[MUD-Dev] Maintaining fiction.

[Matt Chatterley]

> From: "John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com> 
> Reply-To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> To: <mud-dev at kanga.nu> 
> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] Maintaining fiction.
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:42:09 -0700

> Trump writes:

>>  Fake death is a fiction breaker.  The most important reason to
>>  want to have perma death is to keep the all important fiction
>>  alive (We are talking about RPGs here right?)  I guess you
>>  really need to decide early on how important RP is to your game.
>>  Most games which profess to be RPGs are really just adventure
>>  games(AG) in a fantasy setting.

> Having a character appear with all the knowledge of a different
> character is also a fiction breaker.  Ultimately, fiction will be
> broken unless any given player gets exactly one character in a
> given virtual world.  Having said that, I'll certainly agree that
> frequent character 'death' discourages the suspending of disbelief
> on the part of the player.

Time to add another $0.02. Fake death is /not/ always a fiction
breaker. It's only such if the theme does not coherently allow for
non-permadeath. Eg, a high fantasy theme where the Gods return all
worthwhile heroes/villains to life, and where all PCs are defined as
these types (they are fairly likely to be the 'focal' characters of
such a world, and hence those that would be revived).

It depends entirely on the theme you apply, how you apply it, and
what you want to achieve with your game.

Some suspension of belief is inevitable in many, many games (I would
say it /is/ inevitable at some point, due to some circumstances,
albeit something as nit-picky as a bug). Its a skill which most game
players are very good at, in any case. "Uh. Darn. Its
crashed. *restart* *continue happily*"

>>  When I played in college it was a RP game.  The paladin still
>>  wanted to slay the evil wizard and save the princess, but the
>>  thief just wanted to collect the loot so he could blow it on
>>  wine and women, while the cleric tried to convert convince him
>>  to give up his wicked ways and embrace relegion.  At both times
>>  D&D had elements of a RPG and an Adventure Game (AG), but the
>>  focus was totally different.

> Remember that in paper and pencil games, anything can be done.
> Further, the entire world revolves around the group's
> entertainment.  Such is not the case in a massively multiplayer
> game.  They are competing for entertainment with all other
> players.  Further, the world's operation continues while the group
> is away from the game, which is not true in paper and pencil
> games.

Paper/Tabletop games are far more flexible, yep. They're also (IMHO)
incredibly strictly controlled by the GM, on a fairly low player to
GM ratio (half a dozen of so, generally). This doesn't really scale
to MMORPGs, where the control is mostly handled by automated
systems, overseen by GMs. This doesn't mean, mind you, that they
can't strive to similar aims, or at least be as entertaining to the
same audiences.

>>  Bah, that example didnt come out as well as I had hoped, but I'm
>>  sure you all know how the fiction is broken.  Any attempt to
>>  actually roleplay is stifled and one is quickly forced into
>>  playing EQ as a flat AG or quitting altogether.

> The example was just fine and it illustrates how poorly an
> arbitrary scenario can be played out.  The game mechanics have to
> accomodate a large number of players interacting, while still
> permitting them to find entertainment in the game world.

I do like the definitions of AG/RPG, and they're ones which I
frequently use versions of myself. THe example was good, too. :) My
current project is high fantasy, and the design specs it out as
roughly 1/3 Adventure, 1/3 Roleplay, 1/3 Hack'n'slash. My definition
of adventure here being exploring, puzzle solving, object
gathering. Its also heading towards being quite group-based.

[Snip]

> When you want to have roleplaying in your world, you will have to
> make the inherent structure of the game such that the players
> *want* to roleplay.  You mention several things that should head
> in that direction with statements such as 'hide the numbers'.  I
> vehemently agree with that idea.

Yeah. I found an RP-based mud which had quite a good system for
awarding XP based on time spent RPing (essentially use of IC
say/pose commands; this use is effectively policed by players, who
point out instances of inappropriate use and cheating, and also
logged, I believe).

Number hiding appeals to me, and almost always has, unless the game
in question is purely hack'n'slash, in which case, the numbers are
part of the game, and are how its played for a lot of people. You
try to make your own numbers as big as possible.

> Now for a point that I don't agree with.

>>  In order to create a game that actually fosters RP you must
>>  start with the Devs.  Call them something else.  Many MUDs use
>>  Immortals - this works.  Now they cant talk about things like
>>  NPCs or the 'net.  You must develop an in character to out of
>>  character dictionary.

> I don't believe that this is the right way to go.  Consider the
> paper and pencil setting: players physically colocated and talking
> freely, but also playing a game where they have a character.  In
> that setting, players freely talk about the real world whenever
> they feel like it, but it's understood to be a player interaction.
> Eventually, somebody draws a line and says "Hey, let's play the
> game".  The purpose of playing the game is to socialize, which is
> why players tend to socialize in a number of ways during gameplay.
> The game is the focus, but side activity is common.

Aye. For me, the first vital concept is the OOC/IC division. Making
it clear that there can be no cross-over, and that the two are
totally separate. Then it doesn't matter that the Admins are logged
in, chatting over comlines - they're not there ICly, and aren't
within the IC grid, so the characters themselves never encounter
them.

> Where I'm going with this is that players need to be able to
> interact with each other independently of their characters.  If I
> need to talk to a gamemaster about my connection speed, I should
> be able to do so without my character's lips moving.  This has
> been attempted in games by using an 'out of character' chat
> channel, which is never used.

Damn straight. The social aspect of Mudding is one of the things
which I enjoy most. Running around chopping orcs in half is a lot
less fun without the banter on the OOC lines.

[Snip]

> The point of all this is to acknowledge that players exist and
> that they want to interact with each other.  The character to
> character interaction is not the most important element of
> gameplay.

Aye, again. Most MUSH-based RP games achieve this well, with
comlines, page commands, OOC mail, and so forth, building and rely
on a strong social aspect to the game - a lot of people will log in
when they are unable to RP (ie semi-idle at work), just to chat when
they get time.

[Snip]

>>  Obviously the first thing you need to do is make it relatively
>>  hard to die.  But this cuts both ways.  If you make it hard for
>>  players to die you must make it hard for NPCs to die or risk
>>  losing immersion.  So you need alternatives to death. Win/Lose
>>  scenarios that do not inculde someone dying.

> Again, I agree with you, although I don't have as big a problem
> with the NPCs dying a bit more easily than the player characters.

Yup. I'm working within my system to find a way for both unique and
non-unique NPCs to exist. Unique ones, when killed, are probably
going to be dead (unless brought back as part of a story line),
their config files/data moved to an archive which also details
how/where/when they were killed, and by whom. Non-uniques will be
spawned as required by certain parameters (for instance in lairs,
roaming monsters, and so forth).

PCs will be subject to potential permadeath, with escape clauses
given (for instance, magic will be able to revive the recently dead
at a cost, although this magic will likely be rare). I intend to
reduce frustration brought on by this in several ways, none of which
are clearly planned at present. Ideas include awarding bonuses to
newly created characters, based on the achievements of the last, and
reducing game emphasis on character development by 'point
collection'.

[snip]

> My personal take on making death rare is to simply have the NPCs
> be uninterested in killing those who are already incapacitated.
> They don't feel the need to jump up and down on those who are out
> of action.  As you suggest, gain in the world shouldn't come by
> extinguishing life.  The NPCs can have the same attitude.  But I
> agree with your goal of making escape a viable avenue wherever
> possible.  Even when escape isn't possible, it isn't necessary
> that the player be dead-dead.  Just incapacitated and forced to
> crawl away.  Constantly running away from fights to avoid dying
> seems a bit undesireable.

Yup. A big part is adding the (quite realistic) notion that not all
combat ends in death. A bar brawl might just result in bruises or at
worst a few broken bones. A duel would result in almost certainly at
least one death. A battle would leave several wounded and
incapacitated, left to die, others dead, others lightly wounded. Not
everything is finished to one neat conclusion. :)

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