[MUD-Dev2] Meaningful Conseqences (was: Comparing Worlds)

[John Buehler]

Eric Lee writes:

> Are we stuck with rubber-band worlds, where everything snaps back into place
> on a regular basis, or are there ways to overcome the problems?  Or is that
> the wrong question to ask?  Are players entirely happy with rubber-band
> worlds and there's no need to fix it?

I'd say that there's a need to add to the available options.  Consider a nomadic MMO.

Such a game would involve a world that is an unlimited strip of land bounded on the sides by impassable barriers and blocked ahead
by monsters.  The entire player population moves forward to experience the next encounter.  Encounters are designed for the entire
player population instead of individuals.  Rewards and advancement are structured similarly.

Some nice traits to nomadic MMOs:

1. The content is always being refreshed.  You can chop down a tree here, but you're going to move along with the rest of the player
population and there are going to be new trees later on.

2. The content is not repeated.  You don't know what's around that next bend in the river, or in that next town.  Or whether that
group of NPCs that you've spotted at a distance is friendly or not.

3. The width of the world can be varied each time the players pull up stakes and move forward.  That helps to keep the player
density at a desired level.

4. As exploits are discovered, they can be transparently patched in the newest content.  Players are already obligated to be on
their toes, so having exploits patched isn't going to ruin anyone's experience grind.

Speaking of experience, there can't be any character levels or any other effect that would stratify the player character population.
The goal is to keep the players together as they nomadically move along.  There would also be no drops or money.  Everything is
focused on the community.  Instead of a cash drop, the players capture a monster treasury that somehow influences the way the game
plays out for everyone.  Capturing other supplies could work the same way.

Personal achievements would be more nebulous, such as being the leader of your guild or #14 on the all-time kill list, etc.
Material achievements would be available, but they would be things that would be made available to the entire player population.
They would represent a change in the way the game is played.

For example, coming out of the mountains and finding a set of villages that will make horses available.  Now everyone has access to
horses and starts playing the mounted game.  New skills can be introduced, as can things like new consumables, etc.

Procedural content would play an important role in the structuring of the world, and the nomadic experience would also work best
with live gamemasters who structure the world ahead of the players.  The gamemasters would roughly duplicate the single player RPG
experience, only scaled up for thousands of players.  Instead of encountering five monsters on the road through the woods, the
player population is moving through vast forests populated by nasties.

It's a rather different game, but it's one that I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy.  It places less emphasis on the individual and more on
being part of an active, dynamic world.  I'd still have my personal accomplishments and achievements, but they would be uniquely
mine because nobody else would experience them.  Once a chunk of the world is experienced, it is moved through and left behind,
remaining for nostalgic visits but not much else.

JB