MMORPGs; totally alien from P&PRPGs??

(1/8) > >>

Daniel B:
Hi folks,

this is a continuation of a topic brought up in "First Thoughts" but I'll repost the key points so you don't have to go hunting. I had posted a link to an article discussing issues to consider for game designers building MUDs or MMOGs more generally (multi-user dungeons, massively multiplayer online games). The article is at: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

The article suggests that there are four major categories for any given activity that a player can participate in, those categories being described as: Social, Explorer, Achiever, or Killer. The article also states that players can and do drift between the four categories from moment-to-moment, but tend to have a preferred mix, a playstyle that is composed of some proportion of the four categories.

I won't go into GNS here, since many of you know it and newbies will all have ample access to descriptions of it on this site. (That said, I find the "Search" function to be a pain. Try googling into the Forge for original source documents if you have trouble.)

I had posted that I believed there were strong parallels between GNS theory and Bartle's model. Objections stated that the two theories, GNS/Creative Agenda and Bartle's four-quadrant theory were essentially incompatible because the virtual world of MMOGs is generated by a computer, while the shared-imagined space of regular P&P RPGs must be co-generated by the players involved. Therefore, while a player can easily find aspects within an MMOG to satisfy him, this is not true of P&P RPGs. In such games, each player goes in with expectations of the other players of how they'll help to fulfill the ultimate purpose "having fun" and, if those expectations are not communicated ahead of time and agreed upon, the game will almost inevitably fail. In short, Bartle's categoizations are individual-centric while the Big Model, and therefore GNS, is group-centric, making Bartle's categorizations not so useful in P&P RPG analysis.

It seems to me that the objection basically reduces to the following. (Those who put forth the objection, please correct me if I've interpreted incorrectly !!!)
1.) Big Model deals with a tiny player collective2.) Big Model implies GNS3.) Bartles deals with individiual players in a (virtually) limitless collectiveTherefore Bartles is not similar to GNS
While I certainly agree that the reason most P&P RPGs fail (in practice) is because players come in with clashing creative agendas, I must disagree with the premises of the objections as they were given to me, on two counts.

Firstly, it seems to me that premise #2 is a bit backwards. You can't know what sort of possible group dynamics can exist until you first examine the individuals that go into a group. For example, the "Gamist" style wouldn't exist if human beings were incapable of caring about competition, and yet the "Big Model" would still stand, somewhat, because the goals of someone with a Simulationist-oriented agenda would be different than the goals of someone with a Narrativist-oriented agenda. (This example is extreme, but I hope it makes my point.) I therefore think that the Big Theory does not imply GNS, but rather the Big Theory must be built on TOP of the GNS.

Secondly, IF we accept that GNS is separate from the Big Theory, it becomes strictly an individual-centric theory and therefore can be analyzed in exactly the same regard that one would analyze Bartle's.

I had expressed my analysis in the first article, but I'll repost my analysis here since (I'm hoping) you'll see why I believe GNS and Bartle's are interchangeable within the Big Theory. Since GNS deals with players strictly in a small-scale (ie limited-players) environment, the actions of an individual player are necessarily influenced and homogenized by the group, either verbally, through their actions, or their verbal and nonverbal communications.

Bartle's, on the other hand, approaches it from the opposite perspective. Players are placed into an environment where they are free to choose whatever play-style they prefer, and are almost completely uninfluenced by the playstyle of others. So I think the player categories here are purer, as in, closer to the way people actually play.

Incidentally, I do not believe that CRPGs are significantly different from gamist- or simulationist-style P&P RPGs. What is the computer server, if not a dumb, inflexible GM? What is a virtual world if not a Shared-Imagined Space? (That ogre is not an ogre, it's a collection of bits on a server. Yet, it still can evoke the same emotional reaction as the ogre you dreamed up with your D&D buddies.) Therefore, one ought to be able to talk about MMOGs in all the same contexts as P&P RPGs that heavily favour the gamist/simulationist styles of play.

Just my opinions,
Shallow Thoughts

soundmasterj:
Well, let me put it like this. when I play a P&P RPG, I interact with people to sharedly imagine a space and back again. That�s what (as the Big Model says) P&P RPGs are. Computer games? I can play those alone. They don�t NEED a SIS, they just need that last S. That�s why I think Bartle isn�t to helpful for me designing and playing my P&P games.
Also, I think your critique of the Big Model is wrong, but this is "actual play", not "amateur theory hour" where I would freely make up stuff defending it :) .

