Re: CL MMORPG Game Design Trends, If You Care...
Terence R. McCain
Nice to see (figuratively) at least a few friendly faces still lurking
in this newsgroup. It's been a while since I piped up here, or in CL
for that matter. I have an active account... really, I do... but I
don't have a working Mac, so I haven't been in Puddleby for a long
while.
I do, however, have a working PC. And it's there that new MMORPGs are
generally hitting the market in significant numbers.
If we're to think of CL as an "older" game - and after all, it is
nearly a decade old (from start of development), is there curiosity or
interest in the design trends of those newer games? And if so, what
implications might those trends have for CL and Delta Tao?
Ground rules for discussion: we don't need no stinkin' ground rules.
Flames welcome. :-)
Trends I think I've seen in the current and coming crop of MMORPGs:
1. Show me the money! The game publishers want millions of players,
and they are getting them. Whether they can keep them, I'm not sure.
2. Blurring the line between real-world and in-game economics. It's
not just players trading game assets for real-world cash. There are
thousands and thousands of full-time workers who do nothing but
generate wealth in these big MMORPGs and sell it on the internet.
(Many of those workers are in China, where making a hundred bucks in a
week is not small potatoes.) The implications are pretty serious.
Since the focus is largely on becoming powerful so you can fight other
players, and strength is pretty much a function of your magical
equipment in these games, players who don't buy in-game wealth with
real-world money are at a disadvantage. A *big* disadvantage.
Imagine playing a pen-and-paper RPG where a player can give real bucks
to the GM or other players, in exchange for better RP equipment. Now
try to imagine having a great time with that group. See the problem?
It's a wholesale penetration of the barrier between IC and OOC. More
of a rape, actually.
3. Generally these MMORPGs are PK fests. That's what the young males
among us seem to want, and they are the target audience, after all, so
that's what they are getting.
4. The worlds are getting bigger and more beautiful and more
sophisticated. If you haven't seen some of the more recent ones, try
to find an opportunity to look at them. Eye candy!
5. Advancement is fast - certainly compared to CL. That appeals to a
broader customer base, I suppose. In a few weeks or months you can
just about max a character out, if you work hard at it. And if you're
a casual gamer, you won't have to play for decades to see results.
Monsters spawn very fast - seconds, usually - so if you're into
instant gratification, you'll like that. (I'm not, and I don't.)
6. Some of the worst characteristics of people emerge in these games.
Selfish behavior, astonishing ignorance, rudeness, and griefing are
not just common - it's a rare hour that you play where your nose isn't
rubbed in it.
(One guy at one of these MMORPGs said to me, "you go a lot faster in a
vacuum, right?" And he was one of the *better* players. Sigh.)
7. Differentiation of characters is getting more varied and
interesting.
8. The story is pretty much "player characters whacking monsters for
treasure, buying more treasure at e-Bay or at one of the mercantile
web sites specializing in that, and players whacking players. There
isn't much GM-led story development.
9. There hasn't been much advancement yet in terms of players really
being able to have an effect on the world they are playing in. It's
like being a little kid in a jungle gym constructed of massive steel
bars. You can be sure it'll look the same when you're done playing as
when you started. (At least one of the MMORPGs due to be released
later this year, I believe, has made promises to improve on this. How
well they'll do remains to be seen.)
All in all, I'd give the new crop of MMORPGs (the ones I've looked at)
an A for graphics, a B for sound, a D for game mechanics, an E for
story development, and an E for the maturity of the players they
attract. Fun for a few days, perhaps a month, but after that, for me
it's a lot like being a straight guy in a lesbian bar. (That's NOT a
slam on lesbians. In fact it's probably more an insulting commentary
on straight guys and their lack of flexibility. Heh)
It's becoming harder for me to think of CL as even belonging to the
same genre as these newer, flashier MMORPGs. For CL, I'd grade as
follows: an E for graphics (though it's arguable whether that's
important), a B for sound (theatrical music is missing, but the bardic
stuff is a nice compensation), B for game mechanics, D for story
development, and B for the maturity of players.
For many years now, we've been discussing (ok, arguing) about how CL
could be made better, how to strengthen the sense of community, how to
deliver the ultimate RP experience. Whichever side of those arguments
you might have been on, we were nearly united in our agreement that CL
wasn't perfect, and that our RP experience could be taken to a higher
level. Probably. Somehow.
Some of us hark back to the days of pen-and-paper RPGs, which was a
small-scale cooperative thing (and so might not scale up all that
well). The players were free to play their characters against the
imagination and devilishness of the GM to produce a story. Some of us
even partook in the generation of truly memorable stories in this way.
When RPGs began to appear on the the internet (aside from the old
MUDs, CL was probably the first), it was natural for those of us with
those experiences to begin looking for a similar experience on-line.
In the old days when I was a vocal critic (and admirer) of CL in this
NG, my abiding interest was to see CL develop as a medium for directed
story-telling, not just a bot-populated playground.
Though, to my regret, CL's GMs have shied away from directed
story-telling for many years now, some confluence of design factors
and the community they attracted resulted in better stories than I've
yet seen in the more modern MMORPGs. Though there is considerable
room for improvement (hence the way I graded it).
In any event... perhaps it's time once again to ask this question:
what's the future hold for CL and its customer base? Does it matter
what is happening elsewhere on the net with MMORPGs? Are we just
going to plod along in the same vein for the next ten years? Will the
CL customer base erode? Is it possible - or desireable - to develop a
more modern game that will attract good people and encourage RP,
discourage the "instant gratification" crowd - and earn Delta Tao
enough money to pay to develop or evolve it? Can we ever realize our
hopes for more directed story-telling, for an RP rush similar to that
which some of us routinely experienced in pen-and-paper RPGs?
I bet you all have an opinion on that. :-)
I mentioned that flames are welcome. And they are! Address them to
Outcast. (grin)
-- Terry
____________________________
Obligatory Quote:
"Don't hatchet your counts before they chicken." -- Deekin, "Shadows
of Undrentide"
Helpful GM
Terence R. McCain <terence...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 1. Show me the money! The game publishers want millions of players,
> and they are getting them. Whether they can keep them, I'm not sure.
Not counting that Korean one, which doesn't seem as big in the US, I
think EverQuest (the biggest) topped out at about half a million. Just
FYI.
...Or maybe there are more recent numbers. But that's what I saw.
> 2. Blurring the line between real-world and in-game economics. It's
> not just players trading game assets for real-world cash. There are
> thousands and thousands of full-time workers who do nothing but
> generate wealth in these big MMORPGs and sell it on the internet.
I'm not sure if this is a design goal, but rather just an outspring of
supply & demand.
> 3. Generally these MMORPGs are PK fests.
Most MMORPGs have at least the option to join a no-PK server. In fact,
I think that most have more no-PvP than PvP servers.
> 4. The worlds are getting bigger and more beautiful and more
> sophisticated.
I was just noticing how WoW seems to have taken all of the great ideas
from Summoner (a game I really enjoyed) and developed them. Go,
Blizzard, go! Very pretty world, too :)
> 5. Advancement is fast - certainly compared to CL. That appeals to a
> broader customer base, I suppose.
...And the bar-to-entry is higher. In WoW, for example, if you don't
have someone telling you how to play, you're hosed from the beginning.
Frustrating. I'm enjoying dabbling in it, but the whole thing is very
not-approachable, which will prevent me from getting addicted.
Also, the fast advancement means that, by the time my friends have
played for 2 weeks and gotten around to telling me to sign up, they're
so far gone that I can't play with them. whee.
> 6. Some of the worst characteristics of people emerge in these games.
> Selfish behavior, astonishing ignorance, rudeness, and griefing are
> not just common - it's a rare hour that you play where your nose isn't
> rubbed in it.
That's just a combination of on-line anonymity that you see anywhere and
game design which rewards selfish behaviour. This is an area where CL
really shines, I think -- you can be selfish if you want, but the game
really rewards friendly behaviour. By design. Yay, us! ;)
> 7. Differentiation of characters is getting more varied and
> interesting.
<nod> Although the buld of players still seem to "cookie-cutter"
themselves into the generally-accepted min/max mold.
In general, I've been disappointed that no one has stolen any of CL's
incredible player-interaction ideas. Hell -- why the @#$% has no one
done talk-bubbles?! Ok, so they're a tad complicated in 3-D -- but
they're not nearly as complicated as, say, rippling water with
reflections! And talk bubbles would add WAY more to the game than
RWw/R, IMO.
(I *HATE* chat-window "hear everyone for miles" as the only
communication choice :( It's just impossible to have a real
convirsation.)
> 8. The story is pretty much "player characters whacking monsters for
> treasure, buying more treasure at e-Bay or at one of the mercantile
> web sites specializing in that, and players whacking players. There
> isn't much GM-led story development.
Yeah, almost none. Altough there are "quests" which form a sort of
cheap stand-in for short-attention-span story arcs...
> 9. There hasn't been much advancement yet in terms of players really
> being able to have an effect on the world they are playing in.
Dynamic worlds are hard. I've been watching and discussing this on many
game development forums and it turns out that the problem is much more
complicated than "a player should be able to chop down a tree with his
axe, and have it stay chopped down." *WAY* more complicated. Still,
people are working on it. I expect to see this in the next 6-8 years,
with early revs (i.e., being able to chop down a tree, but not much
else) maybe in 2 yrs or so, probably first in "garage" games (not the
company, the genre.)
--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.
"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael
Kiriel D'Sol
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
:In article <0tf5k054vguhrlvbe...@4ax.com>,
: Terence R. McCain <terence...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> 9. There hasn't been much advancement yet in terms of players really
:> being able to have an effect on the world they are playing in.
:
:Dynamic worlds are hard. I've been watching and discussing this on many
:game development forums and it turns out that the problem is much more
:complicated than "a player should be able to chop down a tree with his
:axe, and have it stay chopped down." *WAY* more complicated. Still,
:people are working on it. I expect to see this in the next 6-8 years,
:with early revs (i.e., being able to chop down a tree, but not much
:else) maybe in 2 yrs or so, probably first in "garage" games (not the
:company, the genre.)
This is the one area I've seen that Shadowbane seems to stand out in.
They have a lot of issues with the game, but they really seem to have
taken the players affecting the world thing seriously to heart- almost
the entire world is player built and managed. Every server is very
different because of the effects the political landscape and the way
that guilds build their own cities and can attack others. The economy is
almost entirely player controlled and most of the items of value are
created in the player run cities under the control of the players.
One of the big problems with this is that you eventually get to a point
where the world is full, although in a PvP game that's resolved by
having people fight over territory. In a non-PvP game it would be
difficult to support an ever growing populace having serious control
over the world layout.
Another big issue seems to be the amount of stress this puts on the
server. I really don't know if it's just that the Shadowbane programmers
are incompetent or if it would be a problem in any game, but we're
already starting to see severe problems on servers with too many players
and too old a player and guild database. They don't seem to know how to
fix the problems these stresses are causing.
I can't imagine the enormous task involved in creating a game which
would actually let you interact with most of the world in a way that is
actually permanent, but there's definitely room for improvement in that
area in most games in smaller ways.
-SWC Kiriel D'Sol
-- Ye have enemies? Good, good- that means ye've stood up for
something, sometime in thy life.... -Elminster of Shadowdale
Terence R. McCain
Lineage II has popped over the 1 million mark, or so I read, and I
don't think they'll be in first place very long. There are some new
titles coming soon that will have a lot of draw.
Yeah, the player interfaces on some of these games looks pretty bad.
I hate text windows too. But the only people who notice are people
who've played CL and know better.
Dynamic worlds are hard. I think I heard that the updated Warcraft
would have more stuff like that - players building their own houses
and ultimately towns, for example - but I don't know how far it will
actually go. (And I might be confusing that rumor with some other
upcoming release. It's possible.)
I've noticed the same phenomenon about fast advancement killing off
friendships. Heck, a single week can be enough to screw everything
up. So you can't count on adventuring with the people whose company
you enjoy, and you are constantly dumping old friends and looking for
new. Ugh.
Perhaps you are right in saying that the blurred line between real
world and game economics is not intentional. But it sure is blatant.
You can get a feel for the designers' philosophy when you look into
what they do about it. Which is to say, nothing at all. And also how
much they game play (experience and adventure) as the road to
strength, as opposed to acquisitions. Acquisitions is way out there
in front in most of these games. Take two characters of equal level
and equip one with e-Bay equipment and it's just no contest. In fact
lowbies can easily defeat characters of much higher level with their
ill-gotten magical items. So the story is not about character
development but about real-world wealth and the ruthlessness to
exploit it to advantage in the game. You *can* design a game to
minimize that sort of thing. CL proves it. They ain't doin' it.
