World Design Question

[GaioMacareg]

I was wondering recently, what would it take to create an online world where PC villains would take another PC hostage and the result would play out essentially realistically? Is such a thing possible? Now a group of friends might agree to run such a scenario, but what I mean is get a group of three people to kidnap a total stranger and have the results play out as believably as if it were in real life.

There would have to be some reason why the hostage wouldn't fight or flee the kidnappers. True character death perhaps, or a severe penalty. What other option?

There would have to be an in-game reason to avoid just cutting the victim down, but the ability to do so if it were necessary. PK penalties like Ultima's reputation levels, some kind of crime enforcement to punish the players if the victim dies. What else would work?

There would have to be someone willing to pay, and something worth getting. This one's easy, except that the punishment to the victim needs to be severe enough that the victim's friends won't just say "go ahead and do it" but will actually try to save their captured comrade either via violence, or by paying.

Anyone have ideas on how it could be made possible?

[SamW]

Originally posted by GaioMacareg:
I was wondering recently, what would it take to create an online world where PC villains would take another PC hostage and the result would play out essentially realistically? Is such a thing possible?

It's probably possible, and I kicked around the idea of hostage-taking in Horizon Station but the problems involved in managing the system are immense.

First off, what would prevent someone from just logging off if they knew they were about to be captured? And if you put in a penalty for logging off, how do you let the machine know when to implement it? The internet is inherently unstable, and systems designed to keep people from logging off just generate tons of ill will from players that get punished when a power surge knocks down their modem.

The ability to manhandle other characters can be a problem all its own, as well, because given the opportunity, players like to be jerks.

Probably the only real way to handle it would be as a GM-moderated plot. The kidnapping would have to be handled by the GMs, but the rest of the scenario could play out as normal. The kidnappers would set up in their base, and the rescuers would then have to try and get the hostage out.

Tactically, the scenario would be difficult for both sides given the limited range of a character's senses within the game. In games with graphics, you have a field of vision that extends a ways out - in a text-based game, you can really only see the room you're in, which greatly limits the sneaking around that can be done.

Still, it IS a neat idea, and I'm using a variant of it in Horizon Station to allow characters to take control over various parts of the ship. I'm curious to see just how it works out.

SamW

[GaioMacareg]

The Logging off issue is a tough one. I've played a lot of mankind ( www.mankind.net (http://www.mankind.net) ) and in that game (a cross between a mmorpg and mmorts) when you log off your stuff stays online. It works remarkably well, but it has the advantage of you having a bunch of stuff, not just one character. Still a variant of that could work for while the victim is offline, but the real trick is what happens if the kidnappers need to go offline, like it takes more than one day? The victim could just log in and walk off, or some heroes could cut them down while they're offline and not defending themselves.

As for the manhandling, that's a good point. I was thinking just threatening a victim, but it is true that you'll often need to push them around. Like leaving a building when enemies are out front waiting for you with ranged weapons. Gotta be careful, anything that works in a story setting like this could be abused in other circumstances.

I think that there'd need to be some kind of voluntary cooperation between the players even if they were originally strangers. Possibly a way to give in-game rewards (experience or whatever else the game system uses) from the victim to the kidnappers and vice versa. Even from the pursuers/friends to the kidnappers. So that the people involved are encouraged to make it a story and not a bullying activity.

[JCrook]

I, too, am working with this, trying to come up with ways to handle it and the consequences of intentional and unintentional thwarting. My game will pretty much require that almost any imaginable violence be possible, including assassination through a variety of means, such as the casting of a spell through a scrying device. The only solution that I have come up with so far is to have the system be able to take over your character and perform reasonable actions with it, possibly following preordained contingency directions that you insert into your character profile, under certain circumstance, such as a sudden loss of connection, or when someone attacks your character while you are offline. This is something I am really going to need from the system for my game, as currently envisioned, to work. If not, I'll have to come up with something to explain why you can't attack someone who is offline.

However, addressing your kidnapping premise. I'd say that without some sort of fictional background, a game that focuses solely on kidnap scenarios is treading dangerous grounds. Kidnapping may be fine in Horizon Station or Chan-la, where it is part of the culture and where it might drive some plot. But your descriptions sounds like reality-based reenactments, and as kidnapping is extremely traumatic, I'd be worried about the reactions such a game would generate. It's like the difference between writing a story about a disgruntled sorcerer's apprentice who uses a magical artifact to wipe out the school of magic that attends because he hates all the students and the teachers, and a story that uses real names and places and describes violent actions in a sort of fantasy wish fulfillment. One story gets a grade in creative writing, the other one gets the polic knocking on your door. Right or wrong, people will react negatively to a game whose only purpose is reenactment of any modern violent scenario.

