Koster's Laws Of Online Gaming Revisited

Thanks to F13.net for its article attempting a re-appraisal of the original 'laws of online gaming' document, as first posted by Raph Koster and others starting on October 9, 1998. The curmudgeonly analysis includes rebuttals of original laws such as "No matter what you do, someone is going to automate the process of playing your world" ("There's a very simple fix for this. Dump the treadmill, dump the numbers, and make gameplay fun"), and there's an equally tetchy rebuttal of the rebuttal at F13, suggesting: "Any amount of development time spent making the game more realistic or lifelike is wasted development time, stolen from useful tasks like making the game fun."

Couldn't agree more!

I used to be able to play games like Final Fantasy 6. And I still think that FF6 is the best one of them all. I love the plot and the music and everything. But I just can't go back and play it anymore. The game has no intellectual stimulation for me. It's just a leveling treadmill. Push buttons to continue the plot. Imagine if you went to see LOTR and they made you figure out a correct button sequence to make the movie continue playing?

I'm tired of fancy graphics. I'm tired of treadmills. Nowadays I live only for the kind of action that a zelda game or a quality fps can provide. Either skill based gameplay where the best gamer wins. Or lots and lots of riddles and puzzles to solve, by thinking.

I wrote about this awhile ago in my /journal.

My rules of online-gaming

a) At any one time, you'll be playing against at least three, and likely five stinking thirteen year old kids, who talk in l33tsp33k and haven't seen the outside for a while.

2) No matter what speed your connection, the game will be slow and laggy and therefore, annoying.

d) All the real games players are playing LAN games anyway.

Money for Time

So long as there is a point in the game that it is 'cooler' to be at than the starting point (eg. level whatever as opposed to level 1), people will trade money for the time taken, no matter how fun the intervening time is. They want to have more fun now, which to them means being 'cooler' and hence higher level. Basically this is a form of automated grinding, except that you are getting another person to do it rather than arbitrary code.

The same situation applies for coded grinders. Now, instead of paying money, you are paying with idle computer time... leave your machine grinding while you go to work. Again, irrespective of how fun the time ground might have been. So basically this kind of thing will never be eliminated.

Terrible Rebuttal

The guy doing the rebuttal makes a terrible job of it. When he agrees with the original rule, he uses clever arguements such as "Well, duh". When he disagrees, he does so just for the sake of it, and generally entirely misses the point, or picks up on some minor point and makes his entire rebuttal about that. For example:

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.
Say it with me: "MMORPGs require more time and effort to create than pen and paper games."
This law is flawed - heavily. It doesn't matter how many different classes you have - because there are only four base classes - fighter, spellcaster, rogue, and crafter....(continues)

He misses the point about about having differant forms of expression and instead picks up on the secondary point that classes are modes of expression. Koster never mentioned that you should have lots and lots of clasess, but instead the rebutter rambles on for a very long and tedious paragraph about how you don't need lots of classes, when he's actually agreeing with the guy. He even says "It's about time we left the character design up to the player". What's that you say, increase the amounts of expression available to the player? You're agreeing with him, you idiot!

To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish the article. Koster's laws are very interesting, but the rebuttal is just pointless and annoying. maybe it finishes well, but I really, really doubt it.

City of Heroes

There's a very simple fix for this. Dump the treadmill, dump the numbers, and make gameplay fun

City of Heroes is an interesting case for MMOs, because it literally is nothing but a treadmill. There's no other style of gameplay in the game other than combat for levels, yet somehow it's ridiculous fun and addictive, moreso than many other MMOs on the market today.

Personally, I think this can be attributed to the fact that they focused on this singular gameplay element and refined it so well that you never really notice that you're only ever doing one thing during your entire time playing. With a good group of strangers or good friends the hours can fly by like nothing, all the while everyone's having a pretty darn good time of things. I think that the level treadmill, when done right, can be a respectable tool for advancement in the game if the situations involved are balanced and challenging.

Re:City of Heroes

I played CoH mostly with real life friends, and we all set up a Ventrilo server for voice comms. The chat system never was an issue for us, but yes it ended up being an issue when I was grouping with strangers. A very valid point!

sorry for the flame

The original laws as stated are interesting and mostly hold true today, the commentary is uninspired, poor, and mostly incorrect. I'm now going to give one example, but I could easily come up with 30 such examples from this article.

For example:
Law: someone is going to automate your gameplay
Reponse: only if you make your gameplay tedious!

That is simply not true. To prove this is not true, I just have to come up with one automation scenario not rooted in relief of tedium. Consider a theoretical RTS in which a player controls many units. Skill is required to issue commands to those units (there are many units, each unit's state has to be evaluted and the appropriate command selected, in real time). Now enter a tool that will give commands to units under conditions you identify, for example if you fall below 25% health, run to the back of the formation. Now we have an automation tool thats purpose is to increase effective skill, not relieve tedious gameplay.

