While I''m actually referring more to mainstream MMORPGs, it is good to know that something out there has this... but could you please expand on that? What elements make MUDs more dynamic than mainstreams? Perhaps some of those elements could be adopted by mainstream MMORPGs.

And I''d really like to hear other ideas on how this kind of changeable world could be more easily implemented into a mainstream game.

The reason MUDs can be very dynamic and I''m not talking about those crappy ROM... PK ones. Is because they have scripting and area building is rather fast. You can do a lot with very little since most of the rendering is going on in the players head.

Building a house for a player takes about an hour and a decent builder can do that with a lot of detail in it. Fairly complicated scripts can be quickly made or recycled to give NPCs a lot of different kinds of behaviour. You also have more processing power for things. Not to mention most free MUDs have wizards/immortals who are creating constant plot lines and you also have all players role playing.

Also, the text-based nature of MUDs attracts literate people more often, who will probably be more ready for good role-playing. Not that it''s impossible for the mass market to have role-playing games with real role-playing, just that because of their nature MUDs get a different demographic.

The problem with dynamic MMORPG''s is not the development time, not the technical limitations, and not that people aren''t smart enough. It''s that the mainstream player base does not want this sort of game. There are many players who do want this, but they are not mainstream, they are a niche. MUDs are not mainstream, the latest crappy shooter from EA is.

Shadowbane is an example of a game which is trying to give players control, and be mainstream at the same time. The result is what every player I''ve talked to about the game says; lame pk''ing nonsense. The mainstream player base just wants to play the invisible thief who sneaks up on resting mages and kills them for no particular reason. They don''t want to be Lord Razor, because Lord Razor worked for what he got. He worked up from a lowly peon. He roleplayed and recruited an army to his cause. He''s also spent countless hours online getting to the point where he can do something interesting.

Now just look at any MMORPG which is trying to go mainstream. Players are not made to work, players are not made to roleplay, and players are not forced to play for hours on end to get somewhere interesting. In fact, it''s going the opposite direction. Developers are looking for ways to make players who only want a few hours of playtime to do interesting things, but no one can be Lord Razor in a few hours.

To answer the original question, "Why aren''t MMORPGs more dynamic?", it''s because it can''t be feasibly done and still catch onto the mainstream. MMORPG makers at this point are still trying to make a buck, it''s still a new market, they are going for what''s safe and not for the niche product.

90% of people are less skilled and determined than the top 10%.

I agree with Mephs. I think the problem is that when people play games, they want to feel very important, if not the most important person in the game. They want to be the hero...the one who saves the day. Look at how hard it is to find team based FPS games that actually have good well organized teams.

I also agree with the others that MUD''s offer more roleplaying potential even if only because they attract a different demographic of people. In MMORPG''s, it seems like people treat it more like a quest for more money or power rather than as a true roleplaying experience. In some ways, the hard codified rules take away from dramatic license. I remember in my GM days for PPRPG''s, sometimes I''d do away with dice rolls altogether, simply because it didn''t fit the "flow" of a story. This kind of thing can only be done with a human moderator.

And to get people to interact together to create a running plotline is extremely diffucult without some kind of persistent nudge...usually from some kind of moderator. I think the simple fact is that the majority of people on MMORPG''s don''t want to roleplay, they want to go on quests to find more treasure, powerful equipment and gain experience. Enjoyment and entertainment is had from quantifiable scores and measurements, and not through intangible things like a good storytelling session. Just as it is hard to find a good group of players that can fit well together in team based FPS games, it''s hard to find a good group of people who genuinely enjoy roleplaying out a good story. When these people do find each other though, it''s quite magical, and the plots invent themselves through the player''s interactions...and sometimes all the moderator has to do is provide a nemesis or gently nudge them in the right direction.

Just wanted to comment on they dynamic terrain thing. The biggest problem there would be lack of server power and bandwith. If the land can change it needs to be sent every time the player traverses that particular part. Add that up between a bunch of players and you got some serious amounts of data being shuffled around.

Maybe because it would only take a few evil players to completely screw the whole world?

Nothing along these lines will happen for a long time to come imo. MMORPGs are driven by one thing: $$$. So that leads to two extreme requirements. 1- Complete balance (nobody can have anything even remotely constituting an unequalable advantage over another person.) 2- Simplicity. The average MMORPG player tends to be mid teens with no desire for intricate complexity.

A decently amusing level systems with obvious rewards, and a PK system where you more than likely will never die in PK unless you send a self addressed envelope with a letter of consent, and signatures of three witnesses.. in triplicate. This simplicity and the promise of having a "god character" gets the average player hooked.

