Raph Koster has a weird view of socialization.
” … socialization requires downtime … “
Strange, given that he was involved with a very social MMO, SWG. I’ll bet this view comes from playing board and puzzle games, where indeed, socialization is done between the rounds or when others are taking their turn. When examined in the context of an online multiplayer game, it isn’t wrong, but it omits far more important concepts.
Ok, to be fair, he doesn’t claim socialization = downtime … only that downtime is required. I can accept that. But he misses the fact that a game with downtime won’t necessarily be social.
Raph, socialization in a game is not about idle chit-chat in a cantina. Socialization is more about mechanics that require, reward or promote the coming together of 2 or more people to accomplish difficult tasks. The healer / tank / nuker trinity is somewhat of a social mechanic, because it rewards players that work together to defeat mobs.
Downtime, of course, plays an important role as slower times are required to organize the grouping of players. But, and I firmly believe this, it is NOT the downtime that is the critical social element, it is the fighting together that promotes relationships. If anything, MMO today have too much downtime.
There’s a Russian expression that implies that true friendship comes from “eating a pound of salt together” — to spend a long time with a person, living and working together. Examples might include working towards and finally completing a difficult RAID as a group or guild for the first time. In games that permit it, the founding of a player city. Any activity that is difficult and designed to require the work of many people over the long term to succeed.
Downtime does provide time to relive and cement the shared experience. “That was an epic fight. Yay us!” But without the social mechanic, it is nothing more than downtime. Idle chit-chat is mere acquaintance.
Unfortunately, mechanics that promote, reward or allow the “eating of a pound of salt” are only loosely referred to in Raph’s article, and then, are crammed into a single point: “Mechanics where users do things to each other or with each other.”
The rest of the article is a list of ways in which to encourage idle chit-chat, such as “Player-voted awards for roleplaying, helpfulness …” I’m not saying these are bad ideas … just that they miss the more important point.
5 Comments
Did I say “cut the game”? No. Heh. Shared goals and challenges are very important. And “chat is never enough” is also a huge mantra that I have repeated for years and years.
So I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement here. It is two sides of the same coin (a game of shared struggle but with no time to chat and no ways to connect outside the game fails the test too).
I just keep pointing out the side of the coin that today happens to be face down and that nobody sees or seems to think is very important.
Would you say that the missing link, then, isn’t downtime — but systems to highlight and reward interaction? To use Raph’s example, “Player-voted awards for roleplaying” would imply a badge or award system, and a way to view others’ badges and/or promote your own… at which point it’s not about the downtime, it’s about the e-peen; the reward loop exists!
Just to play Devil’s Advocate I don’t think fighting together is necessarily socializing either. I’ve lost count how many times I’ve grouped with someone who *even if they could play their character very well* didn’t say a damn word or worse, were complete pricks. That just prompts me to ignore them (if they’re bothering to chat at all) and tolerate their presence until we’re finished then I never want to see them again.
Grouping != Social
(and the other side of *that* particular coin is that Solo != Anti-Social either)
@Scott
I agree. Random grouping once isn’t likely to accomplish much. But grouping does provide an opportunity, at least. There are far better mechanics, for sure.
@Scott and Tachevert
Shared challenges that require long term input are the best at building relationships. Being a part of the guild management, for example.
Player cities in SWG are my favorite example.
- Involved input from many people (materials for houses, money to pay city fees, housing slots to hold public structures)
- Involved no set input requirements. A raid guild has a sort of minimum entry fee … if you can’t regularly show, you’re likely out. Whereas with city building, any contribution is welcome. Both casual and hardcore can contribute.
- Contribution is asynchronous. Both casual and heavy players can contribute. Everyone doesn’t need to be on at the same time.
- Permits a degree of individualism (decorating public structures like the cantina).
- Involves non-deterministic and complex mechanics. “Marketing” your city to potential new members was complex and involved.
- Is social by its nature. Marketing is social, decision making is social, brings people back to central location by choice (not forced).
- Crosses all other rule boundaries. There were no forced class, level or race restrictions. Although, many cities were either Empire or Rebel (ours was both).
- Provides a benefit to everyone (crafting bonuses, for example).
Player cities in SWG were a sort of superordinate goal … something everyone could get behind, benefit from and contribute to according to their own ability.
Raph said: I just keep pointing out the side of the coin that today happens to be face down and that nobody sees or seems to think is very important.
I appreciate the point. I wonder though, if insufficient downtime is really the problem. Perhaps your article would be more readily accepted (by people like me) if you found another descriptor.
In most MMO that I play, downtime is available in excess. What would be nice would be ways to continue to make progress in a manner that was more conducive to socializing. Some of your examples, like having to run back through a hub every so often, are already used excessively in some games.