The merits of player freedom and the dynamic MMO Experience: A Discussion of MMO Design As most of us know, the MMO genre is somewhat “stuck in a rut” when it comes to dynamic Gameplay and story. Dynamic and MMO are usually not used in the same sentence to describe the same thing. Personally, I think that this is rather odd since the concept of an MMO has such great inherent possibilities for dynamic games. The root cause of this is, I think, is the overlooking of an MMO’s most valuable imaginative resource: the player. I know what you are probably thinking, so let me tell you right off that I do understand the reasons behind the static world MMO design. This post is, as the title says, meant to be a discussion of MMO design, specifically in the areas of dynamic story, Gameplay, player freedom and their relation to one another. What I mean by “player freedom” is the ability of a player to act in such a way so as to move the game world in an undersigned, dynamic direction. This is a very broad definition of what I have in mind so I need to clarify what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting giving individual players the individual ability to alter the game world as a whole nor am I wanting to allow the player to fundamentally change the game world; rather, I am advocating a system which, through the cumulative driving force of players’ individual actions at all levels of the political, economic, and social realms, allows for a natural evolution of the game dynamics into a player made, fully dynamic, self perpetuating “storyline”. Of course, such a system would not be unregulated or anarchic in nature or function; it would, however, require a game design philosophy structured around player freedom and influence. There are some issues that would need to be resolved to make such a system work practically, but I am confident that these issues can be addressed while maintaining the quality of the concept. The way I envision a dynamic system like I have been describing is as a hierarchy of interwoven realms of Gameplay (i.e. political, economic, social, combat). The point is that all of these realms are interrelated. The political realm, for example, has influence upon the economic and combat realms (for instance, wars or taxes) which in turn have influence upon each other (supply and demand) and the social realm and so on and so forth. This interwoven Gameplay is focused on players, for it is the player input which creates the dynamic content. The variables of the game equation are the players themselves, so small fluctuations at the lowest level of the hierarchy are transmitted to higher levels, ultimately culminating in a general fluctuation of the Gameplay element as a whole away from its original orientation. I suppose one could call these “realms” mini games in a sense, but not quite. I don’t want to come across as to vague, so let me try to illustrate the concept in a simple gaming scenario. Let’s say I have a Sci-Fi MMO based on a professions system (i.e. armor smith, politician, pilot, architect, soldier etc.). Each profession fits into a certain realm bracket (i.e. artisans go with economics). In this Sci-fi MMO there are two planets. Each planet has its one political faction essentially like two separate nations reaching from lower importance (say mayors) to higher importance (such as planetary government). Likewise, each planet has its own economy, ranging from the local economy to the planetary economy to the “galactic” economy. The game’s life force is the economy since it supplies and drives practically every other aspect of the game. Now let’s say that something happens to turn the two factions hostile towards one another (I’m still working out how something like this could happen or even a reason for it, but humor me). The change in faction status leads to a war which increases demand for soldiers (influencing combat realm), which increases the need for supplies (influencing the economic realm and the social realm), which could then influence the political realm. Of course, new game mechanics would have to be created to regulate players’ new freedom – there would have to be certain rules, votes, or conditions to declare war for example – but it does seem feasible. I hope the illustration was not confusing. Personally, I like the idea of the “player-made-story” more than a developer telling me what is next, at least in the context of an MMO (and it seems more inline with an MMO's unscripted nature). Another benefit of this type of system is that, since players would be the focus, many repetitive tasks would take on a sense of purpose which is missing in many other games of the genre. If something is confusing, ask me and I will try to clarify it. So what are your thoughts? What is your take on the merits of player freedom and the dynamic MMO Experience? Does the basic concept sound appealing or boring? Do you see any end-all paradox in the concept screaming out at you?

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a dynamic MMO, but check out Ryzom Ring. It allows players to create their own stories and such for other players to follow too. Also, with Saga of Ryzom itself, developers went to the users to see which way story lines and such should go.

Quote:

Original post by CrewNick I'm not sure if this qualifies as a dynamic MMO, but check out Ryzom Ring. It allows players to create their own stories and such for other players to follow too. Also, with Saga of Ryzom itself, developers went to the users to see which way story lines and such should go.

I’m not really talking about people making stories for themselves specifically (role playing is not hindered though). What the concept basically does is removes the static game world and replaces it with a progressive game world. Basically, time passes in the world and things change over time based on what all players do across the board. There is no real “story”; there are only objectives which individuals wish to accomplish that accumulate into a “story” – like the real world.

I've also given some thought to the idea of a "moving" MMO. Take your sci-fi MMO example.
In the political sphere, I always thought it would be cool if every month or so, players would vote for their leaders, who would be able to "govern" certain elements of the economy. Let's say you're elected mayor over trade in a particular region and you have the option of buying energy, weapons, ships, food, or saving money. How it would effect the combat sphere is that battles between the two planets would be over asteroids from which to mine the ore to build the weapons and ships, or over planets that produced the food and energy. It would effect the economic sphere by decreasing NPC prices of certain items and causing them to have different items in their stores.

You mean...some sort of MMO in which players participate in a dynamic economy set in a world where strategic AI decisions at a global leadership level impact game play for the individual player in a believable and systemic fashion?

Kinda like...how real life functions?

It's a logical and good idea. You should see about implementing it.

I had an idea once that I think would work ok in this kind of game. It was that every week or so the game will randomly select an important event that happened that week (for instance some sort of Government power shift) and generate a short narrative about it. The players that had an important role in the event (leaders of some sort or a noob lucky enough to score the final blow) would have their usernames mentioned in the narratives. That way overtime a long story would be compounded with mention of most of the important players. New players or players from different servers can read the storys so they can have an Idea of whats going on before they join a server. Players from different severs can compare their stories and argue about whose is best/more exciting.

Dont know if that would be practical to implement.

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq You mean...some sort of MMO in which players participate in a dynamic economy set in a world where strategic AI decisions at a global leadership level impact game play for the individual player in a believable and systemic fashion? Kinda like...how real life functions? It's a logical and good idea. You should see about implementing it.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be AI making the decisions. Some lucky guy who has earned a reputation is actually elected in an actual vote by other players and actually makes decisions on how his government, army, organization, etc. spends their time and resources and effects the entire server.

I see that Nytehauq forgot his <sarcasm> tags.

Oh, dang it. I just responded to an MMO thread. Now I need to go take a shower and chant the words "Fallout", "Dues Ex", "Baldur's Gate", and "Chronotrigger" five times while I throw salt over my shoulder...

falconhunter202 - That is near perfectly the type of idea I had in mind. And in regards to Nytehauq, yes the AI would not make such decisions.

ForeverNoobie - It is an interesting thought. As you said, I don't know how easy it would be to implement, but I think it could work out at least in some form.

You will still have to have the 'automatic' parts of the game (like NPCs -- if any) react to the players 'shaping' of the world. They will have to be scripted to adapt (and react reasonably) to all the possible situations that might result.

That is still a substantial task.

Of course if the game is to have some kind of 'epic' plot, all the dynamics wont be caused by the players alone. I would actually expect a real 'workable' commercial MMORPG to have a few staff members guide the topmost decisions of a macro plot (the actions of good/evil or whatever major factions exist and are in conflict) to use their imaginations to shape a macroplot that is interesting and believable (or to at least be adaquate). Asking for a program to be made to do that all itself is asking for either a disaster or mediocrity.