[GaioMacareg]

I wasn't recommending kidnapping only, what I'm asking is what kind of a game structure, character death rules, skills, online vs offline attacks, etc. will allow this kind of behavior to come up without GM intervention. Kidnapping is just one instance. It can easily apply to assassinations of non-combatant PC controlled VIPs, extortion racket's applied to PC store owners, and so forth. In all the online worlds text and graphical, such behavior is meaningless. It can only happen if both parties decide to run such a story. What I want is to see if it's possible to create a setting where players will be realistic in their behavior and not escalate non-lethal situations into lethal ones needlessly. Where there are options to unsubtle PvP combat, it's not just about smacking someone around. (the subtle stuff is much easier, it's this physical but non-lethal stuff that's really tricky). Take MUME, if some orcs captured my halfling and we're threating my buddies that they'd kill me if they didn't pay up, I'd just keep fighting until they killed me, respawn and go about my business. If someone tried to extort money out of me, I'd just track down some high-powered whities and sick them on him. End of problem. The real world doesn't work like that though and I was hoping people could help me find ways to bring even a bit of that realism into a world.

[JCrook]

Oh, ok. I see.

Yes, I am trying to incorporate this into my world as well. One thing I am going to have to have is true character death, to prevent that hafling scenario you mentioned. That's why I need comp-control of offline characters.

[GaioMacareg]

After my experiences with hardcore Diablo II, Ultima Online, and EverQuest and various MUDs, I will never again play in any world without true character death. rewards and accomplishments are meaningless to me without real risk. "ooh you risked ten whole minutes of trudging back up that hill to recover your corpse, you're so brave!" I just can't take respawning any more. It's real death or no playing for me.

[Phinias]

After my experiences with hardcore Diablo II, Ultima Online, and EverQuest and various MUDs, I will never again play in any world without true character death. rewards and accomplishments are meaningless to me without real risk. "ooh you risked ten whole minutes of trudging back up that hill to recover your corpse, you're so brave!" I just can't take respawning any more. It's real death or no playing for me.

This reminds me of Jeff's article on consequences; I didn't put my cents in then, but i will now.

Different people are looking for different games, with varying levels of consequence.

Myself, I want real drama - I want the feeling of being surrounded by a novel. I don't think its possible to achieve a level of heart-quickening suspense and character identification without true character death. I need stakes. http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif

There are "in-between" solutions, though. One that I've seen is DragonRealms' approach to death. They have a system of favors that you can acquire from your deity; as long as you have a favor, there is no ultimate beyond for you. Without a favor, death entails a random chance of walking the "Starry Road". Bye-Bye. Acquiring favors in that game is like a puzzle, but I could also see them granted for such things as completing a harrowing quest, or being dedicated in your respect to the gods, through an arcane ritual, or even as an award for excellent roleplaying. I know that you have mentioned that you have an "illegal ritual" for raising the dead in your game, Jeff, but with your emphasis on religion, a system like this might work well as a butress. You could be really devilish, and not let the players know if they have one or not... what god likes a cocky petitioner - without due respect, maybe the god will take away favors, as well?

I'd like death to be something mysterious, intriguing and yes, frightening, in my own design. I'm still working it out. It may depend in part on where you are when you die - if you die in a Stage that is a reenactment of a bard's tale, then maybe death spits you back into the main World; in a violent Stage, maybe you just respawn. In the main World, I would like death to send you to an afterlife, the game played on another level - like I said, I'm still working it out, but I have all sorts of ideas.


BJ

[GaioMacareg]

Myself, I want real drama - I want the feeling of being surrounded by a novel. I don't think its possible to achieve a level of heart-quickening suspense and character identification without true character death. I need stakes.

Before we can fel surrounded by a novel, we need to have certain plots and actions happening. If all we're ding is wandering, killing, and resting, then it's very hard to get that "I'm in a novel" feeling. Such a game can be very, very exciting and fun, but it will not too often feel like a novel. Novel's need depth, backstory, and variety. That's why I want some kind of a situation where unusual things will happen and the characters will behave realistically. What would it take to get you to play the victim in a hostage situation? LEt's say that I walk into the room with you, and before you draw your sword I've grabbed you and have mine to your throat. You've got two buddies nearby and I demand they throw down their weapons and back out of the room. What would it take in a combat-style MUD, for them to feel the stakes were highenough to be worth backing out?

[JeffC]

Originally posted by GaioMacareg:
LEt's say that I walk into the room with you, and before you draw your sword I've grabbed you and have mine to your throat.

I know how the people I play D&D with would react...

Don't I get a saving throw? I was detecting evil when you walked into the room, so I should have sensed your intention.

A number of years ago, I came up with what I thought was a good idea for an adventure. Everyone wakes up naked and chained to a dungeon wall in a locked cell. Your goal is to use what you find and can take from others and escape. When I sent the idea to Dungeon Adventures magazine, their response was that players don't like to be railroaded into any situation. They like to believe they have or had some options, even if in reality they didn't. I tend to agree. The adventure scenario above makes for a good action video game or even a stage, but with established characters, players tend to get very defensive about these sorts of things.

[GaioMacareg]

Irrelevant answer. The player gettin upset simply means two things: #1 he's not immersed enough in the game world so the designer hasn't been doing his job very well and/or he's not a roleplayer. And #2 the stakes aren't high enough. If they were, he'd be too frightened for the life of his character to be upset unless he was so much of a type A personality that he probably would die of a heart attack if his character died, so wouldn't play combat MUDs anyway. (sarcasm and hyperbole, but the point's still valid)

What stakes are high enough to make you worry instead of get pissed off? You'll have time to get pissed off after the event's over, while it's happening, you need to be immersed and frightened. Now, how does one achieve this?

