The problem with mmorpgs and story...

#1 In a near future world, the earth is invaded. not so much invaded, but falls victim to one of the universes' deadliest scouges, The Fallen. The Fallen are basically universal parasites, that travel between life sustaining planets in an attempt to feed. After consuming all of the lifeforms on the planet, they cause a disturbance in the planet's core, destroying it, there by traveling on the scattered debris to move to other planets (all of this will be unknown to the players for some time). The Fallen have only very fail bodies. They resemble insects abour the size of a fist. When the parasites choose a host, which must first be carrion (dead matter), they alter the dead organism's physiology, using remenant dna coding. this results in twisted versions of the former creatures, but not at first. for example, a recently flagrated human being would look essentially the same as when they died, only now they crave flesh. basically zombies. slow moving, unintelligent zombies. but as the creatures begin to 'retro-fit' the bodies, regrowing nerve tissue, elongating nails into claws and blades, improving muscle density, etc. etc... the inhabited creatures become more and more fearsome over time. But humanity is putting up the good fight, unified as a planet, although under harsh conditions of war. with very little industry or economy, humans must raid the infested areas of the planet that have gone unused for years. scavanging technology, weapons, or information. Also, the humans will have to take back territory from The Fallen, as well as defend territory that's already won. A large percent of the world's population are either actively in the military or preparing for it.

Okay, now the gameplay basics. with a story like that you have a couple of points.

1.) you have enemies. The Fallen are a good enemy because they make sense, and they can assume many different forms. You can always keep the player body engaged, since there is a good reason for fighting tiered or similar opponents.

2.) There's room for engaging story-based battles and freeform questing alike. There would most likely be Havens, or hub cities, that would be different servers. Occasionally, there will be assaults on the hub cities that the players must stave off. New areas will be opened in new expansions, with the sole reason of conquering them and taking them back from The Fallen strategically. This opens the door for many heroes / generals to rise up and lead armies. Or, players can still visit conquered areas to mop up a few Fallen and collect loot. All of this would be player cooperative, and different servers would only represent different parts of the world, but still essentially be cooperating. what one server does can affect the others. Whatever the case, the idea is to keep the things going on in the game significant. not just another quest-based trudge through the main story.

3.) the near-future setting gives you the opportunity to neatly explain everything. Casters? Psychics. Melee fighters? Genetically enhanced warriors. Rogues / ninjas? Spec war. Although the majority of combat would be done ranged with guns, there's plenty of room for flexibility.

4.) also, to keep the game interesting, there shouldn't be a huge difference between a grisled war veteran and a greenback fresh out of boot. i mean, sure, the grisled guy will always win in a fight, but that's more about skill and experience than a STR or DEF stat.

5.) Death would need to be VERY significant. The penalties for dying should be severe... possibly character deletion. this way, the players are generally more afraid of the fallen, since they have more to lose. sometimes retreat should be the preffered option.

in short, you would need an active GM element in the game to throw story curveballs. but that's only th ebeginning of what you could do with a game that had a universal, game-wide story. Imagine the conversations...

"hey, did you hear? the Apollo cluster got overrun last night."
"what? are you kidding?"
"No. suprise fallen attack. the cluster is down to 12% manning. took a nice wet bite out of their ass."
"Great... they're the next server over... we're going to have our areas flooded with all those new fallen."
"Oh well. More kills to put on my eval sheet."
"LOL"

actually... that sounds pretty cool. anybody interested in getting a project going? :)

#2 I'd have to agree that a dynamic story, although could be a code nightmare, would be ideal for MMO's. This is why content packs come out. The game makers know you will end up doin everything and seeing everything and you'll get bored, so they add more areas to look at and such.

I would NOT suggest having character deletion EVER occur in an MMO. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would leave any MMO the second they deleted my character account for dieing. I didn't spend countless hours building this bastard up to accidentally get in over my head and have to start over. Have xp penalties and the such, but do NOT take my character completely.

#3 Very good points made in this thread.

Two I'd like to emphasize:

"part of the reason that the games aren't engaging is that the characters themselves never really feel that they are the movers and shakers of the game world..."

and

"I would NOT suggest having character deletion EVER occur in an MMO. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would leave any MMO the second they deleted my character account for dieing. I didn't spend countless hours building this bastard up to accidentally get in over my head and have to start over. Have xp penalties and the such, but do NOT take my character completely."

I've been playing MMOGs for almost 10yrs. Various ones. The main thing that makes me start to get bored with the game is the repetitiveness. I'm supposed to be in this virtual world, but nothing changes. Nothing that happens really matters. After a while it's the same thing over and over again. A fun community can prolong my existence in a game, but it won't keep it.

Dieing in a "pay for subscription" game can be tricky. Death should come with a penalty, but perma-death of a character that someone is paying to play (or has at least spent countless hours playing) is a quick way to lose customers. I too would drop the game in a hearbeat and spam the internet with bad reviews. A game that wipes my character out and expects me to keep playing (especially paying to play) had better be the most awesome game in the world to take my money.

I think one of the things that I have always been looking for in a mmog is for the character to feel like he matters. If there is a battle going on, it should have some kind of effect on the world. Not just be the same battle over and over again.

When I used to play Asheron's Call-1 I stopped playing it after about 6 months. Mainly due to the same old story of kill-X creatures....level...repeat.

A couple of years later, I tried it again. I went to a town that I used to like. It was destroyed. Wiped out in a previous battle. That was pretty cool I thought. The world was actually being affected by the actions in the game. Unfortunately, there was still the "kill-X to level and repeat" problem.

MMORPGs are an interesting animal. You have some players that really do try to roleplay according to the storyline, then you have those that only care about crunching the numbers to be uber. And there are those in the middle.

I lost interest in Everquest quickly when I was playing a Dark Elf. I tried roleplaying hating a dwarf that was standing nearby. He couldn't understand why I refused to heal him or team up with him to go kill-x to level and repeat. I tried to explain the roleplay part, but it was like talking to a dead fish in a bowl. Pretty much the same blank stare.

I think, like said above, that many are looking for that MMO that offers a dynamic world affected by the actions of the players. I am. I just don't know how to make one.

#4 For some the story-line is importent, while others dont care if there is one or not.

Personally i dont care if the game i play have a story, frankly i am just happy when i dont have to listen to long storys been told. I dont want to save the world, i want to just have fun. :)

Most importen things for me as a gamer:
*Playfun
*The social aspect
*That i can solo, group and raid and not restricted to just some of the options.
*Constantly been able to upgrade my char with items, spells, abilitys even after max level.
*New places to see and try out
*Able to allways streetch my limits to go further
*The feeling one get when you manage to do something you shouldnt be able to (alone and in group)
*No need of constantly farming cash, just to survive

Problem i see in most games i have tryed, is that when you reach max level there isnt really much to do other then raid. Even tho i like to raid, i also want to be able to progress outside raidtime. The game i have seen that have managed that aspect best, is Everquest without doubt. With constantly new alternativ abilitys, and new zones and instances. Possible to get upgrades after max level without raiding to.

I am no expert on mmo (or how to make them), but i know what I like in a mmo. Atm boyfriend and me have 15 activ mmo subscriptions in different games.

Lets take WOW. It was very fun up until level 60. Lots to see and lot of things to do, and alot of humor on the way. After 60 playfun went downhill fast. If you want upgrades you mostly need a raid force. +Lets not forget all the farming one HAVE to do, just to be able to have cash enough for potions and a fixed armor for raiding.

Ps! I dont agree at all on the possible deletion of chars if they die. I know one thing: I would have quitted the game instantly and NEVER gone back. :)

#5 Okay... i did say 'posssibly' character deletion. so i take it that idea is right out. But i do beleive that death would need to be something grisly and horrible. Something people don't do and just say "oh, man... i died. Now i have to get back all that xp...". just kind of takes some of the dynamacy out of the story.

In response to gary's post: yes. that's precisely my point. a character never really felt original or important. just some dark elven rogue i'd like to party with. oh, cool. he has the best armor. let's go randomly kill things. lame. a continuous and overlapping story would keep a public engaged. while the traditional mechanics of a 'go here, kill these things' system would still exist, it would be paced... whole servers would have objectives to complete. who and how they were completed would not really matter. here's an example:

let's say that you just started playing the game. you select a character model, name, all that good stuff. A basic set of attributes, and then you go right to it. with only the weapons and equipment that you got from boot, you are plunged into a server. at the server's hub city, you get a little guidance and perhaps join a unit (who, unlike guilds, would actaully be looking for members of all skill levels, since all wars need infantry). but as you take your meager salary that you earn weekly according to your rank to buy some provisions, there is a breach of the hub city's security and Fallen overrun it. Turns out that some of the city's defenders lost a battle on the frontlines, allowing Fallen to break through into the city. Now the city erupts into chaos, and you run to help. since bullets really have no level, you're just as potent (if not as accurate) as the O-6 captain over there with the advanced uber rifle. since there is now a hole in the defenses, you get grabbed by the captain and sent to reinforce the breach. the captain would be just another player, sending you to do what he felt was important. Let's say that later on, when you were ranked around e-4 or something, that the party that you've been playing with stumbles upon some ruins and finds a map or some other information. being a unique item, you could take it back to the hub city and deliver it to your superiors, and this piece of information would reveal a part of the story to all the servers. this is a rough idea, but you get the point.

the best way to handle storylines in mmo's is to make them simultaneous. a system in which the character's effectiveness doesn't greatly differ between levels is ideal. i think i may actually start writing up a concept paper for this idea... if anyone has anything they want to add, by all means.

#6 For the game I'm developing, when a character dies I want to the player to be upset. I want the player to be scared to die. I don't want the player to be so scared to die that they don't end up getting into situations where they COULD die however. Half the fun of a game is getting in over your head and once in awhile having it work out for you. I'm not 100% finished with my layout for what happens when the player dies, but I do know he'll loose any cash he's carrying, he'll loose combat xp (i have two main xp types instead of one) and he'll get battle 'wounds' on his HSM bars (we have health, social, and mind bars in our game).

3/4 of the player races in our game according to our story are either already dead or are near-immortal beings. Therefore when they 'die' in the game it must be a spectacle that they really didn't want to happen. If you take enough different things from a player, then they'll dread dieing and it'll affect them. Oh yea, if you are killed by another player, they can 'loot' an item from you based on the item's rarity. So stuff that's extremely rare isn't lootable but several levels of rarity are ;)

#7

Quote:If you take enough different things from a player, then they'll dread dieing and it'll affect them

Be careful that the effect isn't them deciding not to play anymore...

I think one way to address death in MMO's is to take it out, for the most part. Who's to say that because some Orc knocked you on your ass when your health bar got low that you aren't unconscious and just left for dead? Whether or not that happens does not a good story make, but I thought I'd throw that idea out there while it crept up in the thread.

So, back on topic: I agree with a lot of what Justin has to say about the state of storylines in MMO's today. As a matter of fact, there are things one can do to help that situation, but it's probably one of the hardest roads there is, regarding RPG's- which is why noone does it. Interactive Fiction holds a lot of promise, if done correctly, to help bring a world to life. It cannot be implemented the same way it's used now in standalone text-based RPG's, but it can be adapted so that you can drive events in your world at a more granular level than the world itself.

At the world level, you have quests and such that everyone does, like in WoW, and despite the humor and fun, it does get repetitive once you roll another character. Plus, it becomes a stat-fest when you realize that you can just dial up a website with hints and tips and get your quests done faster that way. It takes the spontenaeity (<-mutilated spelling) out of it.

At an individual level, you have quests generated for you and only you, such as in Anarchy Online. The problem there was that the quest system might as well have been the same as WoW's, because it was bland, generic, and very uninspired, even if the technology and spirit behind it was.

