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

[Marian Griffith]

On Tue 25 Nov, Derrick Jones wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Marian Griffith wrote:
> > On Sun 23 Nov, Derrick Jones wrote:
|  On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Marian Griffith wrote:
|  > On Sat 15 Nov, coder at ibm.net wrote:
|  > > On 09/11/97 at 01:46 PM, Adam Wiggins <nightfall at user2.inficad.com> said:
|  > > Points I would rate as valuable upon introduction to a game:
|  > >   -- Awareness that I will be able to do interesting "neat" things in the
|  > > game.

|  ==Finally, You're dumped into the middle of what is supposed to be your
|  hometown, yet you recognize no one, and you know where nothing is.  You're
|  given a few freebees, wished good luck, then sent on your way, typically
|  without the aid of decent on-line help.

> > This is indeed  extremely aggravating.  And things do not get better no
> > matter how many muds you have played. I guess this is why so many play-
> > ers insist on keeping midgard as the hometown.  It may be unthematical,
> > even boring, but at least it is familiar.

> The devil you know vs the devil you don't.

|  Some ideas on getting more information to newbies:

[snip]

> > Better still: Give new players an immediate -knowledge- of their home-
> > town. So they should be able to type 'go to the baker' and walk their.
| From anywhere in town. Why force players to work out where they are on
> > a map and translate that in a series of moves like n-n-e-n-w-s to find
> > the baker? Maybe other people are better at reading maps than I am but
> > I find it difficult and confusing (I keep up making mistakes with east
> > and west :(

> I walked off more cliffs this way.  Whoever put the 'e' and the 'w' next
> to each other should be flogged. Yes, implicit knowledge of the town would
> be great, and probably wouldn't take to much to code.  Anyways, a map
> would still help the situation so that the player knows that there is a
> bakery in town.

Just thought of something that might work even better. Why not have new
character automatically join some kind of guild in line with the inter-
ests of their character. That guild could then serve meals every couple
of hours so the new players can allways get food. Of course their guild
will demand a tithe for the food, shelter and training. And perhaps for
protection as well.  Experienced players could opt for a character that
is not member of any guild (e.g. a thief) and at some point there isn't
anything left in the starters guild that the player can learn.  At that
point they must explore the big bad world, though they may still choose
to remain guild member for the other advantages.

|  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.

Well. I've never seen it before and it would be such a good idea to have
ic information in the game for the players to research. Especially if it
makes sense to study in advance  before making some heavy investments in
time and money (specialised equipment perhaps) before venturing to a new
remote area. That would not work on the typical mud where you can simply
speedwalk to the area and start killing everything.

|  Their will also be a series of how-to books, history books, and
|  information geared to getting players motivated to undertake various
|  quests.
> > Not to mention histories. Great deeds of past heroes. How Boffo attacked
> > and defeated at least 15 vicious trolls at the same time.  How Biffy and
> > Buffo ventured into the lair of the green dragon to bring Boffo's corpse
> > back to town so she could be properly buried (and rebirthed). Or the at-
> > tack by the Drow hordes that almost overcame the cities defenses.

> Nodnod the more books in the library the better.  One question I'll put to
> the list, though.  How much control (censorship) should the admin have
> over the contents of player-written books? 

I think a fair amount of censorship to keep the contents interesting,
readable and flame free. Not to mention to keep spoilers out.

> One approach would be have a staff member act as publisher, rejecting
> poorly-written works, and perhaps assigning a royalty to really
> well-written works. 

The first is almost essential I think. I have no idea how to handle the
second idea.  It could be nice though if somebody managed to do it this
way.

> > 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.

I suppose the same conditions should apply as to writing books. Have a
high level player or imm control the contents of the song.

> > And of course things like a bestiary of those haunted or holy places so
> > the adventurer might enter forewarned.

> One thing I should meantion, not all information found in the library is
> complete or even accurate, especially to area, mobile, or quest-specific
> data.  Maybe just a few dire warnings about dangerous places, as finding
> out who (or what) lives in the deep forest to the north of Castle
> Blackmesh is much more rewarding when this knowlege is the result of some
> face-to-face encounter.

*grin* I would even suggest that most of the information is to be
highly suspect and at least three times exagerated.  Or the right
monster is vaguely described,  but assigned to  the wrong part of
the world.  This is part of the task  to keep spoilers out of the
library.
All of this of course implies a higher level of IC gaming than is
usually found on combat oriented muds, but that is not necessari-
ly a bad thing?

