A Simple Taxonomy

This work grew out of a long, heated discussion that ran from November 1989 to May 1990 between the wizzes (i.e., highly experienced players of rank wizard or witch) on one particular commercial MUD in the UK (Bartle, 1985). The debate was sparked by the question "What do people want out of a MUD?" It comprised several hundred bulletin-board postings, some of considerable length, typically concerning what the players liked , what they didn't like, why they played , and changes they would like to see to "improve" the game. Some 15 individuals took a major part, with perhaps another 15 adding their comments from time to time; this comprised almost the entire set of active wizzes during that period. Although at times the debate became quite intense , never did it lapse into the flaming that typically ends most open -ended, multi-speaker, online discussions.

The fact that the people contributing to this argument were the most advanced players in a MUD that allowed player-killing might, on the face of it, be taken as evidence that they would probably prefer more "game-like" aspects over "social" ones. However, this was not the case: The MUD in question had players of all types in it, even at the wiz level. (Later in this paper, an analysis is given as to how such a MUD can come to be.)

When the participants had finally run out of new things to say, it became time for me (as senior administrator) to summarize. Abstracting the various points that had been raised, a pattern emerged; people habitually found the same kinds of thing about the game "fun," but there were several (four, in fact) sub-groupings into which opinion divided. Most players leaned at least a little to all four, but each tended to have some particular overall preference. The summary was generally well-received by those who had participated in the debate.

Note that although this MUD was one in which player-killing was allowed, the taxonomy that is about to be described does (as will be explained later) apply equally to "social" MUDs. The advice concerning changes which can be made to affect the player make-up of a MUD is, however, less useful to social MUDs, or to ones with a heavy role-playing component. Also, the original discussion concerned only non-administrative aspects of MUDding; people who might play MUDs to learn object-oriented programming, for example, are therefore not addressed by this paper.

The four things that people typically enjoyed personally about MUDs were:

• Achievement within the game context.

  Players give themselves game- related goals and vigorously set out to achieve them. This usually means accumulating and disposing of large quantities of high-value treasure or cutting a swathe through hordes of mobiles (i.e., monsters built into the virtual world).

• Exploration of the game.

  Players try to find out as much as they can about the virtual world. Although initially this means mapping its topology (i.e., exploring the MUD's breadth), later it advances to experimentation with its physics (i.e., exploring the MUD's depth).

• Socializing with others.

  Players use the game's communicative facilities and apply the role-playing that these engender as a context in which to converse (and otherwise interact) with their fellow players.

• Imposition upon others.

  Players use the tools provided by the game to cause distress to (or, in rare circumstances, to help) other players. Where permitted, this usually involves acquiring some weapon and applying it enthusiastically to the persona of another player in the game world.

So, labeling the four player types abstracted, we get: achievers , explorers, socializers , and killers. An easy way to remember these is to consider suits in a conventional pack of cards: achievers are Diamonds (they're always seeking treasure); explorers are Spades (they dig around for information); socializers are Hearts (they empathize with other players); killers are Clubs (they hit people with them).

Naturally, these areas cross over, and players will often drift between all four, depending on their mood or current playing style. However, my experience having observed players in the light of this research suggests that many (if not most) players do have a primary style and will only switch to other styles as a ( deliberate or subconscious ) means to advance their main interest.

Looking at each player type in more detail, then, we could say the following:

• Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main goals, and all is ultimately subservient to this. Exploration is necessary only to find new sources of treasure or improved ways of wringing points from it. Socializing is a relaxing method of discovering what other players know about the business of accumulating points, that their knowledge can be applied to the task of gaining riches. Killing is only necessary to eliminate rivals or people who get in the way or to gain vast amounts of points (if points are awarded for killing other players).

  Achievers say things like:

  "I'm busy."

  "Sure, I'll help you. What do I get?"

  "So how do YOU kill the dragon, then?"

  "Only 4211 points to go!"

• Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (i.e., bugs ) and figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious , and anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socializing can be informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery and making the most complete set of maps in existence.

  Explorers say things like:

  "Hmm..."

  "You mean you don't know the shortest route from <obscure room 1> to <obscure room 2>?"

  "I haven't tried that one; what's it do?"

  "Why is it that if you carry the uranium you get radiation sickness, and if you put it in a bag you still get it, but if you put it in a bag and drop it then wait 20 seconds and pick it up again, you don't?"

• Socializers are interested in people and what they have to say. The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to players. Inter-player relationships are important: empathizing with people, sympathizing, joking, entertaining, listening, even merely observing people play can be rewarding ”seeing them grow as individuals, maturing over time. Some exploration may be necessary so as to understand what everyone else is talking about, and points-scoring could be required to gain access to neat communicative spells available only to higher levels (as well as to obtain a certain status in the community). Killing, however, is something only ever to be excused if it's a futile, impulsive act of revenge , perpetrated upon someone who has caused intolerable pain to a dear friend. The only ultimately fulfilling thing is not how to rise levels or kill hapless drips; it's getting to know people, to understand them, and to form beautiful, lasting relationships.

  Socializers say things like:

  "Hi!"

  "Yeah, well, I'm having trouble with my boyfriend."

  "What happened ? I missed it; I was talking."

  "Really? Oh no! Gee, that's terrible! Are you sure? Awful, just awful !"

• Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice," i.e., busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cozy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill people. Even socializing is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent victim, for example, in finding out someone's playing habits or discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenaline -shooting, juicy fun.

  Killers says things like:

  "Ha!"

  "Coward!"

  "Die!"

  "Die! Die! Die!"

  (Killers are people of few words.)

How many players typically fall within each area depends on the MUD. If, however, too many gravitate to one particular style, the effect can be to cause players of other persuasions to leave, which, in turn , may feed back and reduce the numbers in the first category. For example, too many killers will drive away the achievers who form their main prey; this in turn will mean that killers will stop playing, as they'll have no worthwhile victims (players considered by killers to be explorers generally don't care about death, and players considered to be socializers are too easy to pose much of a challenge). These direct relationships are discussed in more detail toward the end of this paper.

For the most part, though, the inter-relationships between the various playing styles are more subtle. A sharp reduction in the number of explorers for whatever reason could mean a gradual reduction in achievers, who get bored if they're not occasionally told of different hoops they can jump through for points; this could affect the number of socializers (the fewer players there are, the less there is to talk about), and it would certainly lower the killer population (due to a general lack of suitable victims).

Making sure that a game doesn't veer off in the wrong direction and lose players can be difficult; administrators need to maintain a balanced relationship between the different types of player, so as to guarantee their MUD's "feel." Note that I am not advocating any particular form of equilibrium; it is up to the game administrators themselves to decide what atmosphere they want their MUD to have, and thus define the point at which it is "balanced" (although the effort required to maintain this desired state could be substantial). Later, this paper considers means by which a MUD can be pushed in different directions, either to restore an earlier balance between the player types, to define a new target set of relationships between the player types, or to cause the interplay between the player types to break down entirely. However, first a means is required of formally linking the four principal playing styles into aspects of a unified whole; this helps account for different degrees of adherence to particular styles, and aids visualization of what "altering the balance" of a MUD might actually mean .