All the reasons for automation I can think of off the top of my head are:
- Increase power (generate money, skill points, experience)
- Increase effective skill (previously discussed)
- Relieve tedium
- Break the system - in this case, a person automates the system just to prove he can

In general the article is strong on attacks, and weak on solutions. For example, there is lots of "get rid of the treadmill" commentary with 0 solutions posted explaining how this is done. Love the original laws, hate the commentary.

Re:sorry for the flame

To some, micromanagement in a RTS game is tedium. I am one of those people. Consequently, I don't bother playing the game at all. But those who may automate the task do so to alleviate that bit of tedium so they can concentrate on the fun portions (or so that they can win, although using an external tool to alleviate tedium is actually just cheating to increase the odds of winning, but I digress).

A fun game lacks tedium. I do not automate my moves in a chess match because I am having fun when I play. Mind you, this is just in comparing a game (chess) to a game (a computer-based RTS), and I understand that it's apples to oranges if we start to involve elements of each game. But in a RTS computer game, shouldn't the gameplay be fun and engaging enough that the player will want or need to be involved in every aspect? Does chess not involve strategy? Just some thoughts on that.

As to the lack of solutions in that rebuttal, I can probably guess why that is the case. Raph Koster is the CCO (Chief Creative Officer) of SOE (Sony Online Entertainment) these days. He's making plenty of money and he busted his ass to earn that position. In terms of creativity though,some people are hesitant to share their ideas for solutions not because they may come under equal criticism, but because there is money to be made from good ideas. Koster did not share his money-making ideas until after he had earned his money from them. I wouldn't expect free solutions from anyone, especially not in the capitalist societies of today. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Re:sorry for the flame

Ah... and we get back to my favorite Mulligan quote:
"would-be game designers take note: Ideas are a dime a dozen and worth what they cost"

People don't tend share their 'solutions' to gameplay problems because they either don't have them, aren't confident in them, or are deluding themselves into thinking that their idea is original, and carries some sort of value locked away in their head. (right up there with everyone's big movie idea, and unwritten great american novel)

The simple truth is that it's easier to point out problems than to fix them. Constructivie criticism takes time and thought. Bitching can be done on the fly.

While I wouldn't expect, for example, Brad McQuaid to bother sharing what he thinks about a thorny design issue (although on more than one occassion, he has joined such discussions), there's no reasonable excuse for unfunded critics to keep quiet.

And you're dead wrong about Koster sharing only after he started getting paid. He was sharing his ideas on Mud-Dev well before he started 'making plenty of money'. The guy honestly cares about sharing information to advance the state of virtual world design ... or at least spends a hell of a lot of time and effort into making legitimate contributions as his front. He gets paid, not for thinking of things that other people haven't, but by seeing them through.

An Idea is to an Implmentation as Criticism is to Constructive Criticism.

The Automated Online Role-Player

This [gamespy.com] is definitely a fun read about a bot that plays Star Wars Galaxies.

Re:The Automated Online Role-Player

> about a bot that plays Star Wars Galaxies.

I thought they didn't serve his kind in there.

Wait a minute, no, that's droids.

Chris Mattern

Soooo these games suck - got a better idea?

Both of these guys have specific axes to grind. Schild is clearly responding to the mess that is SWG. He continually calls for the removal of "treadmills," etc. without offering clear alternatives. Rather than adding additional insight to the discussion, his entire rant could have been cut-n-pasted from any one of a thousand message boards.

Snowspinner is a bit more interesting and his statement that "Stories aren't the fun parts about games any more than worlds are. Play is" should become the marquee screensaver for game developers every where.

F13.net, Corp News, et.al. continue to try and fill the shoes of the original rant sites like Lum the Mad and they constantly come up short. I'm sure these guys are all clever and smart people but it's all pretty much been said - and said better - when the MMORPG genre was a little more fresh.

On a side note: I think the player base should expand their definition of what "roleplay" is. Lots of people "roleplay" in these games, its just not the sort that was intended or expected. Look at PvP in any form - FPS or MMORPG - and you'll see people acting and talking in ways they would never dream of in real life. Alliances are formed. Arch enemies are made. Roleplay driven by the environment rather than some hackneyed back story. It's much more interesting and you never hear a thee or a thou uttered once. That's the sort of roleplay that these games should encourage.

Re:Soooo these games suck - got a better idea?

I don't believe that all PvPers are Sociopaths. I think it's possible to seperate griefers from PvPers.

I agree, but it's often a matter of perspective as to what separates the two.

To a typical MMORPG player, the game is the kind of thing where "everybody wins" -- the game is about getting levels and phat loot, triumphing over the computer-controlled adversaries and the environment. If there's a sense of "beating" another player, it's in doing more (being higher level, having phatter loot, etc.) or doing it faster (being the first to kill the Pseudonatural Diremongoosaurus and steal its magic pants). Your achievement doesn't inherently disallow the achievement of others.

Your typical PvPer is cut from a different mold. To them, for someone to win the game, someone else must lose. I'll laugh at anyone who says this is a juvenile or abberant thought pattern -- chess, basketball, poker, and a million other familiar games are built in this mindset.

Let's say a PvPer, on a game in which it's possible, playerkills your typical MMORPGer and takes his magic pants. It's unlikely that you'd find the truly archetypal examples of both types of players playing the same game, at least for very long, but let's pretend.

From the MMORPGer's perspective, the PvPer is an immature griefer. Why, he didn't earn those magic pants the proper way by killing the Pseudonatural Diremongoosaur! He just took someone else's! That isn't fair. Griefer!

From the PvPer's perspective it looks very different. If he wants magic pants and it's easier to PK for them, he certainly will. If he wants to establish himself as king of the game, he's going to do that by going out and beating people, not by trying to out-catass them. If they complain, call him names, and generally give him a bad reputation, that's not a sign that he's doing something wrong... it's a sign he's doing something right.

I guess you could call that mindset sociopathic, but then, basically everyone in the real world who is successful at anything is a sociopath.

Case in semi-point

Planetside: mega treadmill

But not dreadfully boring since it's an FPS and there are perks such as interchangeable "licenses" to for vehicles/weapons, and the heart of its fun factor revolves around the team aspect. There is a sense of heroism in gathering 150 soldiers scattered across a dozen squads, and coordinating a full-scale invasion on an enemy continent. Even the carrier pilot gets a kick out of assisting a successful airdrop.

I think where it shines is that you don't have to be Level 50 to see all the cool things, you can do more cool things simultaneously when you're that high. But if you're a green level 5 you can try all the same equipment as the old timers, because of the exchangeable license system. Don't like the sniper rifle ? trade your papers for a rocket license and blast away. It allows for a nice variety of playing styles and this diversity is the most valuable aspect of any team.

What isn't a treadmill?

No really...someone tell me.

A game that requires you to complete challenges in order to gain a reward is, in effect, a treadmill.

Tetris is a treadmill - stack shapes, clear, new level, repeat
Doom is a treadmill - Kill enemies, find widget, proceed to next level, repeat.
The Sims is a treadmill - Manage daily activities, increase abilities, make money, buy stuff, repeat.
Ico is a treadmill - Lead the girl, find widget, kill enemies, solve puzzles, unlock next level, repeat.
Metal Slug is a treadmill - Go forward, kill enemies, rescue hostages, find vehicles, find weapons, repeat.

I only point this out because the gaming community has a tendency to grasp on to handy derisive phrases and then repeat them without digging into the meaning.

Anywho...the overall perception of the treadmill is what breeds discontent. It always exists, it is the foundation of just about every reward over time based game play system.

But, if the gameplay is bad or mundane, then the treadmill sticks out. There isn't any gameplay aspect compelling enough to distanciate you (i.e suspension of disbelief and all) from the fourth wall of the underlying mechanics.

However, if the game is good, the treadmill recedes from the forefront of your consciousness, and the decent gameplay it enables takes over.

The real issue here isn't the treadmill concept, but how many times the exact same treadmill has been cloned.

Here is where I stopped reading the rebuttal

I'll go ahead and say that the right rule here comes from Kelly Flock, when he noted that players "just fuck us up." Players know shit. Especially not players who are bitching about the game on message boards. And Especially not players who are bitching about how they want PvP. Look, I know I'm going to get ripped by any PvP enthusiasts who are still here, but let's be honest. 95% of people who want PvP in a MMOG should be banned from MMOGs, and preferably from breeding.

I don't care nearly enough about the whole meta-genre of MMOG design to go deep into this, but frankly I hold precisely the opposite view. The thrill that most MMORPG players get from leveling, crafting, exploring, etc., I find a symptom of a socially debilitated person. PvPers, on the other hand, I feel largely have their heads on straight in reality and merely seek a greater challenge and greater exhilaration than any PvE design can give them. Much as can be found in the real world.

Griefers, on the other hand, are the fault not of the PvP playerbase but the game designers. Real unnacountable griefing shouldn't be possible. "Griefing" as in messing up your fun on a limited basis, on the other hand, is what comes from playing with people instead of playing with yourself, as in PvE.

Example: I play Shadowbane. PvE is an afterthought (or more accurately, a mostly-brief pre-requisite to getting a character in shape to fight other players); the real fun to be had is fighting other people, either singly, in raiding parties or in enormous city sieges.

