Players as Monsters/NPCs

[Jon A. Lambert]

On  9 Dec 97 at 11:55, Richard Woolcock wrote:
> coder at ibm.net wrote:
> > 
> > One could champion the idea of reducing players to the level of
> > monsters/NPC's as part of the game definition...
> 
> Heh that reminds me of something I was thinking about earlier today -
> reversing the roles of players and mobs.  Imagine something like...
> 
> Welcome to Monster MUD!
> Please select which monster you would like to play:
> [1] a peasant (4 currently due for a repop)
> [2] Lord Seth (currently in use)
> [3] Lord Seth's bodyguard (1 currently due for a repop)
> [4] etc...
> 
> Enter your choice: 3
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are one of Lord Seth's bodyguards, your roll is to protect Lord
> Seth from groups of vicious murderous cannibals who regularly travel 
> around the local area, killing peasents and other innocent people 
> indiscriminately, occasionally even eating raw body parts they have 
> hacked off in combat.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Will you accept this role? yes
> 
> Entering the game...
[snip rest of scenario]
> 
> Just thought I'd share that entertaining notion with you ;)
> 

Not only do I find it entertaining, I want the option. :)

Here's a repost of something earlier along a similar vein:
--cut--
> Sun, 25 May 1997 20:33:42 -0400
> From: Jamie Norrish <jamie at sans.vuw.ac.nz>
>
> What I wrote was that, from a role-playing point of view, having
> mechanics get in the way of what I want to achieve. If my character
> conception is of an experienced soldier, then I expect the system to
> fit that. But there aren't many games where the admins will allow this
> sort of thing - "play balance" they say, or "we're afraid of munchkins".
> To my mind, neither of those reasons are sufficient - I was very annoyed
> on Armageddon that I could not play an older character from the very
> start.
>
> You see, in a role-playing game, where character is important and the
> mechanics are good only to the extent that they don't get in the way,
> there is no need for play balance, and no real need to fear munchkins (who
> would find such a game boring, I am sure). Just because the system says I
> am very good at building houses, for example, doesn't mean that I can't
> play a master builder right from the outset.
>
> End rant. And this had better get through.
>
This is exactly what I have in mind, more or less.  When a person
logs into my mud, they in essence get a user account, not a particular
character.  The first-time user will be able to create a character
from scratch similar to most muds.  Users who exhibit good
role-playing skills will have their character creation menus extended
to allow them to create more powerful, older and otherwise more
experienced characters or to play NPCs within the game.  Multiplaying
and/or game mastering will be enabled for those who exhibit more
ability and responsibility.  There are a number of levels of trust here
between allowing creation of brand new "newbie" characters to multiplaying
or game mastering.  Some of these will require character or scenario
approval by the imp (me).  A lot of these restrictions have less to do with
game balance than thematic consistency which I consider to be more
important.

You do have to perform a form of screening as you have little
control over who logs into your game.  Your right that most of
these players will get bored and leave of the own accord.  You
also want to ensure their time on the game doesn't interfere with
the enjoyment of your targeted player base.


JL
--cut--

My earlier opinion of whether jerks "will get bored and leave" is
suspect.  I now doubt its validity, based on the experiences the 
other list members have posted.   

--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato