A new type of player?
Jamieson Norrish
namely that they are not capable of any real interaction - I am toying
with the idea of allowing two types of players. One type would be your
normal players, who take the role of a character and go happily on
their way. The second type of player would be quite different; these
players would not have one fixed character, but could rather "step
into the shoes" of any NPC/mobile in the game, and control it. Each
player would be assigned various NPCs by the wizards, who might then
also specify how they want that NPC to be played, and what information
it has.
Now, this idea is not particularly new - wizards in some games have
long had the ability to do this sort of thing. However, I think that
wizards are normally busy doing other things, and so it's natural for
the task to fall to those players who don't mind playing lots of
bit-parts, as it were.
Comments, suggestions, flames? Would anyone actually enjoy doing this,
apart from myself? Note that players who played NPCs would not be
allowed a normal character.
Jamie
Scarrow
[ ... some stuff about players placing NPCs removed ... ]
>Comments, suggestions, flames? Would anyone actually enjoy doing this,
>apart from myself? Note that players who played NPCs would not be
>allowed a normal character.
It's not a bad idea. It doesn't really fit my style of doing things, but
that's not where I see the real difficulties. In order to make this really
work the players have to use the NPC in a manner making sense (i.e., not
grabbing Pete the Pirate and taking him onshore and marching him around the
town), has to pick an NPC that will have some involvement, not just some NPC
that ends of being avoided by everyone anyway, and just a sheer number of
NPC participants. It's hard enough to get thirty players on the MUD, but,
say, twenty players and twenty NPCs? In my mind it's an interesting idea in
theory, but probably not in practice. Characters also offer more development
potential, even though they don't come ready made. If you could lure five
thousand players onto a MUD (with enough power to handle it), it might be
more feasible. Unfortunately, if that's the case, you might do away with
NPCs completely.
Now, there are some exceptions to the above. You certainly could have
normal style mobiles and then allow people to play around with some of them.
It's just that the amount of effect that will really have on the game
probably isn't going to end up being more significant than letting that
player just play a normal character. Even if that person can change mobiles,
he or she still can't control more than one at once to any high degree of
reality.
>Jamie
--
Shawn L. Baird (Scarrow) | "By all means, take the moral high ground --
bai...@ursula.ee.pdx.edu | all that heavenly backlighting makes you a
-------------------------| much easier target." --Solomon Short
Jamieson Norrish
(Scarrow) writes:
It's not a bad idea. It doesn't really fit my style of doing
things, but that's not where I see the real difficulties. In order
to make this really work the players have to use the NPC in a
manner making sense (i.e., not grabbing Pete the Pirate and taking
him onshore and marching him around the town), has to pick an NPC
that will have some involvement, not just some NPC that ends of
being avoided by everyone anyway, and just a sheer number of NPC
participants.
True; however, if one player is given about twenty NPCs to control,
she can flit from one another as the need arises (a little device
telling the player if a player is in the same room as an NPC would be
most helpful). Also, wizards might find such a situation most helpful
- for example, in order to provide the latest information on a new
area, without using a kludge like a bulletin board or signs. And it
would be great fun for the player to ad lib characters all the time.
Characters also offer more development potential, even though they
don't come ready made.
Perhaps, although if one player has twenty NPCs under her control, she
has a lot of potential to develop interesting personalities.
Now, there are some exceptions to the above. You certainly could
have normal style mobiles and then allow people to play around with
some of them. It's just that the amount of effect that will really
have on the game probably isn't going to end up being more
significant than letting that player just play a normal character.
Actually, I think that people would find interacting with people-run
NPCs quite refreshing; on many lp or diku-style MUDs, players don't
interact to a great degree, except in purely game terms ("Let's team
up to kill blah."). These NPCs, because they do not have the same
goals as players (that is, they will not be trying to gain money,
experience, and levels), will have interesting things to say, and
might well at the same time have information which is needed by the
player. That gives the opportunity for lots of fun.
Jamie
Miss J A Cunningham
open to abuse that I cannot see how it could feasibly(sp?) work...
Lars Syrstad
: The idea of players playing NPCs in a manner ordained by wizards seems so
: open to abuse that I cannot see how it could feasibly(sp?) work...