Second thing is, you come here defending Bartle. Why? I don�t care much if he�s "right". I said he�s wrong concerning P&P because it is not possible to have a world-action without people-interaction in P&P. But I don�t really care if he�s wrong. I care if he can help me. Let me try it like this... Let�s for the sake of argument accept that CRPGs of any kind are gam or sim (sim happens on the roleplayer servers, PvE servers are for gam/sim, PvP is for gam and griefing is kind of dysfuntional gam). What could Bartle provide us with now?
Bartles terminology helps us further distinguish gam and sim play into subcategories; some gamist, for example, want to beat other players (I played with someone who would always have us make up characters first so he knew which stats he was aiming to beat) or the "world" as provided by the GM (that�s how I play shadowrun; I try to analyse a situation and beating it with dice). In the world of CRPGs, rolelayers need 1. to be left alone by non-roleplayers, 2. other roleplayers, that�s why they get roleplaying servers. "Explorers" need to be left alone by griefers; that�s why they get PvE servers.
But we already know that if we�ve read the Step On Up article. Same goes for the different kinds of sim (The Right To Dream if memory serves). It�s already been said clearly and concerning P&Ps. We KNOW that there are different kinds of sim and different RPGs have been written, different kinds of fun have been had bearing that in mind. Bartle is, even should we believe him, old news.

So, where exactly could Bartle help me? Tell me something new?

Daniel B:
Quote from: soundmasterj on November 15, 2008, 02:51:46 AM

Well, let me put it like this. when I play a P&P RPG, I interact with people to sharedly imagine a space and back again. That�s what (as the Big Model says) P&P RPGs are. Computer games? I can play those alone. They don�t NEED a SIS, they just need that last S. That�s why I think Bartle isn�t to helpful for me designing and playing my P&P games.

Firstly, I want us both to take a step back and breathe :) Please don't interpret my posts as confrontational. (When I write them, the voice in my head is matter-of-factly.)

An SIS is created from two necessary components: two or more imaginations (the sources) and a means of communicating these imaginings. It's just that, in the case of computer games, the designers do all the imagining up front and let the computer do the communicating later. Even when you are alone at home on your computer, you see that manipulation of pixels on your screen and think "ogre". The designer's imagination is being shared with you. When you imagine your character wielding your axe against that ogre, you communicate it with the mouse and keyboard, and therefore are sharing your imagination with them. Electronic virtual worlds are a very narrowly defined subset of SIS's, but they are SIS's nonetheless unless the definition of SIS.

Quote from: soundmasterj on November 15, 2008, 02:51:46 AM

Second thing is, you come here defending Bartle. Why? I don�t care much if he�s "right". I said he�s wrong concerning P&P because it is not possible to have a world-action without people-interaction in P&P. But I don�t really care if he�s wrong. I care if he can help me. Let me try it like this... Let�s for the sake of argument accept that CRPGs of any kind are gam or sim (sim happens on the roleplayer servers, PvE servers are for gam/sim, PvP is for gam and griefing is kind of dysfuntional gam). What could Bartle provide us with now?
So, where exactly could Bartle help me? Tell me something new?

A few things with this:
I don't like to discuss "right" or "wrong" theories of game design, only ones that are more or less likely to produce a fulfilling game experience, which may depend on your audience.You first divvy up servers into GNS categories, before asking if the HCDS categories can help you. This is not a constructive way of examining a theory on it's own terms.Bartle's article was written strictly about MMOGs. Therefore, he can't be "wrong about P&P" here because the article puts forth no opinion on the subject. (I'll start refering to them as the Hearts/Clubs/Diamonds/Spades or HCDS categories for this sake)I brought the article here of my own volition, despite the fact that it was written about MMOGs and not P&P's, because of the parallels I see. If you don't see them, you're perfectly within your rights to totally disregard everything I say.I never claimed the article is "right". My exact wording was that the HCDS categories were purer than GNS.
I can see how that last one may have aroused ire. Let me be clear: I think that if we're going to go about categorizing something, we ought to try and make it so our categories are mutually exclusive, for the sake of ease-of-use and clarity. This is not always possible (e.g. spork = fork or spoon???). I would argue that the GNS categories, while somewhat distinct, are not as mutually exclusive as the HCDS.