> > 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 one big advantage of grouping new (low level) players is that
they can continue to help each other out and learn to really play
the game rather than being tagged along by a high level player to
gains some quick experience points. The last solution may advance
them more quickly but is hardly fun and in the long run does them
a disservice.

|  > I would like to add the following to this little list:
|  > >   -- New players can immediately play the game.  They should not be
|  > restricted to a silly training area. Experience should give players
|  > the ability to affect the game.  Lack of experience should not keep
|  > them from playing it.
|  The keyword here to me is 'silly'.  The mudworld on my mud is a very
|  dangerous place.  The first and foremost 'goal' of the game will be to
|  survive, and thriving will be but a byproduct of surviving greater and
|  greater dangers.
> > Yes, but this must be offsetted against the problem that new players do
> > not know what area is safe and how to estimate dangers on a mud. If you
> > restrict them to one or two 'safe' areas  you severely limit their par-
> > ticipation of the game.  I feel strongly that everybody should look for
> > ways to allow  even very fresh characters  to explore more of the world
> > without being slaughtered as soon as they set foot outside town.

> Yes.  Overall size of the mudworld is critical.  If you're limited to only
> a handful of small areas, then all level of players will suffer.  Towns
> make some of the best areas if they're done well, as the lowly newbie can
> undertake a few small adventures (teach the town bully a lesson), and even
> the most powerful players can still find challenges here (Take out the
> Captain of the town guard.)  I guess the defining point for a greater
> range of access to an area is the disposition of its inhabitants.  Newbies
> are much safer next to the townguard, as apposed to the orc, even though
> the townguard is twice as strong.  Plus the townguard is more of a
> challenge for the experienced player than the orc.

The biggest problem as I see it is that game worlds rarely are even
remotely big enough to provide a sense of a complete world at lower
levels.
I still think that the better approach is that even very low levels
should be able  to visit the biggest part of the world  if they are
cautious and prepared.  Some areas or regions may (should?) be very
dangerous but not most of the game world.

> Perhaps periodic wagon trains travelling from haven to haven would
> even expand their horizons more.  Travel would be relatively safe, as the
> wagons would be protected by mercenaries (Questing mid-level players?).

This would be a good idea to allow low levels to travel, have them
accompanied by guards. Or rather, allow them to buy into a caravan
and use that to visit other places.  As long as they stay close to
the safety of the caravan guards nothing much is likely to happen.

|  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. 

I admit it is somewhat artificial  but depending on the theme it may be
justified to deal with the problem in this way.
Assuming that pk is possible and unlimited (which it may well be in your
mud)  you also seem to assume that players attack others to gain gold or
equipment. This is not necessarily true. A bored high level player kill-
ing low levels is a reasonably frequent occurence on pk muds.

> Wouldn't apply to truely evil creatures though,

True, but those need not be omnipresent. Truely evil creatures are like-
ly restricted to certain areas,  which because of that are too dangerous
for lower levels.

> or those creature who attack only for food.

I don't think this is currently handled on a mud anywhere is it?

> Undead creatures hate everything living, and will attack regardless
> of victem's stregnth

I would say that the same applies as to the evil creatures. Areas of
this kind  should be relatively scarce  and restricted to the higher
levels.

> > Or perhaps give low level players with poor equipment a better ability to
> > sneak around areas. That way they not only can enter those areas but they
> > can also be of use to high level parties as scouts and guards against any
> > wandering nasty.

> I dunno if I buy this too insignificant to notice idea.  Most mud-nasties
> just see the race of the character and dinner bells go off.  If anything a
> newbie would attract more attention to himself, as they aren't quite as
> skilled at acting inconspicuous.

*shrug* everybody is free to change the rules of the game, as long as it
is your own game?
The idea was to make low levels more useful in a mud not to provide more
realism. In the later case there should not be levels at all ;)

|  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.

The risk involved in muds is being attacked by something(s) that are
much stronger than you are.  By making that happen less frequent for
the lower level players you are reducing the risk they take in play-
ing the game. To pay for that safety they ought to be able to do not
as much as higher levels.  I do not think taking the risk away enti-
rely is good idea, but exposing new players gradually is a good idea
in my opinion. Right now it is too much all or nothing.  Some places
are perfectly safe,  but setting one step outside those can kill you
quickly and messily. This prevents low levels from participating and
it separates the players by level.  Unless the high level  makes the
effort to visit low level areas they will never meet and all the new
player can see is the other players running in and out of town.
If you give low level players a valuable ability  that higher levels
lose then they are more likely to meet  and cooperate anbd everybody
wins in that situation.

Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey