[MUD-Dev] The 'Socialiser' problem

[Matt Chatterley]

On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Greg Munt wrote:

> The ultimate aim of my server is to attempt, in some respects, to model 
> reality.
> 
> I ran a TinyMUD for several years. Its users could be partitioned into 
> two sets:
> 
>    1. Socialisers (This label is used, since members of this set are closely 
>       related to Bartle's Socialisers; members of this set do not role-play 
>       in any way.) 
> 
>    2. Softcoders.
> 
>    Users can be members of both sets.
>    Users can be members of the Socialiser set only.
>    Users cannot be members of the Softcoder set only.

Agreed. The socialisers do not play the game - but only socialise, and the
coders do not play the game - they code and socalise. I've observed this
many times. You also have your other various sets (term them 'others' for
now) who play the game and do not code, and other combinations.
 
> Thus, I believe I know a fair amount about what Socialisers demand of the 
> games they use. 

They are not a hard group to cater for in general.
 
> I wish my server to be attractive to all types of player. 
> The needs/requirements of Socialisers seem to be at odds with the 
> server requirement to model aspects of reality.

Definitely. I abandoned being attractive to all mindsets of player in
favour of producing the environment and atmosphere I want - if you are
modelling aspects of reality, pure socialism (heh) becomes a non-entity,
because the game must be played in some form to abate death.

Providing simple 'working class' existances within the environment (baker,
ironmonger, and so forth) is a good halfway point. But is it a happy
halfway for the socialisers?
 
> IMHO, Socialisers want and need:
> 
>   1. To be able to pass private messages to their friends, remotely (this 
>      functionality is commonly implemented via a 'page' or 'tell' command)
>      - this, in addition to the use of chatting channels, may be used by 
>      the socialiser to communicate to many of their friends at the same 
>      time, who may all be in different locations

Yes. Private one-to-one, public one-to-many and one-to-one and private
one-to-many, counting many-to-many as being one-to-many from a different
aspect, communications.
 
>   2. To be able to send 'mail' to their friends, at no charge or detriment 
>      (communication to a friend who is not connected at the same time as the 
>      user)

Yupple.
 
>   3. To be able to read and post messages to a public bulletin board system;
>      you may only remove messages you have posted yourself, unless you are
>      some kind of 'superuser'/administrator

Definitely. Or even not remove messages at all - some sort of low level
usenet simulation. Physically placed boards that must be travelled to are
not as popular as a global one accessible anywhere.
 
>   4. To converse through a 'chatting channel' medium

Yup.
 
>   5. To have their own, personal, private room (again, at no charge or 
>      detriment) - this area may be used to 'entertain' close friends

Not always - but it is popular for some.
 
>   6. To instantaneously teleport to various locations within the game 
>      (such as their personal room, or the personal room of a friend - also 
>      to 'public' rooms)

Again, not always - it does depend on 'how much of a socialiser' they are,
i suppose.
 
>   7. Various public rooms where they may meet and befriend other Socialisers

To be able to roam the game grid to socialise?
 
>   8. A 'profile' - information supplied by themselves, about themselves; 
>      this may be viewed by any other user at any time

Yep. And various options to elect not to socialise with persons they take
a disliking to.
 
>   9. Other things that I have probably forgotten about
> 
> The server requirements prevent these demands from being met:
> 
>   1. There is no way to communicate to someone who is many miles away 
>      (not even shouting could achieve this)

Not immediately, anyway? Perhaps there are methods, eg, pigeons, or
magical means?
 
>   2. If a postal service is provided, it will never be for free 

Is there a way for your socialisers to relatively easily obtain money or
methods to afford this service?
   
>   3. What stops someone removing scraps of paper from a board, whether 
>      they put them there or not? What stops them removing the *board*, if 
>      they really want to?

Nothing at all, unless they can't get to the board.
 
>   4. No way of justifying the existence of chatting channels

Not if everything is strictly in game, no.
 
>   5. If you do have some sort of 'free' area, it wont have much privacy - 
>      the most that could be justified is some kind of shelter for the 
>      homeless

Heh. :)
 
>   6. No way of justifying the existence of a teleport system

This is not an essential for the socialiser.
 
>   7. Public rooms can be justified - however, socialisers who do not make 
>      use of the facilities (for example, if they visit a bar regularly, but 
>      never buy anything) may soon find themselves unwelcome; to get money 
>      to pay for the facilities, they will have to 'play the game' - many 
>      Socialisers will not want to do this

I see a trend developing.
 
>   8. The most that could be justified is some sort of public record - 
>      this could not be seen from anywhere in the game, the interested user 
>      would have to go to where the record is stored
> 
> Has anyone else approached these problems? The only feasible ways of 
> solving them that I can think of, involve the use of either technology 
> or magic. However, this restricts the general theme of the game, which I 
> do not want to do. In any case, dealing with the problems in this way 
> appears rather contrived, at best.

Any sort of solution given the sort of aims you have in mind is going to
be rather false, and not very happy for the rest of the game, really. I
think you're aimed away from socialisers. Unless you allow a means to not
be a part of the game (ever) and to simply chat.

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." -Theodore Roosevelt