I''m no expert on the lifecycles of MMORPG players but I would estimate the average MMORPG player tends to play from 2-5 months before moving onto the latest MMORPG that will change everything. This average player makes up 90-95% of the player base. The "loyal" players are a tiny majority.

It does not make sense to go out of your way to please the "loyal" consumers when they are an insigificant minority of the income of a MMORPG. This tends to be the reason if you ever read an MMORPG forum there are usually about 50-200 players who insist they are the entire player base and constantly threaten to leave if they don''t get their way. Of course they never do leave. They just discontinue their account for a month and then resubscribe.

And finally, there is the classic model for success. The two most succesful MMORPG''s have been Ultima Online and Everquest. Neither of these games provides any unique play whatsoever. They hook the players by allowing the players to do nothing more than to improve their character (Ok, so you can buy a castle and stick goodies in it. Like that means alot.). To create an entirely new idea runs a large risk of completely flopping (as the majority of ''new idea'' mmorpg''s have). MMORPG''s that have simply copied UO/EQ and succeded are: Dark Age of Camelot (realm vs realm pk is little more than a few areas with race restricted PK), Anarchy Online (unique questing means doing the same quest in a zone that just randomly changes the room types).

In all. MMORPG''s aren''t about fun and they''re not about the players. They are about making money and trying to keep the "average" player hooked for as long as possible (though recognizing the fact the average player will move on regardless). As many others have said: If you want intricate play with excellent implementations and new ideas, play muds.

Hosting an MMORPG is nothing like managing to get a publisher to sign on to an independant project, so until there is time when the "average" player would want such complex features.. They won''t be implemented. Its not cost effective.

quote:

---

i]Original post by Mephs
Larger powerful guilds ultimately means the players that are a part of them also gain a share in the power, thus enabling them to achieve their goals.

---

The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. A single individual would find it very difficult to compete with large guilds, and I think rightfully so. My "Lord Razor" example was purely an illustration of the potential of such a game; in practice it would be large guilds/factions/etc that would have the resources to accomplish something so drastic. In fact, its probably best to restrict "territory gain" to guilds, and not individuals.

quote:

---

The problem is, RPG''s only seem to have developed to the point where you can fight or trade. We need more options, the problem is finding equally fun roles to play out and integrating them into the game.

---

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this point. And one idea that comes to mind is a "political" career path: Perhaps player-run governments would gain some kind of special advantage being run by player characters with a politically-oriented skillset. In the case of Ultima Online for instance, you could have a "Politics" skill; the most experienced would have the title "Grandmaster Politician." (Remember, I keep referring to UO because thats what I currently play, but my comments could be applied to any MMORPG.)

quote:

---

People need ideas fully implemented I feel. If they have to do 90% of the work themselves without a proper system in place, they''ll revert to doing things their own way and thus there will be no (read: less) unification.

---

I still think that people should have it both ways. A convention like the "bazaar" (which sounds great) ought to be creatable by the players as well. There is nothing wrong with having "natural" in-game limitations in place to keep things organized. For instance, to ensure that the bazaar is effective, it could be a pre-defined structure, land, or NPC type that can only be placed once within a governed area. For a good designer, there is a solution to every problem.

quote:

---

You could create a system whereby at any one time there are two power figures, one good, one evil. The evil power figure could be determined by combat/subversion. There is only ever one evil power figure in place at any given time. He may designate henchmen, subordinates etc.

---

Here, I disagree. Not only do I feel that it''s too limiting, I also would be concerned that this plays into what dymetrix was saying about one player having all the fun. If one player is to rise above the rest on the side of good or evil, I think that it should be through sheer hard work, planning, and determination. If one evil player manages to become so powerful in the face of virtually limitless opposition on both sides, then he or she deserves the title of Evil Overlord.

quote:

---

The good power figure can be determined via a trial/voting process or something similar.

---

This is something that should be handled exclusively by players. I see no ill side effects to letting players decide on their own how to choose their leaders; most guilds have systems in place to do this already, and I find them all very effective and fair.

quote:

---

If you implement no system, players flock to the winning side and game over.. no fun. If you put some basic rules/interface features in, similar to the suggested ones (theres lots of room for expansion) it shapes the players desires to fit in with the communities desires and should make for a cooler experience... kind of like an emergent behaviour of an AI.

---

Systems must be implemented to keep things organized, in this I am in complete agreement with you. But those systems should be kept as unobtrusive as possible to encourage roleplaying.

****************************************

Brian Lacy
ForeverDream Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@foreverdreamstudios.com

"I create. Therefore I am."