I decided to use this game concept as an example for my guide to developing a game idea by writing a design document. So I did the first step, "Designer's Statement Of Purpose", in my developer's journal if anyone's curious to see more detail about the game concept.

My guide, if anyone isn't sure what I'm talking about:

http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/creative/game-design/developing-your-game-concept-by-making-a-design-document-r3004

My developer journal entry with my Statement Of Purpose.

http://www.gamedev.net/blog/90/entry-2258566-designers-statement-of-purpose-for-wildwright-mmo-concept/

Edit: made a gamesprout page:

http://www.gamesprout.com/ideas/5212baa4e3211cd266000029/design_document

Modular housing system from old Ultima Online (even with fixed house structure players were given alot of leeway to combine (pile) objects to creat something new (looking).

Player worn 'stuff' depends on how much variation is allowed and if differences can even be seen at the usual view one has of other players.

There is another 'shaping' of the world' via Player Created Assets. Neverwinter Nights did this eventually and players created alot of stuff the game company never had the desire to -- including a NPC combat script set that far surpassed the company created scripting.

Problem with any drastic 'players shaping the world' effects is that they can get out of hand VERY quickly unless sufficient 'self centering' and compensation mechanisms are built into the game mechanics and server world management operations.

Without those, next is the need for sufficient GM intervention tools to manually adjust things back into balance (assuming the company want to pay skilled GMs to do the continuous work required)

Beyond that is the whole server logic generalized enough to provide for shifts of theme/situational variations ???? Some elements like spawn patterns can be readjustsed using some grand faction influence map, but will all the more continuous NPCs/economic elements be able to follow the local 'shifts' of behaviors?

Im all for this kind of thing but what game company out there will take the risk and expense for building such a system (where the programming scripting may be a magnitude more complex - and the debugging two magnitudes).

If anyone has been following the development of Star Citizen, I feel this game design is addressing this beautifully. With a mostly NPC sustained universe players bring pressure to what would otherwise be a routinely driven economy based game.

The game's economy is effected directly by players' actions through the movement of goods and services for game moneys. Pressure is applied with conflict (space dog fighting!) and player driven conflict, in a capitalist model, is always abundant. The pressure applied will change the world's structure with companies doing good or bad, empires falling, alien races falling in and out of good terms over trade disputes,etc. Players will feel connected as they look for the next objective to accomplish because all those objectives will be driving the outcome of these events. The game isn't done so it's hard to say what they will accomplish, however following the development has been exciting because he's exploring game design ideas that no developers have been bold enough to go after (thank you crowd funding).

Oh PC games you're so much better then other games. ;)

I think an important mechanic to implement in a persistent world where players can change things is to have things be resistant to change. Otherwise, you can have the clan like goon swarm that will murder entire cities "for fun." Instead, your world responds to this by the local lord or king to mobilize a squad, or even army, after the perpetrators. If you don't do things like this then players will feel free to do as they please regardless of consequences. Consequences can be fun. It's just a balancing act.

I think an important mechanic to implement in a persistent world where players can change things is to have things be resistant to change. Otherwise, you can have the clan like goon swarm that will murder entire cities "for fun." Instead, your world responds to this by the local lord or king to mobilize a squad, or even army, after the perpetrators. If you don't do things like this then players will feel free to do as they please regardless of consequences. Consequences can be fun. It's just a balancing act.

Well, I don't think you want everything to be resistant to change. One of the things players love most about sandboxy games is having their own little territory where they can easily build and customize. But yes, areas that aren't the player's personal property should be resistant to change.

Not everything, no. But, for me, I would question how they get the land as well. Minus quest or coin, someone should go around poking. Plus, bandits inherently don't follow the law. :)

Not everything, no. But, for me, I would question how they get the land as well. Minus quest or coin, someone should go around poking. Plus, bandits inherently don't follow the law.

In my specific game design each player gets a personal "estate", which starts as a small territory where they can build a hut, do basic crafting and keep a few pets. Estate expansions are one of the major quest-reward types in the game. Expansions allow the player to climb the crafting tech tree, collect more stuff and display their collections, get fancy with architecture and landscaping, and even build sculptures. I'm still considering whether I want to reward players who reach the max level with the ability to create a dungeon or other playable public area for other players to visit.

The biggest problem with MMO's is the "Massive" part of the design. The player is always the hero: the exceptional one that can get things done. Except that in an MMO, you aren't exceptional. EVERYONE else is just as badass as you. Because there are literally thousands of heroes stomping around doing exactly the same thing, the world CAN'T change or the newest heroes wouldn't have anything to do.

I propose that someone make a "Moderately-Multiplayer" game with a max of a couple dozen to a couple hundred people on a server. If localized servers aren't in the business plan, then for a monthly subscription, let someone rent a virtual server and control the logins on it so that they can play with friends and ban incompatible players. Let the players be real heroes and not "just another hero". You get this feel in some games like in the Red Dead series, but it's not a persistent world.

So I like where your design is going, sunandshadow. It's something I'd certainly like to play. I just think that there should be a limit to how many players can realistically and practically exist in one continuum.

The biggest problem with MMO's is the "Massive" part of the design. The player is always the hero: the exceptional one that can get things done. Except that in an MMO, you aren't exceptional. EVERYONE else is just as badass as you. Because there are literally thousands of heroes stomping around doing exactly the same thing, the world CAN'T change or the newest heroes wouldn't have anything to do.

I propose that someone make a "Moderately-Multiplayer" game with a max of a couple dozen to a couple hundred people on a server. If localized servers aren't in the business plan, then for a monthly subscription, let someone rent a virtual server and control the logins on it so that they can play with friends and ban incompatible players. Let the players be real heroes and not "just another hero". You get this feel in some games like in the Red Dead series, but it's not a persistent world.

So I like where your design is going, sunandshadow. It's something I'd certainly like to play. I just think that there should be a limit to how many players can realistically and practically exist in one continuum.

What if the point of the MMO wasn't to be the most badass, or for that matter a hero? I see an MMO more as people who want to adventure in the same virtual world. Having great and meaningful gameplay experiences isn't really about being the best fighter on the server, or the richest person on the server. Your gameplay experience, your story, should be important because it's yours, and shaped by your choices, not because you're inherently special compared to everyone else in the world. Here let me copy& paste you a thing from my gamesprout page for my design:

My goal in designing WildWright is to create a gameplay experience which feels like the player has entered an interactive novel. Specifically a fantasy romance novel, or at least a fantasy novel with optional romance content. I'm really tired of the traditional "hero" role in RPGs which is all about becoming the most badass fighter in the world. There's nothing wrong with that goal, but it shouldn't be the only goal open for gamers to pursue in a virtual world. Instead I want to create a gameplay experience which is more like the typical 'heroine' role in a romance novel.

So, for those not familiar with the genre, what is the heroine role of a romance novel like? Romance novels are closely related to the "bildungsroman" story archetype - that means a story which is about a young person becoming an adult and finding a place they can fit comfortably into adult society, which often includes finding a mate. This is quite compatible with the basic activities of an RPG, such as leveling up, earning money, obtaining a house or other property, gaining abilities and fame, and exploring the world. Self-development is in fact an underdeveloped theme in many RPGs, and by bringing this theme front-and-center WildWright should be able to have a really strong combination of story and gameplay because the two will conceptually support each other.

In addition to the bildungsroman role of young adult finding a satisfying adult position in society, a romance novel heroine is often a problem solver. She may not be able to directly tackle her own major problems, but helps those around her (NPCs). This builds relationships between the heroine and other characters, who in turn often repay her with help for her own difficulties. Again, this is all completely compatible with RPG gameplay; there are many great games, from the Harvest Moon series and Azure Dreams, which are dating-sim hybrids, to mainstream games like Skyrim and WoW, where the player can carry out quests or solve dialogue puzzles to strategically build friendships with NPCs for various reputation rewards.

Another thing romance novel heroines often do is investigate mysteries. The problem of a romance novel is not usually a big monster that can be attacked with straightforward violence, but instead a tangled, unbalanced situation which is a puzzle the heroine must investigate and use persuasion, psychology, and ingenuity to solve. This is really ideal for a story-heavy RPG because it's a more fresh and meaty reason to send the player traveling here and there than yet another mercenary job to lower the population of some monster or gather X drops from said monster. Totally compatible with RPG gameplay such as exploring, giving items and information to NPCs, and again solving dialogue puzzles. And a romance heroine can use force but she uses it strategically, not as an indiscriminate way of life; for example she hunts a particular type of monster because she wants its antlers to craft glue needed for a more elaborate project.

Finally, romance novel heroines don't act as part of a "dungeon party", they mostly "play solo". I think the market of MMOs which are friendly to an introverted play style is really underdeveloped. A lot of people don't seem to grasp why someone who wants to mostly play alone would want to play an MMO. This is a result of not understanding the benefits introverts and others get out of more passive socialization, such as doing the same activity as another nearby player. You don't have to do the activity breathing down each others' necks to feel a sense of community. Creative people in particular get a lot of benefit from doing their solo creation in a shared world where other players can comment on their efforts, and the creator can see what has already been created by others as a challenge to answer with their own future creations. Having other people in a world to talk to and trade with is key to making a player feel like their time spent in the world really means something. So, WildWright will be very solo-friendly; there will be instanced dungeons for small parties of friends, but all such dungeons will also have a single-player mode. There will not be specialized healer and tank classes which are slow or difficult to play with in solo PvE. (Having pre-determined classes would also be incompatible with WildWright's theme of personal evolution; instead players can seek out abilities they want to add to their character's repertoire, and the game will recognize a player's functional class by the abilities that player uses the most and the activities that player spends the most time on within the game.

In some systems (including the real world) it is much easier to destroy than to build.

In a player shaped world you need to prevent making it easy for players to undo what other players have done.(it may not even be a case of the usual mentally ill griefers but just someone else who has their OWN plans for the world assets involved)

You also want some persistance of the 'shaping' so the player can have a chance to see it as 'done' before the world moves on and his efforts are modified by others actions.