I tried to be constructive in my criticism on the boards and to take a deeper look at WHY the CURB was not working for myself. I got some postive feedback from other players with it so I assume there are others who feel like I do.
I agree.
There can be little doubt amongst gamers that several varieties of player exist. Every player is unique, certainly, but it can be demonstrated with relative ease that the majority of players fit in somewhere within a matrix that is, for ease, broken down into a four axis grid of Interactive, Active, World, Player. This model has been comprehensively discussed and developed by Richard Bartle in his seminal essay "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDS and can be read online here:
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm&e=9801/
I encourage everyone with an interest in understanding their gaming a little more deeply than "Log on, Kill, Log Out" to read over this document. I think with a greater understanding that there are multiple character types coming to MMORPG's with multiple expectations and needs, then the rhetoric behind "CU rawks vs CU sux" discussions could be moderated and more discussion could be had to steer the game to a compromise that everyone can live with might be had.
In a nutshell, Mr Bartle identifies several player types in his essay; Achievers, Explorers, Socializers and killers,
"One of the things that separates a really well-designed role playing game from a hack and slash through a single corridor is the concept of choice. Players need to be able to have choices, and those choices have to matter. A player should be able to pick and choose a course of action for his character from as wide a variety of possibilities as is feasible, and while some of these choices will be obviously stupid ones, there should not be only one option for becoming "heroic." Unfortunately, the nature of modern CRPG design seems to mandate that players kill stuff and rob it, due to the relative ease of focusing on combat only as a path of advancement, as well as the "monsteritis" syndrome that relegates all non-player characters to the role of "thing that sits around waiting for players to attack it."
"The most elementary system for expanding the number of options open to a player is meaningful craft skills. This means artisan trades that players can explore that exist for some reason besides equipping "real" characters who go out to kill stuff. In a world where food is required by PC's and NPC's alike, agronomy and foraging could be important skills, as could hunting game. Indeed, a nomadic character who stays away from town would need these abilities, even if he supplements his rations by murdering other players for their salt pork and waybread. If food is not required, other skills would certainly be valuable, like leatherworking, ore refining, smithy, woodwork, bowyery... the classics, as it were. If the engine is sophisticated enough to track the construction of new buildings over time, carpentry and architecture take on new possibilities. Cartography, dowsing, herbalism, medicine, tinsmithy... trade skills can number in the hundreds easily, limited only by the complexities of code and the ability of developers to think outside of the norm when considering trade skills.
"Some of the most rewarding aspects of playing an RPG for some players lies in the less quantifiable pursuits like diplomacy, the acquisition of a title, political influence, and inter-community trade. These are more difficult to simulate in a system relying on hard code, as by and large these are subjective skills, not measurable in terms of points. However, one can always start somewhere. The acquisition of titles like "Grand Master of the Four Flowers School of Swordsmanship" can be done through quests, say to prove one's worth in a contest of skill at the school, assuming one has spent enough time there to qualify for the test in the first place. This sort of contest is nice, because it doesn't confer anything but a tit
Slashdot Mirror
I tried to be constructive in my criticism on the boards and to take a deeper look at WHY the CURB was not working for myself. I got some postive feedback from other players with it so I assume there are others who feel like I do. I agree. There can be little doubt amongst gamers that several varieties of player exist. Every player is unique, certainly, but it can be demonstrated with relative ease that the majority of players fit in somewhere within a matrix that is, for ease, broken down into a four axis grid of Interactive, Active, World, Player. This model has been comprehensively discussed and developed by Richard Bartle in his seminal essay "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDS and can be read online here: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm&e=9801/ I encourage everyone with an interest in understanding their gaming a little more deeply than "Log on, Kill, Log Out" to read over this document. I think with a greater understanding that there are multiple character types coming to MMORPG's with multiple expectations and needs, then the rhetoric behind "CU rawks vs CU sux" discussions could be moderated and more discussion could be had to steer the game to a compromise that everyone can live with might be had. In a nutshell, Mr Bartle identifies several player types in his essay; Achievers, Explorers, Socializers and killers, "One of the things that separates a really well-designed role playing game from a hack and slash through a single corridor is the concept of choice. Players need to be able to have choices, and those choices have to matter. A player should be able to pick and choose a course of action for his character from as wide a variety of possibilities as is feasible, and while some of these choices will be obviously stupid ones, there should not be only one option for becoming "heroic." Unfortunately, the nature of modern CRPG design seems to mandate that players kill stuff and rob it, due to the relative ease of focusing on combat only as a path of advancement, as well as the "monsteritis" syndrome that relegates all non-player characters to the role of "thing that sits around waiting for players to attack it." "The most elementary system for expanding the number of options open to a player is meaningful craft skills. This means artisan trades that players can explore that exist for some reason besides equipping "real" characters who go out to kill stuff. In a world where food is required by PC's and NPC's alike, agronomy and foraging could be important skills, as could hunting game. Indeed, a nomadic character who stays away from town would need these abilities, even if he supplements his rations by murdering other players for their salt pork and waybread. If food is not required, other skills would certainly be valuable, like leatherworking, ore refining, smithy, woodwork, bowyery... the classics, as it were. If the engine is sophisticated enough to track the construction of new buildings over time, carpentry and architecture take on new possibilities. Cartography, dowsing, herbalism, medicine, tinsmithy... trade skills can number in the hundreds easily, limited only by the complexities of code and the ability of developers to think outside of the norm when considering trade skills. "Some of the most rewarding aspects of playing an RPG for some players lies in the less quantifiable pursuits like diplomacy, the acquisition of a title, political influence, and inter-community trade. These are more difficult to simulate in a system relying on hard code, as by and large these are subjective skills, not measurable in terms of points. However, one can always start somewhere. The acquisition of titles like "Grand Master of the Four Flowers School of Swordsmanship" can be done through quests, say to prove one's worth in a contest of skill at the school, assuming one has spent enough time there to qualify for the test in the first place. This sort of contest is nice, because it doesn't confer anything but a tit