It seems to me that you have the answer to this problem yourself.
Look at the phrase 'manner ordained by wizards'. Of course one would
place the same restrictions and duties upon the shoulders of these
players as on wizards.
In the 'mud of my dreams' there will be a number of '''wizards''' whose
main task will be to act as 'game masters'. Their task will be to
interact with players through the bodies of NPCs, change parts of the mud
more or less on the fly, create and distribute objects on the fly -
generally acting as gods who take an interest in the world of mortals.
These people will of course be trusted beings.
Lars Syrstad, aka Drevreck@the one who's not down anymore.
--
God created the world in six days - on the seventh he was arrested.
- The unauthorized version.
Scarrow
> Now, there are some exceptions to the above. You certainly could
> have normal style mobiles and then allow people to play around with
> some of them. It's just that the amount of effect that will really
> have on the game probably isn't going to end up being more
> significant than letting that player just play a normal character.
>Actually, I think that people would find interacting with people-run
>NPCs quite refreshing; on many lp or diku-style MUDs, players don't
>interact to a great degree, except in purely game terms ("Let's team
>up to kill blah."). These NPCs, because they do not have the same
>goals as players (that is, they will not be trying to gain money,
>experience, and levels), will have interesting things to say, and
>might well at the same time have information which is needed by the
>player. That gives the opportunity for lots of fun.
Well, my point was that if the player doesn't pick the right NPC, the players
won't meet, and thus the interaction won't be at any greater level than the
normal interaction between players. It might make more sense to allow players
to go ahead and play monster classes which they can develop, and to encourage
intra-player wars. This has the disadvantage of limiting the monster player
to a single character, however.
As we've discussed, I intend to see what I can do about making mobiles
as generally smart as I can. This can all be done under the guise of a single
routine which handles them all. The next step is to add special NPC
interaction capabilities to individual ones, for use in quests, etc. To use a
few of the tricks of modern FRP computer games, the mobiles will probably have
homes, shops, etc., which they wander between according to schedule (the
routines handling most of this, the data set required being fairly minimal).
The whole point being that I can afford to waste scads of space for a routine
which will only be in memory once as opposed to not being able to afford to
waste scads of space in private data (and believe me, there'll already be
scads of space taken up privately as well).
Jamieson Norrish
drev...@colargol.edb.tih.no (Lars Syrstad) writes:
[Question of easy possibility of abuse deleted.]
It seems to me that you have the answer to this problem yourself.
Look at the phrase 'manner ordained by wizards'. Of course one would
place the same restrictions and duties upon the shoulders of these
players as on wizards.
Exactly - the NPC-players would almost be wizards in some of their
powers, and they thus have many of the same responsibilities, and
hence codes of behaviour.
In the 'mud of my dreams' there will be a number of '''wizards''' whose
main task will be to act as 'game masters'. Their task will be to
interact with players through the bodies of NPCs, change parts of the mud
more or less on the fly, create and distribute objects on the fly -
generally acting as gods who take an interest in the world of mortals.
These people will of course be trusted beings.
To go off on a tangent slightly, it has always annoyed me that
wizards, at least in most lp MUDs, are drafted more or less directly
from players who have spent more hours than the rest killing monsters
and doing quests. I do not think that being a player has much
connection with being a wizard at all, and so having one be the
prerequisite of the other is just ludicrous. Now, it may be argued
that the period of being a player allows the wizards to decide if they
want a particular player to become a wizard, but this can be done in
other ways.
Since tastes in MUDs vary so much, it seems to me to be worthwhile
spending a little time thinking about how different tastes can be
catered for. To my mind, the first three most important distinctions
are between those who want to play, those who want to code, and those
who want to roleplay (I am assuming here the typical
hack'n'slash'n'quest MUD - in other types of games, this might not be
the case). Forcing all three to perform what only one of the three
divisions enjoy is not a good thing. Wizardship (whatever that
entails) should go to those who want to do it, and are capable - so
why not have wizards select apprentices from those who want to be a
wizard, but haven't worked their way up the levels to "officially"
become one? And why not allow those who wish to focus on role-playing
to become NPC-players? (Since, in the typical hack'n'slash'n'quest MUD,
players have little opportunity for this, simply because there is no
necessity for player interaction, and thus other players can easily
ignore the role-player, thus making life rather difficult for her.)
