[MUD-Dev] Re: Re[2]: "Advanced" use of virtual worlds?

[rayzam]

From: "Travis Casey" <efindel at earthlink.net>
> On Saturday 02 February 2002 4:06, rayzam wrote:
>> From: "Travis Casey" <efindel at earthlink.net>
>>> On Thursday 31 January 2002 12:19, rayzam wrote:

>> But then you're not playing. I hate to bring up chess, after the
>> other discussions about it. It sounds like being in a chess-match
>> with no time limits for moves, and deciding to never make your
>> first move...

> I don't agree with your analogy.  What if I make moves, but my
> goal is to get a particular pawn to the other side of the board,
> rather than to win the game?  One could argue that I'm "not
> playing chess", because I'm not trying to achieve the standard
> goal of chess -- but one could also argue that I am playing chess,
> but playing it with a different goal than the standard one.

But in this case, you're still interacting with the other
player. You have a different goal, but you're playing by the same
rules and interacting with the other person. You're still playing
chess, but you're not playing to win.

>> There was an earlier thread on: if you roleplay in the woods and
>> noone is around to see, is it roleplaying. I'm not sure how I
>> feel on this one either, to be honest.

> I definitely think that it is still roleplaying.  As I've said
> many times before, I consider roleplaying to be making decisions
> as your character would make them, rather than simply using the
> character as a playing piece. By that definition, you can roleplay
> even in a single-player game.

I can see that point of view, and as someone who has roleplayed
Cosmic Encounter races while playing the game, can agree with
it. I'm not going to go into the other side of the argument, it's in
the archives. I do agree with points by both sides, so I'm staying
out of this one point :)

>>> I wasn't talking about goals, I was talking more about means --
>>> a roleplayer makes up a character and plays that character,
>>> where a non-roleplayer uses a character as a game piece or an
>>> extension of their self.  These are different ways of playing
>>> the game, even if the ultimate goal is the same.

>> I suppose it's just a matter of semantics. A roleplayer isn't
>> just roleplaying in a void, they should still fit in one of the 4
>> types. I don't consider that playing different. I consider being
>> a socializer versus an explorer, playing differently.

> Not intending to put words in your mouth, but that seems to me to
> be saying, "I don't consider any differences in play style that
> can't be mapped into Bartle's four styles to be real differences".

Actually, I don't mean it quite like that. Roleplaying doesn't occur
in a void. I used Bartle's 4 styles as a method of lsiting the basic
forms of play. How about this: the 2 axes are 2 of the principal
components of describing the feature space of what it means to play
the game.  Even by your definition, of "roleplaying is making
decisions in character, rather than using your character as a
playing piece" it's a matter of where the decision is generated/the
point of view. The decision and actions or inactions still
occur. It's those actions/inactions that get deemed one of Bartle's
4, or more, if you want to define more.  I'm not saying that
anything other than Bartle's 4 isn't a real difference. I'm saying
that roleplaying or not [the point of view for making a decision] is
separate from the action. That action or inaction is playing the
game, however you define it.  I can't seem to articulate it any
better than this, though re-reading it, it is still a little bit
unclear where I'm making this distinction...

> Personally, I view Bartle's classification as simply classifying
> differences along one (or two, depending on how you look at it)
> different axes of "how people play".  There are plenty of
> differences in play style that don't fit into that model:

>  - casual vs. serious play

Well this would be a different component in the multivariate
analysis :) That is, you can be a casual socializer or a serious
killer, or a serious roleplayer or a casual nonroleplayer achiever.

>  - roleplaying vs. non-roleplaying

>  - long-term emphasis vs. short-term emphasis

>  - single-character play vs. multiple-character play

>  - competitive vs. cooperative emphasis

>  - develop at start vs. develop in play

> ... and so on.  Some of these may be correlated with the Bartle
> classifications, but none of them are 100% correlated with those.
> To say that "only differences that Bartle's four types cover are
> actual differences in playing the game" seems far too limiting to
> me.

Again, each is a different component. In some ways, classifying
players is like classifying bacteria. Just give me a second on this
one :)

  Bacteria are classified on:
    Structure:
      shape [rod, spiral, round],
      presence/absence of flagella
      cell wall structure [Gram + or Gram -]
    Living conditions:
      Temperature
        thermophiles [up to 100deg C]
        mesophiles [around our temperature]
        psychrophiles [around 0 deg C]
    Energy source:
      phototrophs
      chemotrophs
    Nutrient source:
      autotrophs
      heterotrophs

So take the energy/nutrient source. That's like Bartles. You can be
a phototroph or a chemotroph. You can be an autotroph or a
heterotroph. You can be a photoautotroph. A chemoheterotroph. A
chemoautotroph, etc.  At the same time you can be a rod [bacilli],
spiral [spirochete], round [cocci]. You could be a group player,
some of both, or a soloer.  Your preferred temperature can be hot,
middle, cold. So you could be a serious, middling, or casual player.
You could be flagellated or not flagellated. So you could be a
role-player or a non-roleplayer.

So any given player could be a roleplaying casual soloing
explorer. Just like any bacteria could be a flagellated
psychrophilic autotrophic coccus.

What I've been seeing is the discussion relegate role-playing to a
different type of critter [bacteria], without acknowledging that the
roleplayer can still be any combination of these other
variables. Being a roleplayer is not the single defining point of
that player, and thus roleplaying shouldn't be relegated as: it's
completely different. It's just another axis. It's just another
feature to classify the player. Being classified as a role-player or
not does not change the other classifications for that player.

Somehow I doubt *this* classification scheme will make the
vernacular ;) Well, maybe the part where being a roleplayer equals
being flagellated ;)

rayzam
www.travellingbard.com


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