I definitely think it could be a niche market to discover. There are tons of roleplayers that are waiting to come back to PnP, but cannot, by lack of time or connections. Using this as a sort of server of games, a la diablo's battlenet, would probably be very successful, and the best GM would be always assaulted by new fans. I personnaly know of a GM who is always surrounded by new guys wanting to play with him. So, he has started asking to be paid for that, because he was spending six nights a week playing, and preparing the games was taking him too long to be able to cope with his jobs. He is not anywhere being rich now, but at least, he is paid to have fun with friends, BY his friends, who are only too happy to pay the price of a movie for a full eight hour RolePlaying session.
I'll admit that my friend doesn't sleep as much as he would want, but he says he doesn't care, and I would like to do the same myself...
An MMORPG where you can do anything you want!!
I'll echo winterdyne, NWN is the game you are describing. Personally I think it's the ideal multiplayer roleplaying toolbox, and I'm surprised no other company has tried to clone its GM/server - player/client model.
I think it goes without saying that you can easily do "anything" if there's a GM on the other end and you're willing to not have custom animations. People have been doing that by playing rpg's over instant messenger or email since the dawn of the internet. When most people talk about their idea for a game where you can do "anything", they're talking about the computer interepereting and reacting to it without a human GM on the other side. That's where all the problems come in.
Your two non-GM ideas don't seem reasonable to me. The first one is basically "the dev makes tons of possible actions" which is already what all game devs do; the amount of actions is limited by what the devs think of, the amount of time and money they have, and game balance issues. I don't really see the difference between this method and all existing RPG's except that you seem to want a lot more actions to pick from on the radial menu. Your second option, letting the player use the scripting system, essentially giving the player a form of limited GM power, is generally dubious in online settings. Some games, like MUSHes, do allow this. The players there can create their own rooms, and essentially do anything, but it is a strictly monitored and small environment where all players are assumed to be mature and friendly to eachother, and anyone causing trouble can be quickly booted from the server. In a standard game group, I don't think it would work well. The whole reason RPG's have rulesets to begin with is to settle disputes when one player wants to act out that he just hit you in the face with a hammer and the other player wants to act out that no, in fact, he dodged your hammer. I think the D&D player's handbook even has an explanation of why the rules exist pointing this out, something like "RPGs have rules so that you don't run into the problems you did when playing make-believe as a young child, when you kept saying 'I shot you!' and your friend kept saying 'Did not, did not!'"
I think it goes without saying that you can easily do "anything" if there's a GM on the other end and you're willing to not have custom animations. People have been doing that by playing rpg's over instant messenger or email since the dawn of the internet. When most people talk about their idea for a game where you can do "anything", they're talking about the computer interepereting and reacting to it without a human GM on the other side. That's where all the problems come in.
Your two non-GM ideas don't seem reasonable to me. The first one is basically "the dev makes tons of possible actions" which is already what all game devs do; the amount of actions is limited by what the devs think of, the amount of time and money they have, and game balance issues. I don't really see the difference between this method and all existing RPG's except that you seem to want a lot more actions to pick from on the radial menu. Your second option, letting the player use the scripting system, essentially giving the player a form of limited GM power, is generally dubious in online settings. Some games, like MUSHes, do allow this. The players there can create their own rooms, and essentially do anything, but it is a strictly monitored and small environment where all players are assumed to be mature and friendly to eachother, and anyone causing trouble can be quickly booted from the server. In a standard game group, I don't think it would work well. The whole reason RPG's have rulesets to begin with is to settle disputes when one player wants to act out that he just hit you in the face with a hammer and the other player wants to act out that no, in fact, he dodged your hammer. I think the D&D player's handbook even has an explanation of why the rules exist pointing this out, something like "RPGs have rules so that you don't run into the problems you did when playing make-believe as a young child, when you kept saying 'I shot you!' and your friend kept saying 'Did not, did not!'"
Modern gamers expect a certain level of visual feedback. If you aimed for a niche market, you would have fewer players creating content.
