MMORPGs; totally alien from P&PRPGs??

[Daniel B]

Hi folks,

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

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

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

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

It seems to me that the objection basically reduces to the following. (Those who put forth the objection, please correct me if I've interpreted incorrectly !!!)

• 1.) Big Model deals with a tiny player collective
• 2.) Big Model implies GNS
• 3.) Bartles deals with individiual players in a (virtually) limitless collective
• Therefore Bartles is not similar to GNS

While I certainly agree that the reason most P&P RPGs fail (in practice) is because players come in with clashing creative agendas, I must disagree with the premises of the objections as they were given to me, on two counts.

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

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

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

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

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

Just my opinions,
Shallow Thoughts

[soundmasterj]

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

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

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

[Daniel B]

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

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

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

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

A few things with this:

• I don't like to discuss "right" or "wrong" theories of game design, only ones that are more or less likely to produce a fulfilling game experience, which may depend on your audience.
• You first divvy up servers into GNS categories, before asking if the HCDS categories can help you. This is not a constructive way of examining a theory on it's own terms.
• Bartle's article was written strictly about MMOGs. Therefore, he can't be "wrong about P&P" here because the article puts forth no opinion on the subject. (I'll start refering to them as the Hearts/Clubs/Diamonds/Spades or HCDS categories for this sake)
• I brought the article here of my own volition, despite the fact that it was written about MMOGs and not P&P's, because of the parallels I see. If you don't see them, you're perfectly within your rights to totally disregard everything I say.
• I never claimed the article is "right". My exact wording was that the HCDS categories were purer than GNS.

I can see how that last one may have aroused ire. Let me be clear: I think that if we're going to go about categorizing something, we ought to try and make it so our categories are mutually exclusive, for the sake of ease-of-use and clarity. This is not always possible (e.g. spork = fork or spoon???). I would argue that the GNS categories, while somewhat distinct, are not as mutually exclusive as the HCDS.

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

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

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

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

<snip snip>

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


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

[Ron Edwards]

Hey guys,

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

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

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

Best, Ron

[soundmasterj]

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

When I write them, the voice in my head is matter-of-factly

Me, I sound like Batman.

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

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

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

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

[soundmasterj]

Yeah ok, with Rons friendly reminder about how this is actual play, I´d like to clarify that the two links I posted lead to a very story-like writeup of a huge "war" in the sandbox MMORPG Eve-Online. The griefers beat the role-players in this case and it reads like fiction. It also shows how the metagame is needed for actually making wars about something; there is no story when it´s just watching at pixels explode, but when some griefers set up thousands of players against each other for some actual reason, story emerges.
It´s... It´s hard do understand. But interesting in the context of Big Model / GNS / play theory (ah, and game theory, too).

I would like to talk about how I never cared for WoW becuase players wouldn´t really influence the story, but I´m not sure that´s what you´re going for ShallowThoughts.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I am talking about your actual play. When you make a statement about, for instance, what the SIS is or how it's produced, or when you draw a conclusion based on how the MMORPG thing is or isn't like it, then no one will be able to understand unless you describe what (again for instance) an SIS is for you, in your experience, with all the trimmings - system, events in the fiction, real people doing what, the works. Long experience shows that without that information, these conversations are hopeless.

I've found that if a person's point is understood and appreciated, and if he or she sees that this is happening, then the ideas can be subjected to extraordinary critique. Let's do that and have no more talk about who understood whom to have said what in such-and-such a way.

"Shallow Thoughts," it's not required, but it would be extremely helpful if we knew your first name. Soundmasterj's name is Jona.

Best, Ron

[jag]

I'm glad this topic was brought up.  Although i haven't played the newer generation MMORPGs, i spent an embarrassingly large portion of my teenage years playing and administering a MUD, and that has left indelible marks on my P&P RPG design process.  I think MUDs/etc actually provide a very interesting lens with which to view P&P RPGs, and that we can learn much from them.

However, I'm unclear as to what the actual questions are.  I'm going to paraphrase what i think might be the questions and what might not be the questions, and ShallowThoughts -- as the originator and thus director of the thread -- please tell me if I have it right or not.

First, the "not question".  I don't think anyone is really disagreeing on the SIS as applied to P&P and MUDs, they are just disagreeing on terminology.  In the P&P world, the SIS is a set of facts that all participants agree on.  In order for play to continue functionally, these need to include the resolutions to conflicts, and other quantitative matters.  They never include all possible colour, since my mental image of the ogre will be somewhat different than yours.  A given game might fall anywhere in between these two extremes, and is negotiated (implicitly or explicitly) amongst the small group of participants involved.  In the MUD world, the computer decides on all quantitative matters (with possible input from admins/gods), and gives you a basis for much of the colour that you can accept or reject as you wish.  If you all agree, I'd like to declare this as a Common Starting Position, and not confuse the other important issues by arguing whether the first S in SIS applies to the MUD world.

