Hey All,
Excuse me if this has come up before, but I had a quick question
that I could not find an answer to after a bit of searching: Where,
if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player types? ATITD
and There have certainly shown that this is a valid in-game player
type (versus wizards creating content as a meta-game). It seems to
me like Creators are players that are not neccesarily trying to
accumulate points, explore the mechanics or geography of the game,
actively socialise and network with other players, or impose their
will on other players.
Many creative types I know that make content for games in their own
time do so not for the cred it earns them, not for an exploraion of
what it is possible to express, not to gain freinds and interact
directly with people, and certainly not to impose their will on
others. It strikes me that "creators" are often the antithesis of
the "killers" in that they are motivated by the desire to add
something to the game that they think other people will enjoy. The
fact that other plaers will enjoy their creation makes them happy,
even if they do not earn coin for it, make friends through it, or
discover more about the world from it.
If it is true that there exists a player type out there that is
potentially an anti-griefer, I think it would be an important
inclusion in the EASK characterisation of player types. Do these
players appear in the wild, and if not, is it merely because
mechanics prevent them from engaging in creative pursuits?
-Paolo
=====
Paolo Piselli
ppiselli@yahoo.com
www.piselli.com , www.bestcoastswing.com
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
MUDDev Archive
MUD-Dev Mailing List Archive
wherefor in-game artists?
26 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
wherefor in-game artists?
by Paolo Piselli on Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:24 am
- Paolo Piselli
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:26 am
wherefor in-game artists?
by Richard A. Bartle on Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:10 pm
On 01 September 2004, Paolo Piselli wrote:
> Where, if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player
> types
It depends why they are creating. It's possible to conceive of
people creating for reasons that fit into any of the player types.
> It strikes me that "creators" are often the antithesis of the
> "killers" in that they are motivated by the desire to add
> something to the game that they think other people will enjoy.
This would still make them killers in the old formalism, but
probably politicians (rather than griefers) in the new. They may be
doing it for social reasons, too; it depends on the virtual world.
Of course, if they're doing it for money, or doing it because they
simply enjoy creation, they may well not fit into any category. My
player types model is for virtual worlds, not the real world.
Richard
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> Where, if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player
> types
It depends why they are creating. It's possible to conceive of
people creating for reasons that fit into any of the player types.
> It strikes me that "creators" are often the antithesis of the
> "killers" in that they are motivated by the desire to add
> something to the game that they think other people will enjoy.
This would still make them killers in the old formalism, but
probably politicians (rather than griefers) in the new. They may be
doing it for social reasons, too; it depends on the virtual world.
Of course, if they're doing it for money, or doing it because they
simply enjoy creation, they may well not fit into any category. My
player types model is for virtual worlds, not the real world.
Richard
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Richard A. Bartle
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2000 9:16 am
wherefor in-game artists?
by Robert Zubek on Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:28 pm
Paolo Piselli wrote:
> Where, if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player
> types?
Nowhere, it seems. :)
This is not a criticism - Bartle's is an elegant model of the
different MUD player motivations. But it's based on a taxonomy of
the most prominent groups, and Creatives are difficult to come by in
an average MUD.
> Do these players appear in the wild, and if not, is it merely
> because mechanics prevent them from engaging in creative pursuits?
I don't think it's the mechanics by themselves that work against
them. Castle Marrach by Skotos, a text-based game of role-playing
and intrigue, is my favorite example. When I played it some time
ago, they had a surprisingly huge creative subculture (within the
limits of the text interface, of course, which constrained the form
to creative writing, poetry, etc). From what I understand, this
happened because Skotos had actively nurtured artistic expression -
from the game's very beginning they had seeded a number of
communities and social structures in which artistic creation was
valued, and nurtured their development with unique in-game rewards.
It also seems to have helped that they highly constrained the game -
it took place in one small building, with no access to weapons,
money, or player stats. This effectively selected against killers,
and the more obsessive among explorers and achievers (one could
still explore and achieve in the social domain, of course).
So even though the mechanics were even more limiting than standard
MUDs, their thoughtful social engineering allowed them to grow a
thriving creative community.
Rob
--
Robert Zubek
http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~rob <http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~rob>
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> Where, if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player
> types?
Nowhere, it seems. :)
This is not a criticism - Bartle's is an elegant model of the
different MUD player motivations. But it's based on a taxonomy of
the most prominent groups, and Creatives are difficult to come by in
an average MUD.
> Do these players appear in the wild, and if not, is it merely
> because mechanics prevent them from engaging in creative pursuits?
I don't think it's the mechanics by themselves that work against
them. Castle Marrach by Skotos, a text-based game of role-playing
and intrigue, is my favorite example. When I played it some time
ago, they had a surprisingly huge creative subculture (within the
limits of the text interface, of course, which constrained the form
to creative writing, poetry, etc). From what I understand, this
happened because Skotos had actively nurtured artistic expression -
from the game's very beginning they had seeded a number of
communities and social structures in which artistic creation was
valued, and nurtured their development with unique in-game rewards.
It also seems to have helped that they highly constrained the game -
it took place in one small building, with no access to weapons,
money, or player stats. This effectively selected against killers,
and the more obsessive among explorers and achievers (one could
still explore and achieve in the social domain, of course).
So even though the mechanics were even more limiting than standard
MUDs, their thoughtful social engineering allowed them to grow a
thriving creative community.
Rob
--
Robert Zubek
http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~rob <http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~rob>
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Robert Zubek
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 3:31 am
wherefor in-game artists?
by Douglas Goodall on Thu Sep 02, 2004 9:31 pm
Paolo Piselli wrote:
> Many creative types I know that make content for games in their
> own time do so not for the cred it earns them, not for an
> exploraion of what it is possible to express, not to gain freinds
> and interact directly with people, and certainly not to impose
> their will on others. It strikes me that "creators" are often the
> antithesis of the "killers" in that they are motivated by the
> desire to add something to the game that they think other people
> will enjoy. The fact that other plaers will enjoy their creation
> makes them happy, even if they do not earn coin for it, make
> friends through it, or discover more about the world from it.
> If it is true that there exists a player type out there that is
> potentially an anti-griefer, I think it would be an important
> inclusion in the EASK characterisation of player types. Do these
> players appear in the wild, and if not, is it merely because
> mechanics prevent them from engaging in creative pursuits?
Interesting question.
I tend to equate creative work more with explorers than with a new
type, particularly in a game like Second Life where "creation" is
how you explore the boundaries of the game. But this could be
personal. I'm ESA, but consider myself more of a creator (at least
of fiction and events) or roleplayer than an explorer. Most MMOs
don't merit much exploration in terms of mechanics (though the
simplest mechanics are often more fun). Exploring social scenes and
meta-games can hold my interest longer.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> Many creative types I know that make content for games in their
> own time do so not for the cred it earns them, not for an
> exploraion of what it is possible to express, not to gain freinds
> and interact directly with people, and certainly not to impose
> their will on others. It strikes me that "creators" are often the
> antithesis of the "killers" in that they are motivated by the
> desire to add something to the game that they think other people
> will enjoy. The fact that other plaers will enjoy their creation
> makes them happy, even if they do not earn coin for it, make
> friends through it, or discover more about the world from it.
