[MUD-Dev] A Theory of Fun

[Paul Schwanz]

Some of the presentations from the Austin Game Conference are posted
online, including Raph's "A Theory of Fun," which I thought was a
wonderful synopsis of the recent discussion on expected value and
standard deviation, while also underlining the importance of
player-malleable worlds.

  http://www.gameconference.com/conference/presentations.html

Responding to Raph's presentation:

I found interesting the notion that both infinite possibility spaces
AND some sort of structure/recognizable patterns help me experience
fun when playing games.  I think this helped clarify for me why I
don't really enjoy the sand-box approach to MMORPGs.  It offers many
infinite possibility spaces, but not enough structure and too few
patterns.

The other concept that is starting to gel for me is that
player-generated content (in a broader sense) is the whole reason I
choose to play MOGs over single-player games.  It is what other
players contribute to the experience that makes an MOG truly
multi-player.  From this perspective, competition (PvP) is just as
much player-generated content as communication or construction.  In
fact, I've identified four types of player-generated content that I
really enjoy in games, especially when these infinite possibility
spaces are artfully blended with an array of discernable structures
or patterns.

Competition:

  PvP can be a wonderful space filled with infinite possibility.  Or
  it can be a nightmare.  The issues for me include whether or not
  there are enough structure and discernable patterns to let me
  self-select for risk and whether or not there is enough infinite
  possibility to help me avoid a feeling of futility.  Balance is
  key, but not that sort of balance that makes all equal; rather the
  sort that gives all opportunity.  Also, I personally believe that
  team-play can help overcome one of the gravest obstacles to the
  enjoyment of competition: Shame.  In my experience, team-play
  helps minimize the shame of losing while maximizing the glory of
  winning.  Which leads me nicely to my next type.

Cooperation:

  I love being part of a team.  Of all the forms of player-generated
  content, with the possible exception of standard forms of
  communication, I believe cooperation offers the best upside with
  the least amount of risk to gameplay.  However, I think the design
  for cooperation in MMORPGs is currently much too focused on
  tank-nuke-healer or similar task-level paradigms.  This leads to
  (IMHO, valid) complaints of forced grouping.  I believe a much
  better approach would let players work toward a common goal with a
  bit more independence at the task level.  For instance, if I can
  log on and somehow contribute to Project A without having to find
  and group with everyone else contributing to the same project,
  then I can still experience a sense of the community, shared
  goals, and shared rewards inherent in cooperation without the
  hassle of forced grouping.  Player-built cities and player
  governments are two examples of this sort of higher-level
  cooperation, but there are MANY other possibilities.  Once again,
  however, structure and patterns are as important as the
  possibilities.  For me, it is not enough to say that a game
  doesn't prevent me from calling myself a mayor or even that other
  players can recognize me nominally as a mayor.  Where is the
  structure?  Where are the patterns?  How does this possibility
  space connect back to the GAME as a whole?

Communication:

  The notion of an MOG without chat seems rather ludicrous.  I don't
  think you can overstate the importance of designing many solid
  options for chatting or otherwise expressing oneself.  The best
  part of MOGs are the people that play them.  And, of course, the
  worst part of MOGs are the people that play them.  Thus, it is
  important that there are options for communication that allow me
  to maximize my ability to interact with those players I enjoy
  while minimizing the distraction from those I don't.  The
  interface is also a crucial consideration.  I still would like to
  see the MMORPG that lets me design and customize my own moods so
  that if I choose to be ANGRY, I use slightly different animations
  for my emotes or for my fidgetting.

Construction:

  This is probably closer to what most people think about when they
  talk about player-generated content.  In general, I think I'd
  broaden the notion to include pretty much anything a player can do
  to cause persistent changes to the state of the game world.  I
  personally prefer that these changes occur as part of the gameplay
  (i.e. from inside the game world), primarily because immersion is
  so important to my experience.  Player-built cities and player
  governments would probably qualify as types of constructed
  player-content in addition to being forms of cooperation.  As with
  communication, it is important that I be able to employ some sort
  of filtering method so that I can maximize my ability to consume
  content I enjoy while avoiding content I don't enjoy.  Virtual
  worlds have a spacial aspect that allows localization to be one
  such method.  In other words, I can visit the player-built cities
  I like and avoid the ones I don't.

Several sorts of content, such as player-directed economies, or the
aforementioned player-built cities or player governments seem to
touch on more than one, or perhaps even all four types of
player-generated content.  In my estimation, this is a good
indication that these systems might be especially important or
useful to those game designs that I would find the most fun.  In any
case, I believe that the MOG game design which implements an artful
mixture of infinite possibility and structure/patterns in these four
areas will be incredibly fun to play, and the design that can manage
this within a reasonable budget will enjoy tremendous financial
success.  If I were setting the vision for content creation in an
MMORPG, I'd start from this point and work my way back to figuring
out what sorts of specific content the game might need to provide in
order to facilitate player competition, cooperation, communication,
and construction.

I found myself mostly nodding (and even inwardly cheering at times)
my way through the slides.  I especially liked the allusion to Will
Wright's hill-climbing algorithms and how their use can be seen as
structured or patterned possibility spaces.  I also liked the notion
that instanced spaces are about developer control, although I think
that player-generated content as a method for "increasing the
permutations" is a much more important consideration than "larger
minumum feature sets."

I'm also not so sure that game-players are "very good at seeing past
fiction."  I'd suggest that the human mind is pretty good at turning
events into stories.  We seem to have a built-in tendency to do
this.  Perhaps designers just aren't very good at seeing past the
power-ups, and this tends to bleed over into their designs.  For
instance, I still maintain that the manner in which "death" is
implemented in most MMORPGs screams "respawn" as a result of poor
design, and not because of any iherent failing in the players'
ability to immerse themselves in good fiction.

All in all, I just wish I could have seen the presentation in
person.  I'm sure I would have enjoyed it even more.

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