I sure agree that the CL designers did it better. CL design
emphasizes balance in a way the newer games do not, to their shame.
Uh oh, better define my terms, there may not be agreement on what game
balance means. To me, it's balancing the tension of challenge and
reward in a way to achieve the game designers' goals. For CL, it
seems to me those goals included some filtering of players (little to
attract griefers with short attention spans), meaningful interactions
between older and newer players, encouraging group coordination to
achieve goals, encouraging longevity/loyalty in the player base
(nothing is forever, but CL sure does it better than these new games).
If I missed some, feel free to fill in the blanks. I think the
designers of some of these newer MMORPGs have thought only in terms of
balanced combat, not balanced game.
Small wonder Joe gets invited to teach game design theory, eh?
The question before us is... can a more modern game be contrived with
equal (or even better) attention to game balance? With design goals
similar to those of CL, but (and this is my personal vendetta, excuse
me if I repeat myself a bit) more directed story development than we
have thus far seen in C (come on, admit it, nearly everyone here wants
that). Perhaps with more eye candy - don't look now but most of us
are running our games on computers that approach or exceed the old
supercomputer definition, with graphic capabilities unheard-of ten
years ago. Heh. CL still runs on my old Powerbook 180c with a 68030
chip and 14 megabytes of RAM. If not for the measily 14.4K baud modem
on that old beast, and the fact that the LCD display only works if you
bend it at the corner of the case and hold it bent, I'd use it for CL
today. :-P
And will such a game cost so many millions to make, it's only possible
for the big guys like Sony or the entire country of South Korea?
You'd know more than me about where Delta Tao is headed. Yeah, I
know, Joe likes to play his cards close to his chest. Real close. I
guess I'm not asking for him to change that habit. But I have to ask
the question, what's next? *Is* there a next?
And if there is, what can we do to help? :-)
-- Terry
Helpful GM
Terence R. McCain <terence...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The question before us is... can a more modern game be contrived with
> equal (or even better) attention to game balance? With design goals
> similar to those of CL, but (and this is my personal vendetta, excuse
> me if I repeat myself a bit) more directed story development than we
> have thus far seen in C (come on, admit it, nearly everyone here wants
> that). Perhaps with more eye candy
I don't think that there's any doubt that this is possible in the sense
that the technology and know-how exist.
<chum-mode>
So, get cracking! When does McCain-Lord come out?
</chum-mode>
<G>
> And will such a game cost so many millions to make, it's only possible
> for the big guys like Sony or the entire country of South Korea?
Nah... I mean -- yes, if you want to do it as a business, but I don't
see any reason why a garage-company can't do it starting small, and add
to it, later.
The problem is free time. This is the perfect project for a smart
manager and a handful of bright college kids with an entire Summer with
nothing to do... ;)
> You'd know more than me about where Delta Tao is headed.
"Headed" sort of implies a direction... ;)
> the question, what's next? *Is* there a next?
Hey, people in CL can build houses -- does that count? :)
Helpful GM
Kiriel D'Sol <kirie...@windsofdawn.org> wrote:
> This is the one area I've seen that Shadowbane seems to stand out in.
> They have a lot of issues with the game, but they really seem to have
> taken the players affecting the world thing seriously to heart- almost
> the entire world is player built and managed.
There's another game that I saw in February (in public-beta, at the
time) that was like that. Actually, even though they "weren't done", I
thought it looked darned fun even then! The game entirely consisted of
player-created everything. In a very real sense, that was the game!
They took the "we provide the sandbox, you create the castles" idea and
went whole-hog with it. It looked very cool and not nearly as anarchaic
as one might imagine.
I'll look up the name and post a URL -- someone remind me if I haven't
done so in a week.
Terence R. McCain
Interesting point you raise.
I remember, many years back, some discussions along the lines that CL
was designed in such a way that different areas could be assigned to
different servers, so that it would scale up if player load overcame
server resources. That never happened, though. Servers became
powerful faster than CL grew its customer base, though perhaps some of
us will remember stress testing back in the beta period that managed
to get the server at least a little bogged. In the commercial
version, it's never happened, and the community seems to have stopped
growing. Is it shrinking now? I have no recent data.
With the servers that can be used today, you can have a pretty big
world, seamless, linked by "doors" to other pretty big worlds, and
divide the load that way. Lineage II does this, though they haven't
done it particularly well. The dwarven and orc lands are on a
different server from the mainland, and it shows in smoother game
play, less server stutter, when you are there. So the server
structure is really small "clusters" servicing each community.
I say they haven't done it well, because the server bog is just
incredible in the larger towns in that game. Their central game
concept is groups of players ("clans") forming alliances to defend or
assault castles, with the aim of delivering them to the control to the
victorious lead clan. But if there are more than a few dozen people
in the same place, server/client bog makes the game unplayable. You
freeze, you teleport, you die without seeing what hit you... it's
ugly. Even people with high speed connections complain.
I think you have to plan for the scalability problem before you ever
start to code the first line of programming. If you don't, you end up
painted into a corner.
-- Terry
<snip>
Terence R. McCain
Who was it who said, "A man's got to know his limitations?" Oh,
that's right, it was Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry. Go ahead, make my
day.
I know my limitations, alas. I can write - and I might even be
willing to contribute that talent in a worthy cause - but leading a
design effort like that is beyond my abilities.
I'm heartened by your view that it could be done on a small scale.
That goes counter to the prevailing wisdom, but then CL has been going
counter to that from day one.
Players can build houses now in CL? Hrm, I've been gone too long.
-- Terry
<snip>
Kiriel D'Sol
Terence R. McCain <terence...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:I've noticed the same phenomenon about fast advancement killing off
:friendships. Heck, a single week can be enough to screw everything
:up. So you can't count on adventuring with the people whose company
:you enjoy, and you are constantly dumping old friends and looking for
:new. Ugh.
Shadowbane's approach to this is to let people level so damn fast (in a
week or so if you try hard enough) that pretty much everyone can reach
an appropriate PvP level in a very short period of time. Since leveling
is only a small part of the game and most people treat it as a means to
an end (getting an appropriate level PvP character to fight with), it
isn't a huge problem, since most friendships bond over PvP and not
exping. Having such a huge rush to the end game isn't a good solution
for a non-PvP game.
I have always loved the libraries in ClanLord as a wonderful way to
counteract the leveling speed problem, I'm surprised no other game has
tried something like this (at least none I've heard of).
City of Heroes has an ingenious system called sidekicking, where a
higher level player can bring a lower level player along and their
skills are temporarily increased to a reasonable level to fight
alongside the person sidekicking them. Although this system has its
problems, it does deal well with the friends falling behind problem.
Xel
> > the question, what's next? *Is* there a next?
>
> Hey, people in CL can build houses -- does that count? :)
Uh. Build? *cough cough*
-Xel
Warren J. Dew
Dynamic worlds are hard. I've been watching and discussing
this on many game development forums and it turns out that
the problem is much more complicated than "a player should
be able to chop down a tree with his axe, and have it stay
chopped down." *WAY* more complicated.
Is it more than an issue of memory and processing?
It seems to me that the obvious solution is to simply simulate every tree or
other thing you want to be able to modify, the same way you simulate critters.
The issue with that is that you rapidly get into very very large numbers of
things simulated, and you have to worry about what happens if the players try
to crash the server by running it out of memory. It won't work for a massively
multiplayer game, but for a moderately multiplayer game like Clan Lord, it
might be okay - though there would still be limitations. Simulating every
blade of grass would still be too much.
SWC Kiriel D'Sol:
This is the one area I've seen that Shadowbane seems to stand
out in. They have a lot of issues with the game, but they
really seem to have taken the players affecting the world
thing seriously to heart- almost the entire world is player
built and managed.
How far does this go? I know they have player built buildings and cities,
which is obviously a nice advance. Do they have forests full of trees where
players can selectively cut down trees and have them stay cut down?
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Warren J. Dew
In general, I've been disappointed that no one has stolen
any of CL's incredible player-interaction ideas. Hell --
why the @#$% has no one done talk-bubbles?!
Lineage has talk bubbles. They didn't steal them from Clan Lord, though, since
Lineage started development before Clan Lord was released.
Actually, Diablo 2 has talk bubbles. It's just that no one uses them except me
and the computer characters.
That's probably the answer to your question. Most of the players don't
actually want to roleplay - that is, treat the character as someone other than
themselves. If they are communicating player to player, rather than character
to character, chat windows unfortunately make more sense than talk bubbles.
Warren J. Dew
2. Blurring the line between real-world and in-game
economics.
Yeah, I hate this. I'm not convinced it can be fixed as long as character
advancement (including item creation) is tied to amount of time spent playing,
though.
Obvious solution: let characters advance and create items when the player
isn't logged on. This has problems of its own, though.
3. Generally these MMORPGs are PK fests. That's what the
young males among us seem to want, and they are the target
audience, after all, so that's what they are getting.
I don't see this as a completely bad thing. It's possible to be much more of a
hero when there are more villains around for contrast. I actually think lack
of heroism is one of the weak points of Clan Lord, because of the lack of PvP.
4. The worlds are getting bigger and more beautiful and more
sophisticated. If you haven't seen some of the more recent
ones, try to find an opportunity to look at them. Eye candy!
They are very pretty. I personally don't care for the first person viewpoint,
though, and I find the WoW graphics to be a step backwards.
5. Advancement is fast - certainly compared to CL.
I think this is done because they want to let characters get to the point where
they can participate in the PvP game as quickly as possible. Advancement is
fast, but it's typically capped, too.
6. Some of the worst characteristics of people emerge in
these games. Selfish behavior, astonishing ignorance,
rudeness, and griefing are not just common - it's a rare
hour that you play where your nose isn't rubbed in it.
Yes. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that these games are being used
as babysitters for teenagers. And you might imagine that teenagers whose
parents don't supervise them much aren't the best behaved, even among
teenagers.
I played a character in Lineage who did a lot of disguised parenting for a
while. Got the other pledge members to the point where they would refrain from
swearing in my presence and things like that. Pretty stressful and time
consuming, though.
I would note that I've found more rudeness in the non-PvP servers than in the
PvP servers. People are a little more polite when they know they can be
smacked down for excessive rudeness.
Kiriel D'Sol
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
:SWC Kiriel D'Sol:
:
: This is the one area I've seen that Shadowbane seems to stand
: out in. They have a lot of issues with the game, but they
: really seem to have taken the players affecting the world
: thing seriously to heart- almost the entire world is player
: built and managed.
:
:How far does this go? I know they have player built buildings and cities,
:which is obviously a nice advance. Do they have forests full of trees where
:players can selectively cut down trees and have them stay cut down?
Nope not nearly that far, although recently they've added a resource
system which includes mines in the hunting zones which can be fought
over- you have to knock down a tower to claim the mine during the time
it's vulnerable. They also seem to have a lot of physical structures in
hunting areas which do have visible stats so one could see them making
them vulnerable to attack, but it seems that they haven't chosen to do
so because it doesn't really add much to the game.
What I find more interesting than the player cities, which aren't easy
to take down due to the protection they're under most of the time, is
the common practice of individual players placing buildings, like banks,
right next to hunting zones. Since those buildings aren't actually
protectable, they're vulnerable to any person who decides they really
want to knock it down, but they typically last quite a while because
people prefer the convenience of the bank next to the hunting zone more
than they want to harass the person who built it. Players can place
buildings pretty much anywhere not inside a hunting zone (and some
buildings can even be placed in other player's cities), which leads to a
lot of very odd strategies, not unlike how kudzu has affected the
strategies of the ClanLord populace.
Helpful GM
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> Helpful GM posts, in part:
>
> In general, I've been disappointed that no one has stolen
> any of CL's incredible player-interaction ideas. Hell --
> why the @#$% has no one done talk-bubbles?!
>
> Lineage has talk bubbles.
[snip]
> Actually, Diablo 2 has talk bubbles.
[snip]
> That's probably the answer to your question. Most of the players don't
> actually want to roleplay - that is, treat the character as someone other
> than
> themselves. If they are communicating player to player, rather than
> character
> to character, chat windows unfortunately make more sense than talk bubbles.
This amazes me. For me, it's *SO* much easier to follow a conversation
in talk bubbles than in the log. The only time I use the log is if
everyone's talking at once, or someone says something very long that
doesn't fit in a bubble.
The visual aid of being able to see the text placed around the screen
near the icon of the guy saying it is *SO* helpful (much more so than,
say, coloring, although that's nice, too.)
<shrug> Others disagree, I guess...
Helpful GM
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> Helpful GM is quoted as posting, in part:
>
> Dynamic worlds are hard. I've been watching and discussing
> this on many game development forums and it turns out that
> the problem is much more complicated than "a player should
> be able to chop down a tree with his axe, and have it stay
> chopped down." *WAY* more complicated.
>
> Is it more than an issue of memory and processing?
>
> It seems to me that the obvious solution is to simply simulate every tree or
> other thing you want to be able to modify, the same way you simulate
> critters.
Pretty much. And the problem is: that's a lot of trees. But not just
trees -- how about if everyone takes a cup of water out of a lake and
dumps it into the ocean? All of these problems are simple in the
individual case, but they're hard on the aggregate. In technical terms,
"they don't scale well".
"What if everyone in China were to jump up and stomp down at the same
time?" ;)
Kiriel D'Sol
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
:This amazes me. For me, it's *SO* much easier to follow a conversation
:everyone's talking at once, or someone says something very long that
:doesn't fit in a bubble.
It depends a lot on what you're trying to do. Having a proper
conversation with one or two people is easier that way, but when you
have a lot of different things going on at once, having multiple user
configurable chat lots is a lot more flexible and easy to organize. Also
it's quite noticable in ClanLord when there's too much talking you may
make it difficult to see the battleground. In most games people
configure their chat windows out of the way so they don't obscure the
field of battle.
The other thing is that in some games people really don't identify much
with the character icon on the screen- the name in the chat log really
is easier to identify than yet another avatar in a crowded field with a
bubble by his head, especially in games with not much distinctiveness in
character look. It also lets you conserve the amount of places on the
screen you're monitoring at once, especially if you have a very large
play area- CL doesn't fully utilize the screen real estate on most
modern Macs.
Helpful GM
Kiriel D'Sol <kirie...@windsofdawn.org> wrote:
> In article <HelpfulGM-A36E0...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> :This amazes me. For me, it's *SO* much easier to follow a conversation
> :in talk bubbles than in the log. The only time I use the log is if
> :everyone's talking at once, or someone says something very long that
> :doesn't fit in a bubble.
>
> It depends a lot on what you're trying to do. Having a proper
> conversation with one or two people is easier that way, but when you
> have a lot of different things going on at once
[...]
> The other thing is that in some games people really don't identify much
> with the character icon on the screen
Right. That's what I'm saying -- that people do this amazes me.
Kiriel D'Sol
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
:> The other thing is that in some games people really don't identify much
:> with the character icon on the screen
:
:Right. That's what I'm saying -- that people do this amazes me.
Well it depends on the game, but figure 10x the amount of players that
are on CL and characters who wear fairly standardized armor sets and
don't have access to custom dyes. You can't even tell race in a lot of
games when someone is properly armored and it's difficult to tell female
from male for the same reason. Too many people look the same, you can't
just look in a crowd and easily identify your friends except by their
names on the screen, and those are only visible if they're close enough.
In a game like this, although it's fairly easy to identify your own
avatar, keeping track of what all your friends look like isn't nearly as
easy, chat channels are just easier. Also, there's less in person type
chatting and a lot more distance chatting- picture that 95% of
discussion takes place over sunstone. So speech bubbles really aren't as
useful as you might think in that environment.
Terence R. McCain
is?
Heck, I think I've done that a few times as an adult, too.
I appreciate the comments. But, uh, where is everyone? Couple years
back, if you asserted "Chum has two legs" in here, you'd get 50
responses. The pro-Chum lobby would glorify his right to have any
legs he wanted. The anti-Chum activists might have said "ok, he has a
right to legs, just like anyone, but not if he uses them to step on
sidewalk cracks! And he does it deliberately!" The
less-than-coherent posts (and where were those this week, everyone
seems so sane!) might have asserted "you dum no it al legz is legz, if
you dun get that, dun post."
Some days I wondered if we ought to supplement with a newsgroup
entitled comp.sys.mac.games.adventure.flames, to move those off this
one.
Because the traffic here was heavy enough without flames to keep it
interesting...
Well, it's good to see a few old and familiar nics here. Hi there.
But I think the answer to the question I posed is apparent, reading
more between the lines than in them.
Enthusiasm for CL seems to be slowly waning. Participation is down
in the game and here, yes? People aren't necessarily loving the
alternatives, but they are groping around for something. Looking for
the next level, whatever that means to them.
There are innovators out there. They don't seem to grasp game theory
as well as Joe does. Perhaps in time one of them (or more) will get
it right. I hope I live so long.
I was hoping to see some sign that Delta Tao is among those innovators
doing some planning and creating, because I have so long respected
what emerged from DT in the '90's. They done good! If they are doing
something fresh like that now, there sure isn't any sign of it here.
I'm *not* criticizing DT, believe me. Nor the CL GMs. They have no
moral imperative to do more than they have. As for economic
imperative, of course that's up to the rational actors with an
economic stake. If they are contented to be chewing old cud instead
of looking for fresh hay, who am I to criticize? :-)
Anyway, hi y'all, glad those who responded are around to do so. Be
happy.
-- Terry
Warren J. Dew
I appreciate the comments. But, uh, where is everyone?
Actually, the currently active players are at the Sentinel,
www.vagilemind.com/clanlord/
Enthusiasm for CL seems to be slowly waning.
That too, at least judging by reports on how many people are typically logged
on, but not by as much as the CL traffic in this newsgroup might indicate.
There are innovators out there. They don't seem to grasp
game theory as well as Joe does.
An interesting statement. I think that given the much higher popularity of
other offerings, other companies - for example Blizzard - arguably understand
game theory much better. In particular, Clan Lord doesn't seem to reflect a
very good understanding of optimal foraging theory, which is much more
applicable to a hunting game than two person zero sum game theory.
They might not understand roleplaying as well. Then again, it may be that
online gaming isn't the right medium for roleplaying. I like to think it could
be, but I might well be wrong.
Warren J. Dew
Well it depends on the game, but figure 10x the amount of
players that are on CL and characters who wear fairly
standardized armor sets and don't have access to custom dyes.
You'd think they could wear surcoats over the armor....
(Yes, I understand, surcoats are not available in those games, but it seems
like it would be an easy thing to implement that would really add a lot.)
Gorvin
> But, uh, where is everyone?
Most have moved to the Sentinel forums at http://www.vagilemind.com/clanlord/
That's where most of CL's discussion goes on now.
Gorvin
>
> This amazes me. For me, it's *SO* much easier to follow a conversation
> in talk bubbles than in the log. The only time I use the log is if
> everyone's talking at once, or someone says something very long that
> doesn't fit in a bubble.
>
> The visual aid of being able to see the text placed around the screen
> near the icon of the guy saying it is *SO* helpful (much more so than,
> say, coloring, although that's nice, too.)
>
After playing CL I find it hard to get used to chat systems in other
MMORPGs, it's just so much harder to tell when someone's talking. In
CL the text is put right there in front of you, and you know when
someone says something... But in most other MMORPGs (I know there are
a few exceptions, though I haven't tried any of those) you have to be
looking at the chat log to see what's been said, and I utterly despise
this. This is especially true when in the middle of the battle, when
I'm concentrating on what's going on in the actual screen rather than
the chat window (or in some cases, glancing up and down from my health
bar to my abilities window to see if one of my moves has cooled down
yet... another thing I hate). When someone shouts "look out, RUN!",
or whatever, by the time I notice it it's usually too late.
Terence R. McCain
-- Terry
Terence R. McCain
-- Terry
On 15 Sep 2004 03:04:54 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
<snip>
>Terence R. McCain posts, in part:
> There are innovators out there. They don't seem to grasp
> game theory as well as Joe does.
>
>An interesting statement. I think that given the much higher popularity of
>other offerings, other companies - for example Blizzard - arguably understand
>game theory much better. In particular, Clan Lord doesn't seem to reflect a
>very good understanding of optimal foraging theory, which is much more
>applicable to a hunting game than two person zero sum game theory.
Hey, you're points are interesting, too. :-)
Not intending to take anything away from Blizzard, where there are
undeniably some very bright people. But thus far, I just haven't seen
or heard of any multiplayer RPG developers that grasp the essential
necessity of slow advancement and slow empowerment of players to both
loyalty and game balance.
Instead, what I see are splashy gimmicks designed to reel 'em in,
titillate 'em, take their cash and spit 'em out to look for the Next
Big Thing.
It's all very commercial and not a little depressing.
In just a short time playing most of these games, you can be a virtual
light show of exploding, sizzling, graphically-intense magical
energies in any of a number of classes. It's all pretty much unearned
- even if you don't buy in-game assets with Real World moneyt. What
Delta Tao grasped long ago is that if you can get it easy, it's not
worth much. Characters in these newer games tend to be disposable.
Throw away a L11 character? Big deal, I can make one in (check one:
___ an afternoon __ a few days __ a few weeks). So why not run
around griefing or dying, who the heck cares, it's not like it means
anything.
[One player in one of these games followed my wizard around hoping to
grab loot from the monsters the wizard killed. I asked him why. "I'm
bored," he said. He'd grown tired of leveling (it takes almost two
hours to level, he complained) and figured he'd go around kill
stealing, robbing, maybe get in a few PKs. He proceeded to attack my
character with no justification or provocation. I'm sure in real life
this kid has "need instant gratification RIGHT NOW" tattooed on his
forehead.]
How do you get RP out of someone like that? Answer: you don't. And
anyway it's not the question the big game companies are asking. The
question they are asking is, how do you get money out of someone like
that? And even Blizzard is framing their games to appeal to that kid.
Think he'd last an hour in CL? I don't.
Gaming theory: I guess I used the term somewhat promiscuously, and
you caught me up on it. Bleh. Ok, since you insist on using the term
properly, and have dragged me unwilling into a conversation about it
(heh), I concur that the whole foraging/economics thing can be done,
and has been done, better elsewhere than in Clan Lord. And that both
are important elements in a modern MMORPG. And though the
hunting/foraging in CL isn't quite zero sum, it's kinda close to it.
Unfortunately.
In theory, perhaps, having more people scour the passes west of GMV
will yield more ore samples, because the time from ore appearance to
ore discovery will be reduced, which moves up the next spawn
opportunity a bit. But in practice it's very close to zero sum, as
anyone will tell you when they are hunting for ore when others are
doing the same. So I agree with your point.
>They might not understand roleplaying as well. Then again, it may be that
>online gaming isn't the right medium for roleplaying. I like to think it could
>be, but I might well be wrong.
I have to wonder. There is a vast gulf between what I experienced in
pen-and-paper gaming and on-line. Particularly, AD&D using pen and
paper was a slow, thoughtful, cooperative social experience that, when
done well, generated good stories, good feelings, and good memories.
It took years and years to build a character up to level 11, as I
recall. These new games come across as nearly first person shooters
(with magic and swords instead of guns), rapid advancement, gore
flying so fast and furious it's an adolescent dream of instant
gratification. And the stories? They're about a clan called "Gore
Eaters" versus "Grudge Factory" fighting for some castle, with
prominent roles played by "xxxKILLFACExxx" and "Rapist14." Or
something else not much better. Hemmingway it ain't.
Seriously, it's as if all these MMORPGs feel a need to compete with
Halo and Grand Theft Auto when they develop their battle concepts.
And maybe, commercially, that's exactly what they think they have to
do. So death is cheap and people are reckless in a way that they
would never be in real life, to the detriment of meaningful RP.
But... maybe it's too soon to rule out the RP prospects for on-line
MMORPGs. In most ways MMORPG design is in its infancy. Getting the
physical worlds right is still an ongoing challenge, after all. Heh,
we're still arguing about the best mechanics of players speaking to
other players, among other things. The challenge of promoting good RP
and story-telling through clever design and game administration is a
much tougher nut to crack.
I'm not sure how many of us will live to see the answer to this
question. But I hope RP in MMORPGs will eventually provide a positive
experience to rival the best of the old pen-and-paper gaming I've
experienced. CL has come close a few times, though not often. And
that's why I'm asking here about what's next for CL and DT. It's hard
not to hope for more. In some areas of game design, DT has answers to
questions the other guys haven't even asked yet.