> If it is true that there exists a player type out there that is
> potentially an anti-griefer, I think it would be an important
> inclusion in the EASK characterisation of player types. Do these
> players appear in the wild, and if not, is it merely because
> mechanics prevent them from engaging in creative pursuits?
Interesting question.
I tend to equate creative work more with explorers than with a new
type, particularly in a game like Second Life where "creation" is
how you explore the boundaries of the game. But this could be
personal. I'm ESA, but consider myself more of a creator (at least
of fiction and events) or roleplayer than an explorer. Most MMOs
don't merit much exploration in terms of mechanics (though the
simplest mechanics are often more fun). Exploring social scenes and
meta-games can hold my interest longer.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Douglas Goodall
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:06 pm
wherefor in-game artists?
by Matt Mihaly on Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:57 am
Robert Zubek wrote:
> I don't think it's the mechanics by themselves that work against
> them. Castle Marrach by Skotos, a text-based game of role-playing
> and intrigue, is my favorite example. When I played it some time
> ago, they had a surprisingly huge creative subculture (within the
> limits of the text interface, of course, which constrained the
> form to creative writing, poetry, etc). From what I understand,
> this happened because Skotos had actively nurtured artistic
> expression - from the game's very beginning they had seeded a
> number of communities and social structures in which artistic
> creation was valued, and nurtured their development with unique
> in-game rewards.
> It also seems to have helped that they highly constrained the game
> - it took place in one small building, with no access to weapons,
> money, or player stats. This effectively selected against killers,
> and the more obsessive among explorers and achievers (one could
> still explore and achieve in the social domain, of course).
The absence of killers, explorers, and achievers isn't necessary to
foster a creative community though. Just providing mechanism for
people to express themselves creatively without being unduly
harassed by other players is enough to get it started. Toss in a few
rewards and the creativity will come pouring out. We hold monthly
art and writing contests that get a lot of submissions (so much so
that at one point we nearly got rid of the writing competitions
because judging them meant reading such a volume of material) and
have a formalized theater system complete with 'special effects',
customizeable props, costumes, masks, and so on that troupes use to
put on plays. I know UO players have done similar things.
--matt
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> I don't think it's the mechanics by themselves that work against
> them. Castle Marrach by Skotos, a text-based game of role-playing
> and intrigue, is my favorite example. When I played it some time
> ago, they had a surprisingly huge creative subculture (within the
> limits of the text interface, of course, which constrained the
> form to creative writing, poetry, etc). From what I understand,
> this happened because Skotos had actively nurtured artistic
> expression - from the game's very beginning they had seeded a
> number of communities and social structures in which artistic
> creation was valued, and nurtured their development with unique
> in-game rewards.
> It also seems to have helped that they highly constrained the game
> - it took place in one small building, with no access to weapons,
> money, or player stats. This effectively selected against killers,
> and the more obsessive among explorers and achievers (one could
> still explore and achieve in the social domain, of course).
The absence of killers, explorers, and achievers isn't necessary to
foster a creative community though. Just providing mechanism for
people to express themselves creatively without being unduly
harassed by other players is enough to get it started. Toss in a few
rewards and the creativity will come pouring out. We hold monthly
art and writing contests that get a lot of submissions (so much so
that at one point we nearly got rid of the writing competitions
because judging them meant reading such a volume of material) and
have a formalized theater system complete with 'special effects',
customizeable props, costumes, masks, and so on that troupes use to
put on plays. I know UO players have done similar things.
--matt
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Matt Mihaly
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:42 am
wherefor in-game artists?
by Sean Howard on Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:07 am
"Richard A. Bartle" <richard@mud.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01 September 2004, Paolo Piselli wrote:
>> Where, if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player
>> types
> It depends why they are creating. It's possible to conceive of
> people creating for reasons that fit into any of the player types.
The problem with your player types is that you describe results,
rather than motivations. People can have the same effective
behaviors but for very different reasons. People can fit into
multiple groups precisely for that reason - one motivation can lead
to multiple types of behavior at the same time. The only way those
four types become of any use at all is by making them all viable,
just to different degrees. I'm mostly killer with a side of
explorer.
In this case, it can't be used to describe the motivations of people
described as creators. Creators fits into that model at the same
level of abstraction, rather than above it or below it. You've got
five player types at that level, probably a lot more. That level
seeks to sum up a player's actions. Things which are out of
character, but not as frequent, are pretty much thrown out as
non-issues. Worse yet, it cannot predict future behavior or how
certain types will respond to new and unseen game features.
A motivation based description is much more accurate and useful for
matters of design and understanding players.
- Sean Howard
www.squidi.net
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> On 01 September 2004, Paolo Piselli wrote:
>> Where, if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player
>> types
> It depends why they are creating. It's possible to conceive of
> people creating for reasons that fit into any of the player types.
The problem with your player types is that you describe results,
rather than motivations. People can have the same effective
behaviors but for very different reasons. People can fit into
multiple groups precisely for that reason - one motivation can lead
to multiple types of behavior at the same time. The only way those
four types become of any use at all is by making them all viable,
just to different degrees. I'm mostly killer with a side of
explorer.
In this case, it can't be used to describe the motivations of people
described as creators. Creators fits into that model at the same
level of abstraction, rather than above it or below it. You've got
five player types at that level, probably a lot more. That level
seeks to sum up a player's actions. Things which are out of
character, but not as frequent, are pretty much thrown out as
non-issues. Worse yet, it cannot predict future behavior or how
certain types will respond to new and unseen game features.
A motivation based description is much more accurate and useful for
matters of design and understanding players.
- Sean Howard
www.squidi.net
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Sean Howard
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:11 am
wherefor in-game artists?
by Christopher Allen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:37 pm
Robert Zubek wrote:
> I don't think it's the mechanics by themselves that work against
> them. Castle Marrach by Skotos, a text-based game of role-playing
> and intrigue, is my favorite example. When I played it some time
> ago, they had a surprisingly huge creative subculture (within the
> limits of the text interface, of course, which constrained the
> form to creative writing, poetry, etc). From what I understand,
> this happened because Skotos had actively nurtured artistic
> expression - from the game's very beginning they had seeded a
> number of communities and social structures in which artistic
> creation was valued, and nurtured their development with unique
> in-game rewards.
> It also seems to have helped that they highly constrained the game
> - it took place in one small building, with no access to weapons,
> money, or player stats. This effectively selected against killers,
> and the more obsessive among explorers and achievers (one could
> still explore and achieve in the social domain, of course).
> So even though the mechanics were even more limiting than standard
> MUDs, their thoughtful social engineering allowed them to grow a
> thriving creative community.
I'll add a couple of comments here.
