[MUD-Dev] Worlds VS Games, etc {was GMuds, UO}

[Koster]

Catching up on posts finally...

On Wednesday, July 30, 1997 2:44 PM, Nathan 
Yospe[SMTP:yospe at hawaii.edu] wrote:
> I've never bothered with economies, finding them far less important, 
and
> far less interesting, than environments.
> [snip truly fascinating description of warzone game]

Wow, that's awesome. I'd classify it as sort of a different endeavor 
than a typical mud... more like a stab at making a virtual reality 
experience in a particular setting. You know how when VR is discussed 
it's always very detailed settings that are limited in scale? That's 
what's your system sounds like--the immersive selected experience--as 
opposed to the broader strokes with less detail that are implied by 
trying to support a wider range of settings. I think it's an equally 
valid approach, and rather exciting.

> :We use a classless, levelless system. Skills atrophy from disuse. 
It's
> :not to everyone's taste. It seems to be working, so far. Whether it 
> :will retain the totally goal-oriented players is yet to be seen, 
since
> :it does not provide a long string of milestones, but rather obliges 
> :the player to create milestones for themselves at intervals.
>
> Sounds quite a bit like my own system. Are related skills 
codependant?

Yes, there' a couple of mechanisms tying things together. Our stats 
also atrophy and grow through usage and disuse... and skill success is 
weighted based on related stats, atrophy occurs based partly on skills 
that are related via stats, in there are also direct links, such as 
musicianship being required for higher level musical skills, etc.


> The one I expect to
> be most popular is modelled as "BackStage", complete with "Dressing 
Rooms"
> and "Makeup" (Dressing Rooms are character creation, makeup is 
character
> _persona_ creation, where a history (past) and personality (which is 
used
> for subconcious mannerisms - a bit of color, but sometimes actually
> relevant, in cases of being incited to anger, for example.)

I love the idea of unconscious mannerisms, of enforced roleplay, but 
also think that it'll be of limited appeal. Those who wish to immerse 
themselves in a different reality, in a different body, they'll love 
it. The gamer with a narrower mindset will complain that it removes 
control from them...

I said:
> :having a varied, evolving setting (even though it only
> :evolves in that "middle layer" of NPCs/creatures/economy) 
encourages
> :roleplay, encourages exploration, encourages alternate styles of
> :achievement, and rewards it with changed circumstances rather than 
> :with a milestone.

And Nathan replied:
> But it also set you up for disaster if you don't have either a way 
to
> retain euilibrium, or to reset conditions. Say, for example, half 
the game
> was burned down in riots. How long does it take the game to recover? 
Or is
> there a mechanism for recovery? Or is there a "reset" switch to undo 
the
> damage? Or is it impossible to burn half the game down?

We do have a regular old spawner system underneath everything. So the 
game WILL "grow" back. However, I also view the riots and the 
resultant difficult times as part of the game. It's a great reason to 
have the tools for players to maintain an economy, because after a 
disaster they caused, they can rebuild. Right now our economy is far 
from balanced correctly, as shopkeepers run out of funds with which to 
purchase items. Yet players have set themselves up in their shops as 
an alternate economy. I view this as a great and wonderful thing. :)

Yes, we do limit to what extent you can burn the game down. Most of 
the map proper is static.

> :The problem with "game" style design in a mud setting is that you 
run
> :out of game. Games are finite. In a fiscal sense, you wanna keep 
folks
> :around as long as possible, of course, to get their money, and the 
> :more "infinite" the game is, the better. Remember that most mudders 
> :only play for around 3-6 months, and even dinos tend to give up 
after
> :2 years or so.
>
> Would having an infinite world alleviate this? I'm not entirely 
sure.

I wasn't speaking of an infinite world, necessarily. I was referring 
to the typical milestine setup of game-oriented muds. Since 
achievement is measured in levels, when you run out of levels, the 
game is "over." Likewise, with static quests and puzzles, static 
"middle layers" of NPC behaviors, etc, the features are quickly 
exhausted. Making these things dynamic and evolving drastically 
extends the lifetime of the game, IMHO. The danger of course is that 
elements be simplistic and repetitive. (A problem that UO hasn't 
licked, btw).

> Some of the great ideas are mutually incompatible.

Always. :) But we can learn from all of 'em. :)

> (Love potion code, at least the version I coded to
> follow this, results in an inability to focus on anything else when 
the
> subject of the potion is present in the room, and constant 
"thoughts"
> about the subject, slipped in whenever a trigger (think eliza) pops 
up.
> There are also penalties to the victims ability to carry out action
> against the subject.)

I gotta say, i LOVE your approach. :) I haven't heard of anyone else 
working with this degree of character enforcement...

-Raph