MMOPOS

Because I don''t look at other games for inspiration, I don''t suffer from envisioning a YATJLWAS (Yet Another Thing Just Like We''ve Already Seen) type game.

In my mind resides the real potential and model for online multi-player games. It is truly different, truly exploits the concept of multi-player, and takes little inspiration from even the best of the genre.

Rule Number 1: Stop looking at existing plots and changing names for your own plot.

Rule Number 2: Stop looking at existing game-playing models and changing the plot.

I''m sorry, what was the topic of this thread? I was too busy fighting my NetHack addiction to pay attention to what I was reading.

trying to figure out whether that was the trademark Johnnyfish sarcasm


"""" "'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree"-Nazrix" -- runemaster --and now dwarfsoft" -- dwarfsoft --pouya --nes8bit --CmndrM " -- Nazrix

"If your parents didn't explain this one, I'm not going to." --Felisandria

"You know you're cool when you're in Nazrix's sig :) " --Martee

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

If you design a mmorpg the same way as you do a single players rpg then it would make sence to presume that there will be overcrowding problems arising through the game. So yeah, it does make sence to start afresh with the concept building for mmorpg''s over single player models.

"So you're the one that designed that game are you?"
*Gulp* "Umm, yeah"

It also makes sense that everyone is pretty much playing for themselves, and there''s just other people doing the same. UO did give some sense of community. They''re not as guilty as EQ and AC.


"""" "'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree"-Nazrix" -- runemaster --and now dwarfsoft" -- dwarfsoft --pouya --nes8bit --CmndrM " -- Nazrix
"If your parents didn't explain this one, I'm not going to." --Felisandria
"You know you're cool when you're in Nazrix's sig :) " --Martee
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

I''m one of the anonymous posters that helped to distract the original thread. Not a designer but, like most non-designers, I think I should be. Anyhow, if a gameplayer''s opinion is welcome I''d be happy to share it here.

As a roleplayer first and a computer gamer second I''ve found online roleplaying an interesting concept in theory but rarely done well in execution. Frankly I''m in complete concurrence with Landfish''s summation of the situation but I think a functional MMORPG that can support actual IC roleplaying is entirely possible.

The problem with MMORPGs from a roleplayer''s point of view is that the code, hence the reality, of the engine doesn''t care a whit about characterization. Any roleplaying is superficial at best and generally beside the actual point - mugging monsters and raising levels. Powergamers rightly scoff at the poofters playing make believe in a world they can''t affect and aren''t even really a part of. Any biography, and hence motivation for a character''s persona or any goals aside from being high level one day, won''t stand up to scruitiny - the events never happened as far as the world engine is concerned.

Socialization is crippled aside from flocking together for defense without the underlaying social structures of family, clan and country. Familial groups are less than meaningless without real property and economic underpinnings. Wars are trite without passion and conviction and, oh yes, greed. Without player character rulers and factions - what''s there to talk about? NPC orcs spawning? A fancy new magic item? What''s the point of having power if there''s nothing to do with it but get more power? What''s heroism or sacrifice without death? Real death?

Create the channels for socialization and competition in a setting with real limited resources and real character death. Allow for formal biological relationships and informal factional ones. Tie inheritance of property to those relationships.

With players naturally doing what players do best, creating mayhem, a game master will never have to write a story again. The players will do all the work. And with real death in the picture PKing will become a very risky hobby and one not attempted without considerable reason.

Toss the old ideas about dungeons and scripted modules and levels and monsters. Instead present a social world where characters can wander in and, just dealing with each other, form dynamic factions in a balanced and somewhat realistic world. UO was onto the right idea but reincarnation and the typically ludicrous power inflation of a D&D-style levelling game make any imagined depth of economy and society impossible to simulate.

Beleive it or not, people, but I do believe that I just had an idea *shock! Gasp!*

Instead of the cheese (hehe) belonging to the tasks that are accomplished (like murder in most cases), the cheese should be rewarded for the most interesting divergence in the story. Basically, make the actual character that the player creates have no effect on the game. The character can be as weak as piss, but the more they experience, the better their characters persona and the greater their character ''grows'' as a person. Since I only just had this thought, I haven''t really given any thought to how you may construct this new cheese. Would it merely be something similar to a reputation that allows the character more of a free reign around towns, or would it be a wisdom effect where the player actually understands more clearly about everything? To advance the story (and therefore advance their character) the player must not dally in feilds killing monsters, but must make haste to finish their quest (whatever it may be).

You are probably all going ''easy to say, but lets see you do it''. I don''t think it is really that easy to acheive, but I think that it is the right direction to be traveling in. Story subtlety might give the actual player more comfort in themselves. If you construct your world correctly, then you should know a fair bit more about your world that is unseen by the player in the game. If you can introduce subtle clues as to, for example, the origins of magic, then the player may feel like they are clever enough to discover this and this would give them hope.