Custom emotes generally consist of text being displayed to other players, which can't really be classed as actions in the traditional sense as they have no effect on the game characters or world.
I'm not convinced that a computer assisted RPG as you describe in your earlier post would be able to compete with current IRC based games (run by a human GM with the aid of a "dice bot"), NWN or the games at Skotos.
I also don't believe that the advanced graphical capabilities of modern machines is a plus for this type of game, as that raises the level of skill and effort required for those wishing to create content, and discourages players from using their imaginations.
As I see it, your main concerns would include maximising the potential user base (by having relatively low system requirements etc.) and making content as simple as possible to create/reuse. It would help if existing inexpensive third party tools were supported.
I would also suggest thinking about ways to offer above average support for content creators on an official site.
Custom emotes generally consist of text being displayed to other players, which can't really be classed as actions in the traditional sense as they have no effect on the game characters or world.
I'm not convinced that a computer assisted RPG as you describe in your earlier post would be able to compete with current IRC based games (run by a human GM with the aid of a "dice bot"), NWN or the games at Skotos.
I also don't believe that the advanced graphical capabilities of modern machines is a plus for this type of game, as that raises the level of skill and effort required for those wishing to create content, and discourages players from using their imaginations.
As I see it, your main concerns would include maximising the potential user base (by having relatively low system requirements etc.) and making content as simple as possible to create/reuse. It would help if existing inexpensive third party tools were supported.
I would also suggest thinking about ways to offer above average support for content creators on an official site.
Possibly another way to look at this problem Mephs.
You're looking at it from a story line perspective (use a grappling hook, a girder falls, ect...) but think of it from a game engine perspective. In most MMO's there really isn't a girder or a grappling hook, rather there is an 'interactive object' that u can click and then does its action script and plays back a canned action. Hence u don't have a girder, just something that looks like one.
Basically what I'm trying to get at is that if u were to actually have a real girder, as in proper physics, ect... programmed in, u wouldn't need canned animations or a scripting system, rather it would do all the things u would expect a girder to do. If u wanted to pick it up and chuck it at someone, u could; swing or stand on it, all good. If u built the warehouse so that it could break or crumble, then setting explosives and blowing out the base causing it to collapse on the enemies inside is plausible.
So what u suggest (do whatever u want) is certainly feasible to an extent the engine allows. Something as simple as (semi?)proper physics or better AI will do wonders to opening up differnt possibilites, all without needing any complex scripting or GM to oversee the system.
You're looking at it from a story line perspective (use a grappling hook, a girder falls, ect...) but think of it from a game engine perspective. In most MMO's there really isn't a girder or a grappling hook, rather there is an 'interactive object' that u can click and then does its action script and plays back a canned action. Hence u don't have a girder, just something that looks like one.
Basically what I'm trying to get at is that if u were to actually have a real girder, as in proper physics, ect... programmed in, u wouldn't need canned animations or a scripting system, rather it would do all the things u would expect a girder to do. If u wanted to pick it up and chuck it at someone, u could; swing or stand on it, all good. If u built the warehouse so that it could break or crumble, then setting explosives and blowing out the base causing it to collapse on the enemies inside is plausible.
So what u suggest (do whatever u want) is certainly feasible to an extent the engine allows. Something as simple as (semi?)proper physics or better AI will do wonders to opening up differnt possibilites, all without needing any complex scripting or GM to oversee the system.
Author
I will admit to having only played NWN in single player mode, so I can't comment too much on the similarities of my idea to that game. I do however gather that NWN does a pretty decent job.
I suppose what I would want to improve would be the ease at which content can be added to a game. Again, I'm sure NWN does a good job with this, but I've always had a few ideas up my sleeve to aid in this, which I wont go into detail with quite yet. That has always been one of my key goals and beliefs in RPG design, that content should be extremely easy and intuitive to create, and should ideally be able to be created in the least time possible. This should achieve the result of keeping the game fresh by making it quick and easy to customize. I think my ideal game may well be one in which we could create a total conversion mod without having to touch a line of code (except perhaps for script). I do however believe that engines can be created too generically and this can do more harm than good.
So I agree with your statement about ease of content creation/reuse.
makeshiftwings: I agree about your statement on the computer scripted events/actions, it could add the problem of being overwhelmed with options and would still be static to an extent while requiring a lot of preparation work. I think the idea would perhaps be best thought of as allowing a degree of flexibility in gameplay on a level by level basis. Perhaps we needn't create 1000 events for a map, but instead create 10 unique events for 10 different maps. Each level would then offer a more unique challenge, where most current games tend to offer a similar challenge in every level, albeit providing the player with new items/skills.
I was thinking perhaps that opportunities could be something that flash up as an icon when the opportunity becomes available, so the player would have to be observent and click the icon as and when it appears to take advantage of the event/action opportunity. This could remove being overwhelmed with 100 different options, of which you may only be concerned with 3 in the current situation.
This does still need some work, I am aware, I'll keep thinking on it, but I'm sure it could have some use, even if not as originally intended.
So anyhoo, turning back to NWN, as I am not familiar with the multiplayer game, what did you see as the pros and cons of its system? Was content creation easy or difficult? Did it adequately meet the needs of it's market? Could it have done anything better or differently? Also, I'd be interested in knowing what people think of the way it handled GMs, if it gave them all the tools they really needed to do their job, as I have a sneaking suspicion (perhaps wrongly) that this will be an area it could have improved on.
I suppose what I would want to improve would be the ease at which content can be added to a game. Again, I'm sure NWN does a good job with this, but I've always had a few ideas up my sleeve to aid in this, which I wont go into detail with quite yet. That has always been one of my key goals and beliefs in RPG design, that content should be extremely easy and intuitive to create, and should ideally be able to be created in the least time possible. This should achieve the result of keeping the game fresh by making it quick and easy to customize. I think my ideal game may well be one in which we could create a total conversion mod without having to touch a line of code (except perhaps for script). I do however believe that engines can be created too generically and this can do more harm than good.
So I agree with your statement about ease of content creation/reuse.
makeshiftwings: I agree about your statement on the computer scripted events/actions, it could add the problem of being overwhelmed with options and would still be static to an extent while requiring a lot of preparation work. I think the idea would perhaps be best thought of as allowing a degree of flexibility in gameplay on a level by level basis. Perhaps we needn't create 1000 events for a map, but instead create 10 unique events for 10 different maps. Each level would then offer a more unique challenge, where most current games tend to offer a similar challenge in every level, albeit providing the player with new items/skills.
I was thinking perhaps that opportunities could be something that flash up as an icon when the opportunity becomes available, so the player would have to be observent and click the icon as and when it appears to take advantage of the event/action opportunity. This could remove being overwhelmed with 100 different options, of which you may only be concerned with 3 in the current situation.
This does still need some work, I am aware, I'll keep thinking on it, but I'm sure it could have some use, even if not as originally intended.
So anyhoo, turning back to NWN, as I am not familiar with the multiplayer game, what did you see as the pros and cons of its system? Was content creation easy or difficult? Did it adequately meet the needs of it's market? Could it have done anything better or differently? Also, I'd be interested in knowing what people think of the way it handled GMs, if it gave them all the tools they really needed to do their job, as I have a sneaking suspicion (perhaps wrongly) that this will be an area it could have improved on.
I think you should check out Genesis, I think it is exactly what you are looking for! www.playgenesis.com
What about "L Systems". Thes eare like a formal language. If you remember an onld programming language call "Turtle" that was used to draw graphical objects on the screen, it used an L System language. The beauty of an L System language is that you staret with a few simple "words" (read commands) and then build upon them.
For instance: Some of the basic words in Turtle were "Turn", "Move" and "Repeat". They also had basic parameters (like the number of degrees to turn or the distance to move), but these parameters were realy just an extended version of the most primative commands (like if the basic turn command only worked in increments of 1 degree then to turn 10 degrees all you would have to do is repeat the basic command 10 times).
