First time posting here at Gamedev, so have mercy.

I am really interested in the notion of a MMPORPG, but like most have found them quite lacking. I have several ideas on how to improve them, but here is one that I wanted to point out.

1 Death... Death is a big issue in games like this. The problem is finality. No one wants to play a game for 6 months, and then suddenly have the character that they have been nurturing that whole time die. This overriding problem stifles many aspects of an online RPG that have the potential of making it enjoyable. Player conflict being the biggest. I think game makers shy away from player conflict in these types of games, because they inevidably end up in one person being the loser(dead) and someone else being the winner. And since everyone is plunking down $10 bucks a month, the makers of these games are worried about people quitting because their character of 3 months just died. (How many of you have played a single player role-playing game, got 3/4 the way through, and then had your saved games get fried... I don''t know about you, but when it happened to me I quit playing the game)

So what is the solution? Good question. I think the only way to tackle this problem is to focus on death. Make death a part of the game. Or, as an alternative solution, provide a means for players to compete without a sense of finality. Sort of the GI Joe metaphor, or super hero metaphor. They meet, they fight, and they both walk away alive... but knowing clearly who the winner was.

Just a thought,
Galshin

What seems to be the thing that a lot of us here are touching upon as possibly being a solution is more emphasis on *simulation* of a more realistic world, rather than a semi-realistic one and then adding particular fluff here and there, (in the form of designed quests, for example).

A more realistic world allowing for a larger variety of possible interactions would take away the need for this fluff to be designed, as the players themselves, in their faction-forming and actions, will actually create a better substitute to this fluff... one that holds up to the suspension of disbelief more resiliently, and where the actions of players actually have some sort of effect on the game world, directly or indirectly, economically, environmentally, etc.

As for the death issue, whatever is inferred about it... Should it really be linked directly to how a player *pays* for the game? Perhaps it would be better analyzed apart from real life issues, other than what a player is interested in. If you can allow death to incorporate ultimate finality, and it has a positive affect on how the game is, the player won''t avoid the game just because there is finality.



--BTW: Nazrix is cool.

Well, if I were marketing a realistic roleplaying world I wouldn''t be aiming at the folks who buy into Everquest so much as the folks who buy into The Sims. My guess is that there''s vast untapped potential for just about anyone to be a roleplayer given the incentives of escapism and socialization. With a solid simulation in place that models interactions in a fairly reliable way all that''s needed is the example of good roleplaying to set the ball rolling. I''d suggest the idea of growing cultures, socially engineering betatests to make sure there''s a core base of creative players with a good idea of how roleplaying is done, how the setting works and how both are incorporated into the actual playing of the game. Playing of the game? Perhaps that''s even an incorrect characterization. How about the living of the virtual life?

The reason I believe a core culture can be grown is because this is what we see happening on the longest lived MUSHes (text based roleplaying games). Conflicts do happen and power struggles are common but there''s alot more roleplaying going on here because there''s room to roleplay as opposed to being trapped in a levelling/scavenging cycle. IC institutions and storylines grow organically from the cooperative efforts of generations of players (a player usually sticks around for a few years before moving on). I''m not saying that this ideal MMORPG will be cooperatively based, in fact I imagine it will be quite competative in regards to status and resources in a non-lethal way. People will avoid murdering each other if they, themselves, can die. And for the MMORPG that will provide the breathing room roleplay needs to thrive along with the motives for player spawned competition a story needs to provide conflict.

But take the beta group and teach them how to roleplay IC and how to use the engine to best simulate different styles of play and achieve goals. Trim and tweak the player base until the culture is working corrently just as the engine itself must be adjusted and balanced.

Then open the floodgates. Pretty soon, people will naturally form associations or factions. Bad roleplayers will soon find roles where roleplaying doesn''t matter and good roleplayers will find that in a world where killing isn''t everything they can carve out interesting niches and relationships for themselves. And when things do come to blows they''ll be glad for the quick-fingered killing machines in their factions or families and for the manipulative Machiavelli''s that carry the standard for their causes. That''s what a world simulation should provide. And new players can figure out where they fit in by experimenting. If one group grows jaded and arrogant - guess where population growth will wane? There should be realistic economic and martial incentives for new players to be a desired commodity here.

More importantly though, all of that should only serve as a broad context for the casual player. The Sim player who merely wants to enjoy his little corner of the world and the relationships in it. The grand struggles for him will mainly be an exciting subject for discussion and just another dimension in the everyday experience he will inevitably make and customize for himself. And may he never have to see a THACO table.

I can agree with Dave about the slightly more sensible advancement system of UO. I was fairly impressed with it, but a lot of things do involve click-click-dbl-click-drag, etc. That''s where you get macroers and such nonsense. I would have to say my year-and-a-half of UO have been (more or less) enjoyable. Back in the day, when I was a apprentice tailor (and didn''t understand the idea that certain items help raise your skill), I would happily tailor away on shirts for hours, scraping enough moola together to sit by the bank and buy the first interesting doo-dad that appeared. It was entertaining, in a strange way. Sometimes I would get restless, and venture forth, only to have my head served to me on a platter. So I would head back to town, to further my non-existent tailoring career. Ignorance is bliss.

Then, not too many months ago, I decided to get my own account, instead of mooching my friend''s. I created a character, M''Alicia, who had a VERY hard time of deciding a career path. She originally started out a fisherwoman, with some ooking abilities, then moved into the world of archery. A few days of bear-hunting got her some talent with tailoring, which she pursued. But the monotony set in, once again, so off she was to another career. Then there was magery. I must say she was quite a talented little sorceress. But, yet again, I grew restless. So, while searching for guild to join for monetary purposes, I stumbled upon the Coven of the Black Rose. Great lot of role-players (if you''re on the Chesapeake shard, stop by sometime). I then forgot my ideas of monetary gain, and such (except for secureing some property ) and began to truly PLAY the game, not just take up space. We had great fun, and M''Alicia grew to be quite the archmage, before I was forced to retire her.

Anyway, my point is, if the game has a strong sense of community, and variety, players will sit and play endlessly. (I know I did ). But roleplaying has to be a large part of it. I mean, I never cared about my orignal tailor, or any of the other experimental characters I had, because they never aspired to anything. Mostly due to lack of friendly companionship. But M''Alicia was very different. She never had any great standing, and wasn''t well-known, but she was a well-liked character, that I can honestly say, it pained me to close my account. It was such fun.

Enough with the rambling. The greatest thing an MMORPG can have is community.

I agree completely. We as human beings are social animals. Community is natural, and holds our interest.

--Nazrix is cool.

The template idea for giving a character a relevant bio and purpose is certainly a good idea. I wonder, though, if people themselves won't through simply being in proximity and given the right (and wrong) incentives create all manner of melodrama without even realizing they're telling a story. For example, selecting "Avenge My Father" as the motive for a character and having the engine assign that certain quests and conditions is an excellent idea. However, I wonder, wouldn't an engine that already took into account biological ties and that maintained limited resources and competition for social status to cause tension between families/factions naturally lead to someone's dad getting killed eventually?

I find from my experiences with MUSHes that some very impassioned and personal roleplay comes from actions that are instigated and responded to by actual players rather than NPCs or abstract plot elements. The problem with MUSHes is of course the less than impartial way in which human administrators and players resolve conflicts which can lead to stagnation or OOC miscommunications and disputes.

Just set the stage, batten the hatches, and let human nature take its course. I think the best MMORPG would probably be designed by Sid Meier or Will Wright. Balance the engine and let the players forge the face of the world to come through the actions, cooperation and conflicts of their characters.

I'm certain this is easier said than done but I have to wonder if it couldn't be.



Edited by - Oddjob on October 16, 2000 9:59:59 PM