[MUD-Dev2] Risk vs Reward [was: Value]

[Matt Chatterley]

On 11/09/06, Mike Rozak <Mike at mxac.com.au> wrote:
>
> Cruise wrote:
>
> > "Risk" is presumably risk of defeat in combat - but what then are you
> > actually risking?
>
> I came up with the following list, included in
> http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/Choice2.htm.
>
> - Loss of time (lose equipment = money = time)
> - Delay in playing (sit and wait to heal)
> - Loss of an enjoyable experience (make a mistake, get teleported to the
> back of beyond, and spend an hour walking back)
> - Loss of content (make a mistake, and no longer able to access Dungeon X)
> - Loss of friendships (not exactly part of the official game design, but a
> possibility in a MMORPG)


Mike,

I really like the article - as it says, none of it is really new
information, however, it's very well presented. I particularly liked the
string-of-pearls discussion - it set off a few thoughts in my head!

Considering that the sketched outline I currently have for a new "game"
project (not sure if it counts as a Mud or not yet, but hey - it should be
fun) - although fuzzy - notionally attempts to derive enjoyment from a set
of "player activities" which are highly repeatable.

Essentially the central concept is a that of a (massively) multiplayer
strategy game centering around resource management and interestingly
"politics" (more on this in a minute) - set in a fantasy themed world. The
idea is to initially deliver this over the web using a fairly standard and
simple interface - no 3d graphics or fancy animation. Mostly text, some
pictures (the world map will almost certainly have to be graphical), and
semi-turn based play.

Where I believe it becomes more "Mud-Like" is when I return to "politics" -
the best part of playing MMORPG type games for me is the social element. I
particularly enjoy playing with (and against) other players who are there
for the same reasons as me - to meet people, chat, compete and have a good
time.

So, by splitting the gameplay within the theme into two sections, I hope to
encourage strong social interactions (having real-time chat seems essential
for this purpose, too). Allow me to elaborate, and hopefully, get back on
track to talk about choices!

Every player will be a wizard. Every wizard must reside within a tower - a
sort of wizard colony, if you like. Unfortunately, the scenario is such that
every tower is competing with every other tower for vital resources -
workers, food and magical power. If you want to be at the top of the tree,
you need to be an important wizard in an important (powerful) tower.

Within each tower, wizards exist in a hierarchy - a single wizard rules at
the top, two share the power on the tier below him, and so forth -
(probably) four below them, and so forth. I'm not sure if I'll stick with a
factor of two or not - it depends how many "tiers" I decide the "average"
tower should have.

So. The choices that the tower must make together (or by edict of the leader
and/or his appointed adjudants) are broadly strategic in that they impact
the interactions between that colony and the other colonies, as well as the
game-world itself - this could range from making alliances and pacts to
trade deals and/or open war-fare. There will also be some "management"
issues in terms of deciding how the tower should develop
(construction-wise), how workers should be managed, and such-like.

Part of my struggle is to ensure that these choices are significant - not
weak. Trading, managing crops and harvest, and similar things are
potentially weak, although harvesting at the wrong time might mean a food
shortage - there will most likely be a number of ways to "plump up" this
stock. Including magic, of course.

Declaring war could be rather worse - make enemies in the wrong place and
you could end up homeless, or dead. Death doesn't just hurt. It's the end of
the character (not the player or their account, though!).

When looking inside the tower - of course, some players will want to quietly
muster their strength so that they can leave home and set up their own place
- others will want to rise as close to the top of their current tower as
they can. And there might only be one way to do that - dead man's curly toed
boots!

This leaves me thinking that on the whole I'm leaning towards strong
choices, but presents some quandries - questions which I'll present here.

1. When players are mainly offered strong choices, with "real" (or as real
as possible in a virtual world) consequences, I wonder if it might put them
off taking risks - off making choices, because of the natural instinct to
"protect" your character? Perhaps it is necessary to encourage a playing
culture in which this strong tie to a specific character is broken. Maybe
this links to game goals - currently for me the only goal is to be presented
via a sort of "high score" table. Perhaps if I base some of these stats on
the player, not the character, there will be more of a feeling of
achievement retained, even if a favoured wizard is despatched to the great
dining room in the sky.

2. Are weak choices important for an enjoyable, relaxing gaming experience?
I agree that some strong choices should be present to ensure lasting appeal
if not more - but if most choices are strong (i.e. have consequences and
could potentially impact the future of your playing experience - at least
for the current character) - does it become stressful and less fun to play?

Other than that, an interesting thought occurs.

Most (if not all) choices in "The Sims" are weak. Yet the game enjoys
immense popularity (as does it's sequel), and many people will admit to
having misplaced many hours of their lives playing this sort of game - even
though the only more-or-less irreversable decisions are those which are
dangerous or dumb. Or are they?

Some choices (e.g. should I buy that better TV, or spend the money on a new
cooker) can have significant consequences which we may not even remember -
having played and made those decisions. Wasted time particularly is used by
this game as a harsh punishment for a poor choice - sure - the TV is great,
but the cooker caught fire, and now everybody isn't getting enough to
eat.....


Cheers,


Matt C