[MUD-Dev] Re: Less numbers, more roleplaying.

[Derrick Jones]

On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Richard Woolcock wrote:
> Derrick Jones wrote:
> > Marian Griffith wrote:
> > > Derrick Jones wrote:
> > > > Marian Griffith wrote:
> > Perhaps the mud's web-page would be better
> > suited for character creation?  This would make help files a bit easier to
> > navigate, and character generation is where they're leaned on the most.
> This would be a good idea, but it should be an option not a replacement - 
> at university, I didn't have web access unless I used the xterms (which I 
> wasn't allowed to use for anything to do with "those silly games").  Instead 
> I had to stick with dumb terminals and the occasional PC.

True.  Hadn't concidered access difficulties.

> > > > Provide an IC way to research.  I'm thinking of designing a 'library'
> > > > where newbies can learn about the mudworld.
> > > > Players will be encouraged to write their own 'books', which then can
> > > > be read by players logging on. This will give more established players
> > > > (a chance) to create more of a sense of permanence while letting the
> > > > new players get a feel for just how involved the 'world' you have
> > > > created has become.
> > > Yes! This is perfect. Why has nobody thought of this before?
> > 
> > <Bow>.  But I'm sure its not 100% new.  Not all that much is these days.
> 
> Hmmm well I coded books, but they were only used for spells.  You write spells
> on the pages (with a pen), then insert the pages into the book, flick through
> the book until you find the spell you want, and then cast it.  The spells
> are written in a funny sort of semi-code format, and you can get some quite
> entertaining results (including the ability to 'chain' spells, but having a
> spell automatically cast the spell on the next page, with optional parameters).

Nifty.  I might hide a few spells in libraries as well...Mostly useless
stuff, or even spells that are dangerous (to the caster) to cast.  There
was a list of completely useless spells posted here that could provide a
good deal of comic relief.
On a side note, how do you handle players learning/casting spells from one
another's spellbooks?  Do you require a certain proficiency level (other
spells known, exp level, casting skills minimums, etc) to learn a new
spell?

> > > Maybe even allow players to put it into songs  and have minstrels in the
> > > various castles sing of the heroic deeds of the players :)
> > 
> > Not sure how I would swing this.  The main stumbling block would be to
> > transfer the musical quality to players.  "The Minstrel sings 'A man
> > strode bravely through the woods, a great broadsword in his arms.'." just
> > doesn't do a ballad justice.
> 
> The Mistrel sings "Joe's powerful slash ***OBLITERATED*** the goblin!"
> The Mistrel sings "Joe's powerful slash ***OBLITERATED*** the goblin!"
> The Mistrel sings "The goblin was DEAD!"
> The Mistrel sings "Joe sacrificed the corpse of the goblin to GOD!"
> 
> I'm sure the novalty would soon wear off.  However I do think mistrel's
> would be a nice touch (for some reason I keep thinking of Robin's Minstrels
> in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail).

Yeah, they were a hoot.  To recreate them, you'd have to set the players
minstals singing whenever the player took a good whuppin.

Maybe use a town crier instead.  "The town crier exclaims 'Let it be known
that on this day Joe defeated the mighty troll, releasing the princess,
Latvia'." would be heard in the streets.  And for several months
afterwards traveling bards will add to their collection of stories how Joe
singlehandedly slew an army of trolls with his mighty sword FireBreether.
Joe would then most likely be approached with a book deal on his life
story, which would make a wonderful addition to the library...

>Perhaps you could store the
> most powerful mob that player killed (assuming the mob was over a certain
> level), along with a couple of details - and make the rest up.  After all,
> Mistrel's of 'old days' did just that.  Thus when you barely escaped with
> your life after defeating a troll and looting his lair, you might hear (a 
> couple of days later) a mistrel singing about how you butched a dozen of 
> the beasts while underarmed, then rescued a fair maiden from their lair...

Yes, yes.  The main problem with minstrels is the fact that their medium
is music, something that loses its 'life' without sound.  It might just be
me (I usually catch myself skipping over songs in books I'm reading,
sometimes missing important details in the story doing so.), but music
loses its edge in text.  Poetry might work however...

> > > > Provide interactive objects/mobiles (c.f. the Newbie Sword discussion
> > > > here) that give players little helpful hints as to how to survive and
> > > > prosper in the gameworld.
> > > The best way may be to provide new players with other new players and
> > > let them work together?
> > Not sure on this one.  I'd be afraid of the blind leading the blind.
> > Perhaps some passive guidance and an occasional warning (somehow) given to
> > the group would make sure they actually pick up on the game more quickly.
> The real problem is the assumption that new players will come on at the same
> time.  Most often, you'll get a slow but steady trickle of new players.

Good point.  But this creates an ongoing problem.  People are in constant
search of people of the same approximate ability for groups.  This mainly
comes from rapid character advancement.  If you advance characters too
fast, then small differences in online time can result in major
differences in ability.  You therefore either have to solo it, or wait
until the guy behind you 'catches up' enough to be able to survive the
same places you can.  Large player bases can hide these problems, but most
muds don't inherit much of a player base.

> > > > I've found that if you throw inexperienced players into
> > > > highly dangerous situations, the survival rate is non-existant.  New
> > > > players still play the game, but are exposed to much smaller (in an
> > > > absolute scale, not compared with the character's abilities) dangers.
> > > Maybe there is a way to reduce the dangers for new characters.  How about
> > > having the chance of being attacked be proportional to the amount of gold
> > > and equipment a character carries, as well as to the level?  It would not
> > > save them from the truly dangerous areas,  but it would allow them to spy
> > > out areas they could not reasonably expect to survive a fight.
> > Hrm...The gold/equipment/level argument applies already to player vs
> > player combat, so it would be reasonable to apply the same logic to
> > intelligent NPC actions.  Wouldn't apply to truely evil creatures though,
> > or those creature who attack only for food.  Undead creatures hate
> > everything living, and will attack regardless of victem's stregnth
> > (Although an intelligent vampire might choose no to attack Buffy the
> > Vampire Slayer, unless Buffy's already hurt and the vampire has a chance
> 
> Hmmm not the same as my vampires then ;)
Not really too different.  Your description of vampires sets them to be
much stronger than normal(mortal) men.  Concider an intelligent vampire
walking up to a Zeus or some other particularly strong being.

> > of winning.).  A T-Rex just sees 100-200 pound of fresh USDA grade A
> > human.
> 
> So called 'Intelligent' mobs should go for the weakest opponent.

Yes, or bypass an opponent completely if its too tough for them.  Usually,
the problem of who to attack occurs when a group tries to swarm a single
target (or group vs group).  I try to weight danger level vs difficulty
level when picking an opponent.  Usually my 'intelligent' mobs try to pick
out the mages in groups, as they can't cast spells while defending
themselves (can't concentrate while dodging swords/claws), plus an ignored
mage can _really_ pack a whallop.  After the (obvious) mages are gone,
mobs then try to even the odds a bit by picking off the weaker players,
then concentrate lastly on the well-protected fighter-types.

> > > > I wouldn't think twice about having an army of giants storm a town of
> > > > seasoned players, but to a newbie, such a raid would be an impossible
> > > > challenge without some devine rescue.  Now this rescue will typically
> > > > end in the player being dumped in some 'newbie zone' (but I would _never_
> > > > call it that!!!) during the duration of the giants' raids.
> > > Most towns have something like a safe room in the temple. That frequently
> > > acts as refuge to low level players during invasion quests. At least this
> > > was so on the muds I have played?
> > Dunno, the temple is probably the first place to get sacked when the town
> > gets invaded.
> Perhaps it is protected by Divine power?  Maybe the swordsmans guild would
> be the best place to hide.  Regardless, I wouldn't enjoy logging on to a new
> mud, only to find I couldn't leave the temple for an hour because the town
> was under attack.

