/ Cory Doctorow / 7:31 am Tue Mar 1, 2011

Taxonomy of social mechanics in multiplayer games


Yesterday's Game Developer Conference in San Francisco saw a smashing presentation from game-design legend Raph Koster, entitled, "Social Mechanics: The Engines Behind Everything Multiplayer." Alice from the Wonderland Blog took copious notes, and Raph has uploaded his slides.
#5: Tournaments: bracketing users. Social games tend to use bracketing for simple pvp matchmaking: it's under utilised.

#6: Opposition. A rival good is something that can't be used by someone else at the same time. You have my stuff, I can't use it. Non-rival is stuff that clones itself: information, etc.

#7: Dot-eating. I ate it, you didn't. Zero sum resource consumption.

#8: Tug of War. A winner and a loser.

#9: Handicapping.

#10: Secrets. Fog of War. Hands of cards.

#11: Last man standing. Deathmatch.

Social Mechanics: The Engines Behind Everything Multiplayer (PDF)

Raph's 40 social mechanics for social games (Wonderlandblog)

 

15

  2. Raph Koster, legend in his own mind.

    I find it pretty telling that as much as he writes about games, he never actually made one that was fun.

    1. As much as I found his talk about Aereaeaufsdf (however you spelled that) annoying in the past, I believe you are falling into an argument fallacy in your statement. He doesn’t necessarily have a long list of hits to back him up, but he’s a pretty sharp guy with some interesting insights. He’s right about a lot of stuff, and he asks questions (and tries to answer them) that game designers need to ask if they are interested in going beyond the purely intuitive or clone-whats-good design process.

    2. Ultima Online wasn’t fun? It only inspired virtually every MMO since, and was a major success in its own right. Star Wars Galaxies, too; although, Koster was promoted out of design before the title was launched. And Metaplace was a virtual-world tools experiment that got the company snapped up by Playdom. Nevertheless, billions of dollars in sales beats any attack on his track record.

  3. That list might be good as a brainstorm aid or something – but it’s a mess: no categorization, and inconsistent in how some ideas are big, and some are small facets of each other.

    It doesn’t seem like a lot of thought went into it; the biggest problem is it splits out things that should really be together and ends up scattering thoughts that should intermingle. How could you have a game that has trading and not arbitrage? How could you have a game with hidden information, and no lying/bluffing? Why doesn’t it work to lie to the computer (hint: it does work, and many games have this as a mechanic)?

    And there’s lots of big, common game ideas that are absent – like tracking player skill for use in fair matchmaking. Or the idea of smaller leagues/shards. Or a hundred other things that are at least as useful ideas as “Tragedy of the commons” or “Supply chains”.

    1. It’s not strange at all. It’s the same reason many CS majors start out as terrible programmers in the real world.

      They are two completely different skills. One is technical proficiency ( understanding the mechanics of a game ), and the other is an art form (shaping mechanics into a compelling game).

      It is possible to craft a technically proficient, but “unfun” game – like Farmville. It is also possible to arrive at a fun game without consciously understanding and intentionally choosing among the various game mechanics and motivations – like nearly every game invented before the 20th century, and arguably before the 1970’s.

    2. Jmzero:

      The order is quite intentional… The mechanics are set up in order of scale and logical progression, though some of the connecting logic is not vey evident fi you don’t have the audio along with the talk.

      A game with trading but no arbitrage is easy: all you need is a game with no price differentials. A perfect information economy will contribute toward this, bt plenty of games lack price fluctuations of any sort.

      Many games have hidden information but do not have bluffing as a formal game mechanic. You CAN bluff in Battleship, but it has no significant effect outside of psychology, since the opponent must select a move regardless. In poker, it serves a far more significant role because of the wider range of possible choices.

      On lying to the computer… It of course knows the right answer if you are playing a game where it holds the state. You can’t lie to it, though we certainly can code it so that it ignores what it knows. I think it is a stretch to call this lying though. We often refer to it as “artificial stupidity” in the games business.

      Tracking player skill was referenced in mechanic 2, matchmaking was covered with brackets… But it wasn’t really intended to be exhaustive, despite the tongue-in-cheek references to it being “all the mechanics”.

  4. For an “unfun” game, Farmville entertains an awful lot of people

    And how many people are entertained by Farmville, then?