[Monkey]

GaioMacareg writes:

Irrelevant answer. The player gettin upset simply means two things: #1 he's not immersed enough in the game world . . .

Wow.

If the player is upset, I'm going to hazard a guess that he or she is too immersed in the game world, and that the game designer has absolutely nothing to do with the player's reaction.

#2 the stakes aren't high enough.

I strongly disagree. The reason that the player is upset is because he or she is looking at several tens or even hundreds of hours of work about to vanish. Those stakes seem very high to me.

--Monkey

[JeffC]

Originally posted by GaioMacareg:
The player gettin upset simply means two things: #1 he's not immersed enough in the game world so the designer hasn't been doing his job very well and/or he's not a roleplayer.

This is the best possible way I can think of to alienate your players, by telling them if they don't like the way you are running your game, they aren't 'real' roleplayers. This went on for a while in the forums when the mage-test in Castle Marrach erupted. Some people said that players who failed the test should have been content to role-play their failure. But then again, some people felt the failure was too arbitrary, subject to a completely random and unmodified dice roll. People will feel the same way about any game actions that affect their character without their influence or ability to react. Players tend to get very upset when monsters are able to subdue them without their being able to even try to defend themselves, whether they are 'real' roleplayers or not. Most will begin to wonder why they are there at all. If you don't need their input to determine the outcome of the story, then you don't need them period. Try playing the first part of Vecna Lives, when the players all take on the roles of powerful pre-gen characters, and the first thing that happens is you kill them all without their being able to do a damn thing about it. Look at the blank stares you get, and see if you aren't telling them to trust you and go along for the moment. The thing is, you can't look into the eyes of an online player, and the online player isn't your friend from ten years back. He is someone who payed his 10 bucks to play a game, not be run through somebody's hoops. It's not a game anymore when you can't react and just have to go along with the scenario; it may still be roleplaying, but it isn't roleplaying in the context of a game, it is roleplaying in the context of a reenactment, like in a counselling or therapy session. Most people will assume they are playing a game, and gaming means options.

If they were, he'd be too frightened for the life of his character to be upset.

Players willingly suspend their disbelief in the actual unreality of the situation in order to play. When something happens beyond their control, when they suddenly black out and awaken locked in a dungeon cell, they'll play along with your explanation of how it happened. And then, once they escape, they'll try to use the same technique on one of your monsters. If you don't let them walk into the room and subdue without a fight the lord of the orken hosts, then you will lose their trust and they won't play your game anymore, or they will see you as an adversary to defeat. There is a great KoDT comic on www.hoodyhoo.com (http://www.hoodyhoo.com) about this effect. It goes something like this.

DM - You enter the room and your mage... dies.

Player - Whaddya mean he dies?

DM - He just sort of chokes and dies.

PLayer - Don't I get a saving throw?

DM - Nope.

Player - Couldn't I have cast a spell?

DM - Nope.

Player - Wait a minute. Does this have something to do with that five bucks I owe you?

In other words, the willing suspension of disbelief comes crashing down and the issue suddenly moves from IC to OOC.

What stakes are high enough to make you worry instead of get pissed off?

There are no stakes high enough. In fact, the opposite is true. I'd be much more willing to go along with an unavoidable minor curse that sprouts hair from my ears than one that turns me into a quivering gelatinous mass.

Being dragged against your will off a cliff is scary as hell, but it isn't a story unless you have a chance to save yourself. What makes it suspenseful, what makes it exciting, is the teetering on the edge, the scrabble at the tree roots, the rock giving way beneath your foot. It is also the choices you made that led you to that cliff in the first place. If you try to tell a player, sorry, you have to go off this cliff so I can tell my story, then I fear the most common reaction will be go find someone else to tell your story with, because you aren't killing my character without a fight. You aren't writing a script, you are setting a stage. As the game designer, you have to take the same chances as the players, you have to be willing to allow your story to fail if your players find a way to defeat it. And that means, that character you want to kidnap has to have a chance (or the illusion of a chance) to escape your initial kidnap attempt. If you give him that chance, he'll have much more fun playing the victim once you've overcome him or fairly thwarted his escape attempt, than if you don't give him a chance at all.

[GaioMacareg]

You're making assumtions that aren't accurate. What in any of this gave the impression that it is beyond the player's control? Please look back up to the first post. Assume, instead of some admin forcing this on a hapless player (as I clearly stated in that original post that there are no DM's present this is PC on PC only) that the characters involved had plenty of in-game opportunities to avoid the situation. Does this mean initiatives, strength checks to avoid being grabbed and/or to pull away, so forth, who cares--assume all that was present. No one cheated, no one is being forced into anything by someone with better admin priviledges than them, and so foth. PC on PC only. Maybe the victim turned his back on the guy and didn't see the sword being drawn, who knows, it's irrelevant for the question I want answered. Once the sword is at his throat, what can keep this scenario from going lethal?

What will get the victim to avoid fighting anyway and hoping for a favorable respawn? To keep the friends from just killing the kidnapper knowing that the kidnapper will definitely kill thier buddy if they attack?