Also - I agree with LF that single and MMO are completely different. You can''t possibly have a single player game that holds as an MMO game. For one thing, I would try and remove anything that keeps a linear story in MMO because it restricts everyone in to doing the same things and there would always end up being a dash to finish it first. I also dislike the consistency aspect of different players having to complete the same quest. It just seems out of the ordinary to do such.

I have ranted enough now...

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

bishop_pass : I used to think like you. If I do everything on my own, then for sure I can''t copy anyone, right ? Not.
The problem is that by not looking at others work, you might end up doing exactly what they did, hoping to do exactly what they were hoping to do...

I say know you enemy. Learn as much as you can from other people''s mistake.

The fool man always make the same mistake.
The good man never do the same mistake twice.
The wise man learns from other people''s mistakes...

youpla :-P

Or maybe I am completely off topic

That is very insightful ahw. I think that your quotes actually mean a lot more than just what they say. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Learning from mistakes makes us better, and can benefit others. Imagine what it will be like once all the mistakes have been made and everybody has learned from them. Software will be perfect! And there will be no Pentium I like chips in existence!

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

The thing about death is: Why do characters die in games? 99% of the time it''s through combat. What happens if combat is incredibly rare and dangerous? People rarely die unless they go out of their way to take on the dangers of it.


"""" "'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree"-Nazrix" -- runemaster --and now dwarfsoft" -- dwarfsoft --pouya --nes8bit --CmndrM " -- Nazrix
"If your parents didn't explain this one, I'm not going to." --Felisandria
"You know you're cool when you're in Nazrix's sig :) " --Martee
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

What seems to be the thing that a lot of us here are touching upon as possibly being a solution is more emphasis on *simulation* of a more realistic world, rather than a semi-realistic one and then adding particular fluff here and there, (in the form of designed quests, for example).

A more realistic world allowing for a larger variety of possible interactions would take away the need for this fluff to be designed, as the players themselves, in their faction-forming and actions, will actually create a better substitute to this fluff... one that holds up to the suspension of disbelief more resiliently, and where the actions of players actually have some sort of effect on the game world, directly or indirectly, economically, environmentally, etc.

As for the death issue, whatever is inferred about it... Should it really be linked directly to how a player *pays* for the game? Perhaps it would be better analyzed apart from real life issues, other than what a player is interested in. If you can allow death to incorporate ultimate finality, and it has a positive affect on how the game is, the player won''t avoid the game just because there is finality.



--BTW: Nazrix is cool.

Well, if I were marketing a realistic roleplaying world I wouldn''t be aiming at the folks who buy into Everquest so much as the folks who buy into The Sims. My guess is that there''s vast untapped potential for just about anyone to be a roleplayer given the incentives of escapism and socialization. With a solid simulation in place that models interactions in a fairly reliable way all that''s needed is the example of good roleplaying to set the ball rolling. I''d suggest the idea of growing cultures, socially engineering betatests to make sure there''s a core base of creative players with a good idea of how roleplaying is done, how the setting works and how both are incorporated into the actual playing of the game. Playing of the game? Perhaps that''s even an incorrect characterization. How about the living of the virtual life?

The reason I believe a core culture can be grown is because this is what we see happening on the longest lived MUSHes (text based roleplaying games). Conflicts do happen and power struggles are common but there''s alot more roleplaying going on here because there''s room to roleplay as opposed to being trapped in a levelling/scavenging cycle. IC institutions and storylines grow organically from the cooperative efforts of generations of players (a player usually sticks around for a few years before moving on). I''m not saying that this ideal MMORPG will be cooperatively based, in fact I imagine it will be quite competative in regards to status and resources in a non-lethal way. People will avoid murdering each other if they, themselves, can die. And for the MMORPG that will provide the breathing room roleplay needs to thrive along with the motives for player spawned competition a story needs to provide conflict.

But take the beta group and teach them how to roleplay IC and how to use the engine to best simulate different styles of play and achieve goals. Trim and tweak the player base until the culture is working corrently just as the engine itself must be adjusted and balanced.

Then open the floodgates. Pretty soon, people will naturally form associations or factions. Bad roleplayers will soon find roles where roleplaying doesn''t matter and good roleplayers will find that in a world where killing isn''t everything they can carve out interesting niches and relationships for themselves. And when things do come to blows they''ll be glad for the quick-fingered killing machines in their factions or families and for the manipulative Machiavelli''s that carry the standard for their causes. That''s what a world simulation should provide. And new players can figure out where they fit in by experimenting. If one group grows jaded and arrogant - guess where population growth will wane? There should be realistic economic and martial incentives for new players to be a desired commodity here.

