DYNAMICS
From the discussion in the previous section, it is possible to
summarize the interactions
between player types as follows:
To increase the number of achievers:
reduce the number of killers, but not by too much.
if killer numbers are high, increase the number of
explorers.
To decrease the number of achievers:
increase the number of killers.
if killer numbers are low, reduce the number of
explorers.
To increase the number of explorers:
increase the number of explorers.
To decrease the number of explorers:
massively increase the number of killers.
To increase the number of socialisers:
slightly decrease the number of killers.
increase the number of socialisers.
To decrease the number of socialisers:
slightly increase the number of killers.
massively increase the number of achievers.
massively decrease the number of achievers.
decrease the number of socialisers.
To increase the number of killers:
increase the number of achievers.
massively decrease the number of explorers.
increase the number of socialisers.
To decrease the number of killers
decrease the number of achievers.
massively increase the number of explorers.
decrease the number of socialisers.
What are the dynamics of this model? In other words, if players
of each type were to
trickle into a system, how would it affect the overall make-up of
the player population?
The following diagram illustrates the flow of influence. Each
arrow shows a relationship,
from the blunt end to the pointed end. Ends are marked with a
plus or minus to show an
increase or decrease respectively; the symbols are doubled up to
indicate a massive
increase or decrease. Example: the line
killers + ------------> - achievers
means that increasing the number of killers will decrease the
number of achievers.
+ <------------ +
- <------------ -
killers + ------------> - achievers
- + + - - ------------> +
^ ^ | | - + ++ ++ --
| | | | ^ ^ \ / /
| | | | | \ \ / /
| | | | \ \ X /
| | | | \ \/ X
| | | | \ / \/ \
| | | | / \ / \ \
| | | | / / \ \ \
| | | | / / \ \ \
| | | | | / \ \ |
| | v v v v \ | v
- + --++ - - ++ -- -
socialisers explorers
+ - - + + +
^ ^ | | ^ |
| | | | | |
\ \___/ / \___/
\___/
A graphical version of the figure appears at the end of the
paper. [2]
From this, it can be seen that the numbers of killers and
achievers is basically an
equilibrium: increasing the number of achievers will increase the
number of killers, which
will in turn dampen down the increase in the number of achievers
and thereby reduce
the number of excess killers.
The explorer population is almost inert: only huge numbers of
killers will reduce it. It
should be noted, however, that massively increasing the number of
explorers is the
*only* way to reduce the number of killers without also reducing
the player numbers in
other groups. Because increasing the number of explorers in a MUD
generally
encourages others to join (and non-explorers to experiment with
exploration), this gives
a positive feedback which will eventually reduce the killer
population (although recall the
earlier point concerning how few people are, by nature,
explorers).
The most volatile group of people is that of the socialisers. Not
only is it highly sensitive
to the number of killers, but it has both positive and negative
feedback on itself, which
amplifies any changes. An increase in the number of socialisers
will lead to yet more
socialisers, but it will also increase the number of killers;
this, in turn, will reduce the
number of socialisers drastically, which will feed back into a
yet greater reduction. It is
possible for new socialisers to arrive in large enough quantities
for a downward spiral in
numbers not to be inevitable, but it is unlikely that such a
system could remain viable in
over a long period of time.
This analysis of the dynamics of the relationships between
players leads naturally to a
consideration of what configurations could be considered stable.
There are four:
1) Killers and achievers in equilibrium. If the number of killers
gets too high, then the
achievers will be driven off, which will cause the number of
killers to fall also (through
lack of victims). If there aren't enough killers, then achievers
feel the MUD isn't a
sufficient challenge (there being no way to "lose" in
it), and they will gradually leave; new
killers could appear, attracted by the glut of potential prey,
however this happens so
slowly that its impact is less than that of the disaffection
among achievers. Socialisers
who venture out of whatever safe rooms are available eventually
fall prey to killers, and
leave the game. Those who stay find that there aren't many
interesting (to them) people
around with whom to talk, and they too drift off. Explorers
potter around, but are not a
sufficient presence to affect the number of killers.
2) A MUD dominated by socialisers. Software changes to the MUD
are made which
prevent (or at least seriously discourage) killers from
practicing their craft on socialisers;
incoming socialisers are encouraged by those already there, and a
chain reaction
starts. There are still achievers and explorers, but they are
swamped by the sheer
volume of socialisers. The number of socialisers is limited only
by external factors, or
the presence of killers masquerading as socialisers. If the
population of socialisers
drops below a certain critical level, then the chain reaction
reverses and almost all the
players will leave, however only events outside the MUD would
cause that to happen
once the critical mass had been reached.
3) A MUD where all groups have a similar influence (although not
necessarily similar
numbers). By nurturing explorers using software means (i.e.
giving the game great depth
or "mystique", or encouraging non-explorers to dabble
for a while by regularly adding
new areas and features), the overall population of explorers will
gradually rise, and the
killer population will be held in check by them. The killers who
remain do exert an
influence on the number of socialisers, sufficient to stop them
from going into
fast-breeder mode, but insufficient to initiate an exodus.
Achievers are set upon by
killers often enough to feel that their achievements in the game
have meaning. This is
perhaps the most balanced form of MUD, since players can change
their position on the
interest graph far more freely: achievers can become explorers,
explorers can become
socialisers, socialisers can become achievers - all without
sacrificing stability. However,
actually attaining that stability in the first place is very
difficult indeed; it requires not only
a level of game design beyond what most MUDs can draw on, but
time and player
management skills that aren't usually available to MUD
administrators. Furthermore, the
administrators need to recognize that they are aiming for a
player mix of this kind in
advance, because the chances of its occurring accidentally are
slim.
4) A MUD with no players. The killers have killed/frightened off
everyone else, and left to
find some other MUD in which to ply their trade. Alternatively, a
MUD structured
expressly for socialisers never managed to acquire a critical
mass of them.
Other types could conceivably exist, but they are very rare if
they do. The dynamics
model is, however, imprecise: it takes no account of outside
factors which may influence
player types or the relationships between then. It is thus
possible that some of the more
regimented MUDs (e.g. role-playing MUDs, educational MUDs, group
therapy MUDs)
have an external dynamic (e.g. fandom interest in a subject,
instructions from a
teacher/trainer, tolerance of others as a means to advance the
self) which adds to their
cohesion, and that this could make an otherwise flaky
configuration hold together. So
other stable MUD forms may, therefore, still be out there.
It might be argued that "role-playing" MUDs form a
separate category, on a par with
"gamelike" and "social" MUDs. However, I
personally favor the view that role-playing is
merely a strong framework within which the four types of player
still operate: some
people will role-play to increase their power over the game
(achievers); others will do so
to explore the wonder of the game world (explorers); others will
do so because they
enjoy interacting and co-operating within the context that the
role-playing environment
offers (socialisers); others will do it because it gives them a
legitimate excuse to hurt
other players (killers). I have not, however, undertaken a study
of role-playing MUDs, and
it could well be that there is a configuration of player types
peculiar to many of them
which would be unstable were it not for the order imposed by
enforcing role-play. It
certainly seems likely that robust role-playing rules could make
it easier for a MUD to
achieve type 3) stability, whatever.
At this point, we return to the social/gamelike MUD debate.
Ignoring the fourth (null) case from the above, it is now much
easier to see why there is a
schism. Left to market forces, a MUD will either gravitate
towards type 1) ("gamelike")
or type 2) ("social"), depending on its administrators'
line on player-killing (more
precisely: how much being "killed" annoys socialisers).
However, the existence of type
3) MUDs, albeit in smaller numbers because of the difficulty of
reaching the steady
state, does show that it is possible to have both socialisers and
achievers co-existing in
significant numbers in the same MUD.
It's very easy to label a MUD as either
"hack-and-slash" or "slack-and-hash",
depending
on whether or not player-killing is allowed. However, using
player-killing as the only
defining factor in any distinction is an over-generalization, as
it groups together type 1)
and type 3) MUDs. These two types of MUD should *not* be
considered as identical
forms: the socializing which occurs in a type 3) MUD simply isn't
possible in a type 1),
and as a result the sense of community in type 3)s is very
strong. It is no accident that
type 3) MUDs are the ones preferred commercially, because they
can hold onto their
players for far longer than the other two forms. A type 1) MUD is
only viable
commercially if there is a sufficiently large well of potential
players to draw upon,
because of the much greater churn rate these games have. Type 2)s
have a similarly
high turnover; indeed, when TinyMUD first arrived on the scene it
was almost
slash-and-burn, with games lasting around six months on
university computers before a
combination of management breakdown (brought on by player
boredom) and resource
hogging would force them to close down - with no other MUDs
permitted on the site for
perhaps years afterwards.
This explains why some MUDs perceived by socialisers to be
"gamelike" can actually
be warm, friendly places, while others are nasty and vicious: the
former are type 3), and
the latter are type 1). Players who enter the type 3)s, expecting
them to be type 1)s, may
be
pleasantly surprised (Bruckman, 1993). However, it should be
noted that this initial
warm behavior is sometimes the approach used by administrators to
ensure a new
player's further participation in their particular MUD, and that,
once hooked, a player
may find that attitudes undergo a subtle change (Epperson, 1995).
