Below is of interest for gamers, game designers, and anybody residing in virtual communities or virtual community builders (= YOU!).
************************************************************
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:36:01 -0500
Subject: Viridian Note 00090: Design Principles for Virtual Worlds
Key concepts: virtual communities, computer gaming,
virtual politics, virtual economics, violence, automation,
virtual personae, entertainment industry
Attention Conservation Notice: Almost 3,000 words. Of
interest mostly to net.organizational specialists.
Written in subcultural jargon of computer gaming industry.
Unlike most tracts on virtual community, reflects actual,
sustained, hard-won experience with its subject matter.
Has little to do with CO2 emissions, except that 125,000
computer gamers whacking imaginary dragons with imaginary
swords are emitting a lot of actual carbon dioxide.
Entries in the Viridian Summer Health Warning Contest:
http://www.earthlight.co.nz/~bretts/vs.html
http://www.tux.org/~lasser/viridian/
http://www.subterrane.com/heat.htm
http://www.ugrad.cs.jhu.edu/~rmharman/img/viridian/sun.bmp
http://humlog.homestead.com/viridianart/HEAT.html
http://members.tripod.com/~MSpong/viridian/heatdeath.html
http://www.premierestedivolt.com/HEAT.HTML
http://www.radix.net/~kreinsch/viridian/heatkills.html
http://www.provide.net/~herrell/heat.html
http://www.gothic.net/~weasel/viridian/
http://home.earthlink.net/~keim9/heatwarning.htm
http://www.well.com/conf/mirrorshades/viridian/viridianhea
t.html
http://www.octa.net/heatposter.html
http://www.boston.quik.com/kitsune/gfx/heatwarn.jpg
http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~djb14/viridian/heatkills.htm
http://www.artlung.com/viridian6/
http://www.well.com/~smendler/heat.html
http:
//www.greenbuilder.com/viridian_heat_load@148K.html
http://www.powerbase-alpha.com/bigmike/heatkills.html
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~pal/viridian.html
http://www.potatoe.com/viridian/poster.html
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/3203/viridian_heat.h
tml
This contest expires on September 1, 01999.
Links:
http://www.ultimaonline.com
http://mud.sig.net/raph/gaming/
(((Raphael Koster (
rkoster@origin.ea.com*) was lead
designer for Ultima Online, an interactive virtual world
with over 125,000 subscribers. He and his colleagues have
come up with a set of principles and rules of thumb for
managing these complex interactive environments. ==
bruces)))
The Laws of Online World Design
by Raphael Koster
These are taken from both experience and from the writings
of others. Many who have done this sort of game design
take some of these rules for granted, but other rules may
be less intuitive. Many of the laws here were actually
stated as such by others, and not by me.
A Caveat
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.
Design Rules
The secrets to a really long-lived, goal-oriented, online
game of wide appeal:
* Have multiple paths of advancement (individual features
are nice, but making them ladders is better);
* Make it easy to switch between paths of advancement
(ideally, without having to start over)
* Make sure the milestones in the path of advancement are
clear, visible, and significant (having 600 meaningless
milestones doesn't help);
* Ideally, give your game a sense of limitless significant
milestones (try to make your ladder feel infinite).
Modes of expression
You're trying to provide as many modes of expression as
possible in your online world. "Character classes" are
just modes of expression, after all.
Persistence means it never goes away
Once you open your online world, expect to keep your team
on it indefinitely. Some of these games have never closed.
And closing one prematurely may result in losing the faith
of your customers, damaging the prospects for other games
in the same genre.
Macroing, botting, and automation
No matter what you do, someone is going to automate the
process of playing your world.
Corollary: Looking at what parts of your game players
tend to automate is a good way to determine which parts of
the game are tedious and/or not fun.
Game systems:
No matter what you do, players will decode every formula,
statistic, and algorithm in your world via
experimentation.
It is always more rewarding to kill other players than to
kill whatever the game sets up as a target.