The fix would be to take that model one step further and have the story system be integrated into everything else in the world. The same goes with skills and roleplaying elements like emotes and such. How else can you roleplay if all the different categories of gameplay are not interconnected and designed around it? The system needs to be built from the ground up and tailored to what you want to accomplish in your game, and because of that, it's a more highly customized system and the games that result from it would probably turn out to have distinctive gameplay types. That, unfortunately, is a byproduct of a system such as that, and runs counter to the industry dogma of lowest common denominator GUI's and gameplay. But, if your game is worth it, your users won't mind learning a new way to play- and the grey matter between their brains should not be underestimated at any rate.

Just a few pennies of mine tossed in...

#8 You need death, or a player getting 'left for dead' never really cares that it happened, and the player who's doing the 'leaving' has no sense of accomplishment. So what if I knocked him over, I WANT TO KILL HIM! It's fun to duel players or attack the opposite faction and know that this bastard is going down and he's going down hard. ;)

#9 Yeah, but that never happens. If you killed this guy in a duel, then what the hell is he doing walking out of the inn five minutes later, looking brand-new??? It's not death. That's the problem. If it's death, then the character cannot come back. If you want to reduce penalties for "death", then stop calling it death in the first place and go another way with it. You can still have penalties, and the combat and results don't change a single bit, but you cannot say a character's been killed if they're walking around five minutes later.

One idea, which I forgot to mention in the last post, that I had was to test a feature I'd call "Hero Mode" or something similar. It's a button you click that boosts your stats by several times for certain situations (say, surrounded by twenty really hungry and agitated landsquid), but also has the side-effect of exposing your character to permanent death. Now, the caveat is that your character's death, if it comes to that, will not be completely in vain- your next character starts off with a certain amount of the previous character's skill levels and inventory. In addition, the mode would only last for a certain period of time, as well as having a long recharge timer. It's a hard-sell, though, and I honestly won't know how well it would work until I get to a point where I can have someone (or myself), build up a character and then go through that process. I do think that it affords the player two opportunities: 1) To bring more realism into the game by invoking the chance at permanent death on a voluntary basis and 2) To gain some level of notariety from the act of dying while "fighting the good fight". But it would only work if it was voluntary, had a "back out" system (the timers), and offered some form of acknowledgement of sacrifice (name on a monument somewhere, etc) as well as a reward to the player towards the next character created.

But the death thing never really seems like death- not when I can just run back to my body and "resurrect". And it's especially trivialized in a world where background characters die and do not come back. Why? Do special people not get another chance in the world? Maybe the characters in WoW listed as killed cancelled their subscriptions ;) In any event, that's one area that MMO's should try and iron out, even if it's just doing it with changing the words that describe why you're lying on the floor beyond "RemoWilliams critted all over your ass with 19264174612641964 points of damage from his Flying Butt Scissors of Justice", without telling you that you're in a state that should be permanent, and yet is not...

#10 Faced with this new subject of death, here's what i have to offer.

there would be two tiers of death. WIA and KIA. WIA (wounded in action) would mean that you were incapacitated, basically knocked out, and could still be healed by other players (psychics, medics). When you went WIA, there would be a time limit until you were KIA, (killed in action) probably up to a half an hour, depending on how much you were 'overkilled' for.

due to storyline reasons, all military personnel would have implants installed in their bodies that would send a huge electric pulse through the body to destroy the nervous system (don't want a Fallen taking over a battle-hardened soldier). However, KIA would not be the end. The medical facility would have backups of your mental and physical makeup, which you could update periodically (for a cost) for insurance. When KIA, you would restart at the facility. Due to the shock of having been created in a matter of hours, your body will have reduced physical and mental attributes. The cost of reanimation will also include any surgical implants that you had. You lose all of your carried equipment, but retain all of your credits (since these funds are electronic) and merits (explained below).

