"Advanced" use of virtual worlds? (Re: [MUD-Dev] MMORPGs & MUDs)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

Matt Mihaly wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Ola Fosheim [iso-8859-1] Grøstad wrote:

> I'd say you get a level of sophistication one down, because you've
> hamstrung your ability to really explore the tactical nature of
> the game. In Achaea, for instance, you can't even really discuss a
> lot of combat and whatnot in-role, because there has to be too
> many references to out-of-character concepts.

Nah, you can still OOC, you just do it in a non-distracting
manner. And of course you may have one non-RP character as well. Or
simply switch gears, which is not uncommon. I.e. alternating between
powerplaying and roleplaying.

>> There is no reason for not doing any of those activities in a
>> roleacting mentality. Especially political games are very well
>> suited for roleacting, you get to maximize drama. But no MMO have
>> any great political game built in, and probably will not have it
>> either. Because, if you do, you risk getting the entire server
>> killed off, which seemed to happen on some Meridian server.  MMOs
>> are static by designphilosophy.
 
> I didn't realize you were limiting it just to big graphical
> games. I was talking about MUDs generally.

I am talking about the MMOs because that is the area where the
hypocrisy crops up. Regular MUDs do embrace RPers.

> I'm also not sure why you think a big political game = getting the
> entire server killed off. Politics are quite important in Achaea,
> and a political leader killing the server population off isn't
> possible.

Political game built on top of free form PvP is difficult to balance
without intervention by the system or the admins.

> Political games are also, I would say, extremely ill-suited for
> roleplaying, becuase no one wants to roleplay someone stupid and
> no one can roleplay someone more competent than they themselves
> are.

Many people enjoy roleplaying a stupid character. I can indeed
project the image of someone competent and clever. Or adopt the
feeling of being clever. Or trying to get the response from other
people that suggest cleverness. If you are clever within your clan
(of roleplayers) then you are per definition clever in that context
even if the rest of the world perceive you as stupid.

> In any competitive environment, people are going to want to win,
> and politics are nothing if not competitive. Mihaly's Law of
> Competition and Roleplaying says, "The greater the level of
> competition between players, the lower the level of
> roleplaying. This is because roleplaying is about process, while
> competition motivates one to aim for results. The more competition
> there is, the more results trump process."

The problem with competition isn't that it is in conflict with
roleplay, but that it attracts a type of players that will talk
about mechanics and generally not be stimulating for RPers.

> The result of this means that people are going to play the
> political game to the end of -their- abilities, not to the end of
> their character's abilities. Since you can't roleplay someone
> wittier or more clever than yourself, and since people will
> inevitably use all their personal abilities to win, you end up
> with roleplaying being almost impossible if you want to win (and
> most people do).

I can play characters wittier than myself :P. I don't quite see this
problem, except maybe that most roleplayers might not be interested
in investing the time it takes to win the political game. Even if
you roleplay you can play the game on multiple
levels. I.e. clan-chat can be completely OOC.

> Sure, maybe they can talk in some ridiculous fake "accent", but
> it's got little to do with adopting a role and playing it
> faithfully.

I adopt personalities not roles. They are like clay they are being
formed and transformed depending on the situation and the potential
for interesting interaction in the environment. The character may
adopt roles with respect to other characters.

I do start my characters with accents because people respond to it,
just like the respond to appearance. I.e. I choose to open
conversations with one particular phrase: "HIII!!!!", "Howdy", "hi",
"Hulloh", "Hi there", "Hrmmf", "How are you, hun" and use that one
consistently.

> No offence, but do you actually play any PvP MUDs seriously? They
> are -not- well-suited for roleplaying, because they get so
> incredibly competitive. The only MUDs I've played since about 1994

I currently only play EQ non-pvp, AO almost-non-pvp, but the problem
isn't PvP but the players PvP tend to attract. I.e. players that
don't talk and if they do it is either smack-talk or
mechanics. However, the ability to affect is an asset for RP, might
consider limited PvP (one kill per month) .

> Whether you're roleplaying or not, the minute you talk to another
> player, you are a producer of content. Roleplaying is merely
> another kind of content, like just chatting OOC to another
> player. I'm not going to comment on whether it's more advanced or
> not, but if I had to choose between the two, I'd much rather have
> my players chatting OOC to each other than roleplaying with each
> other (I'd rather have both, as some prefer one, some prefer the
> other). The community bonds it builds are far more powerful that
> way.

What you want as a designer is rather irrelevant though, and even
then in my experience roleplayers tend to do quite a bit of OOC
physical world social talk. Many non-roleplayers do game-mechanics
OOC. Actually, I bond with roleplayers if they offer me something to
play up to.  Roleplayers bond to eachother's capabilities as
roleplayers, and the story they have shared and when they gain
respect for eachother they have this as a common ground for further
developing OOC bonds.  Non-roleplayers also bond with my character
and me as a player (they don't necessarily know which is which).

> See my comments above. Talking about people's physical lives
> builds more powerful bonds. It is more meaningful communication
> and there is simply a much larger range of topics to chat about.

And as far as I can tell RPers tend to be very good at socializing.

> I have nothing against roleplaying, by the way, and enjoy doing it
> myself sometimes. I just see no reason at all to classify it as a
> more advanced form of play.

And I see no reason to object to such a characteristic.  Which in
fact is what has happened here, isn't it?  Until proven wrong I
simply assume that RP can add to and amplify the experience of any
kind of playstyle.  Thus is a higher level of sophistication. I want
to see the counter arguments...

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