On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, Daniel Koepke wrote:
> that adding challenges to your MUD
> will cause your players to be somewhat disgruntled, whether or not it is
> for the good of the mud, or otherwise.
You're finally there! Welcome to one of my points. I'm glad we agree now. :)
(And I hope you will no longer find it appropriate to call frustrating
your players, but not to the point that they leave, the Art
of Administration.)
> This is because players get
> quite used to the skill-level at which they are playing, and, even if they
> are quite able to play at a more challenging level, they will still get
> pissed-off when you make the game more challenging.
And they will get "pissed off" at the game, not the administrators. This is
the sign you've implemented something that will, in the end, increase thier
enjoyment not simply frustrate them. The only exception being the young
ones (or the immature ones that will never grow up). They complain no
matter what. =) Yet even they, I have found, soon learn that you're
not an admin that's fallen for the it's "You against the players" attitude.
They realize that they enjoy the changes, even though it makes the game
harder. I guess you've never played on such a mud because after seeing it
happen you can never go back to the flawed "frustrate the players but not
to the point you make them leave" attitude.
> In essence, you are
> pissing-off your players for the good of the mud. But, you cannot make
> the game more challenging to the point where players leave, or get really
> pissed-off, because then you have imbalanced the mud.
Oops, you took a wrong turn here. Good Administrators will know it's not
their job to frustrate the players. Administrators who run their muds
with the proper goal in mind, that is, to only present players with
challenges that will make the players enjoy the mud even more, will not
have to be careful how much they piss off the players, since they
knows better than to take a hostile attitude towards the players as
their job. Is it just playing with words, like you suggest? I think
you'll find that behind most muds that die is an administrator who
got caught up making life hard on his/her players while losing sight
of the fact that when players don't enjoy themselves, the mud fails.
> Therefore, you
> must provide them with challenges, but ones with which they are quite
> able to acheive if given the time and resources; so that they know they
> are able to overcome the challenge, and thus, continue to play the mud.
> This is balance. This is the Art of Administration.
Yes, in other words you provide them with challenges which increase
their enjoyment of the mud, not simply frustrate them. It is because
so many administrators lose sight of this that I am making such a
fuss over it. It's sad when you hear someone say the Art of
Administrations is "how much you piss-off your players vs. how much
you can before they leave." It's more than the crude words, it's the
underlying attitude that will end up killing the mud the person
is administrating.
> This is what I have
> been saying all along, if you cannot get past me using the words,
> "pissed-off," then this entire thing is, as you said, meaningless.
Yet I'm asking you to get past the words. Do you not understand? It
doesn't matter how you phrase it, saying that your job is to make
life hard on the players, but not past the point that they leave, is
a player hostile attitude. It allows you to make decisions which
frustrate the players but do not increase their enjoyment of the mud.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST