[MUD-Dev] A footnote to Procedural Storytelling

Batir batir at frontiernet.net
Sat May 27 02:03:26 CEST 2000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raph Koster" <rkoster at austin.rr.com>
To: <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 7:06 PM
Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] A footnote to Procedural Storytelling
> Hurm, I got the impression that everyone at the roundtable thought you
> needed more than backstory, myself included. Where did you get the
> impression that we did not?
> -Raph

Hrm...  Yes you agreed that you needed more then backstory.  I guess I
didn't think you were taking it far enough.  Backstory seems to be just that
though, one story.  Give me history ;-)

Imagine a MMORPG AD&D game that used all the books out there as it's
history...  There would be a wealth of stories to make small, dynamic quests
out of.  Ultima doesn't have that.  Using the Zog Cabal (I can't seem to
remember what they renamed them) is an example of what I want.

How much more of that can UO pull out of the past?  And why does 'evil'
always have to be 'the ultimate evil bent on taking over the world'?  It
feels like the stories are forced into UO to explain the land expansions
(which they are, basically).  How am I supposed to get into a story like
that?  As a player, I know that the Zog Cabal would not destroy the world,
and that whatever they did, would result in more land.  Same with Minx.  I
knew she would win, and that the lands would be torn apart as a last ditch
effort by Lord Brittish.

End of the world stories just don't work for me in online games.  As long as
the money is still coming in, it's fluff, and I can't escape that feeling.
Why get involved in something that I know the outcome of?  The stories are
already written in stone, and I can't change much, if anything.

Strat's & Stat's, UOSS

MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the mud-dev-archive mailing list