[MUD-Dev2] no levels / temporary levels

[Peter Harkins]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:19:49AM -0700, Timothy Dang wrote:
> b) It's hard to match with the learning-curve, since it would probably
> be very awkward to have someone gain entirely new abilities for each
> potion they drink.

Just change the fiction: instead of potions, it's "The Magic Key of
Merlin" and it both unlocks Merlin's Dungeon and gives you the ability
to cast certain spells. But magic keys tend to disintegrate after a few
hours/the player logs out.

> c) Similarly, it reduces the effect of levels->specialization if
> players can choose their abilities each time they drink a potion.

In many games (but by no means all), the specialization/improvement you
do to your character is irreversible. You can't unlearn Magic Missle to
get back your spell points and spend them on Heal. Lots of games,
though, have slotted items. Fit the 'power' gem in your sword and you'll
do extra damage. Your idea would make a character almost into a blank
slate to be completely recustomizeable instead of just partially through
equipment.

> I'm sure there's other problems. Anyway, any sort of comments are
> welcome, either on this proposed mechanic or on levellessness in
> general.

Walraven, the MUD I develop on, has a somewhat similar effect in spells.
Spells (eg. Fire bolt) are powered by energy drawn from one of the eight
elemental planes (Fire). As you cast and cast that energy is depleted
and the spell weakens in strength, while spells from the opposing plane
(Water) increase.

Your idea, though, isn't actually making the game level-less: what
you're really doing is turing advancements and the abilities they grant
into commodities. Thinking of it that way there's huge gameplay
ramifications as you start bringing economic constraings (like scarcity)
to bear.

I don't know that it'd be fun to play, but it'd certainly be an
interesting experiment as a game designer. One valuable thing about
irreversible advancements, though, is that they build the player's sense
of investment and worth in the character to (via the sunk-cost fallacy)
keep them playing. Why would a game studio want to give that up?

--
Peter Harkins  -  http://push.cx  -  http://NearbyGamers.com