I think it's also pertinent to include here that there will be no 'leveling up' in this game. only a military paygrade system. Instead of going out and just killing random things (although it helps) your advancement will depend on a number of in-game statistics, including evaluations from higher-ranked players.

each week, players will receive a monthly salary based on paygrade. this will include credits (since none can be collected from monsters) and merits. credits are pretty self explanatory. besides salary, credits can be gained by selling artifacts found in dungeons. merits are points that you can give other players of lower rank when they do something you think warrants it. You can award medals, which cost merit points. anywhere from a simple 'pat on the back medal' from 'grand freaking champion of existence medal'... needless to say, only very high ranking players can bestow something like that. the number of merits earned a week and how many can be saved at once depend on rank. (negative evaluations can be given, but they cost merits as well.)

with rank, comes privilages. higher-ranked players will gain access to better weapons / equipment, training, and surgical implants, as well as be approved for special designations (i.e. advanced training with special designation restricted training, something like choosing a traditional class).

kind of kept running with it... sorry.

#11 Sounds like a solid game actually. I would say it sounds more like it would fit in as a FPS or even a 'BF1942' style game.

The death related stuff sounds exactly like SWG had it. You'd buy insurance and if you died, you'd 'clone' at the nearest facility with health and mind wounds, degraded equipment, etc.

#12 Hmm... i never actually played galaxies, but from what i heard, it sounds pretty cool. i'm currently writing up a little thingie on this game idea, see if i can't get some of the finer points working.

but since this thead was originally about story, i beleive i may have gone off subject.

so i've been thinking about it. the story would probably involve the systematic retaking of areas conquered by the Fallen, as an example. I think that it wouldn't really be a coding nightmare, since the server itself would have different 'objectives' designed for a multitude of players to engage in. like in order to set up a base of operations in the area, the players would need to hold a certain point for a few days, probably the large ruins of a building or something. but before this happens, the players must clear out the building, using infantry, guard it from further assault, bring in technicians to repair the various machinery, or even scout the building using stealth specialists first for information gathering. meanwhile, other players would be in other ruins, searching for components for the machinery or doing patrols. others would be inside the facility standing watches as well, which would require support units like medics and biokenetic psychics. it would be a big operation that would need planning. you couldn't just get a big raiding party together and do it. And that would just be the steps for securing a building. think about the plot implications. rescuing npcs from overrun cities, eliminating Fallen hive cities (using stealth specialists to plant giant bombs), or whatever. the missions would only be limited to the creator's imagination.

whew. gotta go eat. mess decks close in like 15. more for later.

#13

Quote:I think that it wouldn't really be a coding nightmare

And then the description of a lot of goals for the begining of a large mission arc... Then:

Quote:it would be a big operation that would need planning. you couldn't just get a big raiding party together and do it. And that would just be the steps for securing a building. think about the plot implications. rescuing npcs from overrun cities, eliminating Fallen hive cities (using stealth specialists to plant giant bombs), or whatever. the missions would only be limited to the creator's imagination.

Those two comments are mutually exclusive ;) Unless you have something very spectacular up your sleeve for accomplishing these goals? Mind you, I'm not saying that it's impossible or that you can't do it- I believe it's very possible, and you probably can- but it'll definitely be a coding nightmare =)~

I've spent the last 3 years looking into interactive fiction and branching and dynamic storylines that are generated by servers, and it's something that is neither simple nor easy. But, without going further into what kinds of storylines can be done, we could probably do better to discuss methods of allowing multiplayer games (or even singleplayer games) the ability to generate flexible and branching storylines with multiple primary and secondary goals. Maybe we can hit on something that we're all missing individually when we put our heads together.

#14 Here are some ways to make a player feel sad they have lost there charactar in a battle. Either,
1) The fallen get the exp lost from the charactar OR
2) When you die a fallen gets your body. You get another version of your body back of course, but they get and equally strong version of you.it could be like "every time one of our men dies, they get an extra man" sort of thing.
3) You lose your position in the army/squad/platoon you are in.

