[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[Travis Casey]

Jon Lambert wrote:
> John Buehler wrote:
> > Jon Lambert writes:

> >> Like I said above this is an entirely different animal.  When RPing
> >> players outnumber GOPing players 10-1, then you a have framework
> >> for RP.  The number of NPCs is irrelavent, because NPCs can't
> >> role-play, unless of course a player or GM is running them.  ;-)
> 
> > The number of NPCs is relevant in that it establishes a setting,
> > just as the buildings, buckets, horses and other items establish a
> > setting.  There are no laser guns or automobiles, so people don't
> > think in those terms.  With enough NPCs doing things that establish
> > the setting, the players are encouraged to behave in a given way.
> 
> Those are just props.  They aren't necessary to role-play.  And they
> often distract from role-play.  They spoil scenes because they
> introduce actions, events and dialogue that just isn't wanted or
> appropriate.

They aren't *necessary* for role-play, but, properly employed, they can
help roleplay.  The problem is in the proper employment -- in most
games, NPCs are set up in a way to aid GoP, not to aid roleplaying.

> > NPCs roleplay very well.  They simply don't speak to players very
> > intelligently.  Something that will be addressed someday, but not
> > this decade.
> 
> You can get a baker to bake, run about shopping for flour, talk about
> baking, sell bread, but you cannot get them to roleplay.  

This depends a great deal on your definition of roleplaying.  Under the
definition I use (that of making decisions based on "what would my
character do", rather than on the basis of things external to the
gameworld), NPCs *can* roleplay.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that
to have an NPC roleplay a complex set of character traits *well* would
require either GM intervention or strong AI, but one can roleplay a
simple character and still be roleplaying.

> I mentioned
> in my previous post that functional or immersive roleplay only
> represents _one_ end of the roleplay spectrum.  

Tangent/nitpick:  I think the term "roleplaying spectrum" is too
limiting.  There is more than one possible axis on which to measure
"roleplaying".

> There is a large
> audience of role- players that views dialogue with NPCs as a patent
> waste of keystrokes and time.  Unless of course there is a human
> audience present, it serves no purpose.  It's sort of like tickling
> yourself.  Unsatisfying. ;-)

There are also roleplayers who do not view it as a waste of time -- a
much smaller group, to be sure, but there.

> > Not very much effort has gone into the NPCs of the big graphical
> > games.  They merely serve a functional purpose, encouraging only
> > goal-oriented gaming.  Ever played Caesar III?  The NPCs there are
> > fairly simplistic, but they are quite entertaining and produce the
> > atmosphere of a roman city.
> 
> Even so in a mud, these "smart" NPCs become little side-quests of
> guess the magic words to activate them and get what you want.  That's
> an additional level of game that rewards the GOPer, it doesn't do
> anything for the RPer.  RPers need audiences of humans not bots.
> There's a difference.  You see, this is forcing players to react to
> the world.  You are casting the roles...not players.  The other way is
> allowing the players to create the roles and character.

NPCs are, as a I mention above, normally set up to support GoP, but they
can be used to support roleplay.  For example, a player might decide
that his/her character has a wish to attract a certain NPC, and set out
to find ways to impress that NPC.  A player might choose to have his/her
character be a loyal follower of a particular NPC leader.  And so forth.

> > Imagine, in contrast, a town with only players in it.  Nobody
> > establishes the atmosphere of the town, so it becomes whatever the
> > players say it is.
> 
> The only reason there isn't an atmosphere established in such a town
> is simply because you are starting from a base of game players.  Start
> with role-players and you'll get an atmosphere.

Possibly -- but if you *want* an area to have a *particular* atmosphere,
rather than whatever atmosphere the players wind up gravitating towards,
then NPCs and other "props" can be useful.

> You can force these players to dress up in fancy medieval clothes, put
> them in a medieval town, force them to say good day, thee and thou and
> other magic words to make the little robots wandering around do
> unusual things.  You still won't get them to role-play.  You just get
> mice in your maze looking for cheese in funny outfits and saying
> strange things because the cheese happens to be easier to come by that
> way.

That's true.  However, if you tell a group of roleplayers "this is a
town", and refuse to give them any sort of further clue as to what
*sort* of town it's supposed to be, then you may end up with any kind of
town -- or with no consensus on what sort of town there is at all.

(Now, you could simply *tell* the players what you want, instead of
setting up props.  Some might consider that to be a better way to go,
but others might disagree.  In particular, setting up actual props helps
to ensure consistency.)

> > And there's no guarantee that such an atmosphere is entertaining for
> > anybody.  The atmosphere certainly isn't set by the game, letting
> > the players know what the game world normally expects from them.
> 
> Of course not.  But the purpose of role-play is to entertain other
> players.  

IMHO, to say that anything is *the* purpose of anything is a guarantee
of overstatement.  People roleplay for many different reasons; at best
entertaining other players is *a* purpose of role-play.  It might be the
most important purpose for many people -- but for others, it's not.

> It requires 2 or more humans, not a human and a machine.

I disagree -- mainly because I do not accept that entertaining others is
*the* purpose of role-play.  It is only *a* purpose, and other purposes
of roleplay can be achieved without having other humans about.

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_     Travis S. Casey  <efindel at earthlink.net>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-' 
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev