[MUD-Dev2] Meaningful Conseqences

[Christopher Lloyd]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Buehler
> 
> 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.

Awesome idea - I like this very much. We also know that it does work in the
context of storylines and roleplaying: It's very Star Trek.

> 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.

Or at least, it's not always obvious that the content is being repeated.
Designers can still re-use the same terrain types, textures and graphics at
a later date, but at such intervals that in the short term, it looks "new".
Remember how Captain Kirk always seemed to beam down to a reddish-brown
scrubland area with rocks every dozen episodes or so? Viola - Re-useable
content.  

> 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.

One of the complaints that I certainly remember receiving from veteran
players was that there wasn't anything new to explore, and the world felt
much more crowded than when it was first created. In the early days, there
was a lot of world to go around but later on, the builders couldn't really
keep up with the new player influx.

> 
> 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.

I would think that patching exploits and bugs would be standard for most
MMORPGs? As longer as it doesn't affect the client program (if you even use
one), what's the point in not patching the code directly?

Bad point of the nomadic model include:

1. Players need a "base". They also definitely like houses and guild
headquarters. They want places to store their stuff, meet with other players
to chat, practice fighting, have cybersex, etc. The nomadic model might have
difficulties maintaining a community.

2. Good memories are likely to stick around longer. I.e. "Remember last year
when we passed that dragon lair and all went and killed it? That was
awesome... and we got great loot too!" New players are likely to feel
isolated or even somehow cheated that they can't go back and explore that
area, have similar experiences to those that the others had and get the loot
they did. Of course, there's bigger and meaner monsters with even better
loot down the road, but players have a habit of wanting things NOW, dammit!

3. It could be hard to explain to players what their goal is. I can see this
environment definitely appealing to roleplayers, but not to the more
achievement-driven participants. There's no maximum level to achieve, no
uber-boss to defeat, no ultimate artifact to loot and there isn't even a
mountaintop that only advanced players can get to for the sake of getting
there (at least, not a consistent one).

> 
> 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.

SO what happens when the horse village is passed by? Do horses stay, or are
the designers obliged to conveniently write in a similar horse village just
over the next horizon.
 
> 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.

I feel that this concept avoids the idea that players have to take
responsibility for their actions much.

For example, one solution to a player killing the local shopkeeper/trainer
is that something in the game witnesses him doing it, and the players is
then outlawed for murder. As a result, all soldiers and militia
automatically attack him and "lawful" NPCs won't deal with him until he pays
a fine or similar. Another solution is to have the shopkeeper respawn after
20 minutes feeling fine but a bit ticked off. A third might be to simply not
allow players to draw their weapons within the confines of the town.

All are valid, but mean a lot less in the nomadic model. How would you
handle "law breaking" by trouble players? Purely in an out-of-character way,
or does the model only support a PK environment? 



Chris Lloyd