True.  Seems that by having weak players hide in the temple/guildroom
you're restricting them even more than a single newbie zone.  Perhaps
sliding down into the sewers under the town will give weaker players both
an escape route and a place to explore while a battle rages overhead.
Maybe even suggesting that the weaker players take advantage of the giants
activities to raid the (momentarily abandoned) giant's keep.  Trick here
is to provide the weak characters an escape (without too much loss of
face) without obviously herding them.  Perhaps a wide-scale evacuation of
the town's non-combatants/unconnected PCs thru the sewers will give weaker
players an idea of how to escape the fray.

> > > > There are many times when newbies need to be sequestered frmo the 'real'
> > > > game, simply to prevent them from being slaughtered, and there are many
> > > > places none but the most seasoned players dare tread.
> > > I would not dream to claim otherwise.  But locking players into one or two
> > > areas that are safe somehow feels wrong to me. And it is this way not only
> > > for the low level players, it is basically true for all levels. Because at
> > > any level there are only a couple of areas  that give worthwile experience
> > > points at moderate risk. A level 25 player could still go to the mudschool
> > > and kill rabbits...
> > Here again its simply the overall size of the mudworld and its population.
> > If you wanted all areas to appeal to all groups, you'd ether have to put
> > 1000 mobiles in each area(to leave enough to form a reasonable challenge
> > at any level) or have players run from area to area picking off one or two
> > creatures in each.
> This is perhaps one of the major flaws with levels in a combat-based mud.
> Perhaps more muds should start advertising '10 levels' rather than '1000 
> levels' - at least you'd know you had a good chance of having plenty of
> places you could explore.
Hrm...I don't have a problem with the 1000 levels, its just that in a mud
with 1000 levels, you're level 37 (which is completely off the scale
compared to a level 1) within 15 minutes.  In order to find a group when
you first log on, you have to find other players who started withing 5
minutes of yourself.  Now if you had 1000 levels, with each level being a
very minor increment in power (a level 5 and 25 could still be
comparable), or simply making each level take a good deal of online
time(essentially making it that no one really ever gets passed level 100
or so...with most people still with 1-10) would avoid many of the problems
associated with a level-based combat mud.

> > > > The trick is to keep the new players thinking that they are in fact
> > > > playing the real game, and constantly surprise them as their horizons
> > > > expand.  If the players feel like they are being herded, they will be
> > > > turned off, so give the new players _something_ to do, but don't
> > > > overload them too quickly.
> > > I totally agree,  but I still belief you should control the risk they
> > > take rather than control their access to the game. At least as far as
> > > most of the gameworld is concerned.
> > Well, the risk involved in being in a dangerous place stems from being
> > there, as the inhabitants of that place will seek _you_ out, and not just
> > stand there and wait for slaughter.  Yes, a small area at any level of
> > play sucks, but expanding the gameworld to include a large number of safe
> > areas (and a disproportionately larger still number of dangerous areas)
> > will (IMHO) create a much more interesting gameworld.
> I dislike the whole concept of 'safe' areas... Surely there must be some
> better alternative?  Admittedly, preventing undead from entering the
> Temple of Light would be quite reasonable, but to simply have an area in
> which people cannot fight just doesn't seem quite right.

Me too.  I started a thread a while ago about how to enforce a
non-violence law within certain towns.  The gist of the outcome was that I
needed to put an NPC police force in place and provide reprocussions for
violating the law and being caught.  Hopefully, as most players will
desire such areas to enjoy themselves, an unwritten 'rule' will be made
and avoiding violence within the area will become the acceptible norm.

By 'safe' I meant areas not populated by aggressively violent NPCs.  A
player can well get into a fight there, but the disposition of the locals
is such that the player can walk around the area freely without worrying
about things constantly jumping out and trying to eat them.  Midgaard on
the old DIKUs was a 'safe' zone on this token, as was most of the mudworld
on many of the derived muds.

Gunther