[arg_discuss] [players] Communities and resources

[despain at quantumcontent.com]

I knew parts of this would come out wrong.
Sorry, I'll try to explain better:


> On 3/30/06, despain at quantumcontent.com <despain at quantumcontent.com> wrote:
>
>
>  >   So I end up feeling like I need to cater to them, but not let them
>  >   get total control of the game.
>
>
> It'd be like herding cats. Here's where I'll be brave: as a player, and as
> a creator of two ARGs, I am not so sure massive gaming takes so well to
> "control." I think if you're talking about in-game devices that provide
> well-established borders and 'rules' for that particular universe, that's
> one thing. But to attempt to actively dissuade a particular forum or group
> from achieving particular results? That seems entirely anti-game to me.

I didn't mean that I was trying to control players.

I said I didn't want one particular forum to take control of the game. By
that I mean that all the fun puzzle-solving happens on some obscure IRC
channel and not somewhere everyone can participate.

I think of most ARGs as cooperative environments where the group is
working toward a single goal. I know there have been competitive ones, and
I think that's a different subject. I just meant that in cooperative ARGs,
I would prefer it if players cooperated, and didn't exclude each other.

>  >   What would I like them to do that they aren't? Be more friendly to
>     newbies, I guess. That's the short version.
>
> "them."

Just for the record, this was how it was phrased in the original question.
And I meant all ARG players (including myself), not just Unfiction.


> I'm one of "them." I spend countless hours backchannel *and* publicly
> assisting and encouraging new players to the genre. (And if I had to be
> honest, I'd say that I do far less than *many* people at UF)

I don't mean to discount the evangelism to the genre that UF provides, but
in some ways it comes off as "join us at Unfiction" and not "look at this
new type of game" - does that make sense?

It's my concern, anyway.


> The community at Unfiction is constantly in flux, and will often seem to
> highlight particular games into 'popularity' with how many active players
> seem to be contributing to the forums and populating associated IRC
> channels.

And I recognize that as a living community it's not exactly the same today
as it was the last time I was promoting an ARG. It's always going to be
different than how it was. But overall, my concern is one of inclusion.


> It can be really daunting for a newbie, and a lot of the squeaky wheels
> can sometimes appear to speak for the group. For all the noise, I can
> assure you, there is a TON of signal happening underneath.

I don't doubt it. Unfiction is a very healthy online community, and it
wouldn't have survived this long if it was all noise. It is definitely to
be respected and learned from. But I'm not just making games for Unfiction
members. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

> But just like a significant number of players will consider each game on
> its own merits (I would guess, based on personal experience and near-daily
> conversations with people in the UF community), it's probably also useful
> for designers/developers/puppetmasters to view the Unfiction community as
> a bunch of individuals who tend towards communal goals. AFAIC tell, there
> truly is no hive mind of nastiness.

There is no cabal. (I'm kidding.) I'm not so much concerned with UF being
nasty, as with it being monolithic. Some newbies have this sense that
they're not "cool enough" to play because they're not part of the "in
group."

For what it's worth, I think as ARGs get older I think (hope?) this
problem will go away.

> Please don't let the few *very* disgruntled peeps color perceptions of
> entire community. It feels unfair. I have routinely and ecstatically
> seen, time and again, the communal spirit tip the scales firmly to the
> positive side.

I'm glad to hear it. I never thought of the UF community as a bunch of
sheep. I do, however, feel like I personally don't belong there. And maybe
that's why I assume that some significant number of my players might feel
the same way. I like to play the ARG, not the UF politics.

> Perhaps it's up to "us", as game designers, to push the envelope even
> further, and find ways to bring a rewarding ARG experience, no matter
> the players' origins.

I absolutely agree. That's my answer to the original question - I think
this is a design problem, not a community problem. I don't want to change
or control UF in any way, but I _do_ have to take them into account for
good or ill when I plan a game.


> I can understand expressing concern about the
> particular vagaries of one online community, but to attempt to control
> those variables, or place an expectation upon any player at that
> community to feel *obligated* to behave a particular way feels *really*
> misdirected.

Maybe I need to learn to embrace inter-player politics and build a space
for it into the plan instead of hoping they'll all just get along in a
happy cooperative play experience.

> We're players because we like to play games.

And I just don't want walls put up for other players who like to play games.

Wendy Despain
quantumcontent.com