Maybe that wasn't such a tangent after all...
Jamie
Tamber Kelsain
Jamie, you just had to do this to me, didn't you? I thought I could
resist posting for a while.... :^)
>their way. The second type of player would be quite different; these
>players would not have one fixed character, but could rather "step
>into the shoes" of any NPC/mobile in the game, and control it. Each
Legends, where every important object/monster/room has a save file,
already has this built in. I was planning on making a spell that would allow
a player to decode the "password" of NPC's not already "claimed".
When you log into Legends, you do not do so with a character. You log
in with an email address and a password for that email. This identifies you
as a human in RL, and has little connection as to what your player character
on the Mud actually is. It also makes it easier to remove a certain person
(not character) from the game (though I hope I rarely have to do this, the
player-defined judicial system should take care of a lot of problems :).
Once you have assumed that email address, you can "become" any
monster/person on the game that you have a password for. I've even toyed with
the possibility of letting characters learn the passwords of other players, if
they can do it (once again, this would be through a HIGH level spell, similar
to possession). Since every monster in the game has a save file, and password
as well, this really facilitates your idea, Jamie. (Yeah, I know, my disk
usage will go through the roof, taken care of!)
>Comments, suggestions, flames? Would anyone actually enjoy doing this,
>apart from myself? Note that players who played NPCs would not be
>allowed a normal character.
I don't know if there would be a problem with allowing them a "normal"
character.
>Jamie
Let the Discussions begin!
-Will
--
Will Stoltenberg |"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my
Ames, Iowa (515) 294-1701| religion. I could never give assent to the long
"Tamber Kelsain" | complicated statements of Christian dogma."
gri...@iastate.edu | - Abraham Lincoln
Tamber Kelsain
>(Scarrow) writes:
>fights and maims and quests and does whatever. How many players would
>go up to another player and say, "Excuse me, but aren't you the one
>who slew the mighty dragon? You were - I thought so! And what did you
>use to protect yourself? Ah, yes, a fine suit of chainmail - my
>chainmail, in fact. That's most kind of you, thankyou...", and wander
>off - and then a few hours later a sign outside the armoury reads:
>"Finest chainmail in the land - withstands dragon breath! The only
>armour used by the great <insert character's name>!".
This is one of my main goals, to create a history-making mud.. a mud
that people can come on to and tell tales of the great things that
player-characters have done on the mud. The mud could be designed to allow
players to construct signs/monuments to add to this feeling. I want a mud
that's more REAL, more like a home for characters instead of just a
battlefield.
>That sort of thing is made possible in only three ways - allowing
>players to own shops (actually, this amounts really to having no NPCs
>at all, and just players), having wizards do it (whether by taking
^^^^^^^^^^^^
With these ideas, just where does the line between being a player and
an NPC really lay? Hmm..
>over NPCs, or simply making the sign), or as above. Now although I
>Jamie
Tamber Kelsain
>: The idea of players playing NPCs in a manner ordained by wizards seems so
>: open to abuse that I cannot see how it could feasibly(sp?) work...
I don't see a problem with a well coded mudlib.
>It seems to me that you have the answer to this problem yourself.
>Look at the phrase 'manner ordained by wizards'. Of course one would
>place the same restrictions and duties upon the shoulders of these
>players as on wizards.
Um, I think the mudlib should be coded so that there need be no
restrictions on anyone. Anything less is the coder's fault. Can anyone
present me with a restriction that can't be enforced without adequate mudlib
support?
>In the 'mud of my dreams' there will be a number of '''wizards''' whose
>main task will be to act as 'game masters'. Their task will be to
Yes, Legends will be run this way. Wizards do no actual coding.
Those that code number less than 5, I hope to keep it this way. (Needless to
say, progress *is* slowed by this coding-power handicapp)
>interact with players through the bodies of NPCs, change parts of the mud
>more or less on the fly, create and distribute objects on the fly -
>generally acting as gods who take an interest in the world of mortals.
Exactly! I would like to allow players to become as relatively
powerful as Gods (through a lot of work, of course)
>These people will of course be trusted beings.
I wonder if this need be if there are proper balances? Of course
coming up with these balances will be no easy task. I wonder if gods could
decide among themselves (in a diplomatic manner) their own limits? At first
this sounds crazy, but if, when working together, gods have the power to
destroy another god's power, ie ``demote'' him.... Hmm.... Comments?
>Lars Syrstad, aka Drevreck@the one who's not down anymore.
>--
>God created the world in six days - on the seventh he was arrested.
> - The unauthorized version.
^-----Finally, Justice :^)
Tamber Kelsain
Ob, BRAVO, Jamie! I knew there was a reason I liked you! *grin*
That has long since bothered me. So many people have to take on roles that
they would rather not. Some people think it's such an honor to become wiz
that they don't think about the responsibilities and B.S. that the average wiz
has to go through. Then they lose all fun ``playing'' the Mud.
>Maybe that wasn't such a tangent after all...
What is a tangent but just another idea... Nothing wrong with that :)
>Jamie
-Will
Jamieson Norrish
Kelsain) writes:
Jamie, you just had to do this to me, didn't you? I thought I could
resist posting for a while.... :^)
Yes, I did - I knew I couldn't resist posting, so I didn't bother even
trying. :)
Legends, where every important object/monster/room has a save file,
already has this built in. I was planning on making a spell that
would allow a player to decode the "password" of NPC's not already
"claimed".
Now this is a cool idea! Provided you could trust the players taking
over NPCs to do so responsibly, and not abuse the power, it could be
something that didn't need a game justification (such as a spell, or
whatever). As for taking over another player, that is also a brilliant
way of "possession" - the only problem being that once you know the
password, you know it forever. Maybe the possession spell, if
successful, simply logged you in as that character, without revealing
the password.
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
Kelsain) writes:
This is one of my main goals, to create a history-making mud.. a
mud that people can come on to and tell tales of the great things
that player-characters have done on the mud. The mud could be
designed to allow players to construct signs/monuments to add to
this feeling. I want a mud that's more REAL, more like a home for
characters instead of just a battlefield.
To an extent, this sort of MU* exists already in the Tiny family,
where building is allowed. All that is required is some definition and
structure - mechanics for determining how objects interact with each
other - and some limitations on what players can do, and there you
have it. Although that makes it sound slightly easier than I've found
it sso far. :)
>That sort of thing is made possible in only three ways - allowing
>players to own shops (actually, this amounts really to having no NPCs
>at all, and just players), having wizards do it (whether by taking
^^^^^^^^^^^^
With these ideas, just where does the line between being a player
and an NPC really lay? Hmm..
Good point; except that it's better to have "full time" players over
NPCs who are partially controlled. Of course, the great advantage of
the latter is that layers aren't permanently stuck with potentially
boring characters (like a farmer who spends all of his time in a
field, except for the weekly trip to the village, which might be when
a player takes over and has fun). So maybe having NPCs is better than
not, even with lots of players.
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
Kelsain) writes:
Um, I think the mudlib should be coded so that there need be no
restrictions on anyone. Anything less is the coder's fault. Can
anyone present me with a restriction that can't be enforced without
adequate mudlib support?
Just a slight warning, if I may - make sure that you don't restrict
player options by this coding, except in the specific areas of abuse.
I feel that in many MU*s, far too many things are coded, and cut down
player options. If the coding is good, then maybe, but my first
instinct is to find other ways of working.
Yes, Legends will be run this way. Wizards do no actual coding.
Those that code number less than 5, I hope to keep it this way.
(Needless to say, progress *is* slowed by this coding-power
handicapp)
Excellent to see a move away from promoting lots of people to coding
positions.
I wonder if this need be if there are proper balances? Of course
coming up with these balances will be no easy task. I wonder if
gods could decide among themselves (in a diplomatic manner) their
own limits? At first this sounds crazy, but if, when working
together, gods have the power to destroy another god's power, ie
``demote'' him.... Hmm.... Comments?
I think that *maybe* you are overestimating the maturity of many
people who play. I think that rather than realising what use of power
will do, and avoiding it, they will just demote etc endlessly. Maybe
I'm wrong. I hope so.
Jamie
Lars Syrstad
: In article <1993Mar20.1...@ugle.unit.no> drev...@colargol.edb.tih.no (Lars Syrstad) writes:
: >It seems to me that you have the answer to this problem yourself.
: >Look at the phrase 'manner ordained by wizards'. Of course one would
: >place the same restrictions and duties upon the shoulders of these
: >players as on wizards.
: Um, I think the mudlib should be coded so that there need be no
: restrictions on anyone. Anything less is the coder's fault. Can anyone
: present me with a restriction that can't be enforced without adequate mudlib
: support?
What about: "You can do anything you like, as long as it fits in with
the overall concept of the game-world, and as long as it doesn't alter
the balance of the mud in unwanted ways over some time." ?
: >In the 'mud of my dreams' there will be a number of '''wizards''' whose
: >main task will be to act as 'game masters'. Their task will be to
: Yes, Legends will be run this way. Wizards do no actual coding.
: Those that code number less than 5, I hope to keep it this way. (Needless to
: say, progress *is* slowed by this coding-power handicapp)
I am sorry, but I don't understand you. 'code number is less than 5' ?
Please enlighten me. :-)
: >interact with players through the bodies of NPCs, change parts of the mud
: >more or less on the fly, create and distribute objects on the fly -
: >generally acting as gods who take an interest in the world of mortals.
: Exactly! I would like to allow players to become as relatively
: powerful as Gods (through a lot of work, of course)
It does seem that your idea is somewhat different than mine. See below.
: >These people will of course be trusted beings.
: I wonder if this need be if there are proper balances? Of course
: coming up with these balances will be no easy task. I wonder if gods could
: decide among themselves (in a diplomatic manner) their own limits? At first
: this sounds crazy, but if, when working together, gods have the power to
: destroy another god's power, ie ``demote'' him.... Hmm.... Comments?
I will try to outline how I would like to organise my dream-mud.
On the top there will be a relatively small number of bosses. These will
be the be-all-end-alls, holding final judgement. Probably there would
need to be a leader of these as well. It would be only fitting that this
person should be me. :-) :-)
Further, there will be the coders.
And there will be the game masters.
Any person could easily be a member of one, two or all three groups.
Common for these people are that they are chosen explicitely to perform
these tasks. No 'normal player' would be able to get to such a position
without being headhunted for it. In principle, the game masters can
never do anything 'wrong' or 'illegal'. (If someone overdoes things,
your idea of 'demotion' comes into it...)
These people will all have full coding abilities. The difference between
the groups are their assigned tasks, not their privileges.
Now to the players:
Role-playing would be essential in this mud. I suspect that the mere
nature of the mud would ensure that the usual hack'n'slash player
would avoid it like the plague.
The more advanced players (holding positions in the game where they
naturally would 'produce' something) might be given certain object-
creation capabilities. This might be something like the stuff
you have in MUSHes etc (not that I know much about these), and not
full access to LPC. (Yes, I am talking about an LPmud).
I doubt that I would give these persons the ability to switch into
monsters and such though. I cannot really see how this would fit in.
(Except maybe if they are equipped with some magical ability to
possess other individuals' minds).
So to sum up: The game masters would NEED to be trusted, since I
do not want to place all kinds of nasty security stuff all around.
There would not be a lot of them, and they would all have been chosen
by me or someone I trust, so I think it should work. If it doesn't work
there is always a backup nearby... (yea, right).
Sorry for getting long-winded up there. This is one of my favourite
topics you see... :-)
Lars Syrstad.
--
Those who live by prayer die by the sword.
- Sabbat: 'Hosanna in Excelsis'.
Beth Moursund
>restrictions on anyone. Anything less is the coder's fault. Can anyone
>present me with a restriction that can't be enforced without adequate mudlib
>support?
Easily. Any of the things that would be hard to program in the first place,
which is the whole reason for HAVING a human play the NPCs. Think of
a NPC that will only answer questions put to her in rhyme -- or, for
a real challenge, that speaks only in rhyme. Or that attacks anyone
wearing blue on their head.
I could come up with dozens of examples; those just happen to be ones that
I've encountered in tabletop gaming.