#15 Yeah, there's the rub, me thinks.

what is is that really motivates the histories of man? Impotence and death. if everybody in the world is some immortal badass, then what's the motivation? People want to keep their character, and would scream and holler if it was deleted, but at the same time they want a player-motivated storyline. People die in storylines. betrayl and deciet and even heroism are all based on either the reaction to, or struggle against, fear. If there is no fear, there is no human motivation. that's how it is. The grandest pursuits in literature involve fear. or at least, at some level, a great threat. the only way to get a group of immortals stirred up is to threaten their immortality.

so then, why does everyone talk about 'interactive fiction' if they're too coy to pay the price of drama? Why are there no global threats in mmorpgs. you never feel unsafe. you can always just go to the nearest town or whatever and it's all good. so what the hell? How can you create any kind of story without conflict? You never really feel at odds with the random goblins and bunnies roaming around in the woods. so what if you die? lose a little exp and that's it for the most part.

i would like to see a game with a point. a real global threat or attempt at dominion. why can't players raise armies and attepmt to take over and subvert his fellow man? 'because that's not fun for me.'

and there it is. You can't please everyone. because there's always going to be some guy that's totally left out of the loop while the important people change the world, and then flames the game and says it's the worst one ever and that he can't beleive he voluntarily paid for it.

that's just it. fiction has victims. only no one wants to be victims. have you ever read a book with 750,000 protagonists? no.

so then what do we have? A victimless world where everyone is important and immortal and not really challenged by the world at all. that sucks. so i'm attempting to change that.

#16 I agree with a lot of what has been said here. There are two main problems I see.

In order to have truely interactive drama and have players actions have a meaningful impact people (presumably players) have to die. I am talking about permenent death or something like it.

Players don't like to die

In every good global conflict story you have ever seen or heard people die. Wars are fought over the bodies of soldiers. Hundreds of people die for every single hero. Heros are often the one person who lived through an event that killed a ton of others.

I think there may be a compromise. There can always be more foot soldiers. Line infantry and the faceless masses can die and resurect or get wounded in action and get medical attention whatever you want to call it. If one soldier goes down in a couple weeks your unit gets replacements. Thats fine.

But when General Patton dies the whole world notices and he does not come back. When heros die everybody notcies laments and the side he is on is noticably weakend due to the loss.

So have two levels of players. Normal players are your infantry and your low level non commisioned officers. If one goes down, they come back or are replaced with no real disruptions to the storyline.

Then give players the ability to become a hero class of some sort with expanded powers and abilities but with the limitation of permenent death. You also woudl want to make hero poweres time based. Meaning they start with no better than normal characters but gow, expand or develop over time. Now before everyone freaks about permenent death again think about this.

I had a captain in the Marine Corps I would have followed to hell in back. Everyone in the company worked harder, shot better, moved better did everything better when he was around Captain Whistler just made everyone better at everything they did. There was only one Captain Whistler and when he transfered our company was really reduced in effectiveness. If he had died there would NOT have been another Captain who just came back from the infirmery or whatever the next day.


I would look at handling death like this. For everyone if you die whatever you have becomes open to looting and you are effectively crippled. This would be indicated by a major stat loss, movement impairing effects and or skill impairing effects. If a corpsman or medic gets to your body you can be revived and can be moved back to a surery center or something. If you are rescued by a medic your recovery time is significantly shortened and can get back to full effectiveness much faster.

If your a normal class player then death costs you any equipment that is taken from your body, a loss of effectiveness for a duration, maybe the loss of any acquired merits and possibly some experience toward the progression to a hero class. That way for most players "death" or WIA or whatever has a meaningful sting but no permenent repercussions except for lost time.

If Captain Whistler had died a new captain would have replaced him but it would not have been the same man and he would not have had the same effects on the company to start. He may have become just as good and come to have the same effects on us but it would have taken time.
For hero classes dead would be dead. The player's hero character would be dead but they would be able to create a new character with the same effective skills and talents but it would be a new character. Any hero character abilities would be reset.

Anyone could have the option of transitioning to a Hero class once they had meet some certain conditions, but with the abilities and benefits comes the risk of permenently losing that character. The player could start a new character at the same relative skills but they would have lost thier hero powers that were based on time, they would have lost their gear and any impact they had on the game as the previous character.