Although Castle Marrach is a text game, it is web-centric as it is
played on an enhanced web client (see screenshot at
http://www.skotos.net/games/screenshots/cm-lg.jpg ). This means that
we can do things like have a our graphic "theme" be displayed
prominently at all times, display game maps, and also open popup
windows with graphics. For instance, if you look at many sketches,
maps, paintings, invitations, etc. in the game, a window will open
which will display a graphic for that object. Many of players create
these graphics.
We have one rule in the game about these -- no direct
representations. I.e. you can't say "this is what my sword looks
like", instead it must be "this is my sketch of my sword". This has
some interesting consquences, as this means all graphics in the game
are thought of as some form of art, thus have to be interpreted by
the viewer. This parallels well the text medium, which also require
interpretation by the viewer.
We do actively nurture various arts and writing in Castle Marrach,
both IC and OOC. There are routes of IC advancement in the game that
are only open to artists or writers. And OOC we have appreciations,
contests, and even published a small book of our players best works.
When we opened the game, we had a few staff run NPC artists and
writers who kicked off an artistic culture. For instance, I ran the
first "poet" NPC, and held a poetry reading in one of the common
rooms. Because we had a cool new "prox" and "adverb" feature, I used
them: "stand before the fireplace", "gaze at ceiling", "gaze at
floor" and "gaze outwardly", all before the two poems I read. To
this day, you will often see people doing those four actions at
poetry readings in the castle over four years later.
Castle Marrach was a mixed success -- I think we did achieve an
almost "pure socializer" game that wasn't just a chat room. All game
mechanics are social, for instance, to advance your skill in dodge,
you have to find someone better then you in dodge, and then persuade
them to teach you. If you do persuade them, you have to spend from 1
to 20 half-hours with them, with at least a day between failures, or
a week between successes. This means that you have to have to spend
a meaningful half-hour with someone to advance, so you better be
able to offer some good roleplaying, or a good service, or a skill
trade to your teacher. This mechanic has worked very well.
What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game doesn't
scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust doesn't
scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience with this
is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own first
game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
(http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
-- Christopher Allen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@skotos.net> Skotos Tech Inc. ..
.. 2342 Shattuck Ave Ste #512, Berkeley, CA 94704-1517 ..
.. www.skotos.net www.rpg.net o510/647-2760 f510/849-1717 ..
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> I don't think it's the mechanics by themselves that work against
> them. Castle Marrach by Skotos, a text-based game of role-playing
> and intrigue, is my favorite example. When I played it some time
> ago, they had a surprisingly huge creative subculture (within the
> limits of the text interface, of course, which constrained the
> form to creative writing, poetry, etc). From what I understand,
> this happened because Skotos had actively nurtured artistic
> expression - from the game's very beginning they had seeded a
> number of communities and social structures in which artistic
> creation was valued, and nurtured their development with unique
> in-game rewards.
> It also seems to have helped that they highly constrained the game
> - it took place in one small building, with no access to weapons,
> money, or player stats. This effectively selected against killers,
> and the more obsessive among explorers and achievers (one could
> still explore and achieve in the social domain, of course).
> So even though the mechanics were even more limiting than standard
> MUDs, their thoughtful social engineering allowed them to grow a
> thriving creative community.
I'll add a couple of comments here.
Although Castle Marrach is a text game, it is web-centric as it is
played on an enhanced web client (see screenshot at
http://www.skotos.net/games/screenshots/cm-lg.jpg ). This means that
we can do things like have a our graphic "theme" be displayed
prominently at all times, display game maps, and also open popup
windows with graphics. For instance, if you look at many sketches,
maps, paintings, invitations, etc. in the game, a window will open
which will display a graphic for that object. Many of players create
these graphics.
We have one rule in the game about these -- no direct
representations. I.e. you can't say "this is what my sword looks
like", instead it must be "this is my sketch of my sword". This has
some interesting consquences, as this means all graphics in the game
are thought of as some form of art, thus have to be interpreted by
the viewer. This parallels well the text medium, which also require
interpretation by the viewer.
We do actively nurture various arts and writing in Castle Marrach,
both IC and OOC. There are routes of IC advancement in the game that
are only open to artists or writers. And OOC we have appreciations,
contests, and even published a small book of our players best works.
When we opened the game, we had a few staff run NPC artists and
writers who kicked off an artistic culture. For instance, I ran the
first "poet" NPC, and held a poetry reading in one of the common
rooms. Because we had a cool new "prox" and "adverb" feature, I used
them: "stand before the fireplace", "gaze at ceiling", "gaze at
floor" and "gaze outwardly", all before the two poems I read. To
this day, you will often see people doing those four actions at
poetry readings in the castle over four years later.
Castle Marrach was a mixed success -- I think we did achieve an
almost "pure socializer" game that wasn't just a chat room. All game
mechanics are social, for instance, to advance your skill in dodge,
you have to find someone better then you in dodge, and then persuade
them to teach you. If you do persuade them, you have to spend from 1
to 20 half-hours with them, with at least a day between failures, or
a week between successes. This means that you have to have to spend
a meaningful half-hour with someone to advance, so you better be
able to offer some good roleplaying, or a good service, or a skill
trade to your teacher. This mechanic has worked very well.
What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game doesn't
scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust doesn't
scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience with this
is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own first
game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
(http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
-- Christopher Allen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@skotos.net> Skotos Tech Inc. ..
.. 2342 Shattuck Ave Ste #512, Berkeley, CA 94704-1517 ..
.. www.skotos.net www.rpg.net o510/647-2760 f510/849-1717 ..
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Christopher Allen
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 1999 11:10 pm
wherefor in-game artists?
by Matt Mihaly on Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:08 pm
Christopher Allen wrote:
> What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game
> doesn't scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust
> doesn't scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience
> with this is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
> we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own
> first game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
> (http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
> lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
> interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
What about pure social muds like Shangri-La? They have a community
into the thousands with over 350 simultaneously on
sometimes. They're oriented around 'adult themes.' Perhaps the lure
of sex can skew or otherwise invalidate whatever motivations within
us sets up the Dunbar number?
--matt
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game
> doesn't scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust
> doesn't scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience
> with this is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
> we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own
> first game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
> (http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
> lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
> interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
What about pure social muds like Shangri-La? They have a community
into the thousands with over 350 simultaneously on
sometimes. They're oriented around 'adult themes.' Perhaps the lure
of sex can skew or otherwise invalidate whatever motivations within
us sets up the Dunbar number?
--matt
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Matt Mihaly
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:42 am
wherefor in-game artists?
by David Kennerly on Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:07 am
Sean Howard wrote:
> "Richard A. Bartle" <richard@mud.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01 September 2004, Paolo Piselli wrote:
>>> Where, if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player
>>> types
>> It depends why they are creating. It's possible to conceive of
>> people creating for reasons that fit into any of the player
>> types.
> The problem with your player types is that you describe results,
> rather than motivations. People can have the same effective
> behaviors but for very different reasons.
I think all four can be, too, but, for an odd, or at least
long-winded reason, which is based on semi-motivation model.
