PDA

View Full Version : Alternative RPG Models for MUDs : (is chaos really so bad?)


Tesselation
06-03-2004, 12:28 AM
Alternative RPG Models for MUDs

I hope this was the right place to post this highly opinionated rant about MUD theory. If this comes as inappropriate, I apologize.

I just had to know if other people feel the same way I do.

Much of this may seem obvious to you. But it is necessary for what I build up to later.

In my observation, there exist three basic models of RPGs as computer games. The store bought single player RPGs typically take a few days to a few weeks of play to complete. Play involves creating a character or a party of characters and building them up rapidly while progressing linearly through the game. Setbacks occur from time to time, most notably when the character(s) are slain, but the player can simply restore his saved game and do whatever it is over again. After the player has beaten the game once or twice, it will probably go onto the shelf or be lent out to the player's neighbour.

The progress of characters through MUDs (and other MMRPGs), of course, is much slower. A long-term, stable community of players is desired, so advancement is stretched out so far that it often takes even a dedicated gamer several months to years until he has reached the top ranks of players and can truly say that he has 'seen it all'. However, the payoff for this prolonged entertainment is, I feel, a hefty burden to pay.

Since players invest hundreds of hours into developing their characters, a character becomes something so valuable that no one would ever want to risk it. The destruction of a character that has taken a year to develop is a devastating blow that could easily discourage a player from ever playing again. So, naturally, the administrators but all kinds of boundaries in to prevent anybody ever suffering any kind of serious setback. Common restrictions include: preventing characters who differ greatly in level from engaging in combat with eachother, keeping monsters from wandering out of their designated areas, and making the theft/destruction of valuable items virtually impossible (even off of a dead corpse!). And should a character ever actually die, normally he will be briskly resurrected with all his possessions intact and only a minor penalty in experience.

I know that I am generalizing a lot here, and there are nowadays a lot of very fine MUDs that don't fit perfectly into this mold. (Still, permanent death is a very rare thing).

The result of these boundaries is a very stable, conservative society. The players who lead guilds and other organizations generally stay at the head until they get bored of playing. Rare and unqiue items seldomly change hands unless actually given away. The powerful stay powerful and the weak all slowly grow at a rate that is fair and regulated. Play can easily become very monotonous as one goes through the same motions day after day: killing the same monsters, etc.

The third style of RPGs I want to talk about are the so-called 'rogue-like' games that have been around for over twenty years now. The most classic example of these games is nethack, a very enjoyable game that I will draw a lot of examples from.

In nethack, the player creates a character and goes about killing things and gathering experience in the usual way. Character progression is rapid, like other single player games, so that after just a couple hours of play, one can develop a high level character with an arsenal of magical items... that is, provided you survive long enough. The trade off for this rapid advancement is that death is swift--and more importantly--merciless. You just have to slip out of the saddle of your pet dragon while flying over molten lava once and that's it, you're toast. Back to the start.

Unlike conventional RPGs, you cannot go back to a save point once you've died. So instead of taking a few days, it can take a player months, or even years to beat. (Yeah, you can just cheat and copy your save files, but that instantly kills the thrill of the game).

After many (, many) deaths, players learn to be crafty. They spend as much time fleeing as fighting. They figure out what to eat and what is poisonous. They learn to avoid the lower levels until they know they have all the defenses required to fend off the tougher baddies.

In short, there is no gradual slope of advancement, it's a wavy line of accomplishment and defeat.

So,

Why has no one ever tried this in a MUD?

Because: it's too unstable. The great thing about MUDs is that they have a virtual society of characters. If characters were created and killed every minute, and if a new character could become an arch mage overnight, there would be no continuous society. The friends and enemies you make one day could all be dead the next time you log on. There are no longer any long-term goals to work towards.

Okay, but what if we tried to blend the two styles. What if there were both long-term goals that one could pursue slowly and steadily over the passage of months and years, and short-term goals that could be reached in days or weeks, but were subject to major setbacks.

Suppose, for instance, that characters were fragile things that were destroyed easily, (and, of course, could not come back to life). Say that it was typical to lose a character every two to four weeks unless you were a particularly cautious player. To compensate, one could become a skilled swordsman in a week of dedicated play, or a sword master in two months.