The whole premise is to see if there's a way to set up non-lethal PvP scenarios, some of them long-term. And not friendly duels either. This is real, hostile PvP combat, but neither side wants it to turn lethal. just like in a bank robbery, the crooks don't really want to shoot anyone, and no one in the store wants to get shot. How do we enable this in-game?

Assuming that we have enabled this, what can be done to keep the victim from logging off? What will motivate the friends to pay a ransom?

Now to partly answer my own question, some variant of Ultima Online's reputation system might help PKrs from killing wantonly within their own society, so might in-game laws. How well do people think either or both will work in a MUD environment? Does anyone have any experience with them in games?

[SamW]

Originally posted by GaioMacareg:
What will get the victim to avoid fighting anyway and hoping for a favorable respawn? To keep the friends from just killing the kidnapper knowing that the kidnapper will definitely kill thier buddy if they attack?

The problem lies in the fact that players hate REAL risk (http://www.skotos.net/articles/metastatic06.html) to their characters, which means that death penalties must be wrist-slaps. There are countless examples to back this up, the most recent of which come from Everquest.

Who remembers the original word about the Plane of Fear? We were told that Bad Things would happen to our characters there, but the loot would be worth it. We were warned about the possibility of losing our corpses, players were specifically warned that this area of the game was mind-numbingly difficult and a death here could cripple a character forever.

But the first time that it appeared someone might lose their corpse up there (and all the gear it contaiend with it), the Powers That Be backed down and assisted in the recovery of the body. Same thing with Veeshan's Peak. The same thing happened with a number of Hardcore characters on Battle.net not long ago, and it'll happen any time a real risk is associated with an in-game action.

Players want to have fun, they don't want to stress about get ganked by a pack of rabid PKers, and they definitely don't want their character wiped out because of a lag pocket or loss of connection or a power outage.

Now, all that said, there is a way to create situations in which the best solution is not "Kill 'em all and hope for the best."

If you have guilds, then one member of your guild could be marked as a 'prize' - any other guild that takes that character prisoner, and keeps them alive for 1 hour would receive a bonus of some sort. If the prize dies, then the guild she is a member of suffers some sort of penalty for a short time. If the prize logs out, BOTH sides take a penalty, so there is little incentive for the prize to disconnect.

That's just an idea off the top of my head, and it might work, but it's open to serious abuse. Two guilds could work together to give one another prizes on a regular basis, thus removing all the incentive for tactical situations.

I would really like for this sort of idea to work out, but I don't think the structure needed to carry it out exists yet. There are too many variables that can't be reconciled (everything from playing times to connection speeds) to make it really feasible on a large scale. For Counterstrike style games with a limited play-scope and small groups of players, it's a genius set-up, but in a roleplaying game it's just begging for problems.

Just my $.02,

Sam

[JeffC]

Originally posted by GaioMacareg:
What in any of this gave the impression that it is beyond the player's control?


This:

LEt's say that I walk into the room with you, and before you draw your sword I've grabbed you and have mine to your throat.

I took this to mean you were setting up a kidnap scenario, not creating a setting where kidnapping can take place. I did notice how this differed from your original post, but I thought you had changed subjects.


Unfortunately, Sam is right. I play with a great group of players in my tabletop games, but they get really really really upset when their character's die, which doesn't happen too often because I am a generous guy, but it does happen. And they will do nearly anything to keep their characters alive. In an anonymous environment like an online game, many players who would not normally cheat will gladly log off if it saves their character. What possible reward could there be for surviving a kidnapping, other than surviving? If the system allows you to survive by logging out, that's what players will do.

My own game promises to be very dangerous. I don't know what I will do when players start screaming. I don't know what can be done, other than stick to your guns or bow to the pressure. If you make the game seem dangerous, yet it really isn't, the players will quickly catch on, and things will turn into a free-for-all. I blame it on video games with their continues and saved games. But what is to be done, appeal to the masses or concentrate on a dedicated few?

This is real, hostile PvP combat, but neither side wants it to turn lethal. just like in a bank robbery, the crooks don't really want to shoot anyone, and no one in the store wants to get shot. How do we enable this in-game?

I don't know if it will work, but I am hoping in game law-and-order will help in my own game. Social consequences for anti-social behavior. Real character death is the only thing that makes law-and-order possible, as what good is it to execute a PK if that PK just respawns? And real character death is what makes law-and-order manditory. I also hope to be able to use reputation points, but these will be generated not by your actual actions, but by the opinions of the other people in the game.

At the same time, I cannot reconcile real character death with the possibility that it could result from a lag or disconnection. The players have a right to scream. And there is no way to tell the difference, as far as I know, between an accidental and an intentional log-off. the only recourse would be to keep a log of such incidents, and if the player frequently requests respawns because of disconnections at moments of great danger, then you'd have to then put your foot down and refuse to respawn the character. But the record-keeping and individual attention needed for such a program seems likely to be prohibitive.

So for me, the only solution seems to be some kind of in-game, non-lethal result, like turning to stone or disappearing into a vaporouos meditative mist, as I mentioned earlier. But even these will be abused, both by the escapee and those he escapes.