My understanding of the question is as follows:  HCDS is a classification scheme designed for players in MUDs.  The Big Model is a theory of P&P RPGs, which includes in it a classification scheme of Creative Agendas.  Creative Agendas are a purpose of play coupled with coherent reinforcements of that purpose, and after some years of wrangling it was felt that there were three distinct CAs, Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.  Coherent modes of P&P play can be described in terms GNS; can HCDS be taken from the MUD world and also be applied to P&P play?  If so, are these two categorizations equivalent, in the sense that any situation described in one framework can be described in the other?

If this is the question, then i have things to say and examples to give.  If this isn't the question, could you succinctly write what is the question?

Thanks,
James

[Daniel B]

Hi there,

name's Dan.

Coherent modes of P&P play can be described in terms GNS; can HCDS be taken from the MUD world and also be applied to P&P play?  If so, are these two categorizations equivalent, in the sense that any situation described in one framework can be described in the other?

Actually James, your whole post is spot on and I'd love to hear your thoughts on these questions.


Jona, on SIS's.. I think we may be disagreeing because you seem to require that "bi-directional" sharing in your definition of the term SIS, i.e. I think you're saying that it's not sharing unless both participants share with each other. However, consider this: where did Spiderman come from? You didn't invent him, certainly. You don't need friends over to think "Gee, I sure hope he doesn't die and gets Mary Jane in the end". The writer or director of the movie is sharing the imaginary characters he invented with you. Granted, you can't share anything with the writer/director (except your money, possibly), but that doesn't stop it from being a shared, imaginary space.

As for games like WoW, again, the game-authors are sharing their imagination with you, unidirectionally. They decided that if an ogre reaches 0 HP, it dies in the context of the game. You don't need anyone else to agree that the ogre you just killed is in fact dead ... because someone at Blizzard already made that decision for you. The computer is there to enforce these SIS rules.

Asking where's the place for Narrativism in an MMORPG is, again, effectively trying to reduce HCDS into GNS terms, but trying to cram one terminology into the other doesn't help much. The only reason I drew parallels between GNS and HCDS in the first place was to try and demonstrate that GNS is a bit lacking in describing the total set of player goals. You see, while I can describe GNS in terms of HCDS, not all player activities that can be described within HCDS are capable of being described in GNS. Furthermore, actions have a clear placement on the HCDS axes, but cannot easily be placed within any one GNS category and often fit into two or all three.

An actual play example; one member of the group (with whom I do not play anymore) got his thrills by taking goods off my dead-but-could-come-back-soon corpse. (He stole my precious ring of invisibility, and our cleric could raise me!! GRR!) This is a case of mismatched expectations of gameplay, but in particular, "Killer" (or "Club") behaviour of the HCDS. You might squeeze this type of behaviour into gamism, possibly simulationism, or maybe even with a stretch of the imagination, narrativism, but the fit is ambiguous (and for me, the ambiguity is uncomfortable .. why make up categories if they don't categorize?)

A related example, this same friend regularly ignored the requests of another buddy of mine to allow for social encounters by rushing into combat. (I remember one case in particular, when orcs were sitting around a campfire just talking and eating rabbit. The DM was a bit pissed off too, because he had thought we would try and discover their motives first, and learn they were on the good side.) More to the point, this person seemed to actively enjoy rushing into combat precisely because it pissed off my other buddy. This sort of behaviour could be labelled as gamism, but I don't believe this label gets to the heart of the motivation of the player.


Ta,
Dan aka Shallow Thoughts

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Here's some GNS talk: Spider-Man doesn't have anything to do with the theory-topic here. In the earlier thread, I specified shared imagined, not imaginary space. By "imagined," I mean that fictional imagery and events are being actively produced, not merely received, and by "shared," I mean that they are occurring as communication. It's not enough to imagine, one must verbalize it, and that verbalization must be received and importantly acknowledged (reinforced) as such. That's the medium of role-playing (as discussed here).

People watching a movie together are not involved in an SIS. People who've read the same comic are not involved in an SIS. Even one person reading a story to another isn't an SIS. Only people actively producing imagined material, describing it, and using what they hear from one another to produce and describe more, create the circumstances of the hobby we're talking about. (I'll acknowledge that "type" and "read" could be substituted for on-line play, although to me it's like eating an apple through a paper bag.) Your interpretation of the term is not matching what I'm talking about in my essays or the body of theory formed here; you're describing fiction of any kind, whereas that term was invented to describe a unique medium for fiction. Jona's got it exactly right.

