[MUD-Dev] Weaknesses in the HCDS player type model (was: 3rd Axis for Bartle's 2 axis theory of MUD players)

[Richard A. Bartle]

On 21 October, 2002, Ola Fosheim Grxstad wrote:

> Hmm, yes, I do think group interviews and forums are useful
> strategies for obtaining differences in how users perceive the
> world, but you will get bias due to certain influential and vocal
> members...

> Nngh! I am not interested in people's opinions!!

So maybe you're one of the influential and vocal members of the
group, then? <grin>

> I am complaining about the two-axis interpretation of the current
> model, which I don't think adding new dimensions would
> correct. The model is a bit too simplistic.

Simple it may be, but remember that when it was created it was also
the most complex model, on account of how it was the ONLY one. If
its presence and its many flaws spur people to create better models,
then it has succeeded.

Unfortunately, it's all-too easy to criticise the model and not come
up with any replacement. Indeed, I frequently encounter people who
criticise the model without even having read the paper! I don't
doubt that there will be plenty of discussion about my latest flawed
model when it appears in print next year. I expect it to be
rubbished, but hopefully the response won't be so bad that it puts
other people off advancing their own ideas. I'm writing this book
because I want research into virtual worlds, not because I want
people to know what I think about virtual worlds.

>>>  What is the world? Is it everything that is not players?

>>  It's what's there when the players aren't.

> This doesn't help me a whole lot... Is it only the state, and not
> the rules which may not be formalized in code? Is it only, what
> can be influenced, but not the fictional beliefs that players hold
> which also influence what happens?

Players carry the culture with them, therefore culture is not part
of the world.

The state is meaningless without the code that implements it,
therefore the code is included. I'd call the code the "world" and
the changeable data a "world state".

> Ok, let me put it this way: is it what the players choose to see
> as world or is it what the designer assume to be the world he is
> designing? I.e. the intended versus the assumed reality.

If you run two instantiations (shards) of a virtual world, they can
seem radically different to the players. However, ultimately they're
the same world, in different (but heavily intersecting) states,
overlaid by whatever culture the players have created.

Neither the intended nor the assumed reality is the "world". What
actually exists is the world. Players and designers may interpret it
in different ways, but they're talking about the same thing.


	Richard



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