Using a system similar to this Death means something to everyone and it also opens the gates to have truly heroic characters who have mahjopr impacts on the story line. You simply cannot have everyone in the game be as important as the generals or heros of legend and be effectively immortal.

In addition to heroic character meaning something you can have items and or weapons that would mean something. Truly unique weapons could be something to be fought over, protected and quested for.

Sorry for rambling on but that is my initial thoughts on how I would chase that problem down.

#17

Quote:NEO: Choice. The problem is choice.

#18 You guys are on the right track. Game "death" must have consequences to be meaningful, but if those consequences are too extreme, people will abandon the game at the first death. It is, after all, a game, and people want to have fun playing it.

Typically, non-PVPers *HATE* losing their hard-won equipment. I know several people who have quit games because they lost everything and were disgusted at the thought of essentially starting over.

If your game is exclusively PVP, then so be it: that loss is an expected part of the PVP environment. But understand that more than half of all male players, and nearly 80% of female players favor non-PVP servers.

Your potential market might be limited by that if you take the pure PVP route.

#19 Personally i think there should be options to make your own quests and a dynamic world around you that you can influence yourself or could get influence by othere people.
This will mean an extreame lot of coding and possibility's for it all to run normal.

But it would be realy nice if this where made then you would have difrent worlds in every server
and also the options to build your own city's and create new country's etc would give the game extra options and playtime that (if done right) would last for years.

And you should also have the option to make history so that if you would lose a country you made it will be rememberd in the books of the library's in that server for instance.

But this should be worked out to the last letter bevore it would be even posible to begin coding.
for now it will be offline and we are working hard on a demo to get sponsors to make this enormous project reality.

If you think this is an idear for the future or a totaly wrong idear please talk aboud it on our forums.
Project Dygenia
www.team.redcellgaming.com

#20 Interesting discussion, especially because recently I was talking with a friend about dynamic mmo design.

Here are my opinions about it:

Without permadeath (PD) for NPCs *and* PCs, there can be no dynamic gameplay.

Unfortunately, most mmo gamers hate the idea of PD, because:
1.) achievments will be lost
2.) they become attached to the character

Well, the second argument does not apply to PD settings. Think about any multiplayer shooter (battlefield, ..). Your character always dies after a few minutes. Big deal. You play with another char. Players don't grieve over the deaths of their chars.
This would be similar in a PD mmo game. People know from the beginning that if their character dies, they have to play another one (99% of deaths). A heroic death would result in tales told long after, which means true role playing.

The first problem persists, but can be solved by game design. Solution in "The Fallen" setting: Play the fallen, not the humans. The core parasite survives, thus preserving all knowledge (XP, skills).

When playing standard creatures (humans, elves, ...), a possible solution might be playing the soul, which is your core character. You reincarnate in different bodies.

Or imagine playing angels or demons, who just grab an available person as avatar.

For a dynamic game, PD needs to apply also to NPCs and enemies. Mobs would have their homelands, where new ones are "spawned" (born). A fallen war group wanders around until they are killed. Other war groups might come later, but with different members. If a mob defeats the players, the mob group could make the former human town their new base. Survivors players will bring the news into the next city, and maybe organize a counter attack.

The dynamic behaviour of mobs follows simple rules. More complex or unique actions (e.g. fortifying the new base), would require a bit of editing by the Game Masters, most of it could be done live (see Neverwinter Nights).

With PD, not only the game world will be evolving, but also players would be more cautious with their chars. More planning, more tatics, better teamplay. More role playing.

I also would think about dropping the whole leveling thing. Which btw solves the problem with carrying over the levels after PD :)
Gaining XPs for new skills is ok. But it's absurd that a level 60 can kill a level 1 without ever having to worry about getting hurt himself. The enormous hitpoints (thanks ad&d) of higher level chars don't make sense. Instead a "next gen" mmo should use a modern experience system, like White Wolf's or GURPS.