[MUD-Dev] Multiplayer definition (was: Birthday Cake)

[J C Lawrence]

On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:37:24 -0700 
Brian Green <brian at psychochild.org> wrote:

> But, JC brings up some good points.  Guess he got more out of it
> than I did. :)

I find there are two ways to read such articles: One, to duplicate
what the author was trying to communicate, and two, to duplicate
what he was looking at when he decided to communicate that.  It was
the latter which was interesting in this case.

> J C Lawrence wrote:
>>>> Crosbie Fitch:
 
>>>>> There should be nothing radical or special about multiplayer
>>>>> games. Indeed, it is the game that supports only a single
>>>>> player which is the oddity.

> Actually, I'd disagree somewhat.  Computer games have focused on
> the single-player experience for about as long as they've been
> around.  In the computer realm, the multiplayer game is the
> oddity, not the single player game.  Why else are we having such
> problems grappling with the issues?

While true for computer based games, when considered against the
backgrop of games in general, single player games are not the norm.
Go to any game store (non console or PC games) -- not many single
player games there.

> Given this, if there is an important distinction to be made
> perhaps we should consider these "single input" or "multiple
> input" games.  Recognizing, of course, that any number of people
> could be using any number of inputs in the game.

With any of the games you mention there is a concept of a player
identity from the vantage of the game.  For the single individual
playing both sides of the chess match, from the game's vantage,
there are still two players.  Ditto for solitaire except its a
single player.

>> It is very easy to consider the single player viewpoint.  We're
>> quite familiar with it after all.  Do we grok the multi-player
>> viewpoint fully?

> I think we have a reasonable grasp on it.  The problem is, with
> multiple inputs you have to define a wider variety of reactions in
> the game; the game reacts in certain ways to certain "moves" in a
> single-player game.  When you add additional inputs, you have to
> consider how both inputs affect the game and how both inputs
> affect each other.  As the number of inputs increases, the amount
> of stuff the game has to react to increases exponentially.

Permutations and combinations.

I don't see that as the whole picture however.  That I can see,
multiplayer games all end up concentrating on the single point of
predicting the other player's intent and then acting upon that
prediction.  What will his next move be, what is he really trying to 
do, how is he going to try and do that, is he trying to trick me or
is this really real?  He did X, what does that really mean?

Diplomacy shows this conundrum to a fine degree.

While there are infinite permutations in there (or a rapid
approximation), I don't see that they are the crux od the base
player question/problem.  Determining intent, even of the other
players on your own "side" seems to be a more useful common factor.

> This is why most of our multiplayer games feel like single player
> game.  It's hard enough to react to an input, let alone react to
> multiple inputs, let alone react to how the inputs interact.  By
> reducing the interaction between players, we simplify the game.

True.  A large part of this however is accomplished by abstracting
the other players and moving more and more of their activities (and
thus their questions of intent) into the base game mechanics and
thereby outside of any question of how or why.  While the
interactions between players in Quake are simplistic to the extreme
at the game level, it seems more interesting to note that there are
few ways for a Quake player to express intent.  Conversely, in
Diplomacy (which I'm arbitrarily picking as the other end of this
"scale"), interplayer activities are almost entirely uncontrolled
in their expressions of intent (tho limited in format by their
expression media).  

You walk up to another player in Quake.  He's not on your side.
You're not going to have much doubt accurately guessing his intent
towards you.  You receive a communique from another Diplomacy
player.  You often have a rather serious problem figuring out even a
reasonable idea of what his real long term intent might be, and what
the possible risks are to you.

> This is something all good MUD admins know.  Player vs. Player is
> always harder to work out than Player vs. Environment.  We can
> determine how the Environment reacts, but we can't force Players
> to react a certain way without the risk of alienating the player.

True.
 
>> Is it more than just requiring collaboration on the part of the
>> players?  I've been unable to convince myself of this either way.
> [...]
>> But what about multi-player games?  There's more to it than just
>> throwing in a couple extra inputs, of defining the goal as
>> insolvable/unapproachable by single individuals.  What is the
>> quality that defines a game as being multi-player?

> As I demonstrated above, I don't think you can find the
> "multiplayer" qualities by looking only at the mechanics.  

I'm not convinced that there aren't basic mechanics involved in the
construction of multiplayer games, where multiplayer games are
defined as those games which identify multiple interacting and
mutually affecting players each of whom may have a discrete and
different in-game intent from the others.  The construction of
non-player specific games is quite mechanicsl, and the base rules
are well known.  I don't see why adding multiple players is not just
an extention of the base rule set in terms of the mechanical
operation of multipler games.

> Extra inputs can be handled just as well by a single player.

Does it really matter that a single human is playing multiple
game-viewpoint players when considering th definition of how
multiplayer games work as an abstract class?

> As I alluded to above, I think what distinguishes a multiplayer
> game from a single player game is the interaction between the
> players.  

<nod>

> I think it's important to note that some of the more interesting
> games tend to move interaction into the game mechanics.  Examples
> would be Diplomacy's focus on alliances and assistance from other
> players and Asheron's Call's codified allegiance system.  The
> benefit is that these interactions become more predictable at the
> expense of added game complexity.

Actually I would say that their value is that they reduce the
difficulty of correctly deducing intent, and thus simplify the game
playing experience, making it more approachable and more easily
understood in those regards.
 
--
J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw at kanga.nu
----------(*)                              Other: coder at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev