I think there''s potential for the model of multiplayer put forth by Vampire or Neverwinter Nights with a small group of players, together by selection, with a tradional gamemaster running them as a party. The next logical extension, of course, is for central fansites for these titles to organize around metacampaigns. Instead of ladders there might be networks for gamemasters and administrators to oversee a coherent campaign with hundreds of players - each being run in a bitesized group and conforming to the campaigns accepted policies concerning In Character roleplay, setting and other house rules.

The really good multiplayer roleplaying will, however, probably remain the province of free text based MUSHes. Many require applications that demonstrate an understanding of character development and the setting. Bashing mobs isn''t part of the programme so people just into PKing and levelling for the sake of it aren''t interested in playing. These games are for gamemasters, writers and virtual actors interested in telling stories. Because these games aren''t limited by graphics, only by the creative writing ability of the participants, any manner of story can be told in whatever way the participants see fit. Of course, a valid question here is whether this is really a traditional game or more of a modern ''parlor'' game as conflict is often handled as much by OOC negotiation than sheer bashing power.

MMORPGs suck for roleplayers (people into playing an In Character role in a believeable manner). Even the so-called haught roleplayers with their faux Elizabethan accents aren''t exactly the epitome of deep roleplaying ability. It''s impossible in a setting that has no death and doesn''t reward institutional power so much as individual power. Not to mention one can''t ever hope to affect the setting in any meaningful way. You''re one of many fleas on the back of a dog. There''s no roleplaying to be had here.

Tom-
Your expirence with Diablo is a valid one. But in my opinion Diablo was one of the worst implementations of the multiplayer genre for the very reasons you mentioned. The game was so hackable it was almost like the hackers had access to the source code. That combined with the fact that the whole diablo theme seemed really popular with prepubecent 13 year olds made made multiplayer diablo really difficult to enjoy diablo on anything but a LAN or closed game on bnet. Also Diablo had no real story or character development it was more of an action isometric game then anything else. Blizzard called it an "Action RPG"... take off the "RP" and you've got it labeled correctly.

Ulitma Online was revolutionary in alot of ways, but it to failed in delivering features that were secure and not exploitable.

Acherons Call is probably one of the first stable MMRPG's that I have played. They effectively removed PKing from the game, rewarded teamplay and the game was virtually exploit proof. I had to quit playing it because it was destroying my personal life =D

Back to your expirence with being killed in Diablo. I've had simmilar expirences. Like for instance the time I was playing (Ultima Online) UO, and this bastard PK started attacking me. He wasn't that much stronger then me and it was a good fight. In the end he got a couple good swings in with his halbred, and my sword missed a few times and I ended up running for my life. During this time adrenalin was pooring through my body, just like in a real fight. (i've been in a few) And after escapinng I was physically shaking with the excitement. While this may not be fun (i thought it was), the marvel here is that a game was able to summon such an extreme reaction from me. Imagine if the feeling was extreme joy, or extreme sadness... often emotions that RPG's try to produce. The potential here is unlimited.. because it's not like a single player game where you just die, and back up to the last save and keep on trucking.

Your character in a MMRPG becomes you, his weapons, his armor, become yours. His life becomes your life. You invest 100hrs in a character equipping him with stuff and building him, your darn well not going to die and loose it. Because there's no backing up to the last save. It's real.

Edited by - Ironside on October 14, 2000 1:03:54 PM

Well, we''ve all sort of torn MMP games a new one. Does anyone have any suggestions of ways to overcome the apparent falures of MMPG/MMRPG''s today? How would you make one that was really revolutionary? Really Different.... What would YOU do?

Dan

(i''m working on a design doc for an MMP so this will be helpful for me)

quote: Original post by Ironside

Well, we''ve all sort of torn MMP games a new one. Does anyone have any suggestions of ways to overcome the apparent falures of MMPG/MMRPG''s today? How would you make one that was really revolutionary? Really Different.... What would YOU do?

LF may want to move this to the design forum, but...

1) decide on your audience. This is crucial. If it''s mass market, you probably want to tell true roleplayers to stay the hell away. Don''t try to be all things to all people, you''ll only end up ticking either the pk''ers, hack & slashers, and role players off.

2) this is completely sacriligeous to say, but quit friggin'' ripping off Tolkien. Stop renaming Dark Elves and Trolls and come up with some orginality for goodness sakes! There are other settings that may well be just as interesting as medieval high fantasy... But even if you stick with MHF __AT LEAST__ come up with something new! What about MHF with an Egyptian flavor, or MHF with a Incan spin? Don''t just rename the land; come up with new races, and new baddies, and new spins to enliven that which has been done to death!

3) as an adjunct to #2, don''t pick a license. I''m not interested in seeing the world fiction of my favorite milieu being butchered by a bunch of people who don''t want to role play (so no I will not be trying out Verant''s Star Wars, whenever it ships)

4) bring in elements from other genres. RPG designers tend to think far too narrowly in terms of gameplay, and as such we get nothing but hack & slash & find the magic doodads (sorta OT). If you want to get away from this, you''re going to have to look at decisions a group / community has to make and turn that into fun gameplay.

5) plot is strategy. If you want more than hack&slash, one idea would be to give the players many things to affect in the game world, and ways to affect them. I can''t very well scheme to control all the silver mines if a) I can''t capture mines and b) the mines have no effect other than as monster spawn points. But this would require a good look at #4

... btw, this is a rant, I know, but I get frustrated at the cyclical, repetitive thinking that goes into creating MMORPG. I know it''s not a simple task, but it''s as if they''re all being created by an army of clones with life experiences so similar that the very thought of creating something slightly different is a inconceivable... *sigh*

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

You bring up an interesting point. Is it even possible to Write a plot for an MMP RPG. It''s interesting to note that when we discuss the creation of MMPRPG''s we discuss it from a design perspective. You may have hit on something, Massively Multiplayer Games Cannot have a written plot/story ?

For any good story you need conflit. Well as of yet the only conflict that MMP RPG story writers have been able to come up with that fits the medium is War. War With Hell, War With Eachother, War with just about anything and everything. Maby this is why we have so many Bastards screwing up the games, because we provide a story and backdrop that has provision for people to act that way.

I have a sinking suspision that it might be possible to weave a true story/plot with an MMRPG besides war... or not.. is this the inherent flaw of the meduim?

The most untapped resource for a plot in an RPG is to let the players create a plot. And I don''t mean a plot revolving around killing masses of monsters either

Man this thread has gone just a little bit off-topic


"""" "'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree"-Nazrix" -- runemaster --and now dwarfsoft" -- dwarfsoft --pouya" -- Nazrix
""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Right on naz - but the reason that it hasn''t been tapped is because it is a wild medium. It is very hard to get a good story that way. (And I am down with the mindless slaughter too . Not with premeditated murder or just a brutal hacking every now and again ). It is because a player will probably choose something boring. This is why I think it needs to be branching...

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

Naz, In many ways I agree, but I still don''t think you''re right there. Divergence is NOT underused in games, it''s just rarely used right. At any rate, I completely disagree that it''s the MOST underused storytelling technique in games; things like proper characterization, foreshadowing and symbolism of any kind are really lacking. They''ve been around for much longer to, and I see a lot more use of divergence than of these techniques.

But you''re still right, it''d be nice to see it used right now and again...

Darn, I kind of messed up when I made that statement. When I said that I was thinking of MMORPGs 'cause that's what everyone was talking about. You know how much I like divergence anyway, but I wasn't necessairly talking about regular single-player RPGs at that moment. I meant that in MMORPGs they should let the players tell stories by interacting w/ each other instead of creating a real plot which is what Ironside was mentioning.

As far as single-player RPGs, I think I basically agree w/ you LF. It is misused. There's potential for divergence that hasn't been exploited & really needs to be.

Anyway, LF, when you mentioned the part about the player not making a concious choice when the plot diverges...did you mean you think it should be that way for all RPGs, or your specific example?

That's really been bugging me


"""" "'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree"-Nazrix" -- runemaster --and now dwarfsoft" -- dwarfsoft --pouya" -- Nazrix
""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.



Edited by - Nazrix on October 14, 2000 6:29:54 PM

"I get the sense that it will still feel something like Fallout. Sure, there''s a story there, kindof, but nothing you can get terribly involved in because we throw characterization to the wind by letting the player choose things arbitrarily."

Characterization of who? The people that the player meets, why do you think that this is so? I think that we can characterize them and their reactions quite well. & The player characterises themselves.

-->
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Fallout 2

Fallout 2''s strength (IMO) was that it there were times when I thought back to all the people I had met either good and trying to eke a living, evil subjugators etc. And you thought that they deserved to live




SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER END.