and-burn, with games lasting
|
|
|
|
around six months on university computers before a combination of
|
|
|
|
management breakdown (brought on by player boredom) and resource hogging
|
|
|
|
would force them to close down - with no other MUDs permitted on the
|
|
|
|
site for perhaps years afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This explains why some MUDs perceived by socialisers to be "gamelike"
|
|
|
|
can actually be warm, friendly places, while others are nasty and
|
|
|
|
vicious: the former are type 3), and the latter are type 1). Players who
|
|
|
|
enter the type 3)s, expecting them to be type 1)s, may be pleasantly
|
|
|
|
surprised ([Bruckman, 1993](#Bruckman,%201993)). However, it should be
|
|
|
|
noted that this initial warm behaviour is sometimes the approach used by
|
|
|
|
administrators to ensure a new player's further participation in their
|
|
|
|
particular MUD, and that, once hooked, a player may find that attitudes
|
|
|
|
undergo a subtle change ([Epperson, 1995](#Epperson,%201995)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As mentioned earlier, this paper is not intended to promote any one
|
|
|
|
particular style of MUD. Whether administrators aim for type 1), 2) or
|
|
|
|
3) is up to them - they're all MUDs, and they address different needs.
|
|
|
|
However, the fact that they are all MUDs, and not "MU\*s" (or any other
|
|
|
|
abbreviation-of-the-day), really should be emphasised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To summarise: "gamelike" MUDs are the ones in which the killer-achiever
|
|
|
|
equilibrium has been reached, ie. type 1); "social" MUDs are the ones in
|
|
|
|
which the pure-social stability point has been reached, ie. type 2), and
|
|
|
|
this is the basis upon which they differ. There is a type 3) "all round"
|
|
|
|
(my term) MUD, which exhibits both social and gamelike traits, however
|
|
|
|
such MUDs are scarce because the conditions necessary to reach the
|
|
|
|
stable point are difficult or time-consuming to arrange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# OVERBALANCING A MUD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earlier, the effect of taking each axis on the interest graph to its
|
|
|
|
extremes was used to give an indication of what would happen if a MUD
|
|
|
|
was pushed so far that it lost its MUDness. It was noted, though, that
|
|
|
|
along the axes was not the only way a MUD could be tilted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would happen if, in an effort to appeal to certain types of player,
|
|
|
|
a MUD was overcompensated in their favour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tilting a MUD towards achievers would make it obsessed with gameplay.
|
|
|
|
Players would spend their time looking for tactics to improve their
|
|
|
|
position, and the presence of other players would become unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
The result would be effectively a single-player adventure game (SUD?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tilting towards explorers would add depth and interest, but remove much
|
|
|
|
of the activity. Spectacle would dominate over action, and again there
|
|
|
|
would be no need for other players. The result of this is basically an
|
|
|
|
online book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tilting towards socialisers removes all gameplay, and centres on
|
|
|
|
communication. Eventually, all sense of the virtual world is lost, and a
|
|
|
|
chatline or IRC-style CB program results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tilting towards killers is more difficult, because this type of player
|
|
|
|
is parasitic on the other three types. The emphasis on causing grief has
|
|
|
|
to be sacrificed in favour of the thrill of the chase, and bolstered by
|
|
|
|
the use of quick-thinking and skill to overcome adversity in clever (but
|
|
|
|
violent) ways. In other words, this becomes an arcade ("shoot 'em up")
|
|
|
|
type of game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a question of balance: if something is added to a MUD to tilt the
|
|
|
|
graph one way, other mechanisms will need to be in place to
|
|
|
|
counterbalance it (preferably automatically). Otherwise, what results is
|
|
|
|
a SUD, book, chatline or arcade game. It's the combination that makes
|
|
|
|
MUDs unique - and special. It is legitimate to say that anything which
|
|
|
|
goes too far in any direction is not a MUD; it is not legitimate to say
|
|
|
|
that something which doesn't go far enough in any direction is not a
|
|
|
|
MUD. So long as a system is a (text-based) multi-user virtual world,
|
|
|
|
that's enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# SUMMARY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To answer the questions posed in the preface:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are MUDs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- games? Like chess, tennis, D\&D?
|
|
|
|
Yes - to achievers.
|
|
|
|
- pastimes? Like reading, gardening, cooking?
|
|
|
|
Yes - to explorers.
|
|
|
|
- sports? Like huntin', shooting', fishin'?
|
|
|
|
Yes - to killers.
|
|
|
|
- entertainments? Like nightclubs, TV, concerts?