(As a side point, this is not to mean that anyone can't call boffer LARP or MMORPG "role-playing" if they want to. Of course they can; "role-playing" is a legacy term with no definition. But the actual thing being so labeled is a different thing, in terms of raw substance.)

You're also committing the extremely common error of thinking that the concept of Creative Agenda (the three terms) is somehow supposed to produce an entire taxonomy of play and players, all by itself. It's not. I may be wrong, but it is possible that you have read "System Does Matter," but not the other essays. If that's the case, then I recommend the first two pages of the Provisional Glossary, which includes seven terms and a diagram - the only material at the Forge which was written to be introductory, actually. I think you'll see that the behaviors you're describing fall quite nicely into various slots of what's called the Big Model, of which Creative Agenda is an important, but certainly not the only part.

That's also why there's no point in identifying all those things in the MMORPG article that aren't Creative Agenda. Of course they aren't; they're other things, also part of play, and it's no big deal.

Best, Ron

[soundmasterj]

Hi Dan, just when I wanted to go to bed

I wrote a pretty long response but deleted it again, here´s the short version: You should SERIOUSLY read the Forge article on gamism.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
It directly, perfectly explains your examples in GNS terms.

Also, you´re talking a lot about some ominous thing called SIS here, let´s have a look ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/27/ , the forge glossary)...

Shared Imagined Space (SIS, Shared Imagination)
The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).

SIS means people create fiction solemly through interaction. This is different from the reception of already-produced creative content. Movie-going isn´t SIS, MMORPG doesn´t need SIS; you are able to play it all alone, no interaction. It is a different kind of sharing Imagination than what we do by roleplaying. I undestand how you could come to this understanding of the term, but I´d say we use forge terminology here and in forge terminology, SIS is where we do shared imagination in a (more-or-less) symetrical communication context. Slaying WoW ogres is acting (not interacting) in context of (not thereby creating) already produced creative content.
In forge terms, Not. SIS.

Asking where's the place for Narrativism in an MMORPG is, again, effectively trying to reduce HCDS into GNS terms, but trying to cram one terminology into the other doesn't help much.

No. I wasn´t talking about HCDS, I was talking about MMORPGS and if there is narrativist play happening there. Seems story happens, but I´m not sure if the people actually want to make up stories or if they just try winning and story emerges naturally. I fear my initial intuition was wrong and while griefers make for great stories, they are actually just pricks. I´d be greatly interested in finding actual narrativist play happening in MMORPGs.

[Ron Edwards]

This nightmarish thread provides some previous discussion on this topic, as it's been revisited many times over the years: [D&D 3.5] Gamist Non-Affirmation. What I'm talking about is on page 5, in Bjorn's comment and my detailed response; it speaks directly to the larger topic of this thread.

Also, a frequent poster here, Christopher Kubasik, has spent a long time examining Narrativism in MMORPGs from inside that industry - whether it's there, what it is if it's there, who's interesting in developing it there, and so on. He might weigh into this thread sooner or later.

Finally, I do not want to dogpile you, Dan. I think it's a good topic and an important point. I'm open to back-and-forth; my posts are not a slapdown.

Best, Ron

[soundmasterj]

CURSE YOU RON EDWARDS! ALWAYS ONE STEP AHEAD OF ME!

I just remembered where SIS happens in MMORPGs. People having sex with each other. There is no way to make two models have sex with each other in WoW as far as I know, but people still do it; they bump their characters into each other and type moans into the chat window. Doesn´t look like humping at all. It´s only sex because both agree it is.

...

Yes, people actually do that. I´ve seen screenshots. Afterwards, I didn´t speak to my WoW - playing friends for like a week.

[Callan S.]

I think in terms of gamism, the whole SIS thing is just a distraction. Doesn't need an SIS, don't need to talk about it. And I think the same goes for naratavism. SIS is just a technique. A sexy technique! But just a technique.

Or not. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm suggesting the whole SIS talk is a distraction.

Unless were talking simulationism...I'm not so certain there.

Though really HCDS strikes me as one step short - it describes deeds, and not the desire behind that deed. It's like saying someone who drinks a glass of water is a water drinker. Someone who kills your character is a killer? No, it was just a deed. It doesn't really say what spawned that deed.

[Daniel B]

Wow,

oooookay .. meh, I'm wrong then. Ron was correct in thinking I'd only read "System Does Matter" and not the other introductory articles. (I've been wandering haphazardly through the site.) Think I'll go lurk for a while and read it all at my leisure.

Callan .. speaking of reading articles, "Killer" is just a convenient name. In fact the category refers to any type of action where you're pushing yourself upon other real-life people, or acting upon them as opposed to interacting. This may be as tame as being an in-game vendor, or simply being a jerk by giving people unwanted attention. However, given how oriented these games are towards combat, the term "Killer" seems to describe the largest number of people who favour this kind of behaviour.

Dan