As mentioned earlier, this paper is not intended to promote any
one particular style of
MUD. Whether administrators aim for type 1), 2) or 3) is up to
them - they're all MUDs,
and they address different needs. However, the fact that they
*are* all MUDs, and not
"MU*s" (or any other abbreviation-of-the-day), really
should be emphasized.
To summarize: "gamelike" MUDs are the ones in which the
killer-achiever equilibrium
has been reached, i.e. type 1); "social" MUDs are the
ones in which the pure-social
stability point has been reached, i.e. type 2), and this is the
basis upon which they differ.
There is a type 3) "all round" (my term) MUD, which
exhibits both social and gamelike
traits, however such MUDs are scarce because the conditions
necessary to reach the
stable point are difficult or time-consuming to arrange.
OVERBALANCING A MUD
Earlier, the effect of taking each axis on the interest graph to
its extremes was used to
give an indication of what would happen if a MUD was pushed so
far that it lost its
MUDness. It was noted, though, that along the axes was not the
only way a MUD could
be tilted.
What would happen if, in an effort to appeal to certain types of
player, a MUD was
overcompensated in their favor?
Tilting a MUD towards achievers would make it obsessed with
gameplay. Players would
spend their time looking for tactics to improve their position,
and the presence of other
players would become unnecessary. The result would be effectively
a single-player
adventure game (SUD?).
Tilting towards explorers would add depth and interest, but
remove much of the activity.
Spectacle would dominate over action, and again there would be no
need for other
players. The result of this is basically an online book.
Tilting towards socialisers removes all gameplay, and centers on
communication.
Eventually, all sense of the virtual world is lost, and a
chatline or IRC-style CB program
results.
Tilting towards killers is more difficult, because this type of
player is parasitic on the
other three types. The emphasis on causing grief has to be
sacrificed in favor of the
thrill of the chase, and bolstered by the use of quick-thinking
and skill to overcome
adversity in clever (but violent) ways. In other words, this
becomes an arcade ("shoot
'em up") type of game.
It's a question of balance: if something is added to a MUD to
tilt the graph one way,
other mechanisms will need to be in place to counterbalance it
(preferably
automatically). Otherwise, what results is a SUD, book, chatline
or arcade game. It's the
*combination* that makes MUDs unique - and special. It *is*
legitimate to say that
anything which goes too far in any direction is not a MUD; it is
*not* legitimate to say
that something which doesn't go far enough in any direction is
not a MUD. So long as a
system is a (text-based) multi-user virtual world, that's enough.
SUMMARY
To answer the questions posed in the preface:
Are MUDs
games? Like chess, tennis, D&D?
Yes - to achievers.
pastimes? Like reading, gardening, cooking?
Yes - to explorers.
sports? Like huntin', shooting', fishin'?
Yes - to killers.
entertainments? Like nightclubs, TV, concerts?
Yes - to socialisers.
ENDNOTES
[1] This paper is an April 1996 extension of an earlier article,
"Who Plays MUAs" (Bartle,
1990a). As a result of this, and of the fact that I am not a
trained psychologist, do not
expect a conventionally rigorous approach to the subject matter.
Permission to redistribute freely for academic purposes is
granted provided that no
material changes are made to the text. [2] In the figure below,
green indicates increasing
numbers and red indicates decreasing numbers. A red line with a
green arrowhead
means that decreasing numbers of the box pointed from lead to
increasing numbers of
the box pointed to; a red line with a red arrowhead would mean
that a decrease in one
leads to a decrease in the other, and so on. The thickness of the
line shows the strength
of the effect: thin lines mean there's only a small effect;
medium lines mean there's an
effect involving roughly equal numbers of players from both
boxes; thick lines means
there's a great effect, magnifying the influence of the origin
box.
REFERENCES
Aspnes, J. (1989). TinyMUD [C]
HTTP://ftp.TCP.COM/ftp/pub/mud/TinyMUD/TinyMUD-PC.1.0.tar.gz
Bartle, R. A. (1985). MUD2 [MUDDLE] MUSE LTD, Colchester, Essex,
UK.
Bartle, R. A. (1990a). Who Plays MUAs? Comms Plus!,
October/November 1990
18-19.
Bartle, R. A. (1990b). Interactive Multi-Player Computer Games.
MUSE LTD, Colchester,
Essex, UK ftp://parcftp.xerox.COM/pub/MOO/papers/mudreport.txt
Bruckman, A. S. (1992). Identity Workshop: Emergent Social and
Psychological
Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Reality. MIT Media Laboratory,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/identity-workshop.ps
Bruckman, A. S. (1993). Gender Swapping on the Internet Proc.
INET-93
ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/gender-swapping.txt
Bruckman, A. S. & Resnick, M. (1993). Virtual Professional
Community: Results from
the MediaMOO Project. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/convergence.txt
Bruckman, A. S. (1994a). Workshop: "Serious" Uses of
MUDs? Proc. DIAC-94
ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/serious-diac94.txt
Bruckman, A. S. (1994b). Approaches to Managing Deviant Behavior
in Virtual
Communities. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/deviance-chi94.txt
Burka, L. P. (1995). The MUDline.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/lpb/mudline.html
Carton, S. (1995). Internet Virtual Worlds Quick Tour: MUDs, MOOs
and MUSHes:
Interactive games, Conferences and Forums Ventana Press, Chapel
Hill, North
Carolina.
Caspian-Kaufman, J. (1995). Sid Meier's CivNET: Instruction
Manual Microprose, Hunt
Valley, Maryland.
Cherny, L. (1995a). The Modal Complexity of Speech Events in a
Social MUD.
Electronic Journal of Communication, Summer 1995.
ftp://bhasha.stanford.edu/pub/cherny/ejc.txt
Cherny, L. (1995b). The Situated Behavior of MUD Back Channels.
Dept. Linguistics,
Stanford University, California.
ftp://bhasha.stanford.edu/pub/cherny/aaai.ps
Clodius, J. A. (1994). Concepts of Space in a Virtual Community.
http://tinylondon.ucsd.edu/~jen/space.html
Curtis, P. (1992). Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based
Virtual Realities. Proc.
DIAC-92 ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/MOO/papers/DIAC92.txt
Curtis, P. & Nichols, D. A. (1993). MUDs Grow Up: Social
Virtual Reality in the Real
World. Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, California.
ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/MOO/papers/MUDsGrowUp.txt
Dibbell, J. (1993). A Rape in Cyberspace. The Village Voice,
December 21, 1993.
ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/MOO/papers/VillageVoice.txt
Emert, H. G. (1993). "X" Marks the Spot. East
Stroudsburg University, Pennsylvania.
http://www-f.rrz.uni-koeln.de/themen/cmc/text/emert.n01.txt
Eddy, A. (1994). Internet After Hours Prima, Rocklin, California.
Epperson, H. L. (1995). Patterns of Social Behaviour in
Computer-Mediated
Communications. Dept. Sociology, Rice University.
http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture/Misc_net_culture/
web_social_behaviour.paper
Evard, R. (1993). Collaborative Networked Communication: MUDs as
System Tools.
Proc. LISA-93
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/remy/documents/cncmast.html
Fanderclai, T. F. (1995). MUDs in Education: New Environments,
New Pedagogies.
Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(1), 8.
Farmer, F. R., Morningstar, C. & Crockford, D. (1994). From
Habitat to Global
Cyberspace. Proc. CompCon-94, IEEE
http://www.communities.com/paper/hab2cybr.html
Kort, B. (1991). The MUSE as an Educational Medium BBN Labs,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts. ftp://musenet.bbn.com/pub/micromuse
Mauldin, M. L. (1994). Chatterbots, TinyMUDs and the Turing Test:
Entering the
Loebner Prize Competition. Proc. AAAI-94
http://fuzine.mt.cs.cmu.edu/mlm/aaai94.html
Moock, C. (1996). Virtual Campus at the University of Waterloo.
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca:80/~camoock/virtual_classroom.htm
Norrish, J. (1995). MU*s.
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~jamie/mud/mud.html
Poirier, J. R. (1994). Interactive Multiuser Realities: MUDs,
MOOs, MUCKs, and
MUSHes. The Internet Unleashed, 1192-1127. SAMS Publishing,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Reid, E. (1994). Cultural Formations in Text-Based Virtual
Realities. Dept. English,
University of Melbourne, Australia.
ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/MOO/papers/CulturalFormations.txt
Riner, R. D. & Clodius, J. A. (1995). Simulating Future
Histories: The NAU Solar
System Simulation and Mars Settlement. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly
26(1):95-104. http://tinylondon.ucsd.edu/~jen/solsys.html
Rosenberg, M. S. (1992). Virtual Reality: Reflections of Life,
Dreams and Technology.
An Ethnography of a Computer Society.
ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/MOO/papers/ethnography.txt
Roush, W. (1993). The Virtual STS Centre on MediaMOO: Issues and
Challenges as
Non-Technical Users Enter Social Virtual Spaces. MIT Media
Laboratory, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/MediaMOO/Papers/STS-Centre
Urdang, L. & Manser, M. (1980). The Pan Dictionary of
Synonyms and Antonyms Pan
Reference, London, UK.
Whitlock, T. D. (1994). Fuck Art, Let's Kill!: Towards a Post
Modern Community.
gopher://actlab.rtf.utexas.edu/00/art_and_tech/rtf_papers/pmc.terrorism
Whitlock, T. D. (1994b). Technological Hierarchy in MOO:
Reflections on Power in
Cyberspace http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~smack/papers/TechHier.txt