Social Scientist as Game Designer

I have wondered for a while now if a social scientist, given the proper training, would make a good game designer. Heck, give him a double major in psychology and I think one might have the next super dev.

This thought sprout out of my recent break from LOTRO (and blogging). Why did I just drop the game? Well, I started getting bored. I played LOTRO since August of '06 when I was invited to the closed beta. That's three years to the point that I stopped playing (a little longer). I don't think anybody could fault someone for taking a break after that sort of investment. But why was I bored?

It's that kind of question that speaks to a social scientist. I happen to be one, or my degree is in social science. Perhaps armchair social scientist is a better term for what I do. I'm certainly not employed in the field. I digress. If we can answer those types of questions then I think MMOs can be designed to with greater sticking power.

This type of discussion came up in the latest Shut Up We're Talking. Interestingly enough, this is the latest episode after Darren (the host) took a break from MMO playing and podcasting/blogging. Coincidence? I don't think so. Every guest agreed that there is (was?) a general discontentment amongst the blogosphere about MMOs through no fault of the games. Instead, it's the player's attitudes that are changing, rather than the games themselves. Perhaps that's the problem? Shouldn't the games adapt to what the players want?

I speak in generalities, of course. Not every MMO player is burned out. The industry is still going strong. And MMOs do try to cater to what their population wants. So what's the missing link here - the muscle tissue, bone structure, that can lead the way to better design?

I think the answer lies in understanding how people think, particularly players. One way they think is that not all of them think the same thing. SUWT touched on this and I think they're right: MMOs cannot cater to all audiences. WoW is the exception to the rule, the fluke, the unrepeatable success (well, maybe another Blizzard MMO). Instead of sending a dev team off with 50 million dollars to make the next WoW how about a few million and focus on a particular playstyle? Darkfall anybody?

Seriously. Darkfall did that. So did Fallen Earth. Both are successful in their target audience. And those who don't like PvP or post-apocalyptic worlds don't care. That's fine. Ideally there will be a MMO for you.

So what does all this have to do with LOTRO? Yes, this is still a LOTRO blog and I will not post without somehow linking it back to my beloved game. And yes, I still love this game. As a wise parent once told me, love is a choice, not an emotion. I choose to love LOTRO even though I'm not feeling it right now. Eh, more digression.

LOTRO seems to be lacking something for me - I'm not quite in their target audience. Oh, sure, I look like it on the outside. I love the Lord of the Rings. I love RPGs. I'm a completionist. I can't stand PvP. Still, I'm straddling the line.

I game for story. LOTRO has an awesome story. But all the other mechanics have impeded me in my quest to experience the story. Not because they're bad mechanics, or cumbersome. No, they're just required to use in order to play the story. So am I complaining that I can't just watch the LOTRO story passively? No. That wasn't what LOTRO was designed for. My increasing appetite for story out of my games is my own problem, not LOTROs. But I think games can be designed for people like me: The Longest Journey for instance. Or even the Bioware RPGs - heavy on talking and story (which is what I have been playing instead of LOTRO).

Those are single-player examples. Can MMOs focus on story to the extent I want? Sure. The better question is "Is the target audience large enough to sustain such an MMO?" Let's go back to that money thing: Yes, if the budget and development take into account target audience size. What would that MMO look like? Good question. One I'm going to save for later.

In any case, a social scientist understands personal and group motivations (or attempts to understand them). Considering MMOs deal with both motivations shouldn't we consider the value of such perspectives when developing these games?

Root of the Consternation

There's tumultuous waters out there in the LOTRO community. Gear gating, hard mode instances, nerfed skills in boss fights, single-path progression. It's hard to sort out what people are really frustrated over and what are minor annoyances usually ignored but now blow out of proportion because of general angst.

Well, Orion, as an aside to his latest series of blogs, answers that question. First off, I want to link to the posts thus far. You can access any of the subsequent entries from the Day 1 post. I highly recommend reading these. In fact, if I would consider it required reading for all LOTRO players active in the community and interested in how this game develops.

Okay, onto the problem. Player Shibi commented on Day 1's post and had this to say:

"I am just suggesting that maybe, just maybe Turbine are going in a direction some of us don’t want and Turbine don’t seem to have spotted... Before you redesign the instance, why not actually ask people what they want, especially as Turbine seem have it so wrong right now... Some of us don’t want gating, we definitely don’t want hard mode, we want things to be accessible and FUN... [Y]ou are forgetting us and only thinking of the uber-elite fat-lewt WoW influx and sucking all the fun out."

That pretty much sums up the general argument from the players about our perceptions of the design direction. Orion had this to say:

"Some of you don’t want hard mode - certainly. Some of you don’t want gating - definitely. Some of you want things to be accessible - yep. All of you want things to be fun. A-ha! What is fun!? ...The answer is, it is subjective."

"It has become clear over the past weeks that the core of the gating issue is tied to the one way and one way only to acquire radiance loot - which is a necessity to participate in new raids. It is a combination of symptoms that combine to form the issue not a single case of “gear gating is stupid and horrible and damn you devs!”"

Creating content on the sole basis of an undefined, intangible, and as Orion puts it, subjective "fun" is a slippery slope. We have to define fun first, but again we run into the subjectivity wall. Still, I think it's possible if a majority of the players are clear on what isn't fun. And what isn't fun is exactly what Shibi is saying. Well, not exactly, and that's part of the problem, as Orion sees it. I think I might have said something to the same effect before.