Helpful GM
Terence R. McCain <terence...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Terence R. McCain posts, in part:
> > There are innovators out there. They don't seem to grasp
> > game theory as well as Joe does.
> >An interesting statement. I think that given the much higher popularity of
> >other offerings, other companies - for example Blizzard - arguably understand
> >game theory much better. In particular, Clan Lord doesn't seem to reflect a
> >very good understanding of optimal foraging theory, which is much more
> >applicable to a hunting game than two person zero sum game theory.
> Hey, you're points are interesting, too. :-)
>
> Not intending to take anything away from Blizzard, where there are
> undeniably some very bright people. But thus far, I just haven't seen
> or heard of any multiplayer RPG developers that grasp the essential
> necessity of slow advancement and slow empowerment of players to both
> loyalty and game balance.
If I understand correctly, the folks at Blizzard understand that slow
advancement and slow empowerment aren't essential necessities (are there
any other kind?!) In fact, the bright folks at Blizzard MIGHT say
"Terence doesn't seem to grasp what is essential to making a game
successful."
Or, possibly, they have different goals than you do. And Joe might have
a 3rd set of goals, distinct from you and Blizzard. It's possible
(likely!) that these goal-sets overlap, some.
Imagine how you'd design the following games in different ways:
* Game-balance is everything. Fun, player-loyalty, player-interest --
all of those things take a back seat to fair-and-balanced game-play.
* Player-loyalty is everything. Nothing else matters so long as, once
they sign up, they stay signed up for decades and prostletize to
everyone how ours is the best game ever.
* Revenue-stream is everything. All other considerations take a back
seat to making a profit for the company, except to the extent that those
considerations make a profit for the company.
Then, of course, there are all the combination-goals. Joe once
described Clan Lord as "we're going to make a game that WE think is fun
and, hopefully, others will think it's fun, too."
Now imagine that you were to design a game with that same goal, except
"we" means "Terence and friends." Now imagine Chum designs a game with
the same goal, except "we" means "Chum and friends." (Believe it or
not, Chum has friends ;)
See how we're creating (mentally) wildly different games?
It's not that Clan Lord is Right or Wrong, and WoW is the other --
there's room for both, and they're both a little Right and a little
Wrong, depending on the purpose for which you want to use them.
Btw, if you want something where you can take a 10-20 minute break and
just blow-up other tanks, try <http://www.bzflag.com>
That's for all those people who complain that they don't have enough
time to sit down and play Clan Lord :) BZFlag is very-playable in 10
minute spurts.
Warren J. Dew
Not intending to take anything away from Blizzard, where
there are undeniably some very bright people. But thus far,
I just haven't seen or heard of any multiplayer RPG
developers that grasp the essential necessity of slow
advancement and slow empowerment of players to both
loyalty and game balance.
How slow do you think "slow" needs to be?
Lineage took six months, give or take a factor of two, to get to the point
where you would be useful in the siege game. After that, you could continue to
progress in usefulness for years.
The problem with this model in the U.S. release was that people were quitting
rather than transitioning to the siege game. And people more interested in
continued advancement had trouble adjusting to some weird discontinuities in
the advancement curve at high levels. So maybe they didn't understand the
issue fully.
It's true that Clan Lord training mechanics scale better, at least for
fighters. On the other hand, it's not clear to me that this was conscious
design, since there are seriously problematic advancement discontinuities for
the other two classes.
You could argue that Clan Lord was designed to have Bartle achievers play
fighters, and achievers playing the other classes are misplaced.
Unfortunately, early stages of playing healers and mystics are also achievement
oriented, so people who happen to pick the "wrong class" end up facing
difficult discontinuities, just as in other games.
Helpful GM responds to Terence R. McCain:
If I understand correctly, the folks at Blizzard understand
that slow advancement and slow empowerment aren't essential
necessities (are there any other kind?!) In fact, the bright
folks at Blizzard MIGHT say "Terence doesn't seem to grasp
what is essential to making a game successful."
It's to be noted that Blizzard's games, at least up until WoW, had a different
business model, as they were one shot purchases rather than subscriptions.
They want to encourage loyalty to the company so that people will buy their
next game, but that's not exactly the same thing as loyalty to the game.
Or, possibly, they have different goals than you do. And
Joe might have a 3rd set of goals, distinct from you and
Blizzard. It's possible (likely!) that these goal-sets
overlap, some.
Yes. I think it's interesting to bat around these ideas to see how much we
overlap. Personally, these would be my own goals:
1. Encourage in character play. I would say "encourage roleplaying", but the
Clan Lord definitions of "roleplaying" that a lot of people use on this group
is pretty different from the one I find in table top play; in particular, table
top roleplaying gamers tend to be hostile to scripted play, while many Clan
Lord players seem to define "roleplaying" as meaning exactly scripted play.
2. Permanent death. For me, resurrection dilutes the roleplaying experience
too much. I recognize I'm in a minority here.
3. Be playable in a few hours a week. Lots of adults simply don't have time
to keep up in games that require daily play, let alone 24/7 play.
I'd be interested in what other peoples' lists would look like.
Gorvin
>
> 1. Encourage in character play. I would say "encourage roleplaying", but the
> Clan Lord definitions of "roleplaying" that a lot of people use on this group
> is pretty different from the one I find in table top play; in particular, table
> top roleplaying gamers tend to be hostile to scripted play, while many Clan
> Lord players seem to define "roleplaying" as meaning exactly scripted play.
>
> 2. Permanent death. For me, resurrection dilutes the roleplaying experience
> too much. I recognize I'm in a minority here.
>
> 3. Be playable in a few hours a week. Lots of adults simply don't have time
> to keep up in games that require daily play, let alone 24/7 play.
>
> I'd be interested in what other peoples' lists would look like.
>
>
> Warren J. Dew
> Powderhouse Software
My dream MMORPG would have these goals:
1) Allow infinite, nonlinear character progression. CL does well in
this regard, though ideally (in my mind) there would be no set classes
and more training options available. Players should have the freedom
to create any kind of character they want, even ones the developers
never thought of. I will admit that playing WoW during the stress
test was a fun experience, and I will most likely purchase it when it
is released... but once I max out a character, then what? Do PvP
battles all the time? Start over on a new character? Bleh.
2) Immersion. I want to feel like my character is in a real world,
and can make a real impact on it, not that he's in some virtual
playground where he slaughters mindless, suicidal robots over and over
for no reason other than to become stronger (ironic coming from me, I
know). WoW's quest system is a step in the right direction as far as
giving purpose to mindless slaughtering is concerned, but it doesn't
make me feel "immersed" ("Help! I need you to go out and kill Gorefang
the Gnoll, even though he's already been slain by 100,000 other people
and killing him again will have no effect on me other than opening up
another mission that 100,000 other people have already completed for
me! Wheee!").
3) More reliance on player skill than character skill/luck. Character
progression and stats should still be important, but combat should be
full of quick moves and judgement calls, not "hit autoattack and press
the magic skill button every time it recharges". As well, I should be
fighting with the monsters, not the interface ("Lets see... is the
4-key my Scare skill? No wait, I need to switch to my other set of
abilities.. here it is. Now I just need to click on my target.. except
that there's someone in the way, so I guess I'll just tilt the camera
around a little- oh wait, now we're all dead.").
4) Not require huge time commitments for meaningful character
progression. I don't want to have to kill the same monsters over and
over again for hours just to see a slight change. Having something
like CL's library or WoW's rest state to help casual gamers keep up
with the hardcores is a good idea.
David Besack
>
> 1) Allow infinite, nonlinear character progression. CL does well in
> this regard, though ideally (in my mind) there would be no set classes
> and more training options available. Players should have the freedom
> to create any kind of character they want, even ones the developers
> never thought of. I will admit that playing WoW during the stress
> test was a fun experience, and I will most likely purchase it when it
> is released... but once I max out a character, then what? Do PvP
> battles all the time? Start over on a new character? Bleh.
Have you ever played Diablo 2? It had a character level limit, and more
importantly a range where you progressed so slowly only people who
REALLY wanted to go forward could. Anyway, they did things very
differently from CL in that it was very easy to get a character up to a
respectable or "mid-level" range and thus try out many very different
styles.
It's not something I'd expect CL to ever be, that's not why I mention
it, but I haven't seen WoW and I wonder how much like Diablo it will be,
in terms of class system and variety within classes. Both games are by
Blizzard, but the Diablo creators took no part in WoW so I don't know
what to expect.
I will say though, that I think CL has definitely produced styles that
were "not what the developers expected".
ward mcfarland
> 2. Permanent death. For me, resurrection dilutes the roleplaying experience
> too much. I recognize I'm in a minority here.
A compromise that I recall from some game in the distant past (original
AppleII WIzardry, maybe?) is to allow resurrection, but at a significant
irreplacible cost like:
premature aging 10 years, if character age has a realistic effect
losing maximum health points, without losing experience levels, so
would never be possible to be as robust after dying
losing maximum value of a class attribute (a revivied spell caster
could never get as skillful as one who had not died, a warrior would
lose maximal strength)
Warren J. Dew
A compromise that I recall from some game in the distant past
(original AppleII WIzardry, maybe?) is to allow resurrection,
but at a significant irreplacible cost ...
To be honest, I'm not coming at that factor from a game standpoint, as in
"there should be a way to lose". I'm coming at it from an immersion
standpoint, as in "I can't really believe in characters who can be reduced to a
puddle of bodily fluids and be reconstituted." The only compromises I might be
willing to accept would be to have the character be dead, but allow the player
to start a more-than-beginning character in its place - though that has
implementation problems (don't want people purposely dying to get a good new
character).
When Diablo II first came out, I was one of the people whose reaction was, "oh,
cool, it has a permanent death subgame!" I know a few other people in that
category, too, but hardcore still seems to constitute a minority of players.
And I ended up getting bored before I finished the soft core game, which was a
prerequisite to playing hard core, so I never actually played it - though my
wife plays a couple hours a day.
Phelps
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> "What if everyone in China were to jump up and stomp down at the same
> time?" ;)
Jumping will be availible "soon".
--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"
Helpful GM
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> Ward McFarland responds to me:
>
> A compromise that I recall from some game in the distant past
> (original AppleII WIzardry, maybe?) is to allow resurrection,
> but at a significant irreplacible cost ...
>
> To be honest, I'm not coming at that factor from a game standpoint, as in
> "there should be a way to lose". I'm coming at it from an immersion
> standpoint, as in "I can't really believe in characters who can be reduced to
> a puddle of bodily fluids and be reconstituted."
True story:
I'm running a P&P D&D game, and the players have been battling trolls,
Kuo-toas (frog/men), giant spiders that eat people, etc...
They come to a peaceful glade, and I describe a serene setting:
beautiful trees, soft sunlight, blossoming flowers, even the animals are
serene, as the lion drinks beside the lamb...
And a player interrupts to say "there are LIONS in this world?! Where
are we, @#$% Africa?!?!"
---
Whenever someone says something like Warren's disbelieve, above, I'm
always reminded of this... :)
Helpful "ok, fine! It's a PURPLE lion, ok??? [Player: that's better!]"
GM
Warren J. Dew
And the stories? They're about a clan called "Gore
Eaters" versus "Grudge Factory" fighting for some castle,
with prominent roles played by "xxxKILLFACExxx" and
"Rapist14." Or something else not much better. Hemmingway
it ain't.
Out of curiousity, is the part you don't like the part about it's being a
simple fight for some castle, or the names? Would it be better if the clans
were the "Yorkists" and the "Lancastrians", and the names were things like
"Margaret of Anjou" and "Neville Kingmaker", or is the underlying story still
too boring?
The challenge of promoting good RP and story-telling through
clever design and game administration is a much tougher nut
to crack.
Yes.
But I hope RP in MMORPGs will eventually provide a positive
experience to rival the best of the old pen-and-paper gaming
I've experienced. CL has come close a few times, though not
often. And that's why I'm asking here about what's next for
CL and DT.
To be honest, it seems to me the current trend is towards changes to change
certain things most players found annoying. This is perhaps a good thing in
terms of customer service, but in my opinion is making the game more generic.
More importantly, it's polishing rather than innovation, so it might not be the
place to find what you're looking for.
On the other hand, as HGM has noted, there may be room for other small games to
spring up. I've been thinking about one since before Clan Lord was released,
and I think HGM started working on one a year or two ago; who knows, maybe
Michel will try to show Clan Lord how to "do it right".
