#56: Future Memes Part Two: Gameplay and Mechanics

[Stix]

The two I haven't yet discussed are Explorers and Killers — but the thing is, people don't build game around those styles of play. And, there are lots of other styles of play that are being ignored too, and that's what I want to talk about today when I suggest considering those stunningly different possibilities.

If you're talking about MUD's and MUSH's or variables of those types of play, I will have to agree... After I started experimenting with MUD's and MUSH's a while ago, I found none of these types of play. Then again, it was even hard to find a good MUSH with a mixture of both drama and common goals. Thankfully, I found Marrach.

Going off-track on the non-textbased type of play, I will say there is one game which looks promising to satisfy both the explorer and the killer at the same time. I have been following World of Warcaft (ya, the name is kinda blah... they should just call it Azeroth or something) since it was announced and I can see the themes they are looking to accomplish.

Blizzard states they are looking for a game where the world will be forever changing, satisfying the explorer type. Also, if you read the little journal they have posted on the WoW site, you will see emphasis on exploration, as well. Also, they answered one FAQ informing us that there may be exclusive items (where it would be the only item in the game). This will also satisfy treasure-hunters, most explorer types are also treasure-hunters (assuming they actually make enough of these items so people do not become depressed when it takes them a year to actually find one of these items).

My complaint about the exploration type, however, is that sometimes it is impossible to explore without running into some lvl 50 monster that kills you and your party of 12 friends in one hit each. I am hoping WoW will not incorporate the same kind of thing, or they will at least make it so you can either run faster than that lvl 50, or the party can handle it together (honestly... a party of twelve people should be able to take down that lvl 50 monster).

Anyhow, at the same time, they look to make quests and monsters to satisfy the killer type of gameplay. People will go on epic quests, etc.

While many of the details are still hidden behind the doors at Blizzard, it does look very promising. While it is not a text-based MUD or MUSH, it will allow for what you are saying is missing from the industry. This is why I applaud Blizzard for they are beginning to take chances. Now, if only they can stick to their ideas and not change them like most MMORPG developers have in the past. =\

[ShannonA]

When I wrote the article, I was mainly talking about online roleplaying gameplay. Thus, _EverQuest_, _Asheron's Call_, and their brethren would count ... and they pretty much center around MUD-like play. _Ultima Online_ offers a little bit of the variety I've discussed, particularly in allowing for more differentiation of player goals, but I'm not convinced it was that successful.

The World of Warcraft you're talking about sounds interesting, but I'm unconvinced from your description that it'll have radically different gameplay (mainly because I've seen many *designs* for radically different gameplay that came down to the same-old-same-old when the managers made the engineers put their noses to the grindstone). We'll see ... there's already been some good originality out from Blizzard Studios.

Shannon

[Stix]

I was not trying to convince you, I was merely saying it looked promising. Whether the game will be different or not depends on how the developers at Blizzard direct the progress of the game.

I do know there are MMORPG's that have offered "exploration, intrigue, etc" and have turned out the same monster-killing boredom.

"We'll see ... there's already been some good originality out from Blizzard Studios. "

Which is why I say it looks promising. What they did when they introduced the original Warcraft was marvelous. I only hope the development of WoW will direct Blizzard back to the originality of ideas they once had.

[tscasey]

Some comments on this article:

Small Correction: D&D was first "professionally" published in 1974. It was first sold (in the form of mimeographed copies) starting in 1972.

What you're terming MUSH-play also has precedents in the paper RPG community. See, for example, the discussion of "storytelling games" in Robert Plamondon's book Through Dungeons Deep: A Fantasy Gamer's Handbook (1981).

On non-individual characters, you might want to check out the paper RPG Aria. It has methods for players to play nations, countries, etc., just as you mention. Another interesting tack is taken by Hero Wars -- in it, a hero's NPC allies and helpers are considered to be attributes of the character for game purposes. For example, take a merchant who has a tough-guy bodyguard. In a traditional setup, the bodyguard would be an NPC who acts separately from the merchant; in Hero Wars, the bodyguard is, for mechanics purposes, just a bonus to the merchant's combat abilities.

A few years back, some friends and I were making plans for a near-future SF RPG. One of the ideas I had that I wanted to explore was having a "hive mind" race that players could choose to be part of. A player of that race would have multiple "characters" that they controlled, and players of that race would be able to trade those "characters" back and forth. Unfortunately, we never got anywhere, but I still love that idea.

On agreeable systems, I strongly recommend finding Ron Edwards' Sorcerer and Sorcerer & Sword. They will show you a completely different perspective on what paper RPGs can be than the traditional D&D perspective. The chapter "The Anatomy of Authored Roleplaying" in Sorcerer & Sword is worth the price of the book by itself.

[Laurel]

Ron Edwards is my web friend-guru for pencil-and-paper game design. One of the things he stresses in his work is that people who are playing games should be having fun and if they aren't having fun, there's a definable and correctable reason usually relating to unfufilled goals. That applies so well to online game design as well.

I'm not sure people are quite ready to think in non traditional time-space and realistic dimensions. I'd like to see us get there, because I agree with Shannon about how exciting the possibility of designing non-linear environments is. But are players themselves ready to leave the "comfort zone" of physical reality?

The trends that I've seen is that most players want games to feel "more real" and not less- at least in the United States & Canada. I think the kind of design advances Shannon is talking about would find more favor in Asia. I'm not making a pro- or anti- ethnic or culture comment; but I've had friends come and go from Japan and Hong Kong. What they describe witnessing in the computer game industry over there gives me the feeling that the technophiles of Asia are more inclined to embrace non-linear game design and are more comfortable with the ideas that Shannon is suggesting than I've personally witnessed in North American online gaming culture.