Laws of online world design - what's your favorite?
An entry on Raph Koster's blog reminded me of his page of The Laws of Online World Design.
There is some very good and serious wisdom there for people starting new MUSHes. Go read it, and then, if you've got a second, reply here and tell us all which of these Laws you consider most important, striking, or otherwise which one most speaks to you as a musher or mush admin.
»
- javelin's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Click 
Given: Ola's Law About
Given:
Ola's Law About Laws
Any general law about virtual worlds should be read as a challenge rather than as a guideline. You'll learn more from attacking it than from accepting it.
and
Game systems
No matter what you do, players will decode every formula, statictic, and algorithm in your world via experimentation.
... Maybe I should write DSA in softcode, and one-up NSA when my players crack DSA before they do?
But yeah, this is why I'm more generally open with my stuff I write on mush. (Even going so far as to make +svc? ;).
Several
I'm only half way through that list of rules and already a few of them are striking chords of familiarity with me. In an attempt to offer order in this chaos, I'm going to post them individually (below, as replies to this) so that others (if they so choose) can respond to the individual topics/laws.
p.s. If this attempt at 'order' is deemed akin to 'spam', I apologize in advance and will do my best to accept criticism of this method with grace and humility.
Dr Cat's Stamp Collecting Dilemma
Dr Cat's Stamp Collecting Dilemma
"Lots of people might like stamp collecting in your virtual world. But those who do will never play with those who like other features. Should you have stamp collecting in your world?" We know that there are a wide range of features that people find enjoyable in online worlds. We also know that some of these features are in conflict with one another. Given the above, we don't yet know if it is possible to have a successful world that incorporates all the features, or whether the design must choose to exclude some of them in order to keep the players happy.
I, personally, am not a stamp collector. However, I did once receive (as a gift from my step-father) a full page of "Elvis" commemorative stamps from the accidental "day early release", while I was living in a college dormitory. Within hours on that same day (after 'showing off' these stamps to a few fellow residents), I discovered that one of the international students on my floor was, in fact, a stamp collector and he was very curious about my rare boon. I gave him a 'quad' (4 stamps, connected in a 2x2 square) to put into his collection. He was excited in a way I'm not able to express in text, to say the least. And I received my own vicarious reward through his. My point... ?
Perhaps some minimal amount of 'stamp collecting' should be required for all players. That is to say: The things that are 'favs' for various player types (I like this, she likes that, and he likes the other) should be minimally required for all. Taking the classic 'cleric' and 'wizard' classes (mostly non-combat) as examples, perhaps they should be required to advance their melee skills some specific minimum amount in order to advance levels in their respective non-combat classes. And so on and so forth...
Dr Cat's Theorem
Dr Cat's Theorem
Attention is the currency of the future.
Dr Cat's Theorem as expressed by J C Lawrence
The basic medium of multiplayer games is communication.
These DO NOT say the same thing.
The original is profoundly insightful. In order to get AND RETAIN players, your game must get AND RETAIN their attention.
The Lawrence version of this theorem assumes that communication is the ONLY (or nearly so) thing which accomplishes that - a premise to which I cannot fully agree. Even as a highly communicative person (holy cow, look at how much I type!), I still enjoy sucking the life out of gnolls as a necromancer for hours on end, with or without other players. Perhaps the Lawrence version of this theorem should be a separate theorem (not directly tied to the original), and tweaked... like: Communication is an indispensable medium in multiplayer games. (i.e., required, but not necessarily the only medium)
In and out-of game economies are emerging as significant mediums. this entry on Raph's site supports this notion.
Baron's Theorem
Baron's Theorem
Hate is good. This is because conflict drives the formation of social bonds and thus of communities. It is an engine that brings players closer together.
I see the point of the second two statements. I think the first could have been phrased better. For example, I think it's fine to think of certain fantasy races to be natural adversaries (dwarves vs. giants). But, I don't see any real need to inspire hatred anywhere... and especially not online. Rhet: How many times have you spent 25 minutes typing that flame post, using your prize 'zingers' to cut as deeply as possible ... then faced the decision of whether or not to actually click 'send'? Thankfully, I've clicked 'delete' about 90% of the times I've done the typing (the typing usually provides sufficient ventilation); and, regrettably, I've actually clicked 'send' about 10%. I don't think 'hate' serves any purpose, online or off.
(I hope I'm improving with age... because, as I age, my friends and acquaintances are becoming more and more valuable, both online and off.)
p.s. Amby, sorry for being so ruthless several months back.
Is it a game?
Is it a game?
It's a SERVICE. Not a game. It's a WORLD. Not a game. It's a COMMUNITY. Not a game. Anyone who says, "it's just a game" is missing the point.
Amen.
Adding to that, I'm going to state the controversial (that should be a capital T and capital C). Years ago, we of the dino generation used to be VERY diligent about separating online personas from our offline lives. Having lived a couple years straight through on Evercrack (while MUSHing basically the same character textually), I can now comfortably say. BAH! Screw separation. YOU ARE the player you're playing; and when you log out of that game to sleep at night, you are STILL that character to those you play with. There IS NO SEPARATION. This is going to become far more evident as people begin to establish careers as professional online gamers. I am Sad Hack, just like I am the various characters I've become (to varying degrees of notoriety) in various games. We are all, in a new and socially acceptable way, pursuing and exploring multiple personalities (online schizophrenics?).
See also "Designing Virtual Worlds"
This is one of Richard Bartle's main theses, as well - that people are essentially always playing themselves or expanding their own identities through their personas.