As Sam seems to indicate, the last option is to create a game where this isn't of great importance, where a logoff isn't an issue, only an inconvenience. Maybe that's the solution to look for. I don't know how this can me joined with a combat game, if at all.

[murf]

It all depends on how you implement PvP - if death is the ultimate aim of inter-player conflict, then yes, a low death penalty is pretty silly. On the other hand, if death is the core penalty of a PvP system, there are deeper design problems that need to be investigated.

Sam,

Well, it's a start. I'm very much looking forward to your game. I suspect much non-lethal PvP will take place in it, especially in laying claim to resources (asteroids?) and the like. Personally, I'm not hoping to see any Quake-like games here. However, the ability to escalate a player conflict to the fatal extremes does appeal to me. Even more so, RPGs in which it is impossible to slay other players often rub me the wrong way. (Especially when the admins then initiate a plot element based on the death of an NPC. How come he died, if I myself and all my friends and enemies are immortal?)

Now, if there was a logical reason to have immortal PCs (an RPG based on Milton's Paradise Lost for instance), I'd be all for it. But from a purely craft point of view, attempting to justify immortality in a way that doesn't damage the suspension of disbelief is such a headache. But then, I think I'm coming from a point of view that doesn't see the death of a four-month old character as a loss of four-months "hard work". For myself, the four-months playing are their own reward. And if playing a game in any way resembles "hard work", I sure as heck ain't puttin' in four months.

Brian

[SamW]

Originally posted by murf:
But then, I think I'm coming from a point of view that doesn't see the death of a four-month old character as a loss of four-months "hard work". For myself, the four-months playing are their own reward. And if playing a game in any way resembles "hard work", I sure as heck ain't puttin' in four months.

But even fun can be hard work, and I think what most players object to is their loss of in-game identity and social status, along with the loss of virtual power and property.

Here's an example from my own experience:

I spent about a year building up a character as a central persona in a certain roleplay intensive game. The character was well-known, had more in-game wealth than he could possibly spend, and was either worshiped or loathed by virtually every other character he encountered. And then he became corrupted, and all that work was lost.

I had a great time playing the game, I loved everything I had done, and felt a sense of accomplishment. But when it all disappeared, the idea of doing it all over again just wasn't that appealing. I had lost my online identity, and there wasn't a good way to get it back.

One idea I had a while back was to have characters who died leave behind children that could take up their mantle, and all charcters on the same account would have the family title. That took some of the sting out of death, and let characters really and truly die, but it wasn't an idea that I ever really developed into something viable.

There may be a way to kill player characters permanently without losing your player base, but so far I haven't seen one.

Just my $.02,

Sam

[JeffC]

Originally posted by SamW:
There may be a way to kill player characters permanently without losing your player base, but so far I haven't seen one.


Tabletop games do it all the time, and they are still here. I've had any number of D&D characters bite the big one, yet I still play. It isn't the game itself that kills, usually, it is the people who run it. When you spend three years taking a character from 1st level to 20th level, sure it may seem nothing but a task to start all over again at 1st level with a new character. But gamers have been doing it for years and years and they keep coming back for more.

I think that if someone took the chance and pushed that character-death boundary, it might suffer at first, and suffer badly. But given time, I have a feeling it would prove itself just as viable as its risk-free counterparts, while at the same time building a much more loyal and dedicated player base.

Maybe that'll be me.

[SamW]

Originally posted by JeffC:
But gamers have been doing it for years and years and they keep coming back for more.


It's the context that makes it different - if I lose my D&D character I'll most likely get another character, in the same campaign, and be able to keep on adventuring with my friends.

But if I lose a character in an online game, a lot of times I can't just jump right back in and start hanging out with my friends again, because they do things that my newly-minted character isn't capable of just yet.

The investment in an online character tends to be much higher, both in time spent developing the character and social position based around that character within the game, than it is in tabletop games.

The longest-running campaign I personally know of has run about 15 years. The players devote about 6 hours a week to the game, and miss about six sessions a year. So they've spent about 4150 hours playing in that campaign.

That's about 170 days, give or take a couple. There are people currently playing a these online games that have spent that much time developing their characters in the past two or three years. That is a huge chunk of time, and people will freak if you blow that time investment away by killing the character.

From my perspective, I just don't have the guts to go for it and put permadeath into Horizon Station as a regular feature. I do have plans for an option that will let players get themselves permanently killed in exchange for a chance to . . . well, I'll just keep that to myself for right now.

If I were going to put in permadeath, though, I'd take extreme pains to divorce my game from the traditional in a lot of ways. Players wouldn't design characters, they'd design families and then spend time playing different members of the family, rather than devoting themselves full-bore to just one character.

In the end, it's really all about managing player expectations, and I've kind of been blind to that in some of my past posts. When I say that I don't think permanent death will work in an online game, it should read "in a traditional online game with the traditional character model."

Originally posted by JeffC:

Maybe that'll be me.

I hope so, 'cause I think Qigung looks pretty cool overall - if you can get permanent death to work, it'll be a shining moment in gaming history.

Just my $.02,
Sam

[murf]

Originally posted by SamW:
The problem lies in the fact that players hate REAL risk (http://www.skotos.net/articles/metastatic06.html) to their characters, which means that death penalties must be wrist-slaps. There are countless examples to back this up, the most recent of which come from Everquest.

But there are many counter examples as well. Many MUDs have had permanent death. The other major pay-to-play text based games in the market, Simutronics Gemstone III and DragonRealms, both have permanent death in them. The “hard-core” server for Diablo II was quite popular. Many LARPs include permanent death in their rules systems.

Now, that being said, I think that the market for risk-free gaming is larger. However, once you assume that the only real risk is a “wrist-slap”, you are seriously constraining what style of gaming can take place. It becomes a lot harder to develop any sort of meaningful PvP conflict in the game. It also becomes a lot harder to limit advancement to the upper levels of character development. It’s not impossible, just rather difficult.

Unfortunately, Gaio, I can’t see any way to avoid the logging out problem. Players will accept being captured and dumped into a dungeon with only a book of matches and a copy of the New York Times (June 14th, 1973) so long as they feel that you fairly and honestly beat them. But if they can avoid danger just by logging out, most will. I can see your scenario working only if the captured character was first rendered unconscious or so immobile that even logging out wouldn’t affect the situation and death was worse than whatever ransom the capturing characters require and they felt they could on some level trust the capturing characters. I think a game that included a permanent death and a reliable punishment for murder might engender the sort of gaming you’re talking about, but I’m not sure if the latter is a reasonable expectation from the Skotos system.

Hope this helps,
Brian

[JeffC]

As I've said of other problems in design, perhaps the solution isn't to struggle against the problem, but to embrace it.

Well, I think I might have come up with a partial solution, at least for my game. Tell me what you all think.

First of all, you define the difference between a log-off and a disconnect. A log-off has certain procedures, like defining what it is that you want your character to do during offtime hours. And it follows an exit command. A disconnect, either intentional or accidental, is simply an abrubt break in the date stream, caused by a failed connection or the player closing the game window.

First of all, we don't allow a logoff when certain conditions exist, much in the way old D&D Dungeon Hack/Eye of the Beholder games wouldn't allow you to rest and recover spells if there were too many monsters about. So, if you are involved in combat, or some monster is within a certain distance of you, you can't log off. It will give you some kind of message like, It is too dangerous to leave the game at this point. Move to another area before logging off.

Now, if you should disconnect for some reason, an in-game event occurs. The mechanic could be used for most any game, just have different explanations and descriptions according to the setting. For Qigung, the event is:

Your character turns to invulnerable stone (or possibly magical ice).

Now the clock is ticking. If you log back on within, say, five minutes, a flash of harmful energy surrounds you, driving off anything that might be attached to you, destroying ropes and whatnot, so long as they weren't already attached before the disconnect occured.

This is not treated as a problem or a cheat. We treat it as a tactic intended to be used when you are in serious trouble. Maybe this gives your pals the time to catch up to you and save you. If you happen to be floating in an icy pool or cauldron of lava at the moment you disconnected, you are returned to your previous state when you reconnect, if you reconnect within five minutes.

If you try to abuse this and don't log back on quickly enough, you lose that flash of energy which is intended to drive off anything attempting to harm you while you are disconnected. In other words, if you log off for a half hour while you call up your pals and get them online to come and rescue you, then whoever or whatever it is that was trying to kill you will know that after the 5 minute waiting period, it is now safe to tie you up, or even move you someplace like a jail cell or a deep pool of water.

If you disconnect again within five minutes of your original reconnect, the clock keeps ticking from its original starting point. That will keep someone from disconnecting and reconnecting for hours on end until their opponent gets bored and leaves. You have to stay connected for at least five minutes to take advantage of this tactic.

If you stay disconnected for more than an hour, you remain stone, but you are no longer invulnerable. Which means that if you abuse it, whatever it was that was trying to kill you can simply wait and hour and then break you up into little chunks with a large hammer, or push you off a cliff, or set fire to you. In other words, you can be killed.

Does this cover all the disconnect bases? And is this possible?

This still leaves the legitimate log-off. I don't want anyone to remain indefinitely invulnerable when they are offline. I'll still need to the game to be able to handle day to day activities of offline characters, defend them against attack and alert the player.

[SamW]

Originally posted by murf:
But there are many counter examples as well. Many MUDs have had permanent death. The other major pay-to-play text based games in the market, Simutronics Gemstone III and DragonRealms, both have permanent death in them. The “hard-core” server for Diablo II was quite popular. Many LARPs include permanent death in their rules systems.


Weeeell, GS3 and DR have theoretical permanent death, but I've never seen it actually happen in either game except in the cases of the desperate-plea-for-attention-character-suicides. The means for avoiding permanent character death are so laughably simplistic that you have to want to lose your character for them to take place. There's nothing wrong with their death systems, by the way, but it's not a great argument to say that those two games have permanent death, when they only sorta do. IMNSHO, of course.

The hard-core servers are an interesting experiment for Blizzard, but they're plagued with problems that make me cringe as a player. One burp on your connection and the character is gone, baby, gone. Unless you're a l33t haxx0r that has an offline back-up but that's another ball of grease . . .