I have had a curiosity with Bartle types that led to a weird
opinion. I failed overcome the laziness, so have not disproven my
faulty opinion. Certainly not enough to study of psychology.
Instead, maybe I can just find a psychologist to beat it out of my
head with much less work. :)
My curiosity began with the title: "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades:
Players Who Suit MUDs" (http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm).
These, of course, are four suits of cards. These four suits of
playing cards were derived from the four suits of the Tarot deck.
Correspondences being:
Tarot :: Suit
Cups :: Hearts
Wands :: Clubs
Disks :: Diamonds
Swords :: Spades
The Tarot deck was, among many things, a lexicon of medieval
alchemy. These alchemists studied how to transform a leaden
personality into a golden personality. That is, how to adjust the
four elements in the persona, or the three alchemical essences of
Sulphur, Salt, and Mercury, in order to change their motivation and
improve character. Turn lead into gold, or as Foucault might call
it, the technologies of the self.
Some alchemy included a theory of personal relationships, in which
the ancient four elements were ascribed correspondences to
personality types. These alchemical elementary personalities are:
Element :: Alchemical personality
Water :: Entertaining and emotionally subtle.
Fire :: Energetic and party-loving and emotionally dominant.
Earth :: Traditional, and intellectually subtle.
Air :: Investigative, thought-provocative, and intellectually dominant.
There is also a correspondence from the elements to the Greek Gods,
which the Greeks believed were origins of mortal personality. A
Greek might say Apollo speaks through me, etc.
Element :: Greek god
Water :: Apollo
Fire :: Dionysus
Earth :: Epimetheus
Air :: Prometheus
Which gives the correspondence to personality as:
Greek god :: Alchemical personality
Apollo :: Entertaining and emotionally subtle.
Dionysus :: Energetic and party-loving and emotionally dominant.
Epimetheus :: Traditional, and intellectually subtle.
Prometheus :: Investigative, thought-provocative, and intellectually dominant.
Much of their utility comes in seeing how various elements interact,
as tendencies for social and/or sexual chemistry. These were
encoded into the Tarot deck, which gives us three columns of
correspondences:
Element :: Tarot :: Suit :: Greek god
Water :: Cups :: Hearts :: Apollo
Fire :: Wands :: Clubs :: Dionysus
Earth :: Disks :: Diamonds :: Epimetheus
Air :: Swords :: Spades :: Prometheus
Carl Jung studied alchemy. From them he refined some proposals of
personality attitudes and functions. From Jung, Myers-Briggs based
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which retains some
correspondences from alchemical elements:
Element :: Myers-Briggs (MBTI)
Water :: Intuitive-Feeling (NF)
Fire :: Sensing-Perceiving (SP)
Earth :: Sensing-Judging (SJ)
Air :: Intuitive-Thinking (NT)
Keirsey (http://www.keirsey.com/) designated four temperaments of
the sixteen in MBTI. These corresponsences continue:
Element :: Myers-Briggs (MBTI) :: Keirsey
Water :: Intuitive-Feeling :: Idealists
Fire :: Sensing-Perceiving :: Artisans
Earth :: Sensing-Judging :: Guardians
Air :: Intuitive-Thinking :: Rationals
By knowing the origin and the original meaning of the tarot to the suit of a
playing card, one may further correspond the tarot to the MBTI:
Element :: Tarot :: MBTI :: Suit
Water :: Cups :: NF :: Hearts
Fire :: Wands :: SP :: Clubs
Earth :: Disks :: SJ :: Diamonds
Air :: Swords :: NT :: Spades
Rearranging suits to alchemical personality thus:
Suit :: Alchemical personality
Hearts :: Entertaining and emotionally subtle.
Clubs :: Energetic and party-loving and emotionally dominant.
Diamonds :: Traditional, and intellectually subtle.
Spades :: Investigative, thought-provocative, and intellectually dominant.
This then is not a far cry from a correspondence between Bartle
types and personalities:
Bartle :: Alchemical personality
Socializers :: Entertaining and emotionally subtle.
Killers :: Energetic and party-loving and emotionally dominant.
Achievers :: Traditional, and intellectually subtle.
Explorers :: Investigative, thought-provocative, and intellectually dominant.
So, this would imply the following correspondences:
MBTI :: Bartle
NF :: Socializer
SP :: Killer
SJ :: Achiever
NT :: Explorer
A few years ago, I asked Erwin Andreasen about this correspondence
(http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/ ... g00794.php). He
tabulated several results from an informal quiz on a Bartle Quotient
(http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/nstats.cgi). Aggregating these
four temperaments and doing correspondences yields:
MBTI Total Achvr Kllr Explrr Sclzr
NF 34% 27% 24% 31% 46%
SP 08% 09% 10% 07% 08%
SJ 13% 17% 15% 12% 12%
NT 45% 47% 51% 50% 35%
Sum 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Normalizing from the total in each Myers-Briggs Type, we see the
modal correspondences are:
MBTI :: Bartle
NF :: Socializer (1.36)
SP :: Killer (1.29)
SJ :: Achiever (1.31)
NT :: Killer (1.12), Explorer (1.09)
The correspondence suggests isomorphism, except for the NT
temperament, Rationals. All but one match, and the one that does
not is the least statistically significant, it is a difference of
1%. This shows bias in my opinion, the self-selected respondents,
or the mapping of the questions. Probably my opinion.
A couple other interesting third conjecture comes to mind. That is
that being online, which is dominated by NT in this test (46% !),
which has a tendency for intellectual domination, could express this
through cleverness online, which the test might detect any form of
domination as killer tendency. Another is that some players may
have a tendency to embody a separate online personality than
offline. And another conjecture is that killers have more fun (Amy
Jo Kim).
The conclusion of this weird belief, is my tendency to substitute
(NT, SJ, NF, SP) instead of (E, A, S, K), since I'm more familiar
with its use, history, and the relationships between MBTI
personalities. Of course, any stone, with enough stock, can be
turned into soup. I'm just pitching one more pebble in. :)
All that was a long-winding road to get to an answer of the question
"wherefor in-game artists?": Therefore, a player could create art to
entertain, dominate, trade, or provoke.
That's all in theory. In practice, I'm not sure what the
distribution of artist personalities are in a computer-mediated
community. I haven't encountered evidence to disprove the opinion,
but haven't encountered evidence to prove it either. In editing a
library of player art and literature
(http://www.darkages.com/community/body_library.html), I felt that
various artists were doing it for different reasons and that their
art, or literature, was intended to have these different effects:
entertainment, domination, trade, provoke.
David
(INTP, SEA)
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> "Richard A. Bartle" <richard@mud.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01 September 2004, Paolo Piselli wrote:
>>> Where, if anywhere, do creative types fall in Bartle's player
>>> types
>> It depends why they are creating. It's possible to conceive of
>> people creating for reasons that fit into any of the player
>> types.
> The problem with your player types is that you describe results,
> rather than motivations. People can have the same effective
> behaviors but for very different reasons.
I think all four can be, too, but, for an odd, or at least
long-winded reason, which is based on semi-motivation model.
I have had a curiosity with Bartle types that led to a weird
opinion. I failed overcome the laziness, so have not disproven my
faulty opinion. Certainly not enough to study of psychology.
Instead, maybe I can just find a psychologist to beat it out of my
head with much less work. :)
My curiosity began with the title: "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades:
Players Who Suit MUDs" (http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm).
These, of course, are four suits of cards. These four suits of
playing cards were derived from the four suits of the Tarot deck.
Correspondences being:
Tarot :: Suit
Cups :: Hearts
Wands :: Clubs
Disks :: Diamonds
Swords :: Spades
The Tarot deck was, among many things, a lexicon of medieval
alchemy. These alchemists studied how to transform a leaden
personality into a golden personality. That is, how to adjust the
four elements in the persona, or the three alchemical essences of
Sulphur, Salt, and Mercury, in order to change their motivation and
improve character. Turn lead into gold, or as Foucault might call
it, the technologies of the self.
Some alchemy included a theory of personal relationships, in which
the ancient four elements were ascribed correspondences to
personality types. These alchemical elementary personalities are:
Element :: Alchemical personality
Water :: Entertaining and emotionally subtle.
Fire :: Energetic and party-loving and emotionally dominant.
Earth :: Traditional, and intellectually subtle.
Air :: Investigative, thought-provocative, and intellectually dominant.
There is also a correspondence from the elements to the Greek Gods,
which the Greeks believed were origins of mortal personality. A
Greek might say Apollo speaks through me, etc.
Element :: Greek god
Water :: Apollo
Fire :: Dionysus
Earth :: Epimetheus
Air :: Prometheus
Which gives the correspondence to personality as:
Greek god :: Alchemical personality
Apollo :: Entertaining and emotionally subtle.
Dionysus :: Energetic and party-loving and emotionally dominant.
Epimetheus :: Traditional, and intellectually subtle.
Prometheus :: Investigative, thought-provocative, and intellectually dominant.
Much of their utility comes in seeing how various elements interact,
as tendencies for social and/or sexual chemistry. These were
encoded into the Tarot deck, which gives us three columns of
correspondences:
Element :: Tarot :: Suit :: Greek god
Water :: Cups :: Hearts :: Apollo
Fire :: Wands :: Clubs :: Dionysus
Earth :: Disks :: Diamonds :: Epimetheus
Air :: Swords :: Spades :: Prometheus
Carl Jung studied alchemy. From them he refined some proposals of
personality attitudes and functions. From Jung, Myers-Briggs based
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which retains some
correspondences from alchemical elements:
Element :: Myers-Briggs (MBTI)
Water :: Intuitive-Feeling (NF)
Fire :: Sensing-Perceiving (SP)
Earth :: Sensing-Judging (SJ)
Air :: Intuitive-Thinking (NT)
Keirsey (http://www.keirsey.com/) designated four temperaments of
the sixteen in MBTI. These corresponsences continue:
Element :: Myers-Briggs (MBTI) :: Keirsey
Water :: Intuitive-Feeling :: Idealists
Fire :: Sensing-Perceiving :: Artisans
Earth :: Sensing-Judging :: Guardians
Air :: Intuitive-Thinking :: Rationals
By knowing the origin and the original meaning of the tarot to the suit of a
playing card, one may further correspond the tarot to the MBTI:
Element :: Tarot :: MBTI :: Suit
Water :: Cups :: NF :: Hearts
Fire :: Wands :: SP :: Clubs
Earth :: Disks :: SJ :: Diamonds
Air :: Swords :: NT :: Spades
Rearranging suits to alchemical personality thus:
Suit :: Alchemical personality
Hearts :: Entertaining and emotionally subtle.
Clubs :: Energetic and party-loving and emotionally dominant.
Diamonds :: Traditional, and intellectually subtle.
Spades :: Investigative, thought-provocative, and intellectually dominant.
This then is not a far cry from a correspondence between Bartle
types and personalities:
Bartle :: Alchemical personality
Socializers :: Entertaining and emotionally subtle.
Killers :: Energetic and party-loving and emotionally dominant.
Achievers :: Traditional, and intellectually subtle.
Explorers :: Investigative, thought-provocative, and intellectually dominant.
So, this would imply the following correspondences:
MBTI :: Bartle
NF :: Socializer
SP :: Killer
SJ :: Achiever
NT :: Explorer
A few years ago, I asked Erwin Andreasen about this correspondence
(http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/ ... g00794.php). He
tabulated several results from an informal quiz on a Bartle Quotient
(http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/nstats.cgi). Aggregating these
four temperaments and doing correspondences yields:
MBTI Total Achvr Kllr Explrr Sclzr
NF 34% 27% 24% 31% 46%
SP 08% 09% 10% 07% 08%
SJ 13% 17% 15% 12% 12%
NT 45% 47% 51% 50% 35%
Sum 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Normalizing from the total in each Myers-Briggs Type, we see the
modal correspondences are:
MBTI :: Bartle
NF :: Socializer (1.36)
SP :: Killer (1.29)
SJ :: Achiever (1.31)
NT :: Killer (1.12), Explorer (1.09)
The correspondence suggests isomorphism, except for the NT
temperament, Rationals. All but one match, and the one that does
not is the least statistically significant, it is a difference of
1%. This shows bias in my opinion, the self-selected respondents,
or the mapping of the questions. Probably my opinion.
A couple other interesting third conjecture comes to mind. That is
that being online, which is dominated by NT in this test (46% !),
which has a tendency for intellectual domination, could express this
through cleverness online, which the test might detect any form of
domination as killer tendency. Another is that some players may
have a tendency to embody a separate online personality than
offline. And another conjecture is that killers have more fun (Amy
Jo Kim).
The conclusion of this weird belief, is my tendency to substitute
(NT, SJ, NF, SP) instead of (E, A, S, K), since I'm more familiar
with its use, history, and the relationships between MBTI
personalities. Of course, any stone, with enough stock, can be
turned into soup. I'm just pitching one more pebble in. :)
All that was a long-winding road to get to an answer of the question
"wherefor in-game artists?": Therefore, a player could create art to
entertain, dominate, trade, or provoke.
That's all in theory. In practice, I'm not sure what the
distribution of artist personalities are in a computer-mediated
community. I haven't encountered evidence to disprove the opinion,
but haven't encountered evidence to prove it either. In editing a
library of player art and literature
(http://www.darkages.com/community/body_library.html), I felt that
various artists were doing it for different reasons and that their
art, or literature, was intended to have these different effects:
entertainment, domination, trade, provoke.
David
(INTP, SEA)
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- David Kennerly
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 7:04 pm
wherefor in-game artists?
by Richard A. Bartle on Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:59 am
On 03 September 2004, Sean Howard wrote:
> The problem with your player types is that you describe results,
> rather than motivations.