|
|
|
|
Yes - to socialisers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ENDNOTES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[\[1\]](#ret1) This paper is an April 1996 extension of an earlier
|
|
|
|
article, "Who Plays MUAs" ([Bartle, 1990a](#Bartle,%201990a)). As a
|
|
|
|
result of this, and of the fact that I am not a trained psychologist, do
|
|
|
|
not expect a conventionally rigorous approach to the subject matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Permission to redistribute freely for academic purposes is granted
|
|
|
|
provided that no material changes are made to the text. [\[2\]](#ret2)
|
|
|
|
In the figure below, green indicates increasing numbers and red
|
|
|
|
indicates decreasing numbers. A red line with a green arrowhead means
|
|
|
|
that decreasing numbers of the box pointed from lead to increasing
|
|
|
|
numbers of the box pointed to; a red line with a red arrowhead would
|
|
|
|
mean that a decrease in one leads to a decrease in the other, and so on.
|
|
|
|
The thickness of the line shows the strength of the effect: thin lines
|
|
|
|
mean there's only a small effect; medium lines mean there's an effect
|
|
|
|
involving roughly equal numbers of players from both boxes; thick lines
|
|
|
|
means there's a great effect, magnifying the influence of the origin
|
|
|
|
box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![\[ Graphical Figure \]](hcds.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Aspnes, J.](#rAspnes,%201989) (1989). TinyMUD \[C\]
|
|
|
|
<http://ftp.tcp.com/ftp/pub/mud/TinyMUD/tinymud-pc.1.0.tar.gz>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Bartle, R. A.](#rBartle,%201985) (1985). MUD2 \[MUDDLE\] MUSE Ltd,
|
|
|
|
Colchester, Essex, UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Bartle, R. A.](#rBartle,%201990a) (1990a). Who Plays MUAs? Comms
|
|
|
|
Plus\!, October/November 1990 18-19.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Bartle, R. A.](#rBartle,%201990b) (1990b). Interactive Multi-Player
|
|
|
|
Computer Games. MUSE Ltd, Colchester, Essex, UK
|
|
|
|
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/mudreport.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Bruckman, A. S.](#rBruckman,%201992) (1992). Identity Workshop:
|
|
|
|
Emergent Social and Psychological Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual
|
|
|
|
Reality. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
|
|
|
|
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/identity-workshop.ps>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Bruckman, A. S.](#rBruckman,%201993) (1993). Gender Swapping on the
|
|
|
|
Internet Proc. INET-93
|
|
|
|
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/gender-swapping.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Bruckman, A. S. & Resnick, M.](#rBruckman%20&%20Resnick,%201993)
|
|
|
|
(1993). Virtual Professional Community: Results from the MediaMOO
|
|
|
|
Project. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
|
|
|
|
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/convergence.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Bruckman, A. S.](#rBruckman,%201994a) (1994a). Workshop: "Serious" Uses
|
|
|
|
of MUDs? Proc. DIAC-94
|
|
|
|
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/serious-diac94.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Bruckman, A. S.](#rBruckman,%201994b) (1994b). Approaches to Managing
|
|
|
|
Deviant Behaviour in Virtual Communities. MIT Media Laboratory,
|
|
|
|
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
|
|
|
|
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/deviance-chi94.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Burka, L. P.](#rBurka,%201995) (1995). The MUDline.
|
|
|
|
<http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/lpb/mudline.html>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Carton, S.](#rCarton,%201995) (1995). Internet Virtual Worlds Quick
|
|
|
|
Tour: MUDs, MOOs and MUSHes: Interactive games, Conferences and Forums
|
|
|
|
Ventana Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Caspian-Kaufman, J.](#rCaspian-Kaufman,%201995) (1995). Sid Meier's
|
|
|
|
CivNET: Instruction Manual Microprose, Hunt Valley, Maryland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Cherny, L.](#rCherny,%201995a) (1995a). The Modal Complexity of Speech
|
|
|
|
Events in a Social MUD. Electronic Journal of Communication, Summer
|
|
|
|
1995. <ftp://bhasha.stanford.edu/pub/cherny/ejc.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Cherny, L.](#rCherny,%201995b) (1995b). The Situated Behaviour of MUD
|
|
|
|
Back Channels. Dept. Linguistics, Stanford University, California.
|
|
|
|
<ftp://bhasha.stanford.edu/pub/cherny/aaai.ps>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Clodius, J. A.](#rClodius,%201994) (1994). Concepts of Space in a
|
|
|
|
Virtual Community. <http://tinylondon.ucsd.edu/~jen/space.html>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Curtis, P.](#rCurtis,%201992) (1992). Mudding: Social Phenomena in
|
|
|
|
Text-Based Virtual Realities. Proc. DIAC-92
|
|
|
|
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/DIAC92.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Curtis, P. & Nichols, D. A.](#rCurtis%20&%20Nichols,%201993) (1993).
|
|
|
|
MUDs Grow Up: Social Virtual Reality in the Real World. Xerox PARC, Palo
|
|
|
|
Alto, California.
|
|
|
|
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/MUDsGrowUp.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Dibbell, J.](#rDibbell,%201993) (1993). A Rape in Cyberspace. The
|
|
|
|
Village Voice, December 21, 1993.
|
|
|
|
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/VillageVoice.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Emert, H. G.](#rEmert,%201993) (1993). "X" Marks the Spot. East
|
|
|
|
Stroudsburg University, Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
|
<http://www-f.rrz.uni-koeln.de/themen/cmc/text/emert.n01.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Eddy, A.](#rEddy,%201994) (1994). Internet After Hours Prima, Rocklin,
|
|
|
|
California.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Epperson, H. L.](#rEpperson,%201995) (1995). Patterns of Social
|
|
|
|
Behaviour in Computer-Mediated Communications. Dept. Sociology, Rice
|
|
|
|
University. <http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture/Misc_net_culture/>
|
|
|
|
web\_social\_behaviour.paper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Evard, R.](#rEvard,%201993) (1993). Collaborative Networked
|
|
|
|
Communication: MUDs as System Tools. Proc. LISA-93
|
|
|
|
<http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/remy/documents/cncmast.html>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Fanderclai, T. F.](#rFanderclai,%201995) (1995). MUDs in Education: New
|
|
|
|
Environments, New Pedagogies. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine,
|
|
|
|
2(1), 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Farmer, F. R., Morningstar, C. & Crockford,
|
|
|
|
D.](#rFarmer,%20Morningstar,%20&%20Crockford,%201994) (1994). From
|
|
|
|
Habitat to Global Cyberspace. Proc. CompCon-94, IEEE
|
|
|
|
<http://www.communities.com/paper/hab2cybr.html>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Kort, B.](#rKort,%201991) (1991). The MUSE as an Educational Medium BBN
|
|
|
|
Labs, Cambridge, Massachusetts. <ftp://musenet.bbn.com/pub/micromuse>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Mauldin, M. L.](#rMauldin,%201994) (1994). Chatterbots, TinyMUDs and
|
|
|
|
the Turing Test: Entering the Loebner Prize Competition. Proc. AAAI-94
|
|
|
|
<http://fuzine.mt.cs.cmu.edu/mlm/aaai94.html>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Moock, C.](#rMoock,%201996) (1996). Virtual Campus at the University of
|
|
|
|
Waterloo. <http://arts.uwaterloo.ca:80/~camoock/virtual_classroom.htm>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Norrish, J.](#rNorrish,%201995) (1995). MU\*s.
|
|
|
|
<http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~jamie/mud/mud.html>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Poirier, J. R.](#rPoirier,%201994) (1994). Interactive Multiuser
|
|
|
|
Realities: MUDs, MOOs, MUCKs, and MUSHes. The Internet Unleashed,
|
|
|
|
1192-1127. SAMS Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Reid, E.](#rReid,%201994) (1994). Cultural Formations in Text-Based
|
|
|
|
Virtual Realities. Dept. English, University of Melbourne, Australia.
|
|
|
|
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/CulturalFormations.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Riner, R. D. & Clodius, J. A.](#rRiner%20&%20Clodius,%201995) (1995).
|
|
|
|
Simulating Future Histories: The NAU Solar System Simulation and Mars
|
|
|
|
Settlement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 26(1):95-104.
|
|
|
|
<http://tinylondon.ucsd.edu/~jen/solsys.html>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Rosenberg, M. S.](#rRosenberg,%201992) (1992). Virtual Reality:
|
|
|
|
Reflections of Life, Dreams and Technology. An Ethnography of a Computer
|
|
|
|
Society. <ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/ethnography.txt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Roush, W.](#rRoush,%201993) (1993). The Virtual STS Centre on MediaMOO:
|
|
|
|
Issues and Challenges as Non-Technical Users Enter Social Virtual
|
|
|
|
Spaces. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
|
|
|
|
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/MediaMOO/Papers/STS-Centre>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Urdang, L. & Manser, M.](#rUrdang%20&%20Manser,%201980) (1980). The Pan
|
|
|
|
Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms Pan Reference, London, UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Whitlock, T. D.](#rWhitlock,%201994) (1994). Fuck Art, Let's Kill\!:
|
|
|
|
Towards a Post Modern Community.
|
|
|
|
<gopher://actlab.rtf.utexas.edu/00/art_and_tech/rtf_papers/pmc.terrorism>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Whitlock, T. D.](#rWhitlock,%201994b) (1994b). Technological Hierarchy
|
|
|
|
in MOO: Reflections on Power in Cyberspace
|
|
|
|
<http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~smack/papers/TechHier.txt>
|