Helpful GM
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> In an article I mostly agree with, Terence R. McCain posts, in part:
>
> And the stories? They're about a clan called "Gore
> Eaters" versus "Grudge Factory" fighting for some castle,
> with prominent roles played by "xxxKILLFACExxx" and
> "Rapist14." Or something else not much better. Hemmingway
> it ain't.
>
> Out of curiousity, is the part you don't like the part about it's being a
> simple fight for some castle, or the names? Would it be better if the clans
> were the "Yorkists" and the "Lancastrians", and the names were things like
> "Margaret of Anjou" and "Neville Kingmaker", or is the underlying story still
> too boring?
I don't speak for Terence but, for me, it's the attitude. It's the same
with P&P D&D -- the difference between RP and min/max.
Changing Rapist14's name to Margaret of Anjou won't make him a better
RPer -- but the kind of person who chooses Markaret of Anjou has a leg
up on the kind of person who chooses Rapist14 as their nick.
Similarly, "Knights of the Glorificus Order" vs "Grudge Factory" -- it
just demonstrates a way of thinking that isn't fun for others to
interact with.
Granted, there's nothing keeping the GF from "lying" and presenting "an
RP-named face" -- but the fact that they don't even put in that much
effort makes one want to steer away.
After that -- storming a castle and saving the princess is storming a
castle and saving the princess; yet we do it over & over again, and
enjoy it :)
> The challenge of promoting good RP and story-telling through
> clever design and game administration is a much tougher nut
> to crack.
>
> Yes.
A lot of it has to do with cultural-engineering. Of course, no one
wants to hear that they've been "engineered" or "brainwashed" -- but the
early adopters really do set the tone for years to come. CL was lucky
in that, for the first year or so, it was no one but people who thought
the way Joe did -- or at least 99.44% that -- and people who were
encouraged by the things Joe encouraged, and discouraged about the
things Joe discouraged. This sets the tone for the game and determines
who tells their friends it's cool and who tells their friends it sucks.
Start a game with 50 grudge-players, and you'll have a different culture.
> But I hope RP in MMORPGs will eventually provide a positive
> experience to rival the best of the old pen-and-paper gaming
> I've experienced. CL has come close a few times, though not
> often. And that's why I'm asking here about what's next for
> CL and DT.
> To be honest, it seems to me the current trend is towards changes to change
> certain things most players found annoying. This is perhaps a good thing in
> terms of customer service, but in my opinion is making the game more generic.
> More importantly, it's polishing rather than innovation, so it might not be
> the place to find what you're looking for.
Possibly. The general trend now seems to be acknowledgement that things
are pretty good, and making the sucky parts better. WHile there's some
innovation, it tends toward more innovative monster-AIs or more
inovative equipment, not so much entirely new game innovations.
Although, as recently noted, players can build/buy/however you want to
say it houses :)
> On the other hand, as HGM has noted, there may be room for other small games
> to spring up. I've been thinking about one since before Clan Lord was released,
> and I think HGM started working on one a year or two ago; who knows, maybe
> Michel will try to show Clan Lord how to "do it right".
Michel-Lord -- sign me up!
I'm always amazed at how even little garage games (the style, not the
company) can get 20,000 players. This bodes well for Helpful-Lord,
Terence-Lord, Warren-Lord et al. it basically means that: if you build
it, SOMEONE will come!
Woo!
Phelps
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> True story:
>
> I'm running a P&P D&D game, and the players have been battling trolls,
> Kuo-toas (frog/men), giant spiders that eat people, etc...
>
> They come to a peaceful glade, and I describe a serene setting:
> beautiful trees, soft sunlight, blossoming flowers, even the animals are
> serene, as the lion drinks beside the lamb...
In our group, we had the same setup.
Fighter starts freaking out at "all the happy forest creatures."
Magician tries to color spray everything just in case.
Ranger (me) over-reacts to an unusual movement and almost starts a
forest fire with enchanted flame arrows.
Entire group runs off in six different directions.
No one ever figures out what the deal was with the peaceful glade.
Terence R. McCain
Sorry this took so long to post. I don't want you to feel ignored. I
lost telephone service on Thursday and power on Friday, and didn't get
them all back up until late Saturday. The only utility that was
working was water, and I haven't quite got the knack of using that to
post usenet messages. Now, if I were one of those high-falutin' Apple
engineers, I'd have rigged up some water dohicky on a cute stand and
tasked a fish. Them boys got the knack!
There looks to be a kind of social relativitist doctrine emerging in
your answer. Which leads one to say "you're ok, I'm ok, we may like
different things in a game, but hey, it's a big world, make a buck, go
play. And if the other kids like your game, they'll come."
It's a strong argument, no question.
It's true that different design goals produce different results. And
it's true that CL didn't have the same design goals as, say, Blizzard
has. So it's hard to argue that Blizzard's games should be judged on
some sort of uinversal scale against CL.
In fact, overly broad assertions about "good" game design applying
universally end up looking like some extremist nutso manifesto,
unconnected in any serious way to the world of making games and having
fun.
And yet...
We do that all the time in other media. Movies get criticized.
Books, too. There are no hard and fast yardsticks, perhaps, but
critics are always comparing, prodding, showing weaknesses, expressing
concern, dismissing results that are obviously driven solely by sheer
lust for profit, excoriating works that lack a social conscience or
which may in some large sense *harm* society rather than enoble it.
Why isn't it ok to do the same for MMORPGs?
Welp, I think it is ok.
I've talked to other players like myself. What are they looking for
in a play experience from an MMORPG? Why are they here?
I've sensed a haunted tone in some of those voices. I don't claim
it's scientific. I don't claim it's objective. But it seems to be
there, a sort of widespread discontent among players I'd think of as
"quality," who mostly want a cooperative game experience, who want to
step into a fictional role and play that for a while against a good
story, who think the MMORPG medium should, at some point, generate
stories as imaginative and fun as the better sort of novel or movie
might. Snerts, griefers, and short-attention-spanners aside, there
are some people migrating through the gaming community looking,
looking for something, never quite finding what they seek. They seem
to be looking for better stories, more cooperation, less grief, better
examples for youngsters and oldsters alike as to how to behave
responsibly as a member of a society. Fun is good, too.
Clan Lord does a better job, warts and all, of appealing to some of
those folks.
They are to some extent alienated from the rest of the playing public,
which seems somewhat oblivious to any artistic, social, or ethical
dimension other than splashy gore graphics, greed, and dominance. To
whom the only point of fantasy is to imagine pulling triggers, or
plunging swords into bellies, or hilarious drunken stoopid fun, or
gaining power so you can beat up someone else with less power. They
log on under incredibly dumb and OOC names, steal some kills, yell OOC
hate messages about the various races or women or nations, tell some
bad jokes, yuck it up, and in general behave like unruly kids who'd
piss on a book before they'd read it, not that they've ever tried
reading one. And when they're the bill-paying customer, they can piss
all they want.
Nothing wrong with a game company trying to make a buck from these
guys, or anyone else. It's their capital, their risk, eh?
And yet...
What are we *doing*? Is there no social consequence of creating
playgrounds where grief is the norm? Is there no higher ethic towards
which to strive? No social responsibility on the part of writers,
publishers, artists, thinkers, teachers, and yes, game designers?
We are a species in transition. Futurists are stumped: they are
seeing a "singularity" in the accelerated pace of innovation and
change affecting ordinary people's lives. Nobody can make assertions
about what will happen that will hold together very long. (Not even
me! Heh.). We can't imagine the basic nature of living in, say,
twenty years, which is a problem unprecedented in all of human
history. How the heck can we plan? What decisions will be the right
ones? What are the dangers of raising kids to be on-line sociopaths,
and giving them no positive direction for growth?
I kinda think MMORPGs may be one of the mechanisms or manifestations
by which we become what we will be as a species. I don't harbor
illusions that we will become some syrupy-sweet liberal do-good
Betterment of Mankind thing. But whatever we become, we will do so
because of the ways the communications media evolve our interactions.
MMORPGs are part of that. And will influence it.
So yeah, I think there ought to be a higher imperative for game
designers than solely making a buck, though, heck, I understand they
have to do that or go under. But if, during this period of
transition, they don't leave the world a little better place than they
found it, they're missing an opportunity. If a game delivers a better
social, ethical, and artistic experience, if a game teaches
responsible social behavior, it might just hold customers better and
turn a profit for a longer time, if it does it in a fun way. Ya
think? And if it makes us a better species, even a little bit, hey,
that's not a negligible benefit.
And so, though conceding all of your social relativism is justified,
and agreeing, yeah, "it's just a game," as a critic I demand (and
don't often get) more from MMORPGs. Maybe if we all demand it, we'll
get a better product. They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. So
I'm squeaking! Feel free to join in!
I don't deny it. Extremist nutso manifesto promulgated here!
I rate DT on my "social relevance and artistic merit" scale higher
than all those other guys. (I bet you do, too, in moments when you
aren't denying there can *be* such a scale.) That is what I am
talking about when I say "Joe seems to grasp game theory better than
those other guys." Not "game theory" as in "max wins, min losses,"
but "game theory" as in "theory of games as social entities." Is it
purely instinctive, or is the guy thinking about social engineering at
least a little? I think it's the latter, but you know him tons better
than I do, so you be the judge. Or let him speak up for himself. :-)
Because I respect what he's accomplished thus far, I'm asking the
question, is DT through? Has DT fired their last shot? Will DT be
forever known as the niche Mac MMORPG orgininator from the '90's, who
also published a few arcade and card games in a market thick with
those? Or dare we hope for something fresh, building on the insights
and mastery DT has gained, insights which are not commonly in evidence
elsewhere?
The silence is deafening. I get the distinct impression nobody who
knows the answer wants to give it.
Maybe that's an answer in itself.
Now that I know where the shriveled CL community went, I'm over there
too. Silly me, I made an account on Vagile's message board a looong
time ago, and forgot all about it. First thing I noticed was that
nobody was hollering for improved trainer messages. Bah, that's an
*old* deficiency. How hard can that be to fix? :-)
-- Terry
Helpful GM
Terence R. McCain <terence...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Sorry this took so long to post. I don't want you to feel ignored.
Phwhew! ;)
> I rate DT on my "social relevance and artistic merit" scale higher
> than all those other guys. (I bet you do, too, in moments when you
> aren't denying there can *be* such a scale.)
To be clear: I don't deny that there is such a scale, or that it's
useful. What I meant to point out is: the measure of things that
Terence and his friends like isn't the only way to measure something.
Here's an example that sort of translates over: I like B-grade movies.
You spoke above (snipped) about how critics compare movies against some
artistic yardstick, even though there's more to it than that. Yet some
critics (maybe you ignore them, because you don't like their way of
thinking?) measure the "quality" of a movie by its box-office success
(to these people, _Titanic_ was a great film!) Yet, when I tell someone
"you absolutely *MUST* see this movie!", they know that my
recommendation comes with a bent. "Pretty good movie, eh?", they'll ask
-- "Hell no! It was awful", I'll tell them, "but it is GREAT
entertainment!" To me, a movie's value lies not in its terrific
writing, great acting, beautiful sets, high-budget FX, etc (although all
of these things MAY contribute to what really does matter) -- what I
care about is ENTERTAINMENT VALUE.
Same thing with my MMORPGs. Thing is, a very-very-many people are
entertained by min/maxing, monster-bashing, leveling and
equipment-acquisition.
And when a game company -- a BUSINESS that's IN THE BUSINESS of making
games -- decides what to write, they often give more weight to "what
will 80% of the gamers out there enjoy?" than to "what would Terence,
Helpful and a handful of others enjoy?"
Oh, but wait! You're thinking that LOTS of gamers would cross-over, if
only they saw how cool our style of playing is. Maybe. Would you bet
your house on it? Your next 10 years' salary? (Only someone with very
little to lose would take that bet, and that's why high school & college
aged kids produce some great "underground" games :)
In addition, gaming for RP is technically challenging. So, it's
expensive (lots of man-hours) and risky (not many players currently
prefer it.)
This is why you see the triple-A games all coming out with
same-old-thing but more-content. More-content (bigger worlds, more
items, more quests, etc.) helps to partially satisfy the need for more
immersion/RP/etc., while same-old-thing gives us a model with which we
are familiar.
> talking about when I say "Joe seems to grasp game theory better than
> those other guys." Not "game theory" as in "max wins, min losses,"
> but "game theory" as in "theory of games as social entities."