Originally posted by murf:
However, once you assume that the only real risk is a “wrist-slap”, you are seriously constraining what style of gaming can take place. It becomes a lot harder to develop any sort of meaningful PvP conflict in the game. It also becomes a lot harder to limit advancement to the upper levels of character development. It’s not impossible, just rather difficult.

It all depends on how you implement PvP - if death is the ultimate aim of inter-player conflict, then yes, a low death penalty is pretty silly. On the other hand, if death is the core penalty of a PvP system, there are deeper design problems that need to be investigated.

In an online game, killing another character is an ultimately meaningless act, in and of itself. PvP should be another way to tell a story, but to do so, you need to have goals in the game that allow players to interact in a hostile manner. This does not mean that characters must be able to kill one another, only that there needs to be a way to indulge the aggressive instincts of some gamers.

Horizon Station for instance, has violent PvP (on a very limited basis) and non-violent PvP (on a much more open basis), both which have very real consequences. Still, death in the game isn't particularly traumatic for anyone -- the penalty exists, but it's minor and mainly serves to remind people of the need to work together.

There are a lot of ideas about permanent death, and the use of player-versus-player conflict in games, and I'll be watching to see if anyone figures out a way to combine them. Interesting stuff,

Sam

[ChristopherA]

Stages also offer a way to explore the issues of death and character-restraint in game design. As they stages are short-term, they are more part of the 'game' as opposed to 'character development'.

For instance, I remember a LARP where on the signup sheet there was a check box that said "I'm willing take a role where my character will be murdered the first night" -- a number of people checked the box, and the GMs gave only one of them the character that was going to be murdered. I remember the he did a wonderful death scene.

-- Christopher Allen

[JeffC]

Originally posted by SamW:
If I were going to put in permadeath, though, I'd take extreme pains to divorce my game from the traditional in a lot of ways.

Well, it hadn't occured to me, but it might be a departure from the traditional. I was considering allowing players who lose a character start a new character at a somewhat more advanced state, but not as advanced as the character they just lost. This is something I usually do in tabletop games anyway. For instance, in my tabletop Qigung, one of the players lost his monk character. His next character wasn't as powerful as his monk, but he wasn't a starting-level character either.

I suppose the way to handle this is through some sort of player points system. Which, by the way, it might be good to allow other players to rate, and thus influence, so that if a jackass PK finally gets nailed by some hero, jackass PK wouldn't have nearly as many player points because of his fellow-player rating, and thus couldn't start a new character quite so advanced as someone else. This could probably be abused, or misused by players who don't appreciate the role-playing of players with evil characters. But then again, that might also encourage evil character players to take pains OOC to distinguish themselves from true PKs, while at the same time forcing the PKs to think about what they are doing and even try to justify it OOC, which most, I suspect, wouldn't be able to do. Which might ultimately result in a system where PKs are significantly penalized. I don't know. Possibly.

Anyway, the player points, based on how much time you put into the fallen character and how skilled that fallen character was, would be assigned a higher number of starting skill points to use to purchase starting skills.

What do you think? Would something like this work?

Originally posted by SamW:
I hope so, 'cause I think Qigung looks pretty cool overall - if you can get permanent death to work, it'll be a shining moment in gaming history.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I know I'll be dabbling in Horizon Station myself.

[SamW]

Originally posted by JeffC:
Anyway, the player points, based on how much time you put into the fallen character and how skilled that fallen character was, would be assigned a higher number of starting skill points to use to purchase starting skills.


The idea of recapturing a part of the investment made in a character is pretty good, though it doesn't address the issues of identity loss. Still, coupled with family names or some other player-recognition mechanism, it could work out all right.

Another idea was sparked by Christopher's comment regarding volunteer death. It might be possible to offer players a choice at character creation to have 'mortal' characters. While these characters would have a higher potential and faster advancement track, their deaths are final and irrevocable -- excluding even various necromantic or divine interventions. Dead would be dead.

'Normal' characters, however, never really die - the exact mechanism of their virtual immortality isn't important, only that they continue to come back after being smacked down.

This gives players a way to manage their own risk vs. reward equation. Interesting, very interesting . . .

SamW

[Atama]

This 'normal' vs. 'immortal' thing sounds interesting... Might lead to some weird situations. Like, say there are a group of bandits with muskets storming a village... Send out the immortals, who will take all the damage and die, while the mortals come up from behind to clean up...

I like the idea of people having a new character be able to retain some of the success the older character did. And I think the solution for identity loss was a good one too, having it be a family member perhaps. I think that instead of player-voted points (which can be abused as was said) that it should be based on reputation.

For example... Xian Chang is a mighty warrior, known for his honorable ways and bravery in combat. He is slain by an evil sorcerer. His nephew, Wong Chang, is more powerful than a normal starting character, as would befit the relative of such a legendary figure. Think of these newer characters as "legacy" characters...

[GaioMacareg]

One idea: take a generic fantasy setting. Take the raise dead spell from D&D as the only way to bring a dead character back to life. Now, make the spell available only to player characters and never to NPCs. As well, its only available to poewrful PCs. The catch is that using it permanently drops one or more stats of the person who casts it (no ill effect on the recipient) with no way to restore the loss.

Another solution (I'm already working on this one for myself): An afterlife available only to dead characters. Instead of just making a new character, when you die you create the ghost of your previous one. An option in the afterlife gives you the chance to become a revenant (steal some poor sod's body and make them a ghost before their time), and another allows you to reincarnate (be reborn as a living character).

-----

Also, I think the point up above was quite well made that one of the big reasons people in online games get chapped about losing their character is that they can't just make a new one and keep adventuring with their friends, because their friends aren't doing anything they can participate in. That's something I'm aiming to work around. but it deserves a thread all of its own.

What possible reward could there be for surviving a kidnapping, other than surviving? If the system allows you to survive by logging out, that's what players will do. Experience. The way it is now, you don't get much experience for anything but killing, I'm trying to find other ways around that. Rewarding the person for sticking it out may be one. I can see a system that gives them an increasing amount of experience the longer they're trapped. The longer he sticks it out, the more motivated he is to keep sticking it out. Also makes sense if you think about it, because the longer the event it, the more intense and experience it is, the more it would influence your life.

[JeffC]

Originally posted by SamW:
'Normal' characters, however, never really die - the exact mechanism of their virtual immortality isn't important, only that they continue to come back after being smacked down.

Ha. I was also playing with the concept of the immortal character, but I couldn't figure how to offer immortality to some but not to others. This advancement rate thing is a pretty good idea. But I would rather use something along the lines of a punishment which removes immortality.

The concept is called dragon sinews. Some people are born with dragon sinews which makes them immortal. However, the sinews are a gift of the gods, and if you abuse your power, the gods remove your sinews, which is quite painful, I assure you. Removing the sinews leaves you even weaker and more helpless than a normal mortal.

So maybe I could offer that choice: mortal and free to act however you wish, or immortal and bound to uphold a standard of goodness (or evil) or have your immortality torn from you.

The explanation - just before their battle with Zhi, several of the gods tried to assure the survival of the human race by imbuing some of them with dragon sinews. The sinews could be a kind of sembiotic being that, if you act in a manner contrary to the wishes of the god, first warn you through inflicting pain and discomfort, and then in you continue, by tearing themselves out of your body and finding a new, more worthy, host.

[SamW]

Originally posted by Phinias:
Another balancing factor might be something along the lines of areas, or plots, that are only available to mortal characters. The faster experience gaining for mortal characters might not be enough to entice players to try it; the possibility of more intense experiences in the game, though, might.


Yeah, after my latest posts here, I've decided to add a couple of features to Horizon Station that will use the mortal/immortal ideas in a way that allows players to tailor their game experience based on their own risk/reward desires.

Probably won't be ready to go at the 'live' date for the core game, but once people get a few weeks or months under their belt, we'll have something new to offer them in terms of playstyles.

I'm going to make a bet here, though, that the plan will piss someone off, 'cause that's just how gamers are. http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif

Sam

[JeffC]

Originally posted by SamW:
I'm going to make a bet here, though, that the plan will piss someone off, 'cause that's just how gamers are.

Oh yah, the first time I yank someone's dragon sinews for acting outside the morals of the bestowing god. Or the first time a mortal character is slain by an immortal character, even if justified.

One other thing. There will be some things that can slay someone with dragon sinews. The breath of dragons, for example, or being swallowed and digested by a titan. A powerful demon could cast a curse on you that might not kill you, but you might as well be dead. Some of the very very powerful spells will also do the trick. As will certain very special weapons.

[GaioMacareg]

Another balancing factor might be something along the lines of areas, or plots, that are only available to mortal characters. The faster experience gaining for mortal characters might not be enough to entice players to try it; the possibility of more intense experiences in the game, though, might.
One that I muddled through for a while before giving it up was keeping track of player experience, as opposed to character experience, and letting players with more experience have access to races and classes that those with less experience don't have access to. If they make a new character of a "standard" race/class that character starts with bonuses based on the player's experience. The rarer classes/races don't. It seemed needlessly complicated to me, I had this whole system with like 5 or 6 tiers of races and classes and a formula for how someone with access to a tier 3 class would get these bonuses if they used a tier 1 race and that tier 3 class, but these higher bonuses if they used a tier 2 class, and so forth. Still, the idea might inspire someone to find a more reasonable system.

[Phinias]

Another solution (I'm already working on this one for myself): An afterlife available only to dead characters. Instead of just making a new character, when you die you create the ghost of your previous one. An option in the afterlife gives you the chance to become a revenant (steal some poor sod's body and make them a ghost before their time), and another allows you to reincarnate (be reborn as a living character).

I was playing with these sorts of concepts, myself; an Afterlife, or multiple -possible- Afterlifes with the character's "final destination" determined by certain key previous actions. Once you've got the basics designed, you can come up with all sorts of interesting possiblities: wandering ghosts that flicker in and out of the game at large, your revanant and reincarnation ideas, heroic journeys to the underworld to free dead characters, PC shaman's, etc. and on.

The concept is called dragon sinews

This idea is very cool, and a nice demonstration of Sam's idea of moratl/immortal characters in the same game.

Another balancing factor might be something along the lines of areas, or plots, that are only available to mortal characters. The faster experience gaining for mortal characters might not be enough to entice players to try it; the possibility of more intense experiences in the game, though, might.

BJ