[MUD-Dev2] [Design] Non-cliche content creation

[Richard Boehme]

> "The number one problem with 3d graphic engines is the cost in
> development and QA of content generation."
>
> I'm not disagreeing, merely pointing out that it's somewhat irrelevant.
> Yes, it's difficult and time consuming. So are a lot fo things if you
> want them done well. Once they're done, however, they stay done. Once I
> have a quest generation system, all my quests from ever on are free.
> Sounds like a good trade off to me :P

Small point: most on the quests from ever on are free. Designers are
going to want control over certain NPCs in the world, designating some
of them as not able to be changed in irreversable ways (IE death, loss
of status, other definable parameters). Any quest system must be able
to work around the static elements that designers want to put in, and
the unexpected events that players put in. If the quest is to get the
letter next to the farmer's table, and a flood ruins it, the quest
goals have to change, perhaps significantly.

>
> > 2) Algorithmic content is never as compelling as hand-crafted content.
> > If you're not moved by handcrafted content, it's badly written hand-crafted
> > content.  But almost no one is moved by randomly generated quests.
>
> Because they're not done well. Currently, my NPCs can love, hate (each
> other and things), grow and change as individuals depending on
> experiences, become addicted/obsessed, etc. Soon, they'll lie and cheat
> too. Whether it'll be enough, remains to be seen, but I hope they'll be
> a lot better than what has gone before...

A key here is the system crafting significant content for the player.
Book plots are not made out of a randomly interacting world - they are
contrived. A unique experience can be created for players and groups
because the same things are not significant to the same people. A NPC
being in one part of town vs. another can be totally irrelevant to
most people, but for the player and NPCs who are expecting to meet
that NPC, it can lead to many options (search party, assume he was
kidnapped by an enemy and go on a premature hunt, realize that he's in
the other part of town because he always goes there, so please fetch
him) and so on. Is it contrived? Yes. Does it need to feel that way?
No! A book can be seen as a collection of very low probability events,
which go from the beginning until the end. In the "Old Man's War"
trilogy by John Scalzi, the main character sometimes survives through
extraordinary luck. It doesn't feel contrived because there are
reasons supplied for why things happen, and there's a chain of
believability which lets you say 'yes, it's plausable'. Take the
character's ambitions and AI driven goals and contrive them slightly
to make ends meet.

> > 3) Shared content gets a bad rap.  Shared experiences are powerful -
> > BECAUSE they are shared.  People can compare experiences and share
> > hints, and people don't get jealous that they never had an opportunity to
> > kill the king.

This begs the question: what makes a shared experience something that
you want to talk about? What makes a single player experience
something you want to talk about? In my own playing, it's things such
as:

* Close calls where my character almost died, but didn't.
* Helping another player to achieve a goal.
* Making the difference between another player accomplishing their goals or not.
* Discovering something previously unknown, whether it be geographical
or a game mechanic
* Being surprised

All of these things can be simulated when needed. The question is:
when are they needed? As it currently stands, you could detect some of
the above situations. If a player hasn't had a challenging / exciting
situation in a while, we might spice things up by giving them a
challenge. Let's say you've tracked the fact that people around this
person are often healed by them. Another player in the area might be
given too much of a challenge, in range of the person that likes to
help people out. One person gets a challenge, the other gets to help
the first person survive.

Can a world stand a system like that which interferes with situations
to produce excitement? If so, how much can it interfere? Where is the
limit?

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Richard