Reading: Players who suit MUDs.

For the Week 8 reading (Players who suit MUDs, by Richard Bartle) we we asked to describe how the different styles of player relate to themselves, others and the game world; and how they linked to our own gameplay experiences of online worlds.

Those reading this outside of the institution my take a look at the paper, available here http://tiny.cc/u3nns in an easy to read format.

So, what is a MUD?  It is a Multi-User Domain (or Dungeon, depending on the source).

I'll start by mentioning that I liked this article, as much as others disliked it, the understanding of the initial concept was there; and why wouldn't it be, it was Bartle's.  Though the article is now dated, and can be argued that it has little to no meaning by today's standards, the theory is sound and still shows in modern day online worlds.

Bartle goes on to describe his research of player types and the four things typically enjoyed by players.  They are Achievements within the game context, Exploration of the game world, Socialising with others and Imposition upon players.  In abstract, we get; Achievers, Explorers, Socialisers and Killers.

- Achievers like to set themselves game-related goals, and will set out to achieve them.

- Explorers like to find out as much as they can about the game world and it's mechanics, by means of mapping it's topology and/or experimenting with the world's physics).

- Socialisers like to use the game's communicative facilities, and employ role-playing in context with other players.

- Killers like to use tools within the game world to cause distress/griefing (by means of killing them continually or assaulting them verbally), or in very rare circumstances, help other players.

Players will often drift between all four styles of gameplay, however they will also tend to have a primary style and only switch to another to advance their main interest.

Bartle goes on to discuss in more detail, what dynamics or mechanics drive the different types of players in the game world.

Achievers

Primary Goal - Point gathering, Raising their level.

Secondary Goal - Exploring for treasures, Socialising for hints, Killing to eliminate rivals.

Explorers

Primary Goal - Exposing world mechanics, finding interesting artefacts, seeing how game related things work.

Secondary Goal - Point gathering, Killing to eliminate rivals, Socialising.

Socialisers

Primary Goal - Interested in people, Inter-player relationships, Empathizing/Joking/Entertaining.

Secondary Goal - Exploring to understand discussions, Point scoring for new chat subjects, Killing for futile conversations (very rare).

Killers

Primary Goal - Imposing upon others, Attacking players to kill personae, More distress = more gain.

Secondary Goal - Point scoring to become powerful, Socialising to taunt victims, Exploring to find hidden players.

When thinking (in the modern day) of balancing these players and their styles on a server; when too many players gravitate to one style, the effect can cause player of the other persuasion to leave or change style completely.  Administrators need to maintain a balances relationship between different types of MUD to guarantee that players "feel".

To elaborate further; Achievevers want to ACT upon the world, Explorers want to INTERACT with the world, Socialisers want to INTERACT with players and Killers want to ACT upon the players.  Keeping this balanced is difficult, and can be explained better with the interest graph show below (Please note that this is my interpretation of a poorly displayed graph in the original works).

- Figure (A) is the Point Of Interest and the Axes of the graph represent the source of player's interest in a MUD.  A stable MUD is one in which the four principle styles of player are in equilibrium.

So, how can we change the player type balance, and how will they influence the gameplay.  Making changes towards the PLAYER could be increasing the talk features, but his will reduce the MUD to a mere social chat box.  Making a change to the WORLD could stop the players finding each other entirely, and will reduce Interaction.  Making changes to the INTERACTION could reduce freedom of choice, making the gameplay linear or have a narrative.  Finally, making changes to the ACTION within the game can make it monotonous, creating a 'doing-to' rather than 'doing-with' structure.

Ways to emphasize PLAYERS over the WORLD:

- Add more communication facilities.

- Add more Player-on-Player commands.

- Make Communication easier.

- Decrease the world size.

- Increase connectivity between rooms (Dungeons).

- Maximize the amount of simultaneous players available.

- Restrict building privileges to a select few.

- Reduce the number of Mobiles (Mobs, Enemies, NPC's).

Ways to emphasize the WORLD over PLAYERS:

- Reduce communication facilities to basic commands.

- Have fewer Player-on-Player interactions.

- Make building facilities easier and more intuitive.

- Maximize the size of the world.

- Use only rational room connections.

- Grant building facilities to many.

- Massively increase the amount of Mobiles.

Ways to emphasize the INTERACTING over ACTING:

- Have help facilities produce vague information.

- Produce cryptic hints for players that are stuck.

- Maximize the effects of commands available.

- Lower the rewards for achievements.

- Have a shallow Level/Class system.

- Create amusing responses for amusing commands.

- Edit room descriptions for a consistent atmosphere.

- Limit the number of commands available in an area.

- Have lots of small, easily solvable puzzles.

- Allow builders to add new commands.

Ways to emphasize ACTING over the INTERACTING:

- Provide a game manual.

- Include auto-map facilities.

- Include auto-log facilities.

- Raise the rewards for achievements.

- Have an extensive Level/Class system.

- Make commands available everywhere.

- Create large, time-consuming puzzles.

- Have many commands available relating to fights.

- Allow building only by top-quality builders.

These strategies can be combine to encourage or discourage different styles of play.

To conclude, this article is vastly outdated by today's standards, but Bartle was the first to explore the theory and balance of multi-player worlds.  Do I agree with it?  Yes, despite many of my fellow students criticisms of the article, this still relates to modern day multi-player worlds even if just the theory behind them.