[MUD-Dev] Reusable plots for quests

[Adam Wiggins]

[JCL:]
> [Travis:]
> >The game will definitely change over time, but the parameters within 
> >which that change can be made don't have to be infinitely broad.  
> 
> True, but even minor changes can have large side effects.  Consider what
> really happens to any world and its culture when the base currency of that
> world is devalued?  Take your standard fantasy game with its rationed
> prices based on gold and silver, and suddenly dump several hundred tonnes
> of gold in there from a few dragon hoards, or a super-lucky alchemist who
> finally did make gold out of lead.

I think the solution to this is simple: develop your game concepts
(such as resource values, in this example) as a seperate thing from the
actual trappings.  If shops are simply willing to trade their goods for
something that they think is of equal value to the item being sold, and
is something that they can use elsewhere to barter for products they
might 'want' themselves, then a shopkeeper simply takes gold coins because
they have a perceived value to her, and because she knows that she can
trade them for other goods and services elsewhere in the town.  She may
not take a large ruby, however, despite its perceieved worth, because she
knows she can't 'cash it in' anywhere.  Or then again, she might, if she knows
she can take it down to the local jewlers and trade it in for ten times the
worth of the item she is selling you.  Money is simply bits of material that
have a certain value.  If you want to get more complex you can have
valueless tokens which have a value attached due to the backing of some
organization (certificates of worth), although for the fantasy setting
you mention I think the value of the material would be just fine.  If
you show up with a shapeless chunk of mithril, they won't be able to give you
'change', but may trade you the item anyhow.  Coins are easily measured
out and compared to other denominations.
Thus if you drop several tons of gold in the town square, the perceived
value of gold becomes incredibly low and likely some other material will
take over as the main form of monetary exchange.

> I've been throwing massive change tokens in here deliberately as they are
> much easier to manipulate in a discussion than more minor stuff with its
> more measily and indeterminate side effects.

Plus, it's just plain more fun to think of examples for...

> >This does, however, bring up another topic -- namely, why *not* have a 
> >mud which changes in fundamental ways over time?  What if the rebels
> >*can* defeat Vader and the Empire?  Is this necessarily a bad thing?
> 
> An obvious approach for the Star Wars them is to make the game a battle
> for control of the Empire.  Thus you may have one or more pretenders to
> the throne, various sets of rebels against the current holder, etc.  A
> messier approach is to make the power base entirely soluble, such that the
> universe tends to devolve into a morass of petty warring warlords and
> kingdoms. which a suitably dedicated player can weld into a cohesive
> whole, thus forming an "Empire", but also automatically creating rebels
> who attempt to replace or remove him from that perch.
> 
> The broader problem is that either approach requires the base theme to be
> sufficiently generalised that after a few cycles, the universe state
> really bears little resemblance to Star Wars outside of light sabres.
> 
> No, this is not necessarily a Bad Thing.  It just means that you have to
> be willing to generalise your game to an extent where it will likely
> evolve to a point unrecognisable from its original milleau.

Basing a game on any sort of fixed story like Star Wars means that you
will have...well, a fixed story.  An interactive world should define itself
by its settings, motif, and devices...the story is created by those existing
in the world.

> The other problem here, is that you have created a system with sufficient
> fluidity that it is going to require continuous admin maintenance,
> tweaking and cajoling, to keep the thing working.  You are going to have
> to have a continupus feed of Admins who are very literally married to the
> game.

It depends.  If you want some sort of coherent story going at all times,
then yes, you're talking about a MUSH.  If you're willing to let the
stories just 'happen', then I don't see why admin intervention is
necessary at all.

> >There's no reason we major theme of a mud couldn't change over time.  In
> >the case of our example, once the Empire is defeated, the rebels still
> >have to try to put together a government, deal with any other forces that
> >try to step into the power vacuum left, and possibly perform "mopping-up"
> >actions against any organized pockets of resistance that might be left.
> 
> Yup, but this is an entirely different game really.  It also requires the
> game and the plaeyrs to constantly re-invent the game as it progresses, as
> the base fundaments of the game will be changing over time.  This is not a
> Bad Thing, its just very expensivce in time and Admins.  The really really
> nice aspects of this, are that game history suddenly starts having real
> import. Who what where and when within the game world is now of actual and
> real importance as these are player made and driven changes, with lessons
> to be learned and used again in the curent state.

Again the 'base fundaments' need not change, just the paterns created
with them.  I think of it like a big bag of leggos.  It's the same bunch
of bricks regardless, and no one will be fooled into thinking that it's a
different set if you make a different object from it.  But does anyone
really care?

> >A good example of this sort of thing is the TV show Babylon 5 -- the
> >series started out by building up towards a war against the alien 
> >Shadows.  The war came about, was fought, and ended.  However, there were
> >still problems left behind -- incipient civil wars in the Earth Dominion
> >and among the Minbari castes.  At the close of last season, both of those
> >plot lines were (mostly) resolved, leaving the stage open for something
> >else.
> 
> >Of course, in doing a mud like that, you'd probably lose some players at
> >the transition points -- some may not be interested in sticking around
> >once the current "part" wraps up.
> 
> Yet that same sense and fact of continuance could be a real value.  All of
> a sudden you have a real and organic world.  That fact will tend to
> attract a certain class of players who stay and play for very long periods
> (years?  decades?) whiule others loiter only till the conclusion of the
> curent drama.

I see this as a good thing as a player.  I tend to mud in spurts - log onto
a mud for a while when some interesting things are going on, then after a
few weeks get bored and drift away.  I may come back later (usually as
a different character) if I have the urge, though.  Anyhow, I usually start
playing because some major change has happened in the game world - someone
sends me email saying "Hey, an army of greater dragons just wiped out
Tarsis!  Check it out!"  I usually drift away when things cease to interest
me, but it would be a lot more fun if these renewels came on a regular
basis and in a more potent form (most of the mud rather than just one city
being wiped out) and if there was a definite conclusion to each era, so that
there would be a more definite conclusion to that given session, rather
than me just getting bored with it.  Naturally you could always stay on, but
that would be a good point to decide you're going to be done for a while.
As opposed to the ongoing soap-opera/comic book style of current muds,
whereby there's rarely fixed conclusions, except for small bits of a given
story wraping up.