    The only data I can imagine us having access to is how many people play it. The success of a social game like Farmville is only very loosely tied to how well it entertains.

    As eeyore said, clearly Farmville is successful and employs proper techniques in reaching that success – but it’s naive to assume that means it’s entertaining. I don’t have some kind of data either, but I would assume many (if not most) people play because of a feeling of obligation: either to other players or to anthropomorphized imaginary creatures.

    1. It won’t give any hard numbers, but a quick websearch shows lots of people who are willing to write about how Farmville is fun. I would guess there are many more who didn’t bother to tell everyone.

    2. Actually, social games are quite popular with their predominant players because they provide a sense of control and order along with a relaxing routine.

      That, for them, is fun.

      It’s interesting to note that FarmVille as an idea emerged as the junction of two ideas: (1) people expressed an interest in playing a game within that setting, and (2) the people who developed the game were focusing on a light version of the resource management mechanics found in RTS games.

      Of course, if your idea of social games is stuck on FarmVille, you’re about a year behind the curve. That, in social media, may as well be a decade ago.

      City-building games — Civ-like/Civ-light experiences — have a fairly large audience these days in the social game market, especially thanks to the success of CityVille. Maybe that’s not your cup of tea, but it’s certainly popular.

      “Fun” is fairly subjective. What you find “fun” as a game may seem boring or stupid to someone else. Some gaming grognards I know _love_ Axis & Allies, while I can’t stand it. However, I like Munchkin when some of them don’t. I used to like FPS games, but now enjoy MMOs. Tastes change and different people have different ideas as to what is enjoyable.

      Heck, the same is true for any media. I personally _hated_ “Dumb & Dumber,” while I know several people who thought it was hilarious.

      When you say something equivalent to, “FarmVille is ‘unfun’,” you’re simply stating your opinion of that type of game. You can’t make an absolute judgment as to what “fun” is.

      What FarmVille does well is play to its audience. FarmVille developers listen to the forums and — more importantly — to the metrics generated through gameplay. They see what their players like, and they develop to that as often as is feasible, without compromising their goals for the game itself. Their players _do_ find it fun. They enjoy themselves. It’s okay that they do so.

      Does obligation factor into it? No more than obligation to a guild forces someone to participate in an MMO. That is, they are as obligated as they choose to be. And for some people, that sense of belonging and that sense of obligation provide both purpose and a means for engagement. And some people find that to be fun.

      Go figure.

  5. A game with trading but no arbitrage is easy: all you need is a game with no price differentials.

    As long as there’s different items and they have different desirability, you effectively have price. Even if you do something like force trades to be 1-for-1, you just force this system to be less and less efficient. If you don’t think systems like this arise in practice, I recommend watching kids trade Pokemon cards in a venue where money is banned.

    You CAN bluff in Battleship, but it has no significant effect outside of psychology, since the opponent must select a move regardless

    The opponent must select a move? What does that have to do with anything? Outside of psychology? What the heck did you think you were going to affect? His mental picture of the game is what you’re trying to affect by doing any bluffing. That’s what bluffing is.

    Bluffing in Battleship is easy – you pretend that his last shot was close, and hopefully he goes there again. It’s exactly the same as bluffing in any other game. In some games there’s in game mechanics that let you convey false information “in game” (ie. in Starcraft 2 you can show a hallucinated Phoenix) – but in or out of game obviously the point is affecting his “psychology”.

    On lying to the computer… It of course knows the right answer if you are playing a game where it holds the state. You can’t lie to it, though we certainly can code it so that it ignores what it knows. I think it is a stretch to call this lying though. We often refer to it as “artificial stupidity” in the games business.

    This is silly. If you’re playing against the computer, the computer is two things: it’s a player, and it’s also the arbitrator. If the computer knows information a player shouldn’t, then it’s cheating.

    Cheating might be necessary for some games, but it shouldn’t be thought of as the norm (and it isn’t some kind of norm in games in general – even in games where it’s hard to play without cheating, good games like newer RTS’s try). A satisfying computer opponent should normally play the same way a human does – and that makes lying to the computer just as much a part of the game as lying to a person.

    If you write a poker game, would you really consider it “artificial stupidity” to have it not know your hand? Of course not – the only sensible default is a separation of player and arbitrator.

  6. When you say something equivalent to, “FarmVille is ‘unfun’,” you’re simply stating your opinion of that type of game.