A given player of level x can slay multiple creatures of
level y. Therefore, killing a player of level x yields
(n)y reward in purely in-game reward terms. Killing
players will therefore always be more rewarding in game
terms than killing monsters of comparable difficulty.
However, there's also the fact that players will be more
challenging and exciting to fight than monsters, no matter
what you do.
Never trust the client.
Never put anything on the client machine. The client is in
the hands of the enemy. Never, ever, ever forget this.
J. C. Lawrence's "do it everywhere" law:
"If you do it one place, you have to do it everywhere."
Players like clever things and will search them out. Once
they find a clever thing, they will search for other
similar or related clever things that seem to be implied
by what they found, and will get pissed off if they don't
find them.
Hyrup's "do it everywhere" Corollary:
"The more detailed you make the world, the more players
will want to break away from the classical mold."
Dr Cat's Stamp Collecting Dilemma:
"Lots of people might like stamp collecting in your
virtual world. But those who like stamps 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 design elements in order to keep the players happy.
"Koster's Law" (Mike Sellers was actually the one to dub
it thus): "The quality of roleplaying is inversely
proportional to the number of people playing."
Hyrup's Counter-observation: "The higher the fee, the
better the roleplayers." (And of course, the higher the
fee, the smaller the playerbase.)
Enforcing roleplaying
A roleplay-mandated world is essentially a fascist state.
Whether or not this accords with your goals in making such
a world is a decision you yourself will have to make.
Storytelling versus simulation
If you write a static story (or indeed include any static
element) in your game, everyone in the world will know how
the story ends in a matter of days. Mathematically, it is
not possible for a design team to create stories fast
enough to supply everyone playing.
This is the traditional approach to this sort of game
nonetheless. You can try a sim-style game which doesn't
supply stories but instead supplies freedom to make them.
This is a lot harder and arguably has never been done
successfully.
Players have higher expectations of the virtual world
The expectations are higher than of similar actions in the
real world. For example: players will expect all labor to
result in profit; they will expect life to be fair; they
will expect to be protected from aggression before the
fact, and not just to seek redress after the fact; they
will expect problems to be resolved quickly; they will
expect that their integrity will be assumed to be beyond
reproach; in other words, they will expect too much, and
you will not be able to supply it all.
The trick is to manage the expectations.
Online game economies are hard
A faucet->drain economy is one where you spawn new stuff,
let it pool in the "sink" that is the game, and then have
a concomitant drain. Players will hate having this drain,
but if you do not enforce ongoing expenditures, you will
have "Monty Haul syndrome," infinite accumulation of
wealth, overall rise in the "standard of living" and
capabilities of the average player, and thus imbalance in
the game design and poor game longevity.
Ownership is key
You have to give players a sense of ownership in the game.
This is what will make them stay==it is a "barrier to
departure."
Social bonds are not enough, because good social bonds
extend outside the game. Instead, it is context. If they
can build their own buildings, build a character, own
possessions, hold down a job, feel a sense of
responsibility to something that cannot be removed from
the game==then you have ownership.
If your game is narrow, it will fail
Your game design must be expansive. Even the coolest
game mechanic becomes tiresome after a time. You have to
supply alternate ways of playing, or alternate ways of
experiencing the world. Otherwise, the players will go to
another world where they can have new experiences.
This means new additions, or better yet, completely
different subgames embedded in the actual game.
Lambert's Laws:
"As a virtual world's 'realism' increases, the pool
of possible character actions increases."
The opportunities for exploitation and subversion are
directly proportional to the pool size of possible
character actions.
A bored player is a potential and willing subversive.
Players will eventually find the shortest path to the
cheese.
Featuritis
No matter how many new features you have or add, the
players will always want more.
Pleasing your Players
Despite your best intentions, any change will be looked
upon as a bad change to a large percentage of your
players. Even to those who forgot that they asked for the
change themselves.
Hyrup's Loophole Law:
"If something can be abused, it will be."
Murphy's Law:
"Servers only crash and don't restart when you go out of
town."
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."
