murf
08-25-2001, 05:14 PM
Travis,
I think the real issue here is the struggle between coercion and free expression in online games. So as to avoid putting words in Ms. Mulligan’s mouth, let me say that I may be completely off-base here. However, her focus on player-run justice systems left me thinking about what I’ve seen going on in the world of online games and, more importantly, the philosophies around it.
I’m a big fan of Raph Koster’s (www.legendmud.org/raph/) work, though I think I enjoy his writing about games more than the games themselves. One thing I’ve seen come out of his work on UO and his discussions on the Star Wars game has been the issue of coercion, specifically, how do designers get players to play the game the way the designers intend it to be played. Now, at first brush, this looks wrong; players should be allowed to play a game however they want to, right? Well, how would you like it if your opponent in chess shoved his queen up your nose every time you jumped one of his pieces? Not a fun way to play chess, and certainly not the way chess was intended to be played, I’m sure. The same is true for online games, and vital for games that are supposed to evoke a certain sort of atmosphere.
Let’s take Star Wars for example. We all know what the Star Wars universe is like. At its core, Star Wars is about swashbuckling adventure, cool gear and ships, strange aliens and locations, and the struggle between good and evil on the grand stage of galactic events and the hidden chambers of each individual’s soul. A game that takes place in the Star Wars universe needs to evoke these themes. Otherwise, it isn’t Star Wars. It could still be a commercial success, but the designers wasted the money spent on the franchise; they would have done better by everyone involved if they had just developed their own world.
The big challenge, of course, isn’t graphics or making cool ships or coding communication systems. The challenge is getting the players to play like the world they are in is the Star Wars galaxy. Players are very good at bringing everything down to the bottom line. Any game that has a strong achiever (www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm) focus to it (which is just about any game with levels or improvable stats) is going to have a strong, vocal community hell-bent on improving their characters. These players will do whatever it takes to “level up”, whether it fits with the themes of the game or not. The designer response to this is to attempt to build systems into the game that encourage or coerce (www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_38.html) the players into actions that promote or reinforce the theme and style of the designers’ vision.
And this is where a possible conflict exists between Entertainment and Art. Entertainment says that the primary focus of design needs to be people having fun. Art says that the primary focus of design needs to be the vision of the designers as artists. A game based on Tolkien’s Middle Earth should have very few wizards in it. Designers attempting to recreate the feel of the Middle Earth books should create a magic system that discourages powerful wizards. Mulligan would say this is bad design because lots of people who love playing fantasy RPGs enjoy creating powerful wizard characters. Anything that limits the players’ ability to play such a character will drive away customers.
Frankly, I think a little conscious coercion is a good thing. I enjoy exploring the creations of others and the feeling of being in another world that comes with the suspension of disbelief that coercive systems attempt to encourage. In short, playing in a game that encourages me and my fellow players to play as if we’re in a setting that I find fascinating is good entertainment that I’m willing to pay for. However, I’d also love to see a purer version of what Ms. Mulligan is espousing: a game in which the players design the systems and settings as they play, or just by playing in the game. But I’m not sure I’d hang around. A pandemonium of player-visions, without any central theme or foundation, sounds like a neat place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Brian
I think the real issue here is the struggle between coercion and free expression in online games. So as to avoid putting words in Ms. Mulligan’s mouth, let me say that I may be completely off-base here. However, her focus on player-run justice systems left me thinking about what I’ve seen going on in the world of online games and, more importantly, the philosophies around it.
I’m a big fan of Raph Koster’s (www.legendmud.org/raph/) work, though I think I enjoy his writing about games more than the games themselves. One thing I’ve seen come out of his work on UO and his discussions on the Star Wars game has been the issue of coercion, specifically, how do designers get players to play the game the way the designers intend it to be played. Now, at first brush, this looks wrong; players should be allowed to play a game however they want to, right? Well, how would you like it if your opponent in chess shoved his queen up your nose every time you jumped one of his pieces? Not a fun way to play chess, and certainly not the way chess was intended to be played, I’m sure. The same is true for online games, and vital for games that are supposed to evoke a certain sort of atmosphere.
Let’s take Star Wars for example. We all know what the Star Wars universe is like. At its core, Star Wars is about swashbuckling adventure, cool gear and ships, strange aliens and locations, and the struggle between good and evil on the grand stage of galactic events and the hidden chambers of each individual’s soul. A game that takes place in the Star Wars universe needs to evoke these themes. Otherwise, it isn’t Star Wars. It could still be a commercial success, but the designers wasted the money spent on the franchise; they would have done better by everyone involved if they had just developed their own world.
The big challenge, of course, isn’t graphics or making cool ships or coding communication systems. The challenge is getting the players to play like the world they are in is the Star Wars galaxy. Players are very good at bringing everything down to the bottom line. Any game that has a strong achiever (www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm) focus to it (which is just about any game with levels or improvable stats) is going to have a strong, vocal community hell-bent on improving their characters. These players will do whatever it takes to “level up”, whether it fits with the themes of the game or not. The designer response to this is to attempt to build systems into the game that encourage or coerce (www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_38.html) the players into actions that promote or reinforce the theme and style of the designers’ vision.
And this is where a possible conflict exists between Entertainment and Art. Entertainment says that the primary focus of design needs to be people having fun. Art says that the primary focus of design needs to be the vision of the designers as artists. A game based on Tolkien’s Middle Earth should have very few wizards in it. Designers attempting to recreate the feel of the Middle Earth books should create a magic system that discourages powerful wizards. Mulligan would say this is bad design because lots of people who love playing fantasy RPGs enjoy creating powerful wizard characters. Anything that limits the players’ ability to play such a character will drive away customers.
Frankly, I think a little conscious coercion is a good thing. I enjoy exploring the creations of others and the feeling of being in another world that comes with the suspension of disbelief that coercive systems attempt to encourage. In short, playing in a game that encourages me and my fellow players to play as if we’re in a setting that I find fascinating is good entertainment that I’m willing to pay for. However, I’d also love to see a purer version of what Ms. Mulligan is espousing: a game in which the players design the systems and settings as they play, or just by playing in the game. But I’m not sure I’d hang around. A pandemonium of player-visions, without any central theme or foundation, sounds like a neat place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Brian