Administrators could feel free to throw some more surprises at the characters. Maybe ever now and then a dragon could wander straight into the city and kill a few people before a group of players banded together to slay it. Maybe one out of every thousand goblin shamans has a powerful wand of lightning that will send a few adventurers running and making them stay on their toes next time they're in goblin country. On the other side of coin, valuable items could be dispersed randomly. The occasional newbie could get lucky and trip over a chest full of gold.

These suggestions involve changing the traditional character commodities (experience and wealth) into easily gotten rewards. This means that new goals will have to be used to serve as hard earned prizes. I give some possible examples:

Property--When your high level warlord dies, you may never see those fancy weapons or armour again, but at least your next character can inherit his castle! This could also include bank accounts or personal followers.

Community Goals--This includes goals that many players can work for together, such as driving out a army of orcs that are occupying the town. Characters usually would not benefit personally from this, but if there are many community goals in place, I expect they could outshadow personal goals for many players. This would require more elasticity in the game world than the average MUD, and hence more work.

Social Status--Noble status or membership in an exclusive clan could be hereditary as well. Newly created characters who had inherited status would not have to start at scratch, but would have a pool of wealth to purchase new equipment with. This could also give them special privelages, or maybe access to the royal palace area. I would suggest that an implemented social system have a complex hierarchy so players always have another level to work towards. Climbing the social ladder could involve a mixture of role-playing and use of skills.



But maybe that's just what I think.

If you have any comments or criticisms that you want me to read, mail to s.limon@wecs.bc.ca

Greg
08-22-2004, 05:01 PM
There would be some important advantages in doing things the way you suggest. The most obvious is that new players could get a taste of playing someone competent without having to devote a lot of time.

On the other hand, players are going to complain if they have to keep hacking their way through the same low-level locations again and again because their character keeps dying before they can get to new stuff. Certainly, long term goals would have to be such that even low level characters can help advance them, or the game is going to seem like an exercise is frustration.

One possibility could be to give the player a choice between fast advancement and security. That is, they could choose between a character who will improve quickly but who is hard to resurrect and a character who is slow to improve but resurrects easily.

AdamDray
09-07-2004, 12:52 PM
MUDS and MMORPGs are designed around a psychological treadmill that keeps players coming back (and keeps them paying their monthly fee).

I think that market pressures force game companies to keep characters alive as much as possible. A player who has built his character up to 43rd level over two years is more likely to stick around than a player who just lost his 4th level character for the tenth time and has to start over -- even if it only takes a couple weeks to level up again.

Kwil
09-08-2004, 10:42 AM
..it seems like what you've done here is taken the worst properties of each and combined them.

Characters advance very quickly -- ergo, it becomes possible to plateaux in the game very early. Players who are skilled lose interest early. They've more or less "seen it all" unless you've got content designed to take absolutely huge variations in skill, but even then, if they can advance quickly, they will. One of the stumbling blocks of MMORPGs that does seem to have been figured out is that if something is not actually impossible (as opposed to simply intended to be impossible) players will do it and likely much sooner than you expect.

At the same time, players die very quickly -- ergo, there is no consistency to the game. Players who are unskilled burn-out fast as they have to go through the same thing time after time, and death can seem totally random.

This works in nethack because:
A: You're not trying to develop a community, persistance of identity is therefore not important.
B: Content is, for the most part, randomly generated. There's very little story and the game is accordingly, a pure levelling treadmill over most of it. In case you haven't noticed, that "grind" is what many games are trying to find ways away from.
C: You're not competing against anybody but yourself. Random death isn't a big deal if it's just happening to you. But when it's happening to one person and not to another, people start getting annoyed, and you get claims of the game not being fair. This will lose paying customers fast.
D: It's not multi-player. Think about nethack. You'll note there's no multiplayer version. Why not? It's not because it's techically that much of a challenge. (though there are some interesting challenges that surround making the turn-based system work for multi-players) it's because it's no fun. If you're down on level 14 and your friend dies, what do you do? Do you now trudge all the way back up and meet him on level 3 or 4? Or do you just sit around and wait for him to work his way back? Neither one is that appealing, now is it?

People play multi-player games for the multi-player aspect. Lack of consistency takes that away.