It's one of the places where
It's one of the places where I really disagree with Richard Bartle. I don't think it's true any more than a novelist's characters are himself or an exploration of his own identity. Like all writers, we bring something of ourselves to the characters we construct.
I certainly agree with Bartle's comments in the context of all online games that are not explicitly roleplay-oriented, though.
Writing and playing
When I first read DVW, I also strongly disagreed with Bartle on this. Now I'm not so sure. Certainly, I don't think most people consciously go into RP to express or extend themselves, but...
I'm not sure that there isn't a difference between writing a story with a character in it and playing a character in a story. The roleplayer is doing something that feels different to me than authoring the actions of their character. They're taking on the persona, and in so doing, are probably undergoing, consciously or not, an interchange between their idea of the character and their own core identity. I guess I think that most RP of "long-term" characters is more like method acting than like screenwriting.
Naturally, there are people who are more or differently conscious than others when RPing and who really may treat it like writing; similarly, playing a one-off "character" (who is really a plot device) is not the kind of RP I'm talking about.
90% of Acting
There's an old adage in the theater biz which says: Ninety percent of acting is reacting.
In the authorship of fixed stories (novels, plays, etc.) the amount of the story and its characters which is derived from the author can (and often does) approach zero percent. Likewise, however, we can only speak (write) about what we know; therefore, even the most fantastic (ala fantasy) stories (of this fixed variety) draw upon SOMETHING known to the author, whether from his own self or from his collective experiences (including the experiences of reading/seeing the fixed stories of other authors).
If I were to undertake the task of writing a murder mystery, it would not necessarily imply that I am (or have some hidden desire to be) a murderer or a sleuth, or whatever. Nonetheless, I would -- WITHOUT FAIL -- draw upon what I know about the subject matter. There's this wonderful movie called Trixie which illustrates this notion.
This (fixed stories) category is quite different from the situation of the player (actor, RPer), in which the individual is portraying a specific character within a story. And it is precisely here that the borderline between "me" and "the person I'm playing" begins to obscure. In the case of the actor (person portraying a persona within a fixed story), at minimum the actor must draw upon skills he possesses (use of accents, effective use of props, similar emotional experiences, etc.) in order to perform the task at hand. The greatest directors always try to help the actor understand the character they're playing (from both the preconceived expectations of the director AND the generally known-to-the-actor types of behavior). Robin Williams and Jim Carrey are both excellent examples of how it is that an actor can only play what he knows (the former having, so far, presented a broader set of his persona/personality facets).
But, when we get down to improvisational acting (RPing in realtime)... the plain truth is: you're playing yourself (maybe your good self, maybe your bad self) in some way. This may be somewhat heartbreaking to those people who have a preference for playing despicable, evil characters ... yet who don't want to think of themselves as despicable, evil people. But, I stand by my assertion at least to this extent: Not only are you venting the despicable, evil side of yourself, but you're also cultivating it in some way (for better or for worse).
The obvious counter-argument to this is that SOMEONE must portray the villain in RP. Does this mean that the person who volunteers, or is drafted, to do so is, by default, a villain in real life? Of course not. But, if you find yourself volunteering or being drafted into roleplaying (realtime) villainy with great frequency, then there's probably something about you, as a person, which "fits" that character type. In the case of the repeat draftee, it may simply be that others have been pleased with your villainous presentation in the past (you were a good bad guy - ala Jack Nicholson). In the case of the repeat volunteer, it could be that you're pursuing/venting something you have (IRL) in abundance. In both cases (the repeat volunteer probably more than the repeat draftee), I'm of the opinion that you at least HAVE some villainous traits, not only in fiction, but also in fact.
Looking back over my own character preferences, I can't help laughing at what a pathetic dark elf necromancer I was (at least from the traditional notion of what such a character should generally be like). I was courteous, helpful, cheerful, kind, brave (I'll stop there before I quote the whole Boy Scout Law).... and everybody liked me (except those who didn't like those traits in a DE Nec).
The saying 'You are what you eat' transfers pretty well into RP the same way it translates to TV/Movies/Books/etc.
YMMV
The greatest "villain RPers"
The greatest "villain RPers" I've seen have done it by recognizing that villains don't see themselves as villains but as heros. Yes, Geoff "Shaav" Tuffli, I'm talking to (about) you. :)
Perspective
Drat! You found the flaw in my argument...
... or did you?
In defense of great RPers everywhere, I concede this point...
Good and Evil are simply points of view.
But, I only do so in defense of great RPers.
Both Ghandi and Hitler believed they were doing good. They weren't both correct.
Hans Henrik Staerfeldt's Law of Player/Admin Relations
Hans Henrik Staerfeldt's Law of Player/Admin Relations: The amount of whining players do is positively proportional to how much you pamper them.
Many players whine if they see any kind of bonus in it for them. It will simply be another way for them to achieve their goals. As an admin you hold the key to many of the goals that they have concerning the virtual environment you control. If you do not pamper the players and let them know that whining will not help them, the whining will subside.
According to the U.S. Military, a bitching soldier is a happy soldier. If no one is complaining, you have a problem... and no way to find out what it is.
Dundee's Law
Dundee's Law
Fighting the battle for nomenclature with your players is a futile act. Whatever they want to call things is what they will be called.
*sigh*
A corollary to this one: The guy that comes up with the colloquial name will always be offended if he's not remembered for coming up with it, or if someone else gets credit for doing so.
J C Lawrence on Utopias
J C Lawrence on Utopias
Don't strive for perfection, strive for expressive fertility. You can't create utopia, and if you did nobody would want to live there.
Location, location, location. This was the last item in the list before the credits. Kudos for its location.
I'll close with this thought. Read the manual (the list of rules), then use it to light the boiler.