For example: stabbing an orc with your longsword. What type of activity is that? Gamist? (I wanna rack up XP!) Narrativist? ("Bob the Barbarian, aware that the race of orcs are prone to kill without provocation or mercy, lunges!") By the HCDS categories, the action is very clearly an achiever-type action, because the player's character is acting upon the game universe, although the player himself need not be an achiever-type player (and may in fact prefer a style of play that is very, very different usually). Again, I am not trying to say HCDS is "better" than GNS.

Soundmasterj, you also mentioned that you disagreed with my application of HCDS to P&P because in order for there to be world-interaction, there must first be people-interaction. Hmm, does that also mean that, for me to imagine that the hero of an action movie is battling an alien, I must first have a solid real-life emotional relationship with the actor who portrays the hero? No; typically I only have an emotional "relationship" with the character. The two are distinctly different.

The "player-interaction" referred to in the HCDS article is strictly in regards to real human-emotional contact. Asking the GM if he's heard about that new alien movie is an example of this type of interaction out-of-game, and asking an ogre (played by the GM) whether it's possible not to eat you (in character) is an in-game example. However, asking the GM whether a tree in the world is a pine or an elm would be world-interaction. Sure, you need to actually TALK to a human being to decide if the SIS contains a pine tree, but the character is imagined to be physically examining the tree, so the inter-player communication is incidental.

Quote from: soundmasterj on November 15, 2008, 02:51:46 AM

Bartles terminology helps us further distinguish gam and sim play into subcategories;

<snip snip>

Well .. the chicken and the egg. Does HCDS further distinguish GNS, or visa versa? You can fit one into the other with some twists, but a better question is, which is more productive? I refer back to my argument on clear categorization.

I'll sincerely be glad to read and think about your rebuttal, Soundmasterj. I hope you can do the same without prejudice.

Ron Edwards:
Hey guys,

First, let me be the primary overseer of intellectual discipline and respect.

Second, this forum is called actual play for a reason. Please ground your points in discussions of what has really happened in a game of yours. Otherwise things will degenerate.

To be clear about what that means, I am not talking about case-studies for evidence, but for clarity of what you're describing.

Best, Ron

soundmasterj:
Hu? I didn�t read you as confrontational in the slightest. Did you read me thusly? Well, I�m sorry - what did I say?

Quote

When I write them, the voice in my head is matter-of-factly
Me, I sound like Batman.

I feel you didn�t get what I meant by people-interacting, you didn�t get what I was trying to point out when I said how the "SI" of SIS behaves differently between P&P and C/O (computer/online). Because this world is a role-playing server with a very strict moderator (Law o�Physic), I can�t just mind-control you, I�ll have to make us both agree by using words.
I can enjoy a movie all alone. If a movie neccesarily had a SHARED IMAGINED space, I�d need you over to also watch it and suspend your disbelief and agree that that guy up there isn�t the current governor of california, but a robot from the future. And I don�t. I just need me to agree. I play WoW (and I don�t), I don�t NEED you or anybody else to agree I made that orc dead, I just need the computer to agree (and he doesn�t imagine).
D&D on the other hand? Say we roll dice, I say, the orc gets 110 Damage, he�s dead where are my XP! You say, what orc, you just rolled dice? I don�t know, wanna play Yathzee? That�s what you say. Now I didn�t kill an orc, I just made an ass out of myself. When we play D&D however, the rules make us agree that an orc just died.

Next thing, I REALLY don�t think Bartlespeak is telling us anything new at all. If we didn�t already know that two gamists, one trying to beat other players, the other trying to beat "NPCs", have conflicting goals; or, say, a gamist and a simulationist; it might be news, but it isn�t.

Ok. I have some "actual play" here because this is "Actual Play" or something. I just got where the "narr" is in MMORPGs. It�s in the metagame, the really great scale: http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=527 http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=564
Every "guild" or "clan" or whatever I�ve ever read about or seen personally produces drama. Lots of drama. And nobody found a way to manage that, yet.
I find that interesting.

It�s like, in MMORPGs, there isn�t a mechanism for grand narrative (a Metaplot as many games provide is sim, not narr), so the narrativist are the grand-griefers. The only place for REAL protagonism is in the metagame because computers suck at encouraging protagonism yet. How could a PC game with real protagonism work?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page