A language based on L Systems could be used to give characters in a computer game a vast array of actions, as each action could be built up from a set of primatives. Aready in design some people talk about Verbs and Nouns. The Nouns are the objects that exist in the game and the Verbs are actions tha the player can do to them.
If we take these verbs and nouns and impliment them in an L System language, players (and designers) could build objects in the world that used them. All objects migh be subject to a set of default verbs (the basic set) and the object's designer culd combine them into more complex "Routines" that are the more complex actions (these could also be complied into a library that the player can access).
All you then need is to crerate a "physics" system that allows these basic verbs to be implimented in the game.
So each object might have a simple verb "Push". This would allow the character to provide a force vector on the object (direction and magnitude). "Pull" would do the same but move it towards the player (or the player to the object).
To create a rope ladder, the designer just creaates a verb "Climb up" and it them puts a "Pull" action on the player. Each Step of the climb would consist of a strong Pull on the player in a vertical (up) direction, a weaker "Pull" to counter act gravity and a pause. So from two primatives "Pause" (a control verb) and "Pull" we can create a rope ladder with the more complex verb "Climb".
Building such an L System framework would be a large undertaking, but once it has been developed, it could be used again and again in different games (so the cost over all will be relitively low) and even expanded uopn onver time (allowing the development effort and cost to be spread over several projects too).
For instance: Some of the basic words in Turtle were "Turn", "Move" and "Repeat". They also had basic parameters (like the number of degrees to turn or the distance to move), but these parameters were realy just an extended version of the most primative commands (like if the basic turn command only worked in increments of 1 degree then to turn 10 degrees all you would have to do is repeat the basic command 10 times).
A language based on L Systems could be used to give characters in a computer game a vast array of actions, as each action could be built up from a set of primatives. Aready in design some people talk about Verbs and Nouns. The Nouns are the objects that exist in the game and the Verbs are actions tha the player can do to them.
If we take these verbs and nouns and impliment them in an L System language, players (and designers) could build objects in the world that used them. All objects migh be subject to a set of default verbs (the basic set) and the object's designer culd combine them into more complex "Routines" that are the more complex actions (these could also be complied into a library that the player can access).
All you then need is to crerate a "physics" system that allows these basic verbs to be implimented in the game.
So each object might have a simple verb "Push". This would allow the character to provide a force vector on the object (direction and magnitude). "Pull" would do the same but move it towards the player (or the player to the object).
To create a rope ladder, the designer just creaates a verb "Climb up" and it them puts a "Pull" action on the player. Each Step of the climb would consist of a strong Pull on the player in a vertical (up) direction, a weaker "Pull" to counter act gravity and a pause. So from two primatives "Pause" (a control verb) and "Pull" we can create a rope ladder with the more complex verb "Climb".
Building such an L System framework would be a large undertaking, but once it has been developed, it could be used again and again in different games (so the cost over all will be relitively low) and even expanded uopn onver time (allowing the development effort and cost to be spread over several projects too).
Quote:Original post by Mephs
I will admit to having only played NWN in single player mode, so I can't comment too much on the similarities of my idea to that game. I do however gather that NWN does a pretty decent job.
I suppose what I would want to improve would be the ease at which content can be added to a game. Again, I'm sure NWN does a good job with this, but I've always had a few ideas up my sleeve to aid in this, which I wont go into detail with quite yet. That has always been one of my key goals and beliefs in RPG design, that content should be extremely easy and intuitive to create, and should ideally be able to be created in the least time possible. This should achieve the result of keeping the game fresh by making it quick and easy to customize. I think my ideal game may well be one in which we could create a total conversion mod without having to touch a line of code (except perhaps for script). I do however believe that engines can be created too generically and this can do more harm than good.