The player types apply to motivation, but are very difficult to
ascertain other than by looking at results. Although most of the
time there is a correspondence between action and motivation,
occasionally there is not. A classic example from my own experience
would be a character we had who for 99% of the time was the world's
best socialiser. She would spend hours teaching people how to play,
coming to their aid if they got into difficulties, and chatting
(very wittily) as the world passed her by. The remaining 1% of the
time, she was a pure killer. Actually, 100% of the time she was a
killer, it's just that she spent 99% of her time gaining the
confidence of potential victims until the moment was perfect to
strike.
So it's possible for a character to appear through action to be one
type while being motivated to behave that way reveals them to be
another. Whether this kind of thing evens itself out or not I don't
know; I'm fairly sure that among long-term players at least it's
statistically significant. Naturally, however, I have no formal
evidence for this...
> The only way those four types become of any use at all is by
> making them all viable, just to different degrees.
I'm not sure what you mean by "viable" here.
The player types tell you why people play. You can decide which
types to promote or demote on that basis. Then again, you can ignore
the whole player types model if you like, it's not mandatory! The
important thing about the player types model is that it gives people
cause to look at the different motivations that players have in
virtual worlds, and account for them in their virtual world's
design. Whether designers like my particular model or not doesn't
particularly matter; what's important is that they consider that
there are different reasons that people have for their actions in
virtual worlds, and that their world's design needs to address these
reasons.
> In this case, it can't be used to describe the motivations of
> people described as creators.
Well no, of course not. People create for different reasons, and if
I were to say that creation (whether in-context through crafting or
out-of-context through building privs) is an activity primarily
associated with, say, exploring, you could come right back at me and
give me examples of its use by achievers, killers and socialisers.
You may also be able to point at creation as being none of these
things. It could be some kind of artistic journey of self-expression
that is independent of the virtual world except that this is the
medium in which the art takes place. In that case, I'd say fine,
that's a real-world motivation (in the same way that people who play
to make money eBaying stuff have real-world motivation). I could
argue that the reason people create (in this sense) is the same as
the reason that people play in general (ie. to find themselves), but
I wouldn't want to fit them into the player types model
directly. It's a model of player types; if people aren't playing,
then the model doesn't apply to them. I'm not trying to create an
all-encompassing model for human psychology here, just something
that will help designers design better virtual worlds.
> Worse yet, it cannot predict future behavior or how certain types
> will respond to new and unseen game features.
The original 4-types model can't be used predictively like that,
you're right. The 8-type model that I outline in my book can,
however.
As for predicting how the player types will respond to new and
unseen game features, I think even the 4-player model is pretty good
at that. There may be other influences, eg. cultural ones, but in
general it's not all that hard to predict what will happen in an
individual virtual world if you know that virtual world well enough.
> A motivation based description is much more accurate and useful
> for matters of design and understanding players.
The player types model IS motivational. The question that prompted
its development was "What do people want out of a MUD?", not "What
do people do when playing a MUD?".
Richard
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> The problem with your player types is that you describe results,
> rather than motivations.
The player types apply to motivation, but are very difficult to
ascertain other than by looking at results. Although most of the
time there is a correspondence between action and motivation,
occasionally there is not. A classic example from my own experience
would be a character we had who for 99% of the time was the world's
best socialiser. She would spend hours teaching people how to play,
coming to their aid if they got into difficulties, and chatting
(very wittily) as the world passed her by. The remaining 1% of the
time, she was a pure killer. Actually, 100% of the time she was a
killer, it's just that she spent 99% of her time gaining the
confidence of potential victims until the moment was perfect to
strike.
So it's possible for a character to appear through action to be one
type while being motivated to behave that way reveals them to be
another. Whether this kind of thing evens itself out or not I don't
know; I'm fairly sure that among long-term players at least it's
statistically significant. Naturally, however, I have no formal
evidence for this...
> The only way those four types become of any use at all is by
> making them all viable, just to different degrees.
I'm not sure what you mean by "viable" here.
The player types tell you why people play. You can decide which
types to promote or demote on that basis. Then again, you can ignore
the whole player types model if you like, it's not mandatory! The
important thing about the player types model is that it gives people
cause to look at the different motivations that players have in
virtual worlds, and account for them in their virtual world's
design. Whether designers like my particular model or not doesn't
particularly matter; what's important is that they consider that
there are different reasons that people have for their actions in
virtual worlds, and that their world's design needs to address these
reasons.
> In this case, it can't be used to describe the motivations of
> people described as creators.
Well no, of course not. People create for different reasons, and if
I were to say that creation (whether in-context through crafting or
out-of-context through building privs) is an activity primarily
associated with, say, exploring, you could come right back at me and
give me examples of its use by achievers, killers and socialisers.
You may also be able to point at creation as being none of these
things. It could be some kind of artistic journey of self-expression
that is independent of the virtual world except that this is the
medium in which the art takes place. In that case, I'd say fine,
that's a real-world motivation (in the same way that people who play
to make money eBaying stuff have real-world motivation). I could
argue that the reason people create (in this sense) is the same as
the reason that people play in general (ie. to find themselves), but
I wouldn't want to fit them into the player types model
directly. It's a model of player types; if people aren't playing,
then the model doesn't apply to them. I'm not trying to create an
all-encompassing model for human psychology here, just something
that will help designers design better virtual worlds.
> Worse yet, it cannot predict future behavior or how certain types
> will respond to new and unseen game features.
The original 4-types model can't be used predictively like that,
you're right. The 8-type model that I outline in my book can,
however.
As for predicting how the player types will respond to new and
unseen game features, I think even the 4-player model is pretty good
at that. There may be other influences, eg. cultural ones, but in
general it's not all that hard to predict what will happen in an
individual virtual world if you know that virtual world well enough.
> A motivation based description is much more accurate and useful
> for matters of design and understanding players.
The player types model IS motivational. The question that prompted
its development was "What do people want out of a MUD?", not "What
do people do when playing a MUD?".
Richard
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Richard A. Bartle
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2000 9:16 am
wherefor in-game artists?
by Douglas Goodall on Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:53 pm
Christopher Allen wrote:
> What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game
> doesn't scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust
> doesn't scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience
> with this is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
> we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own
> first game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
> (http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
> lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
> interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
I noticed this myself when I played Castle Marrach about a year
ago. Since then I've wondered about several possible ways to
overcome this limit. Could you divide players into smaller
sub-communities by specialization (i.e. poets vs. artists)? Could
you divide players into sub-communities by geography (Castle Marrach
vs. Its Environs)? Could a game like this support more than one
server, each with a particular style that might appeal to a
different player (and further self-select the players for
compatibility)?
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game
> doesn't scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust
> doesn't scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience
> with this is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
> we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own
> first game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
> (http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
> lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
> interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
I noticed this myself when I played Castle Marrach about a year
ago. Since then I've wondered about several possible ways to
overcome this limit. Could you divide players into smaller
sub-communities by specialization (i.e. poets vs. artists)? Could
you divide players into sub-communities by geography (Castle Marrach
vs. Its Environs)? Could a game like this support more than one
server, each with a particular style that might appeal to a
different player (and further self-select the players for
compatibility)?
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Douglas Goodall
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:06 pm
wherefor in-game artists?
by ceo on Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:27 pm
David Kennerly wrote:
> All that was a long-winding road to get to an answer of the
> question "wherefor in-game artists?": Therefore, a player could
> create art to entertain, dominate, trade, or provoke.
...
> but haven't encountered evidence to prove it either. In editing a
> library of player art and literature
> (http://www.darkages.com/community/body_library.html), I felt that
> various artists were doing it for different reasons and that their
> art, or literature, was intended to have these different effects:
> entertainment, domination, trade, provoke.
In my experience, a vast number of artists [1] create art simply for
the sheer enjoyment of creation, which - assuming "entertainment"
means "entertainment of the spectator/user" - is none of those
things.
Many simultaneously enjoy looking at those works later on, but the
entertainment is a reliving of the memory of the act of creation - a
private entertainment, and not really a direct one from the work
itself.
This is the one point on which I disagree with any and all claims
that Creator is not a type in it's own right; apart from that
particular scenario, I'm quite happy with the notion that artistic
works are done for E/A/K/S reasons.
I can appreciate the view that this creation-for-creation's-sake has
a resonance with the explorers, but I personally feel that trying to
force those two together is an attempt motivated more by the desire
to retain a graph which is mathematically "pure", two-axis, balanced
and logical, rather than a fairly and evenly considered view. The
fundamentally logical mathematician in me really really likes
systems and categorizations that are "neat", especially if they are
symmetric; however, years of experience suggest that nothing in life
is ever neat or logical ;), and that the only way you can get away
with symmetry etc is by generalising until enough of the critical
detail disappears.
Of course, to do so is not inherently bad: a simpler, less accurate,
yet more easily *memorable* model has great practical advantage over
a more accurate yet less-trivial model that is harder to work with
(demands more attention, cannot be done "innately", etc).
[1] NB: one point worth noting in particular here is that most of
the artists I know are first-and-foremost artists - i.e. it is a
profession, dominant talent, or dominant hobby of theirs. Rather
than "something I do every now and then" it's more of a passion
for them. This is probably due to my background and the
self-selecting of the kinds of people I meet; I'm well aware this
could heavily bias the kinds of creativity I tend to
witness. Where I've seen people creating who would not consider
themselves artists, my vague memories are of a much lower
incidence of this particular motivation.
Adam M
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> All that was a long-winding road to get to an answer of the
> question "wherefor in-game artists?": Therefore, a player could
> create art to entertain, dominate, trade, or provoke.
...
> but haven't encountered evidence to prove it either. In editing a
> library of player art and literature
> (http://www.darkages.com/community/body_library.html), I felt that
> various artists were doing it for different reasons and that their
> art, or literature, was intended to have these different effects:
> entertainment, domination, trade, provoke.
In my experience, a vast number of artists [1] create art simply for
the sheer enjoyment of creation, which - assuming "entertainment"
means "entertainment of the spectator/user" - is none of those
things.
Many simultaneously enjoy looking at those works later on, but the
entertainment is a reliving of the memory of the act of creation - a
private entertainment, and not really a direct one from the work
itself.
This is the one point on which I disagree with any and all claims
that Creator is not a type in it's own right; apart from that
particular scenario, I'm quite happy with the notion that artistic
works are done for E/A/K/S reasons.
I can appreciate the view that this creation-for-creation's-sake has
a resonance with the explorers, but I personally feel that trying to
force those two together is an attempt motivated more by the desire
to retain a graph which is mathematically "pure", two-axis, balanced
and logical, rather than a fairly and evenly considered view. The
fundamentally logical mathematician in me really really likes
systems and categorizations that are "neat", especially if they are
symmetric; however, years of experience suggest that nothing in life
is ever neat or logical ;), and that the only way you can get away
with symmetry etc is by generalising until enough of the critical
detail disappears.
Of course, to do so is not inherently bad: a simpler, less accurate,
yet more easily *memorable* model has great practical advantage over
a more accurate yet less-trivial model that is harder to work with
(demands more attention, cannot be done "innately", etc).
[1] NB: one point worth noting in particular here is that most of
the artists I know are first-and-foremost artists - i.e. it is a
profession, dominant talent, or dominant hobby of theirs. Rather
than "something I do every now and then" it's more of a passion
for them. This is probably due to my background and the
self-selecting of the kinds of people I meet; I'm well aware this
could heavily bias the kinds of creativity I tend to
witness. Where I've seen people creating who would not consider
themselves artists, my vague memories are of a much lower
incidence of this particular motivation.
Adam M
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- ceo
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 12:08 pm
wherefor in-game artists?
by Christopher Allen on Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:23 pm
Matt Mihaly wrote:
> Christopher Allen wrote:
>> What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game
>> doesn't scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust
>> doesn't scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience
>> with this is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
>> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
>> we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own
>> first game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
>> (http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
>> lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
>> interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
> What about pure social muds like Shangri-La? They have a community
> into the thousands with over 350 simultaneously on
> sometimes. They're oriented around 'adult themes.' Perhaps the
> lure of sex can skew or otherwise invalidate whatever motivations
> within us sets up the Dunbar number?
It is quite possible that sexual relationships tends to have a
different trust metric then that for group trust at a band or tribe
level.
Certainly sociologists have shown that both males and females each
have different criteria for their less committed possible partners,
thus I suspect since they don't require the same commitment, they
don't require the same level of trust.
Related, achiever games can break dunbar as there are so many
activities that they can do without group trust. Skotos's other more
achiever oriented games break dunbar. Since mudsex only requires two
people, you don't need larger groupings.
-- Christopher Allen
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> Christopher Allen wrote:
>> What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game
>> doesn't scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust
>> doesn't scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience
>> with this is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
>> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
>> we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own
>> first game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
>> (http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
>> lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
>> interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
> What about pure social muds like Shangri-La? They have a community
> into the thousands with over 350 simultaneously on
> sometimes. They're oriented around 'adult themes.' Perhaps the
> lure of sex can skew or otherwise invalidate whatever motivations
> within us sets up the Dunbar number?
It is quite possible that sexual relationships tends to have a
different trust metric then that for group trust at a band or tribe
level.
Certainly sociologists have shown that both males and females each
have different criteria for their less committed possible partners,
thus I suspect since they don't require the same commitment, they
don't require the same level of trust.
Related, achiever games can break dunbar as there are so many
activities that they can do without group trust. Skotos's other more
achiever oriented games break dunbar. Since mudsex only requires two
people, you don't need larger groupings.
-- Christopher Allen
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Christopher Allen
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 1999 11:10 pm
wherefor in-game artists?
by Christopher Allen on Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:19 pm
Douglas Goodall wrote:
> Christopher Allen wrote:
>> What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game
>> doesn't scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust
>> doesn't scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience
>> with this is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
>> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
>> we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own
>> first game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
>> (http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
>> lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
>> interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
> I noticed this myself when I played Castle Marrach about a year
> ago. Since then I've wondered about several possible ways to
> overcome this limit. Could you divide players into smaller
> sub-communities by specialization (i.e. poets vs. artists)? Could
> you divide players into sub-communities by geography (Castle
> Marrach vs. Its Environs)? Could a game like this support more
> than one server, each with a particular style that might appeal to
> a different player (and further self-select the players for
> compatibility)?
In the initial design, new players arrived in the Outer Bailey, and
were considered guests, but did not have access to the Inner Bailey
where the nobility lived. If they wanted to participate in court,
they'd have to earn the right to entry to the Inner Bailey. We tried
to encourage those players to "graduate" and leave their Outer
Bailey connections behind, and in fact, even actively discourage
Inner Bailey/Outer Bailey connections through social mechanisms.
Initially the problem with this was that the Inner Bailey wasn't as
populated, and thus less interesting, and so it was hard to get it
boot-strapped so players would not leave. The Inner Bailey is now
fully populated, but now what we are experiencing is that players
use the alts to have both an Inner Bailey and Outer Bailey
characters.
There also has been an attempt to have an Under Bailey, where
outcasts, exiles, and theives live, and has a different social
"code" that would appeal to different people then the
"honor/nobility/chivalry" of the Inner Bailey. However, we've had
similar results as we experienced with the opening of the Inner
Bailey.
Our new game, Lovecraft Country, does not allow you to have alts, so
that should help avoid part of the problem. In addition, when you
leave the town of Arkham to go on an "expedition" you don't arrive
until you've logged off for about 12+ hours. To return will also
take 12+ hours. Both of these techniques (and some differences on
how Lovecraft Country runs groups) should hopefully make a
difference.
-- Christopher Allen
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> Christopher Allen wrote:
>> What hasn't worked well is that this "pure socializer" game
>> doesn't scale well. Socialization requires trust, and trust
>> doesn't scale. One of the interesting anecdotes of our experience
>> with this is that one of the limits may be the Dunbar Number
>> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html --
>> we'll find out soon, as our players have now created their own
>> first game using our tools, Lovecraft Country
>> (http://www.lovecraftcountry.com/ in late alpha now), with a bit
>> lighter set of "pure socializer" mechanics, and it will be
>> interesting to see if they can break the size of Castle Marrach.
> I noticed this myself when I played Castle Marrach about a year
> ago. Since then I've wondered about several possible ways to
> overcome this limit. Could you divide players into smaller
> sub-communities by specialization (i.e. poets vs. artists)? Could
> you divide players into sub-communities by geography (Castle
> Marrach vs. Its Environs)? Could a game like this support more
> than one server, each with a particular style that might appeal to
> a different player (and further self-select the players for
> compatibility)?
In the initial design, new players arrived in the Outer Bailey, and
were considered guests, but did not have access to the Inner Bailey
where the nobility lived. If they wanted to participate in court,
they'd have to earn the right to entry to the Inner Bailey. We tried
to encourage those players to "graduate" and leave their Outer
Bailey connections behind, and in fact, even actively discourage
Inner Bailey/Outer Bailey connections through social mechanisms.
Initially the problem with this was that the Inner Bailey wasn't as
populated, and thus less interesting, and so it was hard to get it
boot-strapped so players would not leave. The Inner Bailey is now
fully populated, but now what we are experiencing is that players
use the alts to have both an Inner Bailey and Outer Bailey
characters.
There also has been an attempt to have an Under Bailey, where
outcasts, exiles, and theives live, and has a different social
"code" that would appeal to different people then the
"honor/nobility/chivalry" of the Inner Bailey. However, we've had
similar results as we experienced with the opening of the Inner
Bailey.
Our new game, Lovecraft Country, does not allow you to have alts, so
that should help avoid part of the problem. In addition, when you
leave the town of Arkham to go on an "expedition" you don't arrive
until you've logged off for about 12+ hours. To return will also
take 12+ hours. Both of these techniques (and some differences on
how Lovecraft Country runs groups) should hopefully make a
difference.
-- Christopher Allen
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Christopher Allen
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 1999 11:10 pm
wherefor in-game artists?
by Paolo Piselli on Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:04 am
--- "Richard A. Bartle" <richard@mud.co.uk> wrote:
> You may also be able to point at creation as being none of these
This is really the case that I was originally trying to get at.
> things. It could be some kind of artistic journey of
> self-expression that is independent of the virtual world except
> that this is the medium in which the art takes place. In that
> case, I'd say fine,
Self-motivated expression does not cover the behavior that I am
guessing at. I'm thinking of the weekend blues musician, the street
juggler, the pot-luck chef, the mod developer, the open source
software engineer -- the people who create things out of a
motivation to add to the enjoyment of potentially anonymous people.
I know a number of people who like to create things that other
people will enjoy - artwork, mods for games, free software, food,
etc. Many of these people also participate in virtual worlds. Are
there enough potentially-creative people around to form a
significant population? If so, they should be included in the
understanding of player types, and we should evaluate outlets for
this behavior.
You previously mentioned that as "anti-killers" perhaps they fall
under the same category as killers, but their intention is to impose
themselves in order to make other people happy. I disagree with
this because the domination behavior of a killer establishes an
ordering based on power: I kill you therefore I have asserted myself
as above you in the hierarchy. I do not see the sympathetic
creative behavior as establishing an ordering: I help you have fun,
but this says nothing of my power relationship to you.
Just some thoughts.
-Paolo
=====
Paolo Piselli
ppiselli@yahoo.com
www.piselli.com , www.bestcoastswing.com
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
> You may also be able to point at creation as being none of these
This is really the case that I was originally trying to get at.
> things. It could be some kind of artistic journey of
> self-expression that is independent of the virtual world except
> that this is the medium in which the art takes place. In that
> case, I'd say fine,
Self-motivated expression does not cover the behavior that I am
guessing at. I'm thinking of the weekend blues musician, the street
juggler, the pot-luck chef, the mod developer, the open source
software engineer -- the people who create things out of a
motivation to add to the enjoyment of potentially anonymous people.
I know a number of people who like to create things that other
people will enjoy - artwork, mods for games, free software, food,
etc. Many of these people also participate in virtual worlds. Are
there enough potentially-creative people around to form a
significant population? If so, they should be included in the
understanding of player types, and we should evaluate outlets for
this behavior.
You previously mentioned that as "anti-killers" perhaps they fall
under the same category as killers, but their intention is to impose
themselves in order to make other people happy. I disagree with
this because the domination behavior of a killer establishes an
ordering based on power: I kill you therefore I have asserted myself
as above you in the hierarchy. I do not see the sympathetic
creative behavior as establishing an ordering: I help you have fun,
but this says nothing of my power relationship to you.
Just some thoughts.
-Paolo
=====
Paolo Piselli
ppiselli@yahoo.com
www.piselli.com , www.bestcoastswing.com
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
- Paolo Piselli
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:26 am
26 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests