[MUD-Dev] Re: MUD-Dev Storytelling in MMOGs article

[Freeman]

From: Derek Licciardi

> I'd turn your sportscaster idea into something that was
> facilitated by the players.  Allow them to make money at it and
> you just invented newspapers and media.

While adding newspapers, etc. is a fine idea, turning over to the
players misses the point of doing it: You get a professional to
recap the story (and make it sound better even than it actually was)
for the same reason that sportscasters build-up "the last time these
two teams met"-type stories.  That is, to manipulate the viewing
audience: Convince them that they care.  If the players can do that,
then great, but I'm skeptical that they can, and will, let alone do
it as well as a professional can do it.
 
> I'd go as far as to say limit your "meddling" to catalyst events.

As I see it, the problem with "catalyst events" is that you're
kicking off a story no one cares about.  That's Your story, not the
player's story.

So, the idea is to let the system produce emergent 'catalyst
events', see which ones the players actually care about, and go with
those.  The point is to make the players' stories better, not to
make your own better stories.  Because it doesn't matter if your
story is better, if it isn't the players story then they won't be
interested in it.

> The further you meddle in the plot, the more linear the story
> becomes and the more the story has a single version.(your version)

Well, if you're talking about "plot" then we're talking about two
different things already.

> Multiple versions of the same day at the ballpark from different
> people are what make guys like Babe Ruth legendary.  Everyone has
> a different viewpoint, though they at the base share a common
> event or situation.

It is the viewpoint of the professional sportscasters that make Babe
Ruth *legendary*.  For example, I've just almost never heard
anything about him from anyone else, and I've never seen him play.
I know he's a legend because a sportscaster told me so, just like I
know there's a rivalry between the Cowboys and the Redskins only
because a sportscaster told me so.  I might have heard that from a
fan as well, but I'm pretty sure the fan only believes it because
the sportscaster told him it was true.

But stepping in to make the story more interesting than it would
have been otherwise is, for example:

 - convincing everyone that there's a big rivalry there, and so this
 conflict is more significant than it would have been otherwise

  - This player hates that player because of what happened the last
  time they met, and an exaggerated description of what happened the
  last time they met

  - Explaining the future implications of the outcome - this team
  will fall apart if it loses another game (failure to reveal: no of
  course, it won't), the fans will be disappointed (without asking:
  why is that important?), or look at all the records this team will
  break by "doing the impossible".

None of those things change the outcome of the game.  And there is
no plot - at least not until the game is over.

>  Thrive on it by not "meddling" too far into the game and > I
>  would think the players will have a significantly deeper >
>  experience in the game.  I'd agree that you can't become
>  completely > hands off, though a strong argument could be made
>  for a complete > simulation that would allow it.  I simply think
>  it is more efficient > for a developer to be somewhat hands-on
>  and spark stories as the > action/plot requires.

This isn't the sort of approach I prefer.  I much prefer to see what
the players are doing and then make That interesting, rather than
giving the players an interesting story which they don't care about.

Let's say, at some point players in many guilds within your game are
debating (internally) whether to support the Evil Overlord or the
Paladin King.

You have a great hook to send representative of each faction to
guilds, trying to win their support.  You do the news update
revealing that an Agent of the Evil Overlord was spotted talking to
the members of some of your largest player associations, and ditto
for the Couriers of the Paladin King.

You've already made an event the players created and were going to
do anyway (internal debates over where to place their allegiance)
more interesting than it would have been otherwise.

You can follow along the same lines as guilds do join one side or
the other - make a big deal about it.  Send assassins from the Evil
Overlord to attack some players that joined the wrong side.  Send
couriers from the Paladin King welcoming these guilds, warning them
something bad is going to happen, whatever.

Kick off a big battle in which you've actually invited guilds to
come win.  Then do the whole write-up and recap (in grand fashion)
describing the event and how wonderful (and significant!) that it
was.

Even though, in fact, it was not an all-too-terribly significant
episode of "join the red team or the blue team" with some guildchat
debate.

The converse of this is to kick off "The War between the Paladin
King and the Evil Overlord" as a "catalyst event", and hope that the
players care.

They don't.  They're much more interested in which team their guild
joins and whether their team wins or loses that first battle.

But you certainly don't have to meddle to the point of changing the
outcome (i.e. which side they join), and there isn't much more of a
plot than "We decided to pick a team.  We talked about it.  Then we
picked a team."

Step in and say, ok, that's an event. I'll promote it, cover it, and
recap it, so it sounds like a pretty interesting event (even if it
wasn't).

And some meddling, to satisfy my own ego.

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