More importantly though, all of that should only serve as a broad context for the casual player. The Sim player who merely wants to enjoy his little corner of the world and the relationships in it. The grand struggles for him will mainly be an exciting subject for discussion and just another dimension in the everyday experience he will inevitably make and customize for himself. And may he never have to see a THACO table.

ahw,
I didn''t say I ignored what was out there. Nor did I say I was oblivious to existing games and their mistakes.

What I said was I rarely take inspiration from it.

I am currently working on a game concept where the players define their own organizations, whether they be governing bodies, secret factions preparing for a military coup, or private organizations which might have an interest in lobbying other organizations. Each organization requires one or more players to cooperate, yet each player is attempting to rise in the power hierarchy. Reputations are built based on a player''s ability to succeed, and his ability to function with other players.

The governing rule and economy which evolves is a function of the intermingling of all players, not some stagnant computer simulated government which is fixed at compile time.

Massively Multiplayer Pieces of Story (that''s what LF meant, right? ) are the closest we''ll see to truly Interactive Fiction before we''re all old, old bitter game developers, IMNSHO.

I should qualify that. They could be truly interactive pieces of fiction. (geesh, now this is going to degenerate into a Game Writing thread ) I don''t know if this is something most players would be into, but what I expected when I tried out Ultima Online and Asheron''s Call (on my friend''s account) was a living, breathing story. I was in for a rude shock.

What I''d like to see is things like levels done away w/. I''d like to see a totally fresh advancement system, based more on what would make for a good plot, rather than what makes for better bragging rights. Advancement should be character-based. I''d like to say complete free-form advancement would work, but players are way too conditioned for that.

Something like a character template might work, where the player defines his player & class and is given a wide selection of goals to choose from. One might be to find your long-lost father. (look, I don''t even care if these mini-plots are cliche, as long as its a plot, not a spreadsheet) The player would then have certain goals to reach. One would be tracking down the slaver who abducted the father twenty years ago. The player would receive a reward of some type upon reaching this preliminary goal. These plotlines should be fairly loose, to allow for some creativity on the players'' part (maybe have some classic, very pre-defined goals for players who more or less want a standard game, then more flexible/free-form plotlines for people really into role-playing?) and also because what happens afterwards would (ideally) be somewhat "fuzzy" because the slaver is another player, who may have died, or renounced his former profession, and has goals of his own besides. You''d have to be careful to make sure that these players'' paths intersect. But this would be a picayune design detail, and not that difficult.

Players would follow through w/ these plots because this would be the only way to advance in the game. I wouldn''t attach numbers to every goal, but if at each goal, players received an item, or got stronger/better at something, they would keep hitting that button for more cheese. (thx LF, this is a great analogy) The basic form would be familiar to most CRPG players.

The strength of this would depend on your templates. You would need many different kinds. This would solve the dilemma other MMPOS (lol) have had, where a player is free to play a beggar, but its just not that interesting. If that beggar was in fact the son of the Horned God Thoth, but didn''t know it, and as he completed these quests noticed these strange powers of destruction. . .Well then, that''d be a horse of a different color!

If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal

Anonymous Poster (the last one before this message),
UO does not really have a level system... when compaired to AC or EQ which have the current level of the player as the largest font possible

As for the living breating story... Agagin I think that UO has done a better job of this than the other two. Of course I am biased, having played UO from the beggining (only quiting last month on my 3 year aniversary).

I think the biggest problem with the big 3 (UO/EQ/AC) is that they each have different servers... maintaining a storyline over several different servers just isn''t possible. Players on one server have influenced the world in such a way that sometimes the story just doesn''t make sense.

I do like your thoughts on a template for a character to choose. Basically it would allow a player to "decide" the story that he will follow in the game. Possibly allowing the player to play for an extended period of time or multiple times with different characters.


I am involved with a team of designers creating our "perfect" MPOW (Massive, Persistent, On-Line World), we have years of experience in role-playing and online persistent worlds. Kressilac has over 10 years of experience playing and coding/creating muds. I played muds for two years before I started UO and started my career at a startup software company where we were creating a MPRTS about the same time that C&C/Red Alert came out. Our other two members have about 3 years of experience playing and working CS for one of the big three commercial MMOORPGs. All of us are gamers first and designers second. We are all involved in the IT industry and combined we have about 25 years of experience. The four of us know what works and what does not - but, I still enjoy reading post such as this.

Your post in particular was eye opening and touched on a subject that we have been discussing amongst ourselves. How do we make it interesting for someone to play a common person, such as a inn keeper, or a merchant? We think we have part of the problem fixed (I can''t talk about it here, sorry I''m under a NDA). But your ideal is an alternative... worth discussion.