The limited options present in the gear gating and radiance raid system limits fun. I greatly appreciated, and was sold to this game based on Turbine's commitment to giving players different options for completing the same or similar content. Before those options were seen in the different end-game gear. Now, however, we have only one type of gear that can be used in a raid. So, without destroying the radiance system, what do we do? We put the options in the methods of acquiring the one type of gear. Currently we have one option: hard mode. What about something to do with crafting , or monster play, or lesser raids? It's not any one of the systems that Shibi points out, but rather the limits that went along with those systems. And Orion sees this. And that makes me happy. And the next quote (from Day 2) should be proof enough:

"When you deal with a mass of people all spouting opinions and everyone keeps harping on one point or another it can be very difficult to drill through to the core of the issue. This has been the case with Radiance Gear. At first, it appeared that radiance gating was the only part of the issue because that was the breadth of the complaints. After drilling deeper and reading more and more from folks it became apparent that there were many symptoms to the problem.

1. Radiance gear is now required to enter raids.
2. The only way to acquire radiance gear is to complete hard modes.
3. Hard modes objectives are obtuse.

All good points, all taken to heart and all actively in the pipe for some form of retrofit to address the core issues. No time frame yet. Just and admission that we hear you, we understand you and we are committed to rectifying the issue."

Obviously this problem will take a while to rectify, but seeing Orion's journals gives me hope. Before now, I agreed with most of the griping, although not the incessant whining. I had given up posting on the issue further until something more substantial than the same complaining could be found. And at last I've found it. I do hope those of you who take issue with this... well, issue can see the same optimism I do.

The Perspective Dichotomy

Oooh, another fancy post name. Yes, I like fancy post names, and using my college accrued vocabulary. Anyhow, it's not mind-bending in any way, rather a look at the different perspectives between developers and players over game design, notably emergent behavior. This post is powered by Orion's latest blog entry on his MyLOTRO page. The post in and of itself is an excellent read and I found myself fairly captivated by the perspective offered.

Certainly we need to keep in mind his blog post is his own opinion and doesn't reflect Turbine's official... whatever. Still, a well-rounded developer in LOTRO will have influence over design directions (as admitted to in the post) and it's his opinion that directs his influence.

I want to do a comparison of his perspective on MMO design versus the perspective and perception of the players. There has been much talk about design philosophy, design direction, shifting priorities, ect in LOTRO by the various bloggers. Mainly this has been fueled by frustration over some of the end-game content. I think we as players would do well to read into Orion's post with an open mind. I don't think many of us understand the direction designers come from when approaching conentent. I think we take a more casual and biased approach to design. That is, each of us has our own opinion over what is good design, oftentimes not even awknowledging it in those words. Our opinion is framed more by what is fun for us, and it varies widely. The common thread, of course, is that whatever we find fun is the best design, regardless of other's opinions. Developers have to take a less self-centered approach. They know there will be a vast array of opinion on what is fun, so in order to remain sane and not jump on the endless treadmill of player satisfaction, they spell out design into a formal process, a set of guidelines to follow, principles to adhere to.

Where this fits into LOTRO is when Orion talks about the emergent behavior seen in the Moria instances, notably the Grand Staircase. That was his baby, so to speak. Emergent behavior is in a nutshell unanticipated player behavior - emerging on the scene with the content's launch into live. This type of behavior can be seen as strategic, innovatative, and creative, but on occasion, also exploitive. The latter, of course, is a no-no - you'll get banned if caught making use of exploits. So where is the line? One man's exploit is another man's creativity. This is where the different perspectives really shines. Orion arugues that in an MMO, most emergent behavior is exploitive because it takes advantage of a bug or error in the code. For example, being able to take a fall and still live, or using scenery to give oneself immunity from being hit but still able to hit back. And ultimately the developer has to be the one to say what is an exploit and what isn't, because they're the only ones able to access the code and give a difinitive data-supported definition.

We as players don't see this background data, or the original design intent, or any number of things that go into the operation of content. We're front end consumers, and yet we still want to be armchair designers. I'm guilty of that as well. I'm not saying our opinion doesn't count. It certainly has weight as we can choose to spend our dollars anywhere we please, but we as mature and intelligent people should consider that which we do not know or understand. Orion's post is an excellent opportunity to not only understand where a devloper is coming from on their design perspective, but also gives us the tools to frame our concerns. We can awknowledge a lack of data but at the same time speak to the matter with understanding.

I now have to ask myself, using an example from before, does the use of Enrage in the turtle raid contradict or negate the design philosophy of fun the developer had envisioned and put into that content. What was the purpose? What were the goals? What I saw as positive emergent behavior very well could be exploitive. Actually, in this case I don't think it took advantage of a coding error, but rather did violate the design principles behind the content. Same with the root immunity given to certain bosses in the Moria instances.

The one place where I feel Turbine dropped the ball, and this is based off of what I read in Orion's post, is not fixing the exploits quicker. He insists that emergent behavior requires, by it's vary nature, a swift address. The Moria instances went until Book 7 where they were truely fixed (for the most part). This created a set of false expectations and perceptions in the playerbase. Not only were we very tempted to use the exploits, we were learning the wrong behavior for those instances. We were enabled by the developers in our "bad" behavior.

I hope to speak to future concerns with more clarity and understanding now that I've gained a little insight into the mind of a developer. I again encourage all of you to read this article not only for the specifics about emergent behavior, but also for the different perspective. Two side of the same coin, if you will. One player, one developer, both wanting the best for the game.