Changing the Player Type Balance

A stable MUD is one in which the four principal styles of player are in equilibrium. This doesn't imply that there are the same number of players exhibiting each style; rather, it means that over time, the proportion of players for each style remains roughly constant, so that the balance between the various types remains the same. Other factors are important, to do with the rate at which new players arrive and overall player numbers , but their consideration is not within the brief of this paper; the interaction between players of different types is within its brief, however, and is discussed in some detail later.

The actual point of balance (i.e., whereabouts in the interest graph the center of gravity of the individual players' points lie) can vary quite enormously; it is up to individual administrators to determine where they want it to lie and to make any programming or design changes necessary to ensure that this is where it actually does. What kind of strategies, though, can be employed to achieve this task?

In order to answer this question, consider the interest graph. If it is regarded as a plane in equilibrium, it can be tilted in a number of ways to favor different areas. Usually, this will be at the expense of some other ( opposite ) area, but not necessarily . Although tilting can in theory occur along any line in the plane, it makes sense (at least initially) to look at what happens when the tilt lines coincide with the X and Y axes of the graph.

What follows , then, is a brief examination of means by which a MUD can be adjusted so as to favor the various extremes of the interest graph, and what would happen if each approach were taken to the limit.

Players

Putting the emphasis on players rather than the game is easy ”you just provide the system with lots of communication commands and precious little else. The more the scales are tipped toward players, though, the less of a MUD you have and the more of a Citizen's Band (CB) radio-style chat-line. Beyond a certain point, the game can't provide a context for communication, and it ceases to be a viable virtual world; it's just a communications channel for the real world. At this stage, when all sense of elsewhere presence is lost, you no longer have a MUD.

World

Tilting the game toward the world rather than its inhabitants is also easy: You simply make it so big and awkward to traverse that no one ever meets anyone in it. Alternatively, you can ensure that if they do meet up, then there are very few ways in which they can interact. Although this can result in some nice simulations, there's a loss of motivation implicit within it; anyone can rack up points given time, but there's not the same sense of achievement as when it's done under pressure from competing players. And what use is creating beautifully crafted areas anyway, if you can't show them to people? Perhaps if computer-run personae had more AI, a MUD could go further in this direction (Mauldin, 1994), but it couldn't (yet) go all the way (as authors of single-player games have found [Caspian-Kaufman, 1995]). Sometimes, you just do want to tell people real-world things ”you have a new baby, or a new job, or your cat has died. If there's no one to tell or no way to tell them, you don't have a MUD.

Interacting

Putting the emphasis on interaction rather than action can also go a long way. Restricting the freedom of players to choose different courses of action is the mechanism for implementing it, so they can only follow a narrow or predetermined development path . Essentially, it's MUD-as-theatre; you sit there being entertained, but not actually participating much. You may feel like you're in a world, but it's one in which you're paralyzed. If the bias is only slight , it can make a MUD more "nannyish," which newcomers seem to enjoy, but pushing it all the way turns it into a radio set. Knowledge may be intrinsically interesting (i.e., trivia), but it's meaningless unless it can be applied. If players can't play, it's not a MUD.

Acting

If the graph is redrawn to favor doing-to over doing-with, the game quickly becomes boring. Tasks are executed repeatedly, by rote. There's always monotony , never anything new, or, if there is something new, it's of the "man vs. random number generator" variety. People do need to be able to put into practice what they've learned, but they also need to be able to learn it in the first place! Unless the one leads to the other, it's only a matter of time before patience is exhausted and the players give up. Without depth, you have no MUD.

From the above list of ways to tilt the interest graph, a set of stratagems can be composed to help MUD administrators shift the focus of their games in whatever particular direction they choose. Some of these stratagems are simply a question of management; if you don't tell people what communication commands there are, for example, people will be less likely to use them all. Although such approaches are good for small shifts in the way a MUD is played , the more powerful and absolute method is to consider programming changes (programming being the "nature" of a MUD, and administration being the "nurture").

Here, then, are the programming changes that administrators might wish to consider in order to shape their MUD:

• Ways to emphasize PLAYERS over WORLD include:

  • Add more communication facilities

  • Add more player-on-player commands (e.g., transitive ones like TICKLE or CONGRATULATE, or commands to form and maintain closed groups of personae)

  • Make communication facilities easy and intuitive

  • Decrease the size of the world

  • Increase the connectivity between rooms

  • Maximize the number of simultaneous players

  • Restrict building privileges to a select few

  • Cut down on the number of mobiles

• Ways to emphasize WORLD over PLAYERS include:

  • Have only basic communication facilities

  • Have few ways that players can do things to other players

  • Make building facilities easy and intuitive

  • Maximize the size of the world (i.e., add breadth )

  • Use only "rational" room connections in most cases

  • Grant building privileges to many

  • Have lots of mobiles

• Ways to emphasize INTERACTING over ACTING:

  • Make help facilities produce vague information

  • Produce cryptic hints when players appear stuck

  • Maximize the effects of commands (i.e., add depth )

  • Lower the rewards for achievement

  • Have only a shallow level/class system

  • Produce amusing responses for amusing commands

  • Edit all room descriptions for consistent atmosphere

  • Limit the number of commands available in any one area

  • Have lots of small puzzles that can be solved easily

  • Allow builders to add completely new commands

• Ways to emphasize ACTING over INTERACTING:

  • Provide a game manual

  • Include auto-map facilities

  • Include auto-log facilities

  • Raise the rewards for achievement

  • Have an extensive level/class system

  • Make commands be applicable wherever they might reasonably have meaning

  • Have large puzzles that take over an hour to complete

  • Have many commands relating to fights

  • Only allow building by top-quality builders

These strategies can be combined to encourage or discourage different styles of play. To appeal to achievers , for example, one approach might be to introduce an extensive level/class system (so as to provide plenty of opportunity to reward investment of time) and to maximize the size of the world (so there is more for them to achieve). Note that the "feel" of a MUD is derived from the position on the interest graph of the MUD's players, from which a "center of gravity" can be approximated. It is, therefore, sometimes possible to make two changes simultaneously that have "opposite" effects, altering how some individuals experience the MUD but not changing how the MUD feels overall. For example, adding large puzzles (to emphasize ACTING) and adding small puzzles (to emphasize INTERACTING) would encourage both pro-ACTING and pro-INTERACTING players, thereby keeping the MUD's center of gravity in the same place while tending to increase total player numbers. In general, though, these stratagems should not be used as a means to attract new players; stratagems should only be selected from one set per axis.

The effects of the presence (or lack of it) of other types of players are also very important and can be used as a different way to control relative population sizes. The easiest (but, sadly, most tedious ) way to discuss the interactions that pertain between the various player types is to enumerate the possible combinations and consider them independently; this is the approach adopted by this paper.

First, however, it is pertinent to discuss the ways that players generally categorize MUDs today.