[MUD-Dev] Alternatives to PvP for sustainable fiction?

[Matt Mihaly]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Sean Kelly wrote:

> Of the MMORPGs now, all seemed to make the assumption that the MUD
> model would map directly into a massively multiplayer world.  IMO
> Asheron's Call both gave this the best shot and proved it the most
> false.

Erm, except that Everquest, the most successful of the American
MUDs, is also the most like the most popular codebase, Diku. I would
say Everquest completely validated the Diku model as a popular
successful one (much as I dislike Diku myself).


>  The problem is that the MUD model is built on the old P&P > model
>  of 5 people sitting around a table.  That is, the world is >
>  generally designed to support a single small party of
>  adventurers.  > This carries over fairly well into MUDs because
>  the population > densitity stays sufficiently low that the
>  illusion that each party > is exploring an area pretty much on
>  their own is never violated.

I'd have to disagree. I've never played a P&P game anything like I
play most MUDs. It's like a MUSH (which I view as a subset of MUDs)
but definitely not much like most MUDs I have seen, which are
mindless simplistic monster bashing without much RP.

 
> Within a week of UO's release, the player density to world size
> was such that everywhere you went you would see players.  The most
> dangerous dungeons in the world were as populous as Times Square.
> The only apparent advantage UO had was that it didn't purport to
> have much of an overarching plot, and respawning monsters didn't
> appear to bother anyone that much.

You're being a little hard I think. UO was _way_ better produced
than any text MUD I've seen. Comprehensive profession system, etc
etc.

 
> Ultimately, a MMORPG world cannot survive on developer-created
> content.  No dev team can hope to keep up with ten thousand rabid
> players with no seeming need to sleep or eat.  Personally, I'm a
> proponent of the "the guy is dead he stays that way" and
> "so-and-so got the magic sword, this cave is now empty" approach.
> Resetting dungeons may provide entertainment for more players but
> they do so at the expense of purpose.  Why play a MM online game
> if all the content is designed for a single small group of
> adventurers?  I'd rather play Baldur's Gate online with my
> friends.

But no MMORPG claims to survive on developer-created
content. Everyone is aware that the other players are the primary
draw. One of my players opined the other day that in his text and
graphical MUD experience, 80% of the time is spent entertaining
himself and 20% is spent being entertained. Further, a lot of people
simply like being in a world with so many people that there are many
sub-communities and sub-sub communities within to participate in. I
mean, you might ask why anyone would want to live in a big city
instead of a small town with a few of your friends, but to me at
least, the answer is obvious.

 
> In a MM world, not everyone can be heroes or adventurers.  There
> will never be enough dungeons and the exceptional people are
> hardly exceptional if every person in the game is just as
> exceptional.  Why save a town from a rampaging dragon if there are
> 200 other people just as brave standing there with you?  There is
> some fact of psychology where the more people who are present when
> something horrible happens, the less likely any of them are to
> help.  "Someone else will handle it."  Heroes are made by being
> the only ones suitable for a task.  Not a face in the crowd.

Everyone can be a hero and everyone can be an adventurer. It's just
a matter of how you look at it. If you are able to look at it from
within the context of the world, there are only a couple thousand
players on with you, and a whole WORLD of people out there that
you're saving from the evil monster hordes (or maybe a whole world
of people out there that you're trying to oppress as much as
possible. ;)


> The obvious solution seems to be player-created content.  Anarchy
> Online seems to be taking the most obvious approach to this --
> split the player base into factions and pit them against one
> another.  DAoC and SB seem to be taking similar approaches.
> Ultimately, everything comes down to territory.  You have it, I
> want it.  I hear of a powerful weapon so I recruit someone to go
> and get it because I think it would give me an edge taking what
> you have from you, or defending what I have from someone else.
> But the main sweep of things is generally conflict between
> individuals, the people who support them, and the innocent
> bystanders.

Except that it's not quite so easy. The main problem with describing
it as above is that what do you do when one side has been completely
defeated? It tends to provide an excellent opportunity for exit for
the losing players, and you don't want that.

 
--matt

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