Hanarra's Laws:
"Over time, your playerbase will become the group of
people who most enjoy the style of play that your world
offers. The others will eventually move to another game."
"It is very hard to attract players of different
gaming styles after the playerbase has been established.
Any changes to promote different styles of play almost
always conflict with the established desires of the
current playerbase."
"The ultimate goal of a virtual world is to create a
place where people of all styles of play can contribute to
the world in a manner that makes the game more satisfying
for everyone."
"The new players who enter the world for the first
time are the best critics of it."
"The opinions of those who leave are the hardest to
obtain, but give the best indication of what changes need
to be made to reach that ultimate goal."
Elmqvist's Law:
"In an online game, players find it rewarding to save
the world. They find it more rewarding to save the world
together, with lots of other people."
A corollary to Elmqvist's Law
"In general, adding features to an online game that
prevent people from playing together is a bad idea."
A caveat to the corollary to Elmqvist's Law:
"The exception would be features that enhance the sense of
identity of groups of players, such as player languages."
Baron's Design Dichotomy
According to Jonathan Baron, there are two kinds of online
games: "Achievement Oriented," and "Cumulative Character."
In the "Achievement Oriented" game, the players who "win"
do so because they they are the best at whatever the game
offers. Their glory is achieved by shaming other players.
In the "Cumulative Character" game, anyone can reach the
pinnacle of achievement by mere persistence; the game is
driven by sheer unadulterated capitalism.
Online identity
We spend a lot of time enabling people to have a very
strong personal identity in our worlds (letting them
define themselves in great detail, down to eye color). But
identity is portable. How many of you have been playing
the same character in RPGs for 15 years, like me? You
cannot count on a sense of identity, of character
building, to keep someone in your game.
In-game calendars
It's nice to have an in-game calendar. But emotional
resonances will never accrue to in-game holidays. The only
calendar that really matters is the real world one.
Don't worry about breaking fiction==online games are about
social interaction, not about fictional consistency.
Social Laws
Koster's Theorem:
"Virtual social bonds evolve from the fictional towards
real social bonds."
If you have good community ties, they will be out-of-
character ties, not in-character ties. In other words,
friendships will migrate right out of your virtual world
into email, real-life gatherings, etc.
Baron's Theorem:
"Hate is good." This is because conflict drives the
formation of social bonds and thus of communities. Hate is
an engine that brings players closer together.
Baron's Law:
"Glory is the reason why people play online; shame is what
keeps them from playing online." Neither is possible
without other people being present.
Mike Sellers' Hypothesis:
"The more persistence a game tries to have; the longer it
is set up to last; the greater number (and broader
variety) of people it tries to attract; and the more
immersive it attempts to be--then the more breadth and
depth of human experience it needs to support."
If you try to create a deeply immersive, broadly
appealing, long-lasting world that does not adequately
provide for human tendencies such as violence,
acquisition, justice, family, community, exploration, etc
(and I would contend we are nowhere close to doing this),
you will see two results.
First, individuals in the population will begin to display
a wide range of predictable socially pathological
behaviors (including general malaise, complaining,
excessive bullying and/or Player-Killing, harassment,
territoriality, inappropriate aggression, and open
rebellion against those who run the game).
Second, people will eventually vote with their feet==but
only after having passionately cast 'a pox on both your
houses.' In essence, if you set people up for an
experience they deeply crave (and mostly cannot find in
real life) and then don't deliver, they will become like
spurned lovers==some become sullen and aggressive or
neurotic. Eventually almost all leave.
Schubert's Law of Player Expectations:
"A new player's expectations of a virtual world are driven
by his expectations of single-player games."
In particular, he expects a narrow, predictable plotline
with well-defined quests and a carefully sculpted role for
himself as the hero. He also expects no interference or
disruption from other players.
These are difficult, and sometimes impossible,
expectations for a virtual world to actually meet.
Violence is inevitable
You're going to have violence done to people no matter
what facilities exist in the game. Violence may be a
combat system, theft, blocking entrances, trapping
monsters, stealing kills to get experience, pestering,
harassment, verbal violence, or just rudeness.
Is it a game?
A virtual world is 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.
Player Identity
You will NEVER have a solid unique identity for your
problematic players. They essentially have complete
anonymity because of the Internet. Even addresses, credit
cards, and so on can be faked==and will be.
Jeff Kesselman's Theorem:
"A MUD universe is all about psychology." After all, there
IS no physicality. It's all psych and group dynamics.
Psychological disinhibition
People act like jerks more easily online, because
anonymity is intoxicating. It is easier to objectify other
people and therefore to treat them badly. The only way to
combat this is to get them to empathize more with other
players.
Mass market facts
It's disturbing for those used to smaller environments,
but: administrative problems increase EXPONENTIALLY
instead of linearly, as your playerbase digs deeper into
the mass market.
Traditional approaches start to fail. Your playerbase
probably isn't ready or willing to police itself.
Anonymity and in-game administrators
The in-game admin faces a bizarre problem. He is
exercising power that the ordinary virtual citizen cannot.
And he is looked to in many ways to provide a certain
atmosphere and level of civility in the environment.
Yet the fact remains that no matter how scrupulously
honest he is, no matter how just he shows himself to be,
no matter how committed to the welfare of the virtual
space he may prove himself, people will hate his guts.
They will mistrust him precisely because he has power, and
they can never know him. There will be false accusations
galore, many insinuations of nefarious motives, and former
friends will turn against him.
It may be that the old saying about power and absolute
power is just too ingrained in the psyche of most people;
whatever the reasons, there has never been an online game
whose admins could say with a straight face that all their
players really trusted them (and by the way, it gets worse
once you take money!).
Community size
Ideal community size is no larger than 250. Past that, you
really get subcommunities.
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.
Hal Black's Elaboration:
"The more responsive an admin is to user feedback of a
given type, the more of that type the admin will get."
Specifically, as an admin implements features from
user suggestions, the more ideas for features will be
submitted. Likewise, the more an admin coddles whiners,
the more whining will ensue.
J C Lawrence's "stating the obvious" law
"The more people you get, the more versions of 'what
we're really doing' you're going to get."
John Hanke's Law (cited by Mike Sellers):
"In every aggregation of people online, there is an
irreducible proportion of ... jerks" (he used a different
word :-)
Rewarding players
It is not possible to run a scenario or award player
actions without other players crying favoritism.
Rewards
The longer your game runs, the less often you get kudos
for your efforts.
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.
Who contributed (purposely or inadvertently!), sorted
alphabetically:
Myself, of course.
Richard Bartle: along with Roy Trubshaw, developed
the first MUD.
Jonathan Baron: producer & designer for Air Warrior.
Hal Black: And another MUD-Dev member!
Dr Cat: the man behind Dragonspires and Furcadia.
Niklas Elmqvist: another active MUD-Dev member.
Ola Frosheim Grostad: researcher into virtual spaces,
MUD-Dev member.
Marion Griffith: leads the !Overlord Project.
Hanarra, aka Jason Wilson,: of Nightfall.
Darrin Hyrup: designer and/or programmer for
Gemstone, Dragon's Gate, Darkness Falls, and Magestorm.
Jeff Kesselman: helped run Dark Sun Online, and is
developing DSO2.
Amy Jo Kim: consultant and web designer.
Jon A. Lambert: active MUD-Dev member.
J C Lawrence: moderator for the MUD-Dev mailing list.
Damion Schubert: a key designer for Meridian 59,
Might & Magic Online, and Ultima Online.
Mike Sellers: a prime mover behind Meridian 59.
Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt: one of the guys who wrote the
original DikuMUD.
And all the members of the MUD-Dev list as well.
O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O
TEXAS 1999: FLOODS, A HURRICANE, BROWNOUTS
AND FEDERAL AIR QUALITY SANCTIONS. BUT
COMPARED TO 1998, IT'S BEEN PARADISE!
O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O