There is really no unaccountable griefing in SB, because political dynamics hold players accountable for what they do. Some few players enjoy lurking in the shadows, with no group to defend them and nothing to lose, but they are the distinct minority. And "griefers" have no advantage in PvP, indeed they have the disadvantage of having no one to help them when you come to kill them.

For my purposes, PvE treadmilling is brain-dead. So are the people who want to bake bread or whatever. Unless it involves engaging in combat or negotiations or meaningful dialogue with other human beings, why is it worth checking out of reality? One of the linked articles suggests to stop thinking about games as "working from 9-5 at Initech (nice Office Space namecheck) and working from 6-11 farming some rare form of copper." PvE games will always face this dilemma of uselessness, because your accomplishments and explorations are meaningless without any human context. That's fine, but why not play Civilization instead? Or better yet, re-engage with the human race in brutal combat.

Agreed wholeheartedly, and...

Disclaimer: I'm tres biased, but I think I still have some interesting points. You've been warned.

It's all just a side-effect of society, really. (Isn't everything, but...)

We live in a society that praises the achiever/PvEer mindset, and, importantly, recognizes its goals as valid. For achievers to function, there must be others who recognize their achievements, and agree with the "rules" of the game in which they're achieved. That's not to say that everyone who wants a big house in a good neighborhood, trophy spouse, expensive car, prestigious job, etc. etc. etc. wants each of those things solely to impress others -- but an awful lot of people do, whether they admit it or not. If having a luxury car had the same functionality as it does in our world, but for some reason everyone thought they were dumb and that it was anything but cool to own one, they'd sure sell a lot less of them. This holds for any of the achiever goals.

Society rewards the killer/PvPer mindset to a point, but it generally doesn't overtly encourage it. There are definitely rewards to be had by going out in business, life, etc. and simply just beating everyone else, but don't expect to make a lot of friends doing it. Expect to hear a lot of complaints about being mercenary or unfair. Especially expect people to hate you if you fuck up their proverbial achiever cabbage patch.

In a lot of ways, I think the people who fall deeply into MMORPGS or other achiever games are people who are, at their heart, achievers but are unable to succeed in the traditional achiever rat races. If you can't be a captain of industry or marry a supermodel, well, maybe you can be the leetest guy on EverQuest. Maybe in your success of nightly level-grinding and monster farming will serve as a nepenthe to ease the dull ache of your failures in the great achiever contest that is life.

Four base classes?

It doesn't matter how many different classes you have - because there are only four base classes - fighter, spellcaster, rogue, and crafter.

I don't know what games this guy's been playing, but I've never seen a crafter as a "base class" - only as an option that one of the other three base classes can take, given that the time and money are available to pursue it.

Did I miss something in the Desert?

I played Tale in the Desert for a good long while, but never managed to get to the fun part.

I made a lot of bricks, picked up a lot of flint, and ... some other spinning machines and whatnot, but I never seemed to get to anything that was interesting. Everything I did, while interesting, had been done by every other inhabitant, and what's more, it really had very little to do with me. I could maybe arrange my distaffs in a pattern that nobody else had done, but that was about all I could come up with. And, all I could do was climb that crafting ladder. Why did I *want* bricks? To build a better oven. What do I do with a better oven? Make more bricks. What do I do with more bricks? Build a better (some other thing). It sounds a lot like "kill beast A to get sword B to kill beast B. Rename B to A, repeat" but somehow it was different. Ultimately, killing beasties requires some interaction around swinging the sword, using some kind of blasty magic perhaps, and running away to heal. Making bricks was just running around for materials, then clicking "make bricks".

I can forgive some of that (a lot of that, actually: I made a smith in UO back in the day), but the day I quit was when I found out that my character-long dream to be an architect and create beautiful buildings was stupid. Could I design elaborate frescoes? Record the history of my group in hieroglyphics? Architect new building designs? Nope. I could plop down a pre-designed, unchangeable "camp" then build it up from there to look like everybody else's first pyramid.

I know there's an "artist" track, but I was rather unimpressed there as well. The most public part of it seemed to be making "sculptures" out of stuff that has no business being sculpted. It reminded me more of an eight-year-old's mural of popsicle sticks and elmer's glue.

I sound bitter because I was disappointed. The pitch I heard was great. "There's no combat... but that doesn't mean there's no conflict!" Maybe the wife would play this one with me. And there were real brand new ideas: Voting in new laws seems interesting, and as far as I could tell it was well implemented. The Pharoh election seemed like it was well done, too, from what I read.

But in the end, what was the fun thing I was supposed to be doing, other than roleplaying an Egyptian slave making bricks?

-Zipwow