[MUD-Dev] Reusable plots for quests

[coder at ibm.net]

On 24/10/97 at 08:44 PM, "Travis S. Casey" <efindel at io.com> said: >On Thu,
23 Oct 1997 coder at ibm.net wrote:
>> On 20/10/97 at 09:54 AM, "Travis Casey" <efindel at polaris.net> said:

>> >IMHO, a mud should not have a "steady-state" position -- if it does, then
>> >the players can't really change the world in any significant way, and all
>> >their actions are for naught.  While this might be realistic, it's
>> >definitely
>> >not fitting in the heroic mold.  (Of course, if your mud isn't supposed
>> >to be in the heroic mold, it may be appropriate for the actions of the
>> >PCs to never have any significant effect.)
...
>> I don't think this is possible if there is any form of game continuity
>> (echoes of the evolution threads that ran a while back?).  Consider, if it
>> is possible for players to fundamentally affect and change the game, and
>> the game does not have a steady state, then the game will progressively
>> mutate over time until it becomes utterly alien to its initial
>> incarnation.  Ignoring all the really interesting aspects and problems of
>> this, the game design problem is that your inital game design is now no
>> longer applicable, and you have little to no (I suspect guaranteed no, due
>> to the character of the changes players will attempt to effect in attempt
>> to better their positions) probability that any aspect of your initial
>> game design will pertain to the new game world.
...
>Umm... there's a long way between "the players should be able to change
>the world in significant ways" and "the players should be able to change
>the world in fundamental ways."  

Touche'!  I'm caught deliberately pot-stirring!

>Most games aren't going to allow the
>players to change the "laws of nature" of the setting, and I'd definitely
>say that they *shouldn't* allow the players to do that.

Agreed, the examples I gave were overly extreme.  However, going back to
the Rebel Alliance, the problem remains of what happens to the game when
the Empire or Rebels are utterly defeated?  The game must change, and that
requires redefining the problem which the game players are attempting to
solve (ie the goal in in the mesh of goals, barriers and freedoms that
define any game).  One approach is to make a cyclic goal series:

Rebel vs Empire -> One wins -> Fight for control of winner -> One wins ->
Rebels vs Winnder -> Repeat.

>The game will definitely change over time, but the parameters within 
>which that change can be made don't have to be infinitely broad.  

True, but even minor changes can have large side effects.  Consider what
really happens to any world and its culture when the base currency of that
world is devalued?  Take your standard fantasy game with its rationed
prices based on gold and silver, and suddenly dump several hundred tonnes
of gold in there from a few dragon hoards, or a super-lucky alchemist who
finally did make gold out of lead,

I've been throwing massive change tokens in here deliberately as they are
much easier to manipulate in a discussion than more minor stuff with its
more measily and indeterminate side effects.

>> Thus you can have a game which is set, perhaps, in the Rebel Alliance
>> against Darth Vader, The Rebel's are never totally defeated, and Darth
>> Vader never actually dies.  The game then occurs within the defined steady
>> state of the war.  What particular planets are on what side, who lives,
>> who doesn't, and what the curent power balance is, is all in flux with the
>> curves asymptotic on both sides.

>That's what I meant by not having a steady state -- not that *nothing*
>should be constant, but that the players should be able to do things
>which have lasting effects.  (In contrast to most muds today, where
>almost nothing that players do has a lasting effect.)

Capiche.  What this really results in hwoever are cahnges in detail, not
real changes in game-state.

>This does, however, bring up another topic -- namely, why *not* have a 
>mud which changes in fundamental ways over time?  What if the rebels
>*can* defeat Vader and the Empire?  Is this necessarily a bad thing?

An obvious approach for the Star Wars them is to make the game a battle
for control of the Empire.  Thus you may have one or more pretenders to
the throne, various sets of rebels against the current holder, etc.  A
messier approach is to make the power base entirely soluble, such that the
universe tends to devolve into a morass of petty warring warlords and
kingdoms. which a suitably dedicated player can weld into a cohesive
whole, thus forming an "Empire", but also automatically creating rebels
who attempt to replace or remove him from that perch.

The broader problem is that either approach requires the base theme to be
sufficiently generalised that after a few cycles, the universe state
really bears little resemblance to Star Wars outside of light sabres.

No, this is not necessarily a Bad Thing.  It just means that you have to
be willing to generalise your game to an extent where it will likely
evolve to a point unrecognisable from its original milleau.

The other problem here, is that you have created a system with sufficient
fluidity that it is going to require continuous admin maintenance,
tweaking and cajoling, to keep the thing working.  You are going to have
to have a continupus feed of Admins who are very literally married to the
game.

>There's no reason we major theme of a mud couldn't change over time.  In
>the case of our example, once the Empire is defeated, the rebels still
>have to try to put together a government, deal with any other forces that
>try to step into the power vacuum left, and possibly perform "mopping-up"
>actions against any organized pockets of resistance that might be left.

Yup, but this is an entirely different game really.  It also requires the
game and the plaeyrs to constantly re-invent the game as it progresses, as
the base fundaments of the game will be changing over time.  This is not a
Bad Thing, its just very expensivce in time and Admins.  The really really
nice aspects of this, are that game history suddenly starts having real
import. Who what where and when within the game world is now of actual and
real importance as these are player made and driven changes, with lessons
to be learned and used again in the curent state.

>A good example of this sort of thing is the TV show Babylon 5 -- the
>series started out by building up towards a war against the alien 
>Shadows.  The war came about, was fought, and ended.  However, there were
>still problems left behind -- incipient civil wars in the Earth Dominion
>and among the Minbari castes.  At the close of last season, both of those
>plot lines were (mostly) resolved, leaving the stage open for something
>else.

>Of course, in doing a mud like that, you'd probably lose some players at
>the transition points -- some may not be interested in sticking around
>once the current "part" wraps up.

Yet that same sense and fact of continuance could be a real value.  All of
a sudden you have a real and organic world.  That fact will tend to
attract a certain class of players who stay and play for very long periods
(years?  decades?) whiule others loiter only till the conclusion of the
curent drama.

It would be interesting to see how those dynamics worked out.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
----------(*)                              Internet: coder at ibm.net
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...