Yeah. He's really good at that.
> purely instinctive, or is the guy thinking about social engineering at
> least a little? I think it's the latter, but you know him tons better
> than I do, so you be the judge. Or let him speak up for himself. :-)
I think that, for Joe, it comes pretty naturally. At least I know that
when *I* do it, I have to think hard, and then Joe often just says "the
right answer" with what appears to be little effort. It's like
figure-skating, though -- does the olympic skater do it "instinctively",
or are they thinking about skating all the time? "A little of both" is
probably as close to correct as we can be, there.
> Because I respect what he's accomplished thus far, I'm asking the
> question, is DT through? Has DT fired their last shot?
I don't think so, but I don't honestly know.
*PURE SPECULATION*: Joe loves his family a lot. I'm pretty sure that if
he could figure out a way to generate an income stream for the rest of
his life and stay home and be with his wife & kids, he'd do that. He's
also a fairly simple guy, as far as posessions go -- while it's nice to
have things that work, he's not big on flashy cars, expensive clothes,
etc. Hence, Clan Lord could well be all it takes to "keep him in the
style to which he's become accustomed".
Then again, he doesn't share his business plans with me -- he could well
have some great "next generation" thing up his sleeve. Maybe he's got
an idea that he can work on WHILE he's with his wife & kids. I don't
know.
> Will DT be
> forever known as the niche Mac MMORPG orgininator from the '90's, who
> also published a few arcade and card games in a market thick with
> those?
Nope. Even if they went that route, they'd be the niche Mac-game
company that produced Eric's Ultimate Solitaire, and a few other games,
including an MMORPG with a small but dedicated cult following.
Now there's an important point: as a businessman, running a business, do
you decide that you want to write an AAA title and make bazillions, or
that you want to make a small, unknown game that's best in its league,
socially, with an small but dedicated cult following?
<shrug>
It takes a certain mindset to dedicate a bunch of your life & resources
to doing the later, rather than the former. It seems that Joe has such
a mindset, and is happy with the result.
> Or dare we hope for something fresh, building on the insights
> and mastery DT has gained, insights which are not commonly in evidence
> elsewhere?
One should always hope. Without hope, why keep living? :)
> The silence is deafening. I get the distinct impression nobody who
> knows the answer wants to give it.
>
> Maybe that's an answer in itself.
Didn't I just see those 2 paragraphs on alt.conspiracy.theories? ;)
> Now that I know where the shriveled CL community went, I'm over there
> too. Silly me, I made an account on Vagile's message board a looong
> time ago, and forgot all about it. First thing I noticed was that
> nobody was hollering for improved trainer messages. Bah, that's an
> *old* deficiency. How hard can that be to fix? :-)
"Improved" in what way? Do you mean "made more to Terence's liking" or
"made more to Chum's liking"? I'll talk to the old boy, and see if he
feels like "improving" the trainer messages -- it can't be THAT hard! ;)
Terence R. McCain
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <20040917125931...@mb-m07.aol.com>,
> psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
>
>> In an article I mostly agree with, Terence R. McCain posts, in part:
>>
>> And the stories? They're about a clan called "Gore
>> Eaters" versus "Grudge Factory" fighting for some castle,
>> with prominent roles played by "xxxKILLFACExxx" and
>> "Rapist14." Or something else not much better. Hemmingway
>> it ain't.
>>
>> Out of curiousity, is the part you don't like the part about it's being a
>> simple fight for some castle, or the names? Would it be better if the clans
>> were the "Yorkists" and the "Lancastrians", and the names were things like
>> "Margaret of Anjou" and "Neville Kingmaker", or is the underlying story still
>> too boring?
>
>I don't speak for Terence but, for me, it's the attitude. It's the same
>with P&P D&D -- the difference between RP and min/max.
>
>Changing Rapist14's name to Margaret of Anjou won't make him a better
>RPer -- but the kind of person who chooses Markaret of Anjou has a leg
>up on the kind of person who chooses Rapist14 as their nick.
>
Well...
In this case you speak for me just fine. :-)
-- Terry
Maeght
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <kirielspam-37ADF5.00324914092004@localhost>,
> Kiriel D'Sol <kirie...@windsofdawn.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <HelpfulGM-A36E0...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> > :This amazes me. For me, it's *SO* much easier to follow a conversation
> > :in talk bubbles than in the log. The only time I use the log is if
> > :everyone's talking at once, or someone says something very long that
> > :doesn't fit in a bubble.
> >
> > It depends a lot on what you're trying to do. Having a proper
> > conversation with one or two people is easier that way, but when you
> > have a lot of different things going on at once
> [...]
> > The other thing is that in some games people really don't identify much
> > with the character icon on the screen
>
> Right. That's what I'm saying -- that people do this amazes me.
Perhaps you might reverse engineer what they are optimizing for from how
they configure the interface.
People like different things.
- Maeght
Terence R. McCain
HGM, I always enjoy your posts, even when it's my blood they leave on
the floor. :-)
I'm not promoting any conspiracy theories today. (Maybe tomorrow.)
I'm just out here a-squeaking away, hoping for a li'l grease.
Entertainment value isn't just nice to have. In a game it's the most
important thing, eh? If it's not fun, nobody will pay or play, and
games survive only if they are fun.
But it's damaging to a society if that's the only yardstick. It's
possible to cater too much to the God of Entertainment Value. Certain
forms of entertainment result in socializing insensitivity to other's
pain, with bad consequences for the society as a whole. Killing each
other should *not* be easy for us, and many of us put a fair amount of
effort into our parenting, schooling, and socializations to prevent
that from happening (alas, not everyone is very successful at this, or
even bothers to try). We do not tolerate murder sport, as Romans once
did. We have outlawed cockfighting and inhumane treatement of animals
in sport or movies. We still let boxers bash each other silly, but at
least there is a healthy and continuing debate about whether that,
too, has too much of a negative social impact to tolerate as an
entertainment. We are, as a society, accustomed to evaluating
entertainments for social impact, you see - and ruling some of them
out.
But we are not accustomed to doing it with computer games,
particularly the on-line variety. We just don't have a good knowledge
basis, or even a theoretical basis, for saying what entertainments may
have social consequences (such as diminishing empathy) in players, nor
do we know what design elements can have negative social effects. We
can think about it, and talk about it, and maybe two people will
agree, and maybe they won't. But it's too new for a consensus. Heck,
we don't even have a consensus yet on what television and movie
violence does to the viewing public. Hence we are presently
tolerating simulated violence against humans every bit as awful as the
actual violence perpetrated by the ancient Romans in the name of
entertainment value, in many cases with just about as much ethical
advancement attached to the experience.
I don't think we're at a point where we can or should regulate on-line
games for content. We'd make a regular hash of it. But... to make an
appeal to game designers to *think* about what they are doing in terms
of social impact, to try to understand this dimension as they design,
is not an evil thing for me to do. Futile, maybe, but not evil.
Perhaps it's even the tiniest bit laudatory?
Would lots of gamers cross over and pay to partake in the high art of
role-playing, rather than the low art of whack-a-player killfests?
The jury is out on that, honestly. I don't think anyone has a product
yet that really could begin to answer that question. I *hope* it's
so. Some of the people I've spoken to who think as I do, believe they
would enjoy such a game. But I don't know.
Ok, trainer messages: you know and I know that the messages confuse
more than they inform. If that's a design goal, then it's fine. If
it's not, then it's broken. I happen to think that it would be
pleasant to see messages that actually reveal some indication of your
progress towards mastery. I'm not alone in thinking this; perhaps you
even agree.
But for Gaia's sake, don't turn Chum loose on the problem. When I go
to see a trainer, I do *not* want him saying "Hey bub, how'd you get
toejam on your nose? Oh, training progress? Yeah, ok, ah, lemme put
it this way, if you was a fish, see, you'd prolly be about THIS big,
'n I'd use a number 4 spitball lure with four hooks on a
three-noid-thread line. Hope that helps!"
-- Terry
Helpful GM
Terence R. McCain <terence...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ok, trainer messages: you know and I know that the messages confuse
> more than they inform. If that's a design goal, then it's fine. If
> it's not, then it's broken. I happen to think that it would be
> pleasant to see messages that actually reveal some indication of your
> progress towards mastery. I'm not alone in thinking this; perhaps you
> even agree.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean, here. Maybe it's covered in
Sentinal, and Ann or someone is all over it -- but I'm under the
impression that both the "not quite to a rank" messages and the "you
have this many ranks" messages are (a) fairly imformative about how your
progressing and (b) well understood by the players, in terms of
numerical values." To test this, sunstone "what's after toes?" or "how
many ranks is 'bows'?"
Or do I completely misunderstand your question, here?
One problem that we faced was: there used to only be a handful of
messages. Then players outgrew those, and we had to add more. But then
you start to get into the fast-food problem of: there's large,
extra-large, super, super-duper, extra-super-duper,
super-extra-double-duper and uh... "holy cow, that's big". I mean,
there are only so many words to express "you have a boatload of ranks,
perhaps you should get outside, more ;)"
I think Ann made an honest effort to line them up in a logical order and
have them make sense to players.
IC: the trainers would prefer to tell you "I'm not so impressed" or
"that's mighty impressive!" than "you have trained with me 5 [or 500]
times."
> But for Gaia's sake, don't turn Chum loose on the problem. When I go
> to see a trainer, I do *not* want him saying "Hey bub, how'd you get
> toejam on your nose? Oh, training progress? Yeah, ok, ah, lemme put
> it this way, if you was a fish, see, you'd prolly be about THIS big,
> 'n I'd use a number 4 spitball lure with four hooks on a
> three-noid-thread line. Hope that helps!"
Oh great, spoil the surprize, why don't you?! ;)
Terence R. McCain
I've only addressed myself to the "how many ranks" messages, not "how
far along towards the next rank."
Have a look at the thread I started a few days ago at the Sentinal
under "suggestions."
<http://www.vagilemind.com/clanlord/viewtopic.php?t=1051&sid=097835c8fd426892d13f7438af6bc782>
The trainer messages are confusing and counterintuitive. They are
*known* in the sense that people labor to memorize them, or they keep
a link, e-document, or hard copy list handy, at least in part so they
can answer the inevitable and frequent questions that arise about
them.
The problem can be fixed without resorting to "you have 234 trainings
with me," though as usual you can find people who'd go much farther
than I would. *Cough* *cough* errrrhhhhhaaaahhhgggSlyph *cough*
*cough*. Sorry, had to clear my throat.
-- Terry
Sheldon England
> in talk bubbles than in the log. The only time I use the log is if
> everyone's talking at once, or someone says something very long that
> doesn't fit in a bubble.
>
> near the icon of the guy saying it is *SO* helpful (much more so than,
> say, coloring, although that's nice, too.)
>
/--------------------\
| I *totally* agree. |
\----------------- --/
\/
Sheldon
Sheldon England
> I've talked to other players like myself. What are they looking for
> in a play experience from an MMORPG? Why are they here?
>
> I've sensed a haunted tone in some of those voices. I don't claim
> it's scientific. I don't claim it's objective. But it seems to be
> there, a sort of widespread discontent among players I'd think of as
> "quality," who mostly want a cooperative game experience, who want to
> step into a fictional role and play that for a while against a good
> story, who think the MMORPG medium should, at some point, generate
> stories as imaginative and fun as the better sort of novel or movie
> might. Snerts, griefers, and short-attention-spanners aside, there
> are some people migrating through the gaming community looking,
> looking for something, never quite finding what they seek. They seem
> to be looking for better stories, more cooperation, less grief, better
> examples for youngsters and oldsters alike as to how to behave
> responsibly as a member of a society. Fun is good, too.
FWIW, and I've written it before, I've learned I mainly don't like
MMORPGs because my goals as a player contradict the goals of the
publisher/host/et al. I much prefer MORPGs and you can keep yer
massive because massive includes all the above-mentioned snerts,
retards, and social fluff that wastes my time.
You and HGM have both mentioned pencil and paper gaming and I suspect
there are many of us still playing D&D because it affords a certain
customized experience that has yet to translate to the computer. My
D&D group is small, less than 500 players, but yet the world seems so
much bigger and more cohesive than the Lok Grotons. And we can play
whenever we get together. And none of the character's names are
spelled using numbers or ASCI codes.