    I didn’t say that. I said, to summarize, that having a lot of players doesn’t mean that it’s fun.

    To find out whether it’s fun, we could attempt to disconnect people from the “obligations”, remove their perception of equity, and see if they still play. That would give us some idea – and I don’t know how it would pan out.

    They see what their players like, and they develop to that as often as is feasible, without compromising their goals for the game itself.

    No, they don’t see what their players like. They see what makes people play more. What players like may be part of this – but certainly not always. In fact, I think there’s a good chance limiting player satisfaction is an important tool in keeping people playing. This isn’t diabolical or something, and all games do this to some extent. Again, I’m just saying that conflating “successful”, “fun” and “what players like” is misunderstanding the dynamic in play.

    Does obligation factor into it? No more than obligation to a guild forces someone to participate in an MMO

    That’s a very weird way of phrasing that, and probably wrong.

    Obligation to other players, obligation to a character, and a sense of equity (or “sunk time”) all contribute heavily to MMO participation. All those things contribute to obligation in a social game – and as a percentage I would say they, together, constitute more of the reason people play than they do in an MMO.

    I can’t prove that, of course, but it seems logical given that 1. there’s less of “anything else” in a social game than there is in, say, WoW and 2. the social obligations are stronger because the people you play with are more likely to be people you know (I understand guildies may be real life friends or family too – but I bet it’s a much lower percentage).

    That is, they are as obligated as they choose to be. And for some people, that sense of belonging and that sense of obligation provide both purpose and a means for engagement. And some people find that to be fun.

    OK, now you’re just saying random words. Obligation is purpose? Really? I suppose if your purpose if fulfilling your obligations, then I suppose it is. And that purpose is fun? I understand “fun” is subjective, but you’re kind of begging the question if you just effectively conflate obligation as fun.

    Still, I think you’ve thought things out better than the guy who wrote that list.

    1. Hello again, jmzero.

      You’re right, you hadn’t made the statement that FarmVille is unfun. My apologies.

      eeyore had made a statment like that (“…but an ‘unfun’ game — like FarmVille”). I should have been more careful when replying.

      I can say that, yes, the developers of these games do pay attention to what their players like, just like any game developer. I don’t know if you develop or not, but I know from my development experience that obtaining the best possible picture of what your target market wants prominently figures in the game’s design from the concept up to alpha. Designers either actively insert themselves into the process — sometimes actively moving against the stream of customer desires and expectations in order to support a vision, if they also have the support of their management to do so — or they are subject to demands imposed upon them. Those demands are often formed through market data. Either way, the designers have to assimilate and accommodate this information. “What gives us more clicks” or “what drives purchases” is functionally equivalent in this dialog to “what does our customer find to be fun?”

      And you’re right. They’re not the same thing, truly.

      But… for those who wish to sell the games they make… they’re close enough.

      Regarding obligation:

      I’m not just saying random words, though, and it’s fairly insulting to suggest that I am. A sense of obligation can and does provide a sense of purpose for people. It’s one of our general traits. It helps us to work well within a structured social group. And we tend to derive enjoyment from that.

      We fulfill our obligations (defeat Monster X; deliver quarterly report), obtain a reward or feedback based on that (500 xp; receive good annual review), and take on further obligations (have fun storming the castle; enjoy your promotion).

      We enjoy the sense of accomplishment that comes with fulfilling an obligation (mission accomplished!). We want to replicate that feeling (hey, here’s another mission!).

      Mission-based gameplay wouldn’t be nearly as successful as it is if that weren’t the case. That’s all about obligations.

      As I type this, though, I think I can see your point more clearly. Obligations _can_ feel like a slog, and I shouldn’t have made it seem as if the obligation _themselves_ were fun. They can, however, be a means to fun or fulfillment. That’s probably a better way to describe it. They are definitely “unfun” if they’re implemented poorly.

      The player’s obligation has to at least _seem_ like fun… sort of like Tom Sawyer convincing his friends to whitewash the fence. Hopefully, the execution of the obligation will actually _be_ fun (saving the world vs. filing the weekly TPS reports).

      Good points! Thanks for the discussion.

  7. Thanks Anon – I think I see what you’re getting at now.

    For myself, I’ve resolved to do games at some point in my career – but I’ll need to amass a fair bit more money first. I’m not the confident entrepreneurial type.

Comments are closed.