If you look there are at least 15 MMPGs comming out within the next 6-12 months, I wonder how many of them are going to follow the status quo?


Dave "Dak Lozar"Loeser

I can agree with Dave about the slightly more sensible advancement system of UO. I was fairly impressed with it, but a lot of things do involve click-click-dbl-click-drag, etc. That''s where you get macroers and such nonsense. I would have to say my year-and-a-half of UO have been (more or less) enjoyable. Back in the day, when I was a apprentice tailor (and didn''t understand the idea that certain items help raise your skill), I would happily tailor away on shirts for hours, scraping enough moola together to sit by the bank and buy the first interesting doo-dad that appeared. It was entertaining, in a strange way. Sometimes I would get restless, and venture forth, only to have my head served to me on a platter. So I would head back to town, to further my non-existent tailoring career. Ignorance is bliss.

Then, not too many months ago, I decided to get my own account, instead of mooching my friend''s. I created a character, M''Alicia, who had a VERY hard time of deciding a career path. She originally started out a fisherwoman, with some ooking abilities, then moved into the world of archery. A few days of bear-hunting got her some talent with tailoring, which she pursued. But the monotony set in, once again, so off she was to another career. Then there was magery. I must say she was quite a talented little sorceress. But, yet again, I grew restless. So, while searching for guild to join for monetary purposes, I stumbled upon the Coven of the Black Rose. Great lot of role-players (if you''re on the Chesapeake shard, stop by sometime). I then forgot my ideas of monetary gain, and such (except for secureing some property ) and began to truly PLAY the game, not just take up space. We had great fun, and M''Alicia grew to be quite the archmage, before I was forced to retire her.

Anyway, my point is, if the game has a strong sense of community, and variety, players will sit and play endlessly. (I know I did ). But roleplaying has to be a large part of it. I mean, I never cared about my orignal tailor, or any of the other experimental characters I had, because they never aspired to anything. Mostly due to lack of friendly companionship. But M''Alicia was very different. She never had any great standing, and wasn''t well-known, but she was a well-liked character, that I can honestly say, it pained me to close my account. It was such fun.

Enough with the rambling. The greatest thing an MMORPG can have is community.

I agree completely. We as human beings are social animals. Community is natural, and holds our interest.

--Nazrix is cool.

The template idea for giving a character a relevant bio and purpose is certainly a good idea. I wonder, though, if people themselves won't through simply being in proximity and given the right (and wrong) incentives create all manner of melodrama without even realizing they're telling a story. For example, selecting "Avenge My Father" as the motive for a character and having the engine assign that certain quests and conditions is an excellent idea. However, I wonder, wouldn't an engine that already took into account biological ties and that maintained limited resources and competition for social status to cause tension between families/factions naturally lead to someone's dad getting killed eventually?

I find from my experiences with MUSHes that some very impassioned and personal roleplay comes from actions that are instigated and responded to by actual players rather than NPCs or abstract plot elements. The problem with MUSHes is of course the less than impartial way in which human administrators and players resolve conflicts which can lead to stagnation or OOC miscommunications and disputes.

Just set the stage, batten the hatches, and let human nature take its course. I think the best MMORPG would probably be designed by Sid Meier or Will Wright. Balance the engine and let the players forge the face of the world to come through the actions, cooperation and conflicts of their characters.

I'm certain this is easier said than done but I have to wonder if it couldn't be.



Edited by - Oddjob on October 16, 2000 9:59:59 PM

Since we're telling UO stories, I tailored my first house. Making skullcaps... best cost/sell price ratio and they were easy to make.

Excelent Idea with the story template. There are alot of possibilities with how to implement it. You could actually have the game capture a guy and his quest would be to escape the dungon. While simultaneously the engine assigns the quest to another character to find his long long lost father... as the first character escaped and moved around the engine could drop hints for the second character. When they finally caught up with eachother there would be alot of IC story that could be told by both parties to eachother. An excelent way to facilitate social interaction.

This type of system would not be possible under current communication systems in Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Games(there I typed it all out!) where everyone and anyone can talk to someone on the other side of the world by

eg. "/t bobo, hi bobo!"

wich leads me to think that part of the culperate (sp?) for lack of (in character)IC interaction is the private tells and global chat that exsist in these games. In my expirence people are more likely to talk OOC when using private tells/messages. Typically when people first meet eachother in public they say "hail!" and make poor attemts at OOC until they finally break down and

"/t highlevelcharacter, so do you have any good weapons for me or what?"


I think if people were restricted in their communications to those around them, much like real life... local communities would form, and there would be more of a venu for people to speak pubiliby In character. I realize i haven't totally flushed out this argument.. but I think you under stand what i'm trying to say.


Edited by - ironside on October 17, 2000 5:14:18 AM