I will stick with multiplayer and keep selecting those I choose to
play with and everyone else can play in the Massive Multiplayer realms
where there is no or little cohesion, little cause and effect, where
metagaming is the rule and not the exception, and where the casual
player cannot compete with the 24/7 zealots (unemployed and/or
students).
Yeah ... I even did start a Sheldon Lord (many moons ago) but the
primary programmer got distracted by paying contracts and then moved
away and got married ... the bastard.* ;)
That experiment was educational but now I'll settle for small group
Neverwinter Nights kinda adventure computer games or pencil and paper
games like D&D. It's more fun to spill beer on a well-drawn map than
into a keyboard. :p
Over six billion people ... suprisingly few who are clever. YMMV.
IMO.
- Sheldon
* Yeah, Jeff, I mean YOU! (I know you still lurk here.)
Terence R. McCain
Yeah, it's probably impossible to get a quality experience out of
"massive." Though CL went quite a way towards convincing me that a
good experience is possible with larger than PnP sized groups.
It does seem to me that automation and networking *ought* to be able
to contribute something positive to collaborative story-creation. But
not many games have shown they can do that very well yet.
I've done some NWN small-scale campaigning too. It takes a lot of
patience though. I suffer from constant disconnects and intolerable
lag - makes me yearn for CL simplicity, frankly. As many times as
I've died in CL due to lag, it's nothing compared to NWN servers,
which are pretty much catch-as-catch-can propositions. But if you can
find a decent group willing to put some effort into the RP dimension
(that's a big if, btw), NWN can be rewarding during the bits between
the time-outs and server crashes.
Sorry that "Sheldon-Lord" never made it off the ground. I'd have been
happy to take a long serious look. Silly programmers, they think they
have to eat. :-P
-- Terry
On 20 Sep 2004 17:04:52 -0700, sheldon...@netscape.net (Sheldon
Helpful GM
sheldon...@netscape.net (Sheldon England) wrote:
> My D&D group is small, less than 500 players
Damn -- and I thought 8 was a huge group!
Can you explain this to me? Are you in a club, or something? What do
you mean by "my D&D group"?
Sheldon England
>
> Damn -- and I thought 8 was a huge group!
>
> Can you explain this to me? Are you in a club, or something? What do
> you mean by "my D&D group"?
Heh. That was a joke. Apparently not a very good one. ;P
Sorry, mister-has-his-name-in-a-thread-title in the D&D newsgroup.
Actual group size varies from five to eight.
- Sheldon
Sheldon England
> Hey, Sheldon.
>
> Yeah, it's probably impossible to get a quality experience out of
> "massive." Though CL went quite a way towards convincing me that a
> good experience is possible with larger than PnP sized groups.
Hiya Terence:
Are you speaking from the PoV of Argh and Urgelt? How long ago was it
that you last played in the Lok Grotons?
CL was, to me, the eye-opener with regard to the problem of casual vs.
professional player. Don't get me wrong, I loved the concept of CL
from day one but was most put off after offical beta ended by the lack
of ... a point (other than socialization).
In fact, the cliquiness became such a strong parallel to politicking
in the real world that it left a bitter taste in my mouth. In the real
world I have to deal with incompetent leaders/managers, nepotism in
business, political correctness and political corruption, and the
lowest common denominator mentality of the cancerous socialism -- in a
fantasy game I dreamed I could escape these things. I dreamed wrong.
Being part of a clan really drove this aspect home. From my first week
of clanning I was heavily involved in developing an egalitarian clan
based on merit and not patronage. I fleshed out the realms by creating
in a vacuum an entire world ofplaces and details. But it was not meant
to be. I don't even know if Rising Claw is still an active clan. Lord
knows it got no support from Joe or the powers that be. The places I
created (for lack of any background material) got plastered
willy-nilly onto the map of a player in better favour with DT. Blah
blah blah.
> It does seem to me that automation and networking *ought* to be able
> to contribute something positive to collaborative story-creation. But
> not many games have shown they can do that very well yet.
It is in the choices of what to automate, I think. More so, it is in
the supervision/administration. Part of why CL was always Evening at
the Improv to me is that ... there were no rules or guidelines. I
never saw an idiot player getting an in-character chastisement. The
closest is when one of my own characters commented on the fickle
nature of the gods and was suddenly zotted by lightining and
surrounded by frogs.
We were allowed to make our characters be from anywhere (even other
planets, right Odesseus?) but with the risk that DT would override
anything and make entire origins useless.
Without a GM team who sparks encounters and sets the mood, tone,
setting, situation ... it is a whole bunch of unconnected improv
skits.
Were I DT, I would have published a back-story, detailed the races a
bit better, created a map and THEN let the players sign up. If I, as a
DM for D&D just throw a module in front of my players and say "do what
you want." the game will not be very entertaining and I will not be
picked as GM. Instead, my players leave the table entertained and
looking forward to the next session.
You can't automate an interactive game. Someone (prefereably many
someones) have to establish what can and can't be done and prod them
along. To have littel "journeys of discovery" along the way is good.
To make the primary purpose of a game as journey of discovery is an
invitation to malaise and disharmony.
Player 1: Sylvans are 20' tall.
Player 2: No they aren't.
GM: Sylvans are the same height as humans.
Only one of these is correct. They cannot all be correct or there is
no realism because there are no ground rules.
> I've done some NWN small-scale campaigning too. It takes a lot of
> patience though. I suffer from constant disconnects and intolerable
> lag - makes me yearn for CL simplicity, frankly. As many times as
> I've died in CL due to lag, it's nothing compared to NWN servers,
> which are pretty much catch-as-catch-can propositions. But if you can
> find a decent group willing to put some effort into the RP dimension
> (that's a big if, btw), NWN can be rewarding during the bits between
> the time-outs and server crashes.
Hmm ... never actually had these problems with NwN. Biggest group of
players was four plus a GM. (Loved HotU.)
> Sorry that "Sheldon-Lord" never made it off the ground. I'd have been
> happy to take a long serious look. Silly programmers, they think they
> have to eat. :-P
Heh. Indeed. It was gonna be more like classic Traveler than D&D and
was going pretty well. The biggest flaw was the server switching and,
at the time, a high speed connection was required. Now, everyone has
DSL, no?
Maybe one day.
Good luck in your quest for the 'experience.' I believe the limitation
is not digital but organic. I don't think you can automate a group of
game players anymore than you can automate a kindergarten.
FWIW.
- Sheldon
Chum
sheldon...@netscape.net (Sheldon England) wrote:
> Player 1: Sylvans are 20' tall.
> Player 2: No they aren't.
> GM: Sylvans are the same height as humans.
>
> Only one of these is correct. They cannot all be correct or there is
> no realism because there are no ground rules.
FWIW, it's possible that 2 of them are correct ;)
> > Sorry that "Sheldon-Lord" never made it off the ground. I'd have been
> > happy to take a long serious look. Silly programmers, they think they
> > have to eat. :-P
> Heh. Indeed. It was gonna be more like classic Traveler than D&D and
> was going pretty well. The biggest flaw was the server switching and,
> at the time, a high speed connection was required. Now, everyone has
> DSL, no?
No! Not through lack of trying -- it's just not available in my little
cave in the ground... :\
Please work hard to make your game work over dialup. Cripes, I played
WoW stress-test over dialup, and it rocked! The many-runs-at-the-fence
of Chum-Lord all work on dialup, and that's nothing to do with why
they're slow to progress.
(Yeah, yeah -- I'm not ignoring you. The answer is: War! for Windows
hasn't changed since you last asked, but I expect it to in the next
handful of days and am waiting until it does before I answer your email
:)
(TANGENT: War! is kind-a like MMO-Strategic Conquest, but with hardly
any players, yet. I'm looking for a handful of (Mac) players to help me
verify stability before I announce public beta. Please email (do *NOT*
further my inadvertant hijacking of this thread!) if you're interested.
Thanks.)
--
You have to remove your clothes if you want me to read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, ever purchase any product from
any company which gathers addresses from the usenet; period.
Sheldon England
> FWIW, it's possible that 2 of them are correct ;)
Heh. Yeah ... I realized that shortly after pressing send. You get the
point I was trying to make, though.
> > Now, everyone has DSL, no?
>
> No! Not through lack of trying -- it's just not available in my little
> cave in the ground... :\
Really? I thought George W. has a mandate for all Americans to be on
high speed asap.
> Please work hard to make your game work over dialup. Cripes, I played
> WoW stress-test over dialup, and it rocked! The many-runs-at-the-fence
> of Chum-Lord all work on dialup, and that's nothing to do with why
> they're slow to progress.
Well ... the CPU demands were a bit steep as well so we figured what
the heck. It was a cascading array of servers that scaled up from
neighborhood to city to county to continent to planet to orbit to
planetary system (moons and bases) to star systems to cluster groups
to the universe. On the smallest scale an avitar could wander the
streets of a busy spaceport populated with bots -- on a larger scale a
squadron of fighters could raid a pirate base in an asteroid field
(lots and lots of mobiles). Imagine a combination of
Traveler/Megatraveler/Cyberpunk with D&D, the Sims, Master of Orion,
EV-Override, and more. No little 150 Mhz machines would do. ;)
We'll see.
> (Yeah, yeah -- I'm not ignoring you. The answer is: War! for Windows
> hasn't changed since you last asked, but I expect it to in the next
> handful of days and am waiting until it does before I answer your email
> :)
Heh. No worries. I am totally enjoying the campaigns in the Rise of
Nations expansion and am taking Alexander and his Companions on some
interesting divergent history paths (Bwa ha ha) so I'm plenty occupied
these days anywhoo. You know where to find me.
- Sheldon
Warren J. Dew
And yet...
What are we *doing*? Is there no social consequence of
creating playgrounds where grief is the norm? Is there no
higher ethic towards which to strive? No social
responsibility on the part of writers, publishers, artists,
thinkers, teachers, and yes, game designers?
And yet, you can turn this around, too.
Are you so certain of the social superiority of a game where players who are,
perhaps, underprivileged teenagers in real life are not tolerated? Is it
better to keep them in the slums, ignore them, and not let them play with you,
than to accept a more open environment where people who are vastly different
can at least interact?
One of the things I really enjoyed in games other than Clan Lord was the
opportunity to get at least a small glimpse of some parts of society that I
otherwise never interact with. Clan Lord, in comparison, seems demographically
very uniform.
Terence R. McCain
Heh, it's been *years and years* since I played Argh. I'd almost
forgotten him. But I was playing CL occasionally (though not often)
as late as spring in 2004. I'll play again, eventually, when I am
re-equipped with a Mac.
Last I heard, RC was still a clan, but I think most clans have become
somewhat moribund, or had when I last played.
I do enjoy more structure and more enforcement. Recently I found a
persistant NWN world (complete with the usual crashes and lag) that
has *very* strict RP enforcement. Those DMs are on the job in a big
way, and the snerts and griefers don't last long. I've seen some
terrific RP there. It's a pretty big world, too - they've linked up
multiple servers. Advancement is slow, at least for NWN, though not
so by CL standards. There is quite a lot of backstory, though it
takes some digging to get at it all. It's the best NWN job I've seen
so far. You can get info on it at <http://www.copap.org/portal.php>.
I do recommend you have a look.
I agree it's an organic problem... but design influences it, GMs
influence it, and as HGM pointed out, so do the early adopters.
-- Terry
On 21 Sep 2004 17:34:28 -0700, sheldon...@netscape.net (Sheldon
Terence R. McCain
I am not persuaded that I should spend my free time with people who
think griefing is fun. I don't much care if they are underprivileged
or not. Though I think most griefing comes from overprivileged
children, and the adults they turn into, not the strata you seem to be
referring to. Poor kids aren't generally the ones buying in-game money
at e-Bay so they can get a leg up on griefing faster.
I'd rather rule out griefers than "enjoy" a diverse set of
interactions with them, and I don't much care if the result is
"demographically uniform." But it doesn't actually turn out that way
all that often. I've met some interesting and fun people who are
nothing at all like me. and the only thing we have common is a desire
to give each other entertainment and fun.
-- Terry
Terence R. McCain
Phone company doesn't provide DSL here, cable company doesn't provide
ISP service here, the electric company is experiementing with high
speed over electrical lines somewhere else but not here, and wireless
is both too expensive and too far away to work here. As for W, he
talks the talk, but he doesn't want Government investing in internet
access infrastructure, and he certainly won't tell private companies
they have to do it. On matters of business he's a hands-off
President.
Last I heard, nearly half the population of the US still lacks high
speed internet access.
-- Terry
On 22 Sep 2004 13:00:08 -0700, sheldon...@netscape.net (Sheldon
England) wrote:
>Chum <Chum@*YOUR-CLOTHES*PlayNaked.com> wrote in message news:<Chum-DF9E99.2...@individual.net>...
>> FWIW, it's possible that 2 of them are correct ;)
>
>Heh. Yeah ... I realized that shortly after pressing send. You get the
>point I was trying to make, though.
>
>
>> > Now, everyone has DSL, no?
>>
>> No! Not through lack of trying -- it's just not available in my little
>> cave in the ground... :\
>
>Really? I thought George W. has a mandate for all Americans to be on
>high speed asap.
>
>
>
> - Sheldon
Warren J. Dew
I am not persuaded that I should spend my free time with
people who think griefing is fun.
Sorry, didn't mean to say you should. I'm just pointing out that it may not be
particularly more socially responsible to refrain from doing it than to do it.
Though I think most griefing comes from overprivileged
children, and the adults they turn into, not the strata
you seem to be referring to.
It may depend on the specific game, but I've spent a lot of time getting to
know the PK community in several different games, and in my experience you are
incorrect.
Poor kids aren't generally the ones buying in-game money
at e-Bay so they can get a leg up on griefing faster.
The ones who buy their stuff on eBay are not successful griefers. They might
be trying to be competitive at consensual PvP, but that's different than
griefing - and they still tend to be unsuccessful. You can't buy the skills on
eBay.
Terence R. McCain
I've met griefers who did buy stuff on the web, outfitted themselves,
and set off to cure their boredom by griefing. And I stand by my
assessment of the source of most of those griefers. They are coming
out of lower middle class, middle class and upper class backgrounds.
Kids from truly poverty stricken areas don't have access to the
computers, the internet on-ramps, and the game software and money to
pay monthly access fees, let alone the bucks they would need to buy
in-game resources over the web. Poor kids may also lack the peer
orientation confirming that spending hours and hours on-line is cool,
nor, in some cases, the education to comprehend how to do all that in
the first place. I'm not saying NO griefers come from poor
backgrounds. Probably some do. But they aren't the griefers I've
been meeting.
I'm all for social consciousness. Heck, I've already pled in this
thread for game designers to at least think about the larger social
implications of their game designs.
Such children require stability, safety, consistant enforcement of
limits, affection... well, I get the sense that you've thought about
this, no need for a long rambling discourse here.
I'm sure you see the problem - kids who are deprived of such things
are not going to find them by staring at a computer monitor. These
kids are hurting. Their empathy is turned way down because of it.
And you need a lot of empathy in you if you are to make meaningful
connections with other people through such a cold medium as the
internet.
As a member of society at large, I concede that I have some
responsibility - all of us do - for the task of establishing limits on
acceptable behavior and enforcing those limits, and helping people to
conform to them. But I think my responsibility is in direct
proportion to my power. As a voting citizen and taxpayer, I have
quite a bit of power, and I try to use that power productively. As a
game player, I try to set a positive example for social interactions.
But when griefers are around in their dozens or hundreds, foolishly
whacking and yelling and cursing and what have you, I feel absolutely
no responsibility as a player for intervening. I don't have the power
to set limits in those games. The game designers do have that power.
If they don't bother to set limits, then their games become virtual
slums, and it's neither my job to clean them up, nor my obligation to
spend time in them.
-- Terry
Sheldon England
> >is not digital but organic. I don't think you can automate a group of
> >game players anymore than you can automate a kindergarten.
>
> influence it, and as HGM pointed out, so do the early adopters.
This is true. Can you think of any significant game that does not have
referees or administrators? "Tic tac toe" or hop-scotch are examples
of what I mean by insignificant (no offense to anyone).
Pro sports ... best athletes in their game ... and they still need a
referee. If a bunch of 'pros' earning bazillions for their elite skill
can't agree to play nice nice ... then how can we expect a bunch of
live-in-their-parents-basement anti-social whackos be expected to play
reasonably?
Further, if people behaved reasonably and were accountable for their
actions we would not need laws, locks, or police officers. It would be
nice to live in a world where locks weren't required but I won't hold
my breath. Or, as has been my motto for years: "Trust in Allah ... but
tie up your camel anyway." :p
> Last I heard, RC was still a clan, but I think most clans have become
> somewhat moribund, or had when I last played.
Heh. No comment.
> I do enjoy more structure and more enforcement. Recently I found a
> persistant NWN world (complete with the usual crashes and lag) that
> has *very* strict RP enforcement. Those DMs are on the job in a big
> way, and the snerts and griefers don't last long. I've seen some
> terrific RP there. It's a pretty big world, too - they've linked up
> multiple servers. Advancement is slow, at least for NWN, though not
> so by CL standards. There is quite a lot of backstory, though it
> takes some digging to get at it all. It's the best NWN job I've seen
> so far. You can get info on it at <http://www.copap.org/portal.php>.
> I do recommend you have a look.
I will later this week. Thanks for the heads-up.
In my opinion Bioware was wise to release the Aurora tool kit and keep
updating it. Several million out of ten for style. It is WHY there
were so many NwN players and, for any who have looked in the vaults,
over 4000 modules to chose from. No game company could afford to write
that many adventures. Bioware got them for "free" by making the tools
available to anyone who was interested in developing content. Reading
this part, Delta Tao? ;)
- Sheldon
Joe Williams
> Bioware got them for "free" by making the tools
> available to anyone who was interested in developing content. Reading
> this part, Delta Tao?
Yes! And we've certainly considered it.
In my opinion, the best thing about Clan Lord is the sense of community,
and I think it's pretty important to have a single cohesive world,
rather than a collection of them.
All the GMs started as players, of course, and they have made the world
much larger and cooler than I ever imagined.
Um, by the way, I'm back from my year sabbatical in Hong Kong. Whee!
--
--Joe Williams
President, Delta Tao Software, Inc.
To subscribe to Joe's rambling personal newsletter, send an email to
joedeltalis...@yahoogroups.com.
Sheldon England
> > available to anyone who was interested in developing content. Reading
> > this part, Delta Tao?
>
> Yes! And we've certainly considered it.
>
> In my opinion, the best thing about Clan Lord is the sense of community,
> and I think it's pretty important to have a single cohesive world,
> rather than a collection of them.
Absolutely the best part of CL is the social aspect -- if that's the
sort of thing that floats yer boat. When I want to be sociable I turn
off my computer and hang out with my sweetie or our friends. When I
want to adventure I turn the computer on and login.
If cohesion was so important then why was the setting and background
the last thing developed? Heck, how long was DT hassled to "at least
put the clan into Clan Lord"? ;)
> All the GMs started as players, of course, and they have made the world
> much larger and cooler than I ever imagined.
I can only comment on what was ... and I recall those cliche medieval
massage tables, saunas, bubble gum, and shoe dye. But I'm sure it was
high-fantasy shoe dye. ;p
> Um, by the way, I'm back from my year sabbatical in Hong Kong. Whee!
I thought you were in Japan. Wow. Was HK relaxing? Must be quite
different from DT HQ.
Welcome back, Joe.
- Sheldon
keith lim
> If cohesion was so important then why was the setting and background
> the last thing developed? Heck, how long was DT hassled to "at least
> put the clan into Clan Lord"? ;)
In puzzle/shooter/role-playing computer games, story is typically as
much a flimsy framework as it is in most action movies or porn films.
Sometimes, it's even an obvious afterthought. Most of the time, no more
attention is given to it than is necessary to create a minimal skeleton
to hold together what would otherwise be unconnected chunks of meat.
The "meat" in action movies is property destruction and messy deaths. In
porn films, it's sex scenes. In computer games, it's levelling-up.
Whether it takes the form of solving puzzles, finding more weapons and
ammunition to blast away more mutants (it's always mutants), or
hack-and-slashing (or fireballing) monsters to gain skills, it's the
levelling-up that's the real purpose. Background and current stories are
just kind of "there" to sort of string it all the meat together, so that
those parts aren't just floating disconnected in a void.
Clan Lord's a hack-and-slash, nominally role-playing game--certainly,
more successful in the role-playing part than most others--but still a
hack-and-slash game, with all the conventions of that genre. (For
example, experience comes primarily from hack-and-slashing and can
mysteriously fuel any skill at all. Spend a few hours in the forest
wantonly slaughtering a bunch of creatures, learn lockpicking! In Clan
Lord, systematically exterminate the rats in the gate towers, learn the
Thoomish language!) No surprise that among the earliest work was the
ranking system--levelling-up. Only after that should come work on the
setting and background. Priorities, you know.
--
keith lim keit...@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~keithlim/
Who put all the morning people in charge?
Andrew Plotkin
>
> The "meat" in action movies is property destruction and messy deaths. In
> porn films, it's sex scenes. In computer games, it's levelling-up.
Slight rephrasing: in computer RPGs, it's getting the player to click
for one minute. Levelling up (or getting skills, or items, or
whatever) is the payoff for spending your player-minutes.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
keith lim
> Here, keith lim <keit...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > The "meat" in action movies is property destruction and messy deaths. In
> > porn films, it's sex scenes. In computer games, it's levelling-up.
>
> Slight rephrasing: in computer RPGs, it's getting the player to click
> for one minute. Levelling up (or getting skills, or items, or
> whatever) is the payoff for spending your player-minutes.
Sometimes, even that one minute isn't necessary. Some games give
levelling-up goodies even when the player isn't actively playing. For
example, you might get gold from rental income if you've built a
marketplace. Or you might get automatic recruitment of troops if you
have barracks. Stay at an inn instead of camping outdoors and get hit
points restored without requiring healing spells or potions. Perhaps you
don't even need to own or do anything, or go anywhere to log off, if
there are turn-based or game-tick bonuses.
Clan Lord has its libraries; stay in them, get "study" experience. This
has created an interesting situation: a significant proportion of the
player base deliberately staying offline instead of playing the game
more often. By their own admission (in various posts here and there),
they choose to keep their character(s) in the library as much as
possible--because they'd "loose experience" by coming out to play.
Levelling-up is the core to which the game has shrunk, for them. Not one
minute of clicking, or five, or thirty.
(For Delta Tao, it means that people are paying them real money for the
privilege of not putting a load on their server and bandwidth, except
rarely. Not bad, not bad at all.)
--
keith lim keit...@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~keithlim/
Life is short--eat dessert first.
keith lim
> sheldon...@netscape.net (Sheldon England) wrote:
>
> > Bioware got them for "free" by making the tools
> > available to anyone who was interested in developing content. Reading
> > this part, Delta Tao?
>
> Yes! And we've certainly considered it.
> In my opinion, the best thing about Clan Lord is the sense of community,
> and I think it's pretty important to have a single cohesive world,
> rather than a collection of them.
This is...a bit of a non-sequitur. Having a single cohesive world is a
fine goal. What's that got to do with the non-availability of
world-building tools?
A world-building tool doesn't necessarily have to build a standalone
adventure module. The world it builds could be simply a single "room" or
"area" (or, for that matter, "snell"), in the proper format--the graphic
elements and their layout, at least. It's still a self-contained module
in a sense, except that it won't be part of any single cohesive world
until it's manually spliced into that world by a game master.
For that matter, for Clan Lord, a special tool isn't even really needed,
since the world is made up of "rooms" (like in adventure games) in
effectively a 2D overhead view, rather than a huge 3D environment with
doors and moving platforms and so on. All that's really needed to create
new areas--the terrain, at least--are the graphic elements: terrain
tiles, trees, rocks, water, furniture. Make these available as folders
of clip-art; that would be enough for people to create peaceful forest
groves, lavishly-furnished rooms, confusing death-trap mazes, etc., all
perfectly suited for the world. (They just be pictures created in a
graphic program, of course, and would have to be recreated to be
incorporated into the world--still, it would be something.)
Or if not even that, then publish the specifications for creating
graphic content--dimensions, palette, reserved colours, required poses,
file format, filename conventions, and so on. Or the documentation for
scripting NPC interaction or item use (with a bunch of examples)--this
allows those with a bent for writing dialogue or creating puzzles their
chance to contribute as well. Information is a tool too. Making it
available facilitates more player-created content. This shouldn't cause
a single cohesive world to fragment into a bunch of separate ones--but
would significantly enable players to expand and enrich it.
--
keith lim keit...@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~keithlim/
I'm not a kook, but I play one on the 'net.