[MUD-Dev] Self-Sufficient Worlds

[Lee Sheldon]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Raph Koster
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 6:20 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] Self-Sufficient Worlds

> This may be the time to bring up something that I arrived at after my
> attending Chris Crawford's first Phrontisterion last year
> (http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Miscellania/PhrontisterionR
> eport.html --
> and Lee, you need to attend these, if you can wangle an
> invite).

Yes, Chris and I know each other, and I was invited to the first
Phrontisterion, but other than the first Crawford Conference he sponsored in
reaction to the "new" CGDC, I've always had scheduling conflicts.  (He
insisted on staging those on the day of my tutorial.)  He gets frustrated by
my lack of ability to attend though, and I don't blame him.

> Let's use a cube: one axis being who directs the
> growth/change/activity, one
> being what fictional context it uses, and the other being whether it
> actually causes the world to progress, grow, or change in any way.

I like the image.  Let's see where it takes us.

> Design-directed stuff that springs from the backplot but does
> not change the
> world. The gnoll scenario in EverQuest fits this bill. So
> does the Sherry
> the Mouse book in UO, or any other static backplot that serves to add
> detail.

Also one of the most common in most games.  Games often rely ONLY on this as
their basic structure which is why so many have that Agatha Christie,
Golden-Age of Detection feel about them.  Something happened "back then."
The story structure is the gradual revelation of backstory.  Major yawn, if
this is relied on too much.  And it usually is.

> Design-directed material that springs from the backplot but
> does affect the
> world is a knotty problem, and I think what most players
> refer to when they
> say "plot" in an online RPG setting. This would be something
> large like a
> plot to destroy the world--if it had the potential to
> actually kill everyone
> in the game.

Aye, one of the most difficult.  I don't think it has to be always on quite
that grand scale, if the world allows for localized events.  I'll give an
example from The Gryphon Tapestry: the death of a beloved NPC in one town
greatly affected the players who called that town home, but players from
other towns only heard about it after the word spread.  In fact such events
promote oral tradition and player interaction.  Much more interesting if
everyone DOESN'T know the world-altering (albeit in a small way) event has
occurred, so that other players need to tell them.

> Design-directed material that does not spring from the
> backplot and does not
> change the world would be something like a seasonal event or holiday
> celebration that does not change the world in any substantial
> way. So for
> example, having Santa Claus stand on corners and say "Ho ho
> ho", which has
> no impact on the gameplay after the event is concluded.

Yep, easy to populate the world with these, and desirable, but this is
stretching the definition of story pretty thin.

> Design-directed material that does not spring from the
> backplot and does
> change the world would be things like the introduction of a
> new type of
> armor, or (a UO-specific example) black dye tubs, as part of
> a seasonal
> holiday event. These introduced ripples into the economy that
> are still seen
> today--in the case of the black dye, still seen pretty
> strongly. Yes, a
> moderately minor sort of effect, but an effect nonetheless.

Yep, same comment as directly above.

> Player-directed material that springs from the backplot but
> does not change
> the world would be something like the Seekers of the Wisps.
> Fun for them,
> but of no real lasting consequence in the game--it does not
> change gameplay
> for the shard as a whole.

Very desirable, a major goal in fact, and the Holy Grail the AC guys are
chasing.

> Player-directed material that does spring from the backplot
> and does affect
> the world would be things like the Trinsic Rebellion, or the Temple of
> Mondain. These things were and are causing significant effects in the
> gameplay of the shards in question--localized, to be sure, but fairly
> significant in that they affect the general atmosphere of the
> game in the
> affected regions.

Boy, this one is nasty.  Here you allow a select group of players to drag
other players kicking and screaming into their world.  I realize that it
doesn't always have to be negative, but as you've probably guessed this is
one form of control I have difficulty giving up.

> Player-directed material that does not spring from the
> backplot and does not
> change the world is very very common. Countless themed
> dungeon crawls, small
> taverns running roleplay stories, etc.

Yup, again very desirable, and common I suspect, because it's one of our
primary goals: setting up a self-perpetuating entertainment.  This is the
good side of the sandbox approach.  Also pretty easy to do because it's been
done so much and quite well.  But far too much reliance on it as the only
form.

> Player-directed material that does not spring from the
> backplot and does
> change the world is often the most compelling to the players,
> it seems.
> Attacks on Kazola's tavern. SiN demanding protection money. The SBR.

Hmmm.  I would argue that it is "most compelling" only to the players
directly, and willingly, participating, and could be disruptive to others.
Also, I believe it would be far less compelling, and less disruptive, if the
game story were in itself more compelling.

> 1) It's inclusive. Most times, people who discuss interactive
> storytelling
> are fixated on a particular definition thereof.

Yes, I use several of the above.  You have to.  But the number of people who
think I'm some kind of branching fanatic are legion.

> 2) It's not about the design structure of the storytelling
> proper, it's
> about the types of stories that mud players in particular
> discover. To wit,
> it addresses the fundamental questions about interactive
> storytelling, which
> seem to me to be:

> - who is the author? (better phrased as, is it a priori
> structure created by
> the author, or is it a post facto structure imposed on non-linearly
> structured events?)

I see it as a collaboration (the creation of most entertainment is).  And
the great thing is we include the player in the collaboration.  My concern
is that for the most part we place far too much responsibility on the
player.  This limits the ultimate audience, our customer base, and pretty
much guarantees our efforts will remain a cultural footnote, never reaching
higher because we do not aspire to more.

> - does consistency matter? (gets to the issue of authorial
> intent again)

Yes it does get to authorial intent.  You know I'm a firm believer that
consistency is one of the keys to creating the fourth wall.  And therefore I
will do everything I can to de-emphasize those of the eight that make
consistency so problematic.  I'm at odds with many old line designers about
this.  I think the reason others have trouble with this are two: 1) There's
no tradition of consistency in computer entertainment in general (I'm not
talking about anything other than content here).  We have been reared on the
"anything, if it's fun approach."  So many people just don't take it into
consideration.  2) It's simply harder.  In night time TV many shows use a
similar structure of 1 main or "A" story and one or more smaller "B" stories
or "runners."  Often the "B" stories have little or nothing to do with the
"A" story, but as John Mortimer did so well in "Rumpole of the Bailey," B
stories that support the A story either directly or thematically do far more
to draw the audience into the experience.

> - must it have consequence? (gets to a critical issue for muds in
> particular. Does the world change as a result?)

I think you've answered this in how you laid out the eight possibilities.
The answer is yes.  And no.  By their very nature our worlds are created in
our image, and are immediately hijacked by others.  If we try to fight it,
we are doomed to fustration both for ourselves and our players.  So let's do
both.  Give em a lot of fun stuff to have total control over.  Some fun
stuff to have some control over.  And some fun stuff that will not be fun,
IF they have control over it.  It's really time for a story to emerge that
justifies all the time taken to debate these issues.  The effort is often
killed before it has a chance to survice and grow into something wonderful.
Prejudice, ignorance, incompetence... all are there like diseases that
attack the new born, and keep the birth rate so horrifically low.

> My personal contention is that a well-done mud will have all
> of these eight
> forms of story experience, and to ascribe primacy to one or
> another is to
> express a (perfectly acceptable) design bias.

Certainly a lot of them. ;-)  And if you can lump MY prejudices under "... a
(perfectly acceptable) design bias." I like it a lot.  Any tools like this
that help illuminate the possibilities should be welcomed with open arms.

Lee




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev