The trouble is creating a game that can satisfy all types in a MMORPG type of game. When the critical thinker teams up with the warrior, things are going to get ugly. In a single player RPG, I think it''s possible to create a game to satisfy all types, but the MMO rpg type has serious problems with this.

In tradtional pen and paper RPG''s, the GM could instill amodicum of moderation to the play styles, and essentially curb extreme responses from players (convincing the warrior that he''s just not powerful enough to attack something, or giving hints to the thinker that combat is unavoidable for example). But without this helping hand of a GM, MMORPG''s allow players to exhibit any kind of behavior they want. To be frank, I don''t know what the appeal is about MMORPG''s, because they remind me too much of unmoderated chat rooms...where anything goes. I''d much rather go to a moderated chat room...where even if the Op is a moron, at least there''s some amount of regulation going on.

So trying to be the be-all end all for all player types is conceivable for single player roleplaying (or multiplayer in the more tradtional non MMO sense), but I think highly impractical for true unmoderated MMORPG''s.

That''s one of the unfortuante things about MMORPG''s, but if a group of players that work well together can team up, it can be an incredible experience. The problem is people can change their playstyles over time, and reliably getting together is difficult when everyone is on different schedules.

Once you''re hooked up, though, it''s easy to clear out the rest of the interference. The trick is getting there.

Anyone else?

You have anoble ambition, but your solution isn''t quite right. The differences (warrior, etc) are differences in Player behavior. Different people want different rewards from the game.

Your solution is unified system to reward the character (points for this or that or the other). Fundamentally, this does not satisfy all of the *player* desires.

Here''s a better counter-example:
Player is confronted by a Troll.

The warrior wants to win by combat, and is happy if he can kill the troll. Once the troll is dead, he''s ready to move on to the next combat.

The story chaser wants a meaningful story, which means the troll has to mean something in the context of the narrative (a symbol of anger or somesuch). The story chaser would be perfectly happy if the character loses to the troll in combat, or even dies in the process, as long as the defeat (or death) is suitable to the story.

The thinker wants to out-think the game, not necessarily out-think the troll. And he wants his own cleverness to be directly rewarded - the game recognizes the player''s prowess instead of the character''s numbers. Adding points to the character''s stats doesn''t help the player ''think outside the box'' in any meaningful way.

The other types have similar differences, and are left out for space.

So, could you develop a game that can appeal to all tpyes of gamers? Maybe. But it would be difficult, and probably more trouble than it''s worth. While the game would provide satisfying rewards for all types of gamers, it also includes several unsatisfying rewards for any particular type.

Instead, pick a few (1-3) of the types and aim to satisfy their desires. Make sure your promotion clealy lets the potential players know what type of entertainment the game will provide.

JSwing

I disagree. I think that the idea is to level up your character (hell it''s a Role-Playing Game). But in order to level up your character to make him more powerful, you generally have to fight. And not all players want to do this. So you could use strategy and fight, you could solve a puzzle instead of fighting, or you could persuade the troll to let you go by. I think that you do have a point with the story-chaser, though, but if the story-chaser only wanted to know the story, he would just watch a movie. So the story-chaser obviously has to have some other thing he likes to do, like puzzle-solving. By leveling up your character you can progress through the game, so you can fight harder baddies, solve harder puzzles, advance the story more, or explore more.

quote: Original post by tuxx
I disagree. I think that the idea is to level up your character (hell it''s a Role-Playing Game). But in order to level up your character to make him more powerful, you generally have to fight. And not all players want to do this. So you could use strategy and fight, you could solve a puzzle instead of fighting, or you could persuade the troll to let you go by. I think that you do have a point with the story-chaser, though, but if the story-chaser only wanted to know the story, he would just watch a movie. So the story-chaser obviously has to have some other thing he likes to do, like puzzle-solving. By leveling up your character you can progress through the game, so you can fight harder baddies, solve harder puzzles, advance the story more, or explore more.

Unless this is single player, the problem with solving puzzles to advance/gain experience is that if it is a multiplayer(heck even single player will ) people will figure out the puzzles and then post somewhere on the internet or tell friends who will tell friends etc about how to do the puzzle so now you have players that are just following directions to get "item_001" or more or less free experience. Now you could dynamically change the puzzels every so often but that would require dedicated "puzzle people" and then you''ll have to worry about people that are 70% done with the puzzle and don''t want to start over when they log on if you changed the puzzle(s) :/ just a thought.

The only problem I see with this idea is that when a player see the ogre standing in the doorway they are going to think I gotta get rid of him, and the simplest answer so they aren''t really going to see all the options..

Please visit Turt99 Productions

Zern: Whether the player decides to do that and ruin the game for themselves is their choice. It would probably only be single-player (although it could be multiplayer), so it would probably be like a strategy guide, or cheat codes. Developers don''t really care about that too much, because the person has already bought the game, and it''s their choice to use cheats/strategy guides, and they know that it''s not what the developer intended. Also, the reviewers won''t use cheats or strategy guides (or puzzle guides), so you don''t have to be scared of them giving your game a bad review because of puzzle guides.

Turt99: I''m thinking that you could deal with this at the start of the game by providing an example like that. You would be in a room, and there would be several people you can talk to. The big fighter would say that to solve the problem he''d kill the troll, and explain how it would help him kill trolls in the future. The thief would explain how he''d sneak up to the troll and take the key, and how it would help him do this in the future. The critical thinker would explain how he''d solve some sort of puzzle to get past the troll, and how this would help him solve puzzles in the future.

Fallout does pretty much exactly what you want your game to do. Try it out.

quote: Original post by Run_The_Shadows
Fallout, however, is a nifty example, but doesn''t lend itself well to extremist characters. To test, try playing either game with a character maxed out on Luck and Strength, with bottomed-out Intelligence and Charisma. Go ahead, try it.

- It''s a life''s work
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

I''ve done it. It involved lots of smashing and I never did get a power armor in the first one. But hey, it was a lot of smashing, what am I complaining about?