So I agree with your statement about ease of content creation/reuse.
makeshiftwings: I agree about your statement on the computer scripted events/actions, it could add the problem of being overwhelmed with options and would still be static to an extent while requiring a lot of preparation work. I think the idea would perhaps be best thought of as allowing a degree of flexibility in gameplay on a level by level basis. Perhaps we needn't create 1000 events for a map, but instead create 10 unique events for 10 different maps. Each level would then offer a more unique challenge, where most current games tend to offer a similar challenge in every level, albeit providing the player with new items/skills.
I was thinking perhaps that opportunities could be something that flash up as an icon when the opportunity becomes available, so the player would have to be observent and click the icon as and when it appears to take advantage of the event/action opportunity. This could remove being overwhelmed with 100 different options, of which you may only be concerned with 3 in the current situation.
This does still need some work, I am aware, I'll keep thinking on it, but I'm sure it could have some use, even if not as originally intended.
So anyhoo, turning back to NWN, as I am not familiar with the multiplayer game, what did you see as the pros and cons of its system? Was content creation easy or difficult? Did it adequately meet the needs of it's market? Could it have done anything better or differently? Also, I'd be interested in knowing what people think of the way it handled GMs, if it gave them all the tools they really needed to do their job, as I have a sneaking suspicion (perhaps wrongly) that this will be an area it could have improved on.
The NWN GM tools are still very crude -- basicly the GM can place monsters or placeable items and spell efects (and assume control of one npc). Every thing else would have to be precanned.
Many/most of the persistant worlds had almost no GM interactions.
With a small group you could do the classic 'party' type adventuring, but the terrain it moved thru would all have to be precanned and the the time to create using the 'editor' could be alot more time consuming than the old GM paper method (and much much slower if custom scripting was involved).
Someday with realistic physics and scenery components and reactive/interactive objects you might get the flexibility you are looking for (look what you can do in Unreal Tournament already...)
Scripting on-the-fly is just too unnatural/crude and you might as well just try to emulate the table top experience (with a few tools to streamline it).
Quote:Original post by Anonymous PosterQuote:Original post by Mephs
So anyhoo, turning back to NWN, as I am not familiar with the multiplayer game, what did you see as the pros and cons of its system? Was content creation easy or difficult? Did it adequately meet the needs of it's market? Could it have done anything better or differently? Also, I'd be interested in knowing what people think of the way it handled GMs, if it gave them all the tools they really needed to do their job, as I have a sneaking suspicion (perhaps wrongly) that this will be an area it could have improved on.
The NWN GM tools are still very crude -- basicly the GM can place monsters or placeable items and spell efects (and assume control of one npc). Every thing else would have to be precanned.
Many/most of the persistant worlds had almost no GM interactions.
With a small group you could do the classic 'party' type adventuring, but the terrain it moved thru would all have to be precanned and the the time to create using the 'editor' could be alot more time consuming than the old GM paper method (and much much slower if custom scripting was involved).
I wouldn't call them crude; they are the best the gaming world has to offer currently. It's true, you can only place objects, NPCs, creatures, etc., and can't create entire towns on the fly as the group is walking, but how could that even be possible? Even with some sort of amazing neural implant that could directly translate the world you were thinking of to the screen, you'd be hard pressed to create a world in real time as someone is walking through it. And you must have been playing on different PW's than I was; the ones I played on had plenty of GM interaction, often with several GM's playing at once to manage control over large groups of creatures and plotlines.
As for the content creation being slow, again, I'd have to disagree. NWN's is one of the fastest, though it pays for that by its content looking more generic and repetitive than other games. This is an unavoidable tradeoff until we do get those neural implants. If you want to create an entire dungeon in twenty minutes, you'll need to settle for tiles and prefabricated models. If you want to create a completely personalized and unique dungeon, then you need to get in there and model everything by hand. You can't have it both ways. NWN could have made their content creation faster, but the cost would be that the tiles would be even more generic and there would be even less freedom in what you could do. Customization and speed are opposing forces.
PnP GMs generally prepare reasonably detailed maps ahead of time too, so most people should be able to accept it being necessary for a computer based RPG. Providing (or supporting third party) terrain/map creation tools would simplify the process.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement