Ok I have an idea,

We all operate on a bunch of assumptions.  I think these cloud the development of ideas.  If I were to ask you what is in a MMO you would rattle off a series of mechanics.  But I think that is the problem, MMOs are too well established in our brains to the point where it is hard to come up with anything original or doesn't fit in the formula.

So for this exercise, forget everything you know about MMOs, forget the terminology, concepts of grouping, combat, questing, server structure, whatever, forget the term MMO even exists.

So your task now is to come up with a game idea that can be played by a lot of players, what constitutes a lot to you is your own discretion.  Don't fall back into old terminology and thinking.  I am not asking for a design document just some ideas, be a little specific.

You could also think of it like this.  What kind of experience do you want to make and how you you make it multiplayer?

Can't... think.... too hard.

A server that functions as a service for DnD gamers to play together remotely. The DM uploads maps and several rulesets, maybe even prewritten text, etc. Dice are rolled by the server, not the players. Integrated voice chat allows the players and the DMs to communicate like in a normal PnP DnD game.The server generates the 3D map for the players to play on.The DM has a control panel where he can accept or reject any moves or changes made by the players. He also has the ability to edit/trigger spawns, traps and other content as the session progresses.

Matches can be privarte or public. Session state can be saved and resumed at any time. This allows the DM full control over maintaining or editing the files as he chooses - even going in and adding content or revising content in preparation for the next session.

Target audience is PnP players and small-group hack-n-slash gamers who want to play primarily with peopel they know or associations/organizations they normally play with.

If you had the chance to develop games before the 90's, you would see this mentality everywhere. It was genuinely fun to make games back then, when "indie" was the norm.

The purpose of "blue sky design" was all about dreaming up something you could encapsulate in a video game, and all the mechanical stuff around it would come later through experimentation and prototyping. The sky was the limit and any ideas, no matter how impractical, were welcome.  That's why it was "blue sky." It really wasn't about carefully conforming to formulas or technical capabilities, or even comparing the ideas to other games - it was just about taking something you enjoyed or thought interesting and emulating it.

Over time, however, as development costs and times increased, creativity in design decreased. Game design became a profession, a job. The process of blue sky was replaced with a think-tank mentality, in which designers were to be made into accountants of ideas, which is what you will learn to be when you take a game design course at educational institutions.

This industry by nature demands unpredictability and freedom, yet it is caged and dying. The price we pay when we sacrifice freedom for management takes its toll with a reduction of original material.

So, you want to start from scratch? Research what game developers did before it was all painted grey.

Hint: the ideas had nothing to do with video games. They didn't make video games based on the designs of other video games, they based them on everything but.

Originally posted by Cactus-Man

You could also think of it like this.  What kind of experience do you want to make and how you you make it multiplayer?

Why do you assume the starting point is an individual experience?  That too is "old thinking", in fact I consider that the foundational mistake in current designs.  Destroying the individual experience as a basis of the game and reconciling that with a positive player experience is pretty much the core thought behind most of my ideas. 

Collective storytelling is by its nature a multiple participant activity.  It's totally primal and the probable origin of language (recounting the hunt around the campfire).  By extension it is the same as children playing with dolls (sorry action figures), or any other props.  In a way it is the most natural multiplayer game imaginable, the great grand-daddy of D&D.

This isn't some new goal for me, it pokes its head out for emergent story telling (which I'm almost always for), dynamic worlds and play generated content (my alternative to player generated content).  It also hides behind the lack of vertical progession I'm often advocating.  I will however thank you, I've often contemplated these items and even when held side by side it had never quite crystalized that collective storytelling was the actual goal.

Originally posted by A1x2e3l

 

Ghstwolf, I admire your style and ideas. You are MMO Hegel to my mind! But could you say the same in more simple words? I have to “digest” you posts for hours and days…

Can I blame Plasuma!!! for that?  I swear his posts cause a Pavlovian reaction that gives follow-up posts that quality ;)

Actually, I really had to work at getting the jumble of thoughts I have to that point.  Honestly, the "eureka" moment that so many of the ideas I've worked on and discussed actually had such a strong commonality made it fairly hard to focus. 

Since the whole thread is about a radical departure from conventional thinking, I suggest swapping the focus from individual experiences to mass experiences.  The methodology I would use for this is Collective storytelling (google will yield many results).

The rest is a somewhat jumbled "proof" of the enduring and enjoyable nature of this approach and some of the ideas I've advocated that work towards achieving the goal.

I think that people only have individual experiences.  You design a game in a multiplayer fashion and have collective stories but each player only experiences the game from their individual perspective.

Games are supose to be fun.  When designing for a group you can make large collective naratives and the llike, but what about each individual in the collective, what experience are they having?  It could be wildly different as to the quality of experiences of each individual has in this collective story.

But I think if you design the game so that each person is more than a part in a whole but rather whole themselves you can ensure each person has a good experience. 

I've been avoiding this thread because I fail to understand what you're asking. Can you put it simply?

Originally posted by Cactus-Man
  It could be wildly different as to the quality of experiences of each individual has in this collective story.

You say this as if it was a bad thing.  Why is it so necessary to have a homogenized and pasteurized experience?  I'd rather have an experience where I can set my own goals within an ever shifting world.  That way success isn't expected or just some mechanical certainty.

You ask about the individual experience.  Here's the odd part, I have to focus on it because of where I'm starting from.  Since I am not assuring success, I actually have to make the act of playing fun.  That's right, I cannot use the story and would not use "phat lootz" or power creep to mask the often repetitive, uninspired gameplay and call it fun. 

I see the individual experience origin as a hold over from an age where multiplayer wasn't convenient or rather common.  That isn't to say that the single player constructs don't work, just that I don't believe we ever tried a collective starting point before.  Without that, I don't believe we can justifiably assume the individual experience + others is the most effective form to use.  To me a serious attempt to start over in our thinking cannot be conditional on accepting for fact something as untested as that.

The goal isn't for everyone to have the same experience rather the same quality of experience.

I don't know if you ever played free form RPGs, but they revolve around collective story telling and experiences.  A free form RPG is a forum based game that does not use many rules and no dice, the players all contribute to the story by writting their actions and plot segments.  Every time you play a free form RPG however, a few players always drive the story and the rest become minor characters.  If you are driving the collective story it is great but if you are not then it is rather boring. 

Focusing on the collective relies too much on other people for your own entertainment and gives them too much power to effect your ability to have fun.  Groups and group activities are always ran by either mobs or a few powerful people.  To ensure everybody has fun though and not just the mob or their leaders I focus on the individual. 

Content is designed from the individual out where personal stories can intertwine but ultimately you drive your own experience, you arenot at the mercy of the community and whatever they do or do not do.  It sounds counterintuitive but I think you have to isolate people from each other to a degree.

Originally posted by GTwander

I've been avoiding this thread because I fail to understand what you're asking. Can you put it simply?

 Yeah,

Pretend MMOs were never made.  Then come up with a design for a game that a lot of people can play together.  If you are not allowed to use MMO terminology and MMO tropes you are more likely to come up with something original.

“I've been avoiding this thread because I fail to understand what you're asking. Can you put it simply?”

 As far as I understand the idea is to revise the basic structure, principals of the present MMO games, to create a “ideological” skeleton of a totally new MMO. MMOs were offered to us, we are all consumers. The attempt now is to play a role of developers, game designers from the scratch (in theory, not in practice). What is specifically discussed now is how to do that, what should be main goals/values/principals of the game. This is not about formal goals etc. like reach the highest level as fast as possible, but categories like fun, social feelings, place as a human being, individual the game world.

Sorry, I was typing too slow.

I guess that I have now some understanding of my problem: non-humanitarian and pragmatic way of thinking (and doing) - everything should be structured, classified, mandatory hierarchy should be established, the rest is just do your “local” job (have your personal fun).

In the past I tried to mod games in a team. This was a mess. Dialogues were “wrong”, artistic asserts out of place, proposed quests and scripts technically not doable, etc. It is for reason that modders are usually working alone and on “tiny” projects/mods. IMHO there should be a leader (a general, Feldherr) who determines what should be done and how the end result should look like. He/she takes responsibility and risks, his/her final decisions should not be discussed, that’s an order. I do not understand/accept collective responsibility (nobody is responsible at the end). In my defense I would like to note that collective work/storytelling and individual activity but with respect of interests of others in order to be more efficient than favored by me “totalitarian” system expect involvement of very educated, self-controlled, high-moral, “civilized” individuals (players). And where can you find them? We are savages, animals, kids, “mass-men” who are convinced that know absolute truth and have right to have everything and to dictate to everybody. The later is a very general remark and I am obviously not talking about present Ladies and Gentlemen!

I am asking myself: what we are doing here? Why we are posting, reading? Have you ever seen a single game developer on the Forum? Are developers reading such forums? Isn’t this forum just another MMO for us but without a game!?

Well, the original starting point is pen and paper RPGs.

In MMOs case, D&D. D&D is all about loot, character development is simple and secondary to items.

I would like to start from Runequest instead. RQ is based on how your character becomes better. Gear is secondary and you can play for years with basically the same gear. There are no levels and you will keep your hitpoints but if 2 guys start out with the same character they will differ a lot after that time.

I would also want to focus less on combat. Thiefs should really be able to steal stuff using non combat skills instead of just killing everything. There should be more things to do than just kill everything you see.

I think a MMO should be about the same things as P&P games: To build a good story with your friends. Current MMOs is all about the end but the journey there should actually be at least as fun.

I could see every guild getting a small town to take care of, helping the npcs with the usual stuff but the village should grow depending on what the players did. Evil players would make the village gloomy and it's inhabitants scared or evil themselves. Just getting a home for you and your friends actually adds a lot. The players could get parents and maybe siblings with random occupations and agendas. A smart guild could get access to resources, tools and even money for taking care of their village.

Originally posted by Cactus-Man

The goal isn't for everyone to have the same experience rather the same quality of experience.

I don't know if you ever played free form RPGs, but they revolve around collective story telling and experiences.  A free form RPG is a forum based game that does not use many rules and no dice, the players all contribute to the story by writting their actions and plot segments.  Every time you play a free form RPG however, a few players always drive the story and the rest become minor characters.  If you are driving the collective story it is great but if you are not then it is rather boring. 

I have done a bit of free form RPG, and I'd agree that mechanics would need to include levels of protection to avoid that "left out" feeling.  I think some of those protections are inherent to this "new" format.  The world is persistent with all of it actively existing at all times (not true in most freeform).  With that multiple concurrent storylines of varied type and scope are possible (subplots if you will) which may or may not have any impact on the main storyline.  Some of my thoughts on how to pull this off are in the adaptive gameplay thread.

Honestly, I do rely heavily on players for content.  However I do think the underlying mechanic is different enough from anything made that it will work.  It generates content both intentionally (territorial control is an example that would fit) and unintentionally (like the cutting/burning down the forest from the other thread).  Unintentional content generation is the part that really sets it apart and can help by sending ripples throughout the game.

When UO first came out, before we even played it, my siblings and I were completely enamored of the possibilities we thought that this brave new world of online gaming would offer.  We came up with all these ideas on what our characters would be and do.  Once we finally got the game we dove right in with our plans.  Slowly we realized it didn't offer as much freedom as we had thought.  The main thing to do was level up and kill stuff (and UO had way more to do than that and MUCH more than most games that followed).  From then on I have always been evolving a concept for a game played online by a large number of people that really doesn't fit into the same category of what MMORPGs have become.

My idea is as follows: 

• You have a world that is designed with all sorts of natural interactions.  Weather, climate, terrain, gravity, resource replenishment rates.  Creature habitats, prey, behavior, needs, population density, birth rates.

• You have players that can interact with this world and each other.  They have an intuitive user interface to do so.  They can improve their character to a degree (but not hugely and that is not the focus).  They can interact with the materials, creatures, terrain, etc. that they find in the world to bring about real changes.

• You have a few systems whereby players can manage their resources, be those materials, NPC human resources or PC human resources.  They need to be able to communicate, sort things, categorize things, set up commands, etc.  This is all highly customizable and can be utilized to the extent the player wishes.  Some never use such systems.

• You have another system that allows players to organize themselves into groups.  This is very fluid and open ended.  It can be a temporary hunting party, a tribe, a kingdom, an empire, a merchant guild, a military unit, a secret society.  You can belong to any number of groups.  Group members define what it means to be in the group, what responsibilities, privileges, etc. are attached, how people are admitted, expelled, how decisions are made, etc.

The world is big.  There are a lot of players.  The interactions between players and this dynamic virtual world lead to endless emergent complex immersive and INTERESTING outcomes.  (Did I use too many buzz words?)  No grinding for power levels of uber god-like proportions.  No hoping for a drop of some super charged piece of phat loot.  No repetitive dungeons with a boss and mob that everyone fights over and over.  No NPCs giving delivery quests.  Players set their own goals.  They work to accomplish what they can within the constantly changing setting.  They align with those that have similar goals and can help make theirs possible.  Remember, interactions can be come about through both cooperative and competitive gameplay. 

I really like how ghstwolf mentioned play generated content which I took to mean content generated though the actual playing of the game as opposed to the nightmare of player-created content that comes with all kinds of problems stemming from quality control issues and game continuity.  In fact it seems like ghstwolf and I have some similar core beliefs for the genre if I am reading correctly.

But then it comes down to the debate that has been going on after ghstwolf mentioned collective story telling.  Can individuals enjoy themselves in a setting that can be affected (positively and negatively) by others?  I have heard this time and time again.  Can we know without testing it?  Is it promising enough to be worth a try?  I have done some small tests of my own and some kids were in tears from the losses inflicted upon them by other players, but I don't think it was because there were more of them ganging up on loners (the mechanics weren't really affected by that) or because they were maxed level players picking on noobs (it was a fairly even playing field).  From all I could tell it was because they were emotionally invested in their goals (not their stuff) and so once they regained composure they jumped back in and continued playing because they ENJOYED playing the game despite the setback and continued to work towards their goal.

So lets start from scratch.

Originally posted by ironore

  In fact it seems like ghstwolf and I have some similar core beliefs for the genre if I am reading correctly.

You have the play generated content idea perfectly, and likewise I see a lot of common core beliefs as well. 

Originally posted by ironore

When UO first came out, before we even played it, my siblings and I were completely enamored of the possibilities we thought that this brave new world of online gaming would offer.  We came up with all these ideas on what our characters would be and do.  Once we finally got the game we dove right in with our plans.  Slowly we realized it didn't offer as much freedom as we had thought.  The main thing to do was level up and kill stuff (and UO had way more to do than that and MUCH more than most games that followed).  From then on I have always been evolving a concept for a game played online by a large number of people that really doesn't fit into the same category of what MMORPGs have become.

My idea is as follows: 

• You have a world that is designed with all sorts of natural interactions.  Weather, climate, terrain, gravity, resource replenishment rates.  Creature habitats, prey, behavior, needs, population density, birth rates. I highly doubt that this is fully possible to implement. If it is, I can see computer issues through and through. Just adding the gravity aspect to Half Life 2 was a task that required years to perfect. This is serious coding at its best, and most mmorpg developers do not have the time, nor the resources for this to be fully implemented. In terms of creature habitats, prey, behavior, needs: I think this is a great idea. If it can be done with minimal effect to data processing at any given location your character is at, then perfect. Population density and birth rates are ideal in areas that lack major foot traffic, so yes, this can be done.

• You have players that can interact with this world and each other.  They have an intuitive user interface to do so.  They can improve their character to a degree (but not hugely and that is not the focus).  They can interact with the materials, creatures, terrain, etc. that they find in the world to bring about real changes. Again I reiterate the feasibility of implementation. A lot of games do what you speak in this point, yet completely or smoothly, is another matter. Frankly, I'd rather see character interaction with the community, and affecting the community and its parts therein implemented in an MMO. As for the creatures, I am not sure what more is necessary than the usual; Which is amassed at three things: Killing, skinning, or making them your pet. Also, I'd rather have HUGE character improvement than LITTLE. I'd like to see my character getting better, or worse. If he becomes proficient in swords, I want to see him slice through people like butter. If he becomes fluent in an enemy's foreign language, I want to see him have the ability to influence the enemy's decisions. If he sucks at picking up this foreign language, I want a humorous cutscene or dialogue where my character has to run for his life for saying something stupid.

• You have a few systems whereby players can manage their resources, be those materials, NPC human resources or PC human resources.  They need to be able to communicate, sort things, categorize things, set up commands, etc.  This is all highly customizable and can be utilized to the extent the player wishes.  Some never use such systems. I like this idea to an extent. I don't want to see something like LOTRO's Skirmish NPCs. I don't want to be reminded of such mediocrity. Yet of course, we as humans need to advance the ideas of artificial intelligence to the point where we can implement such AI in a virtual world. We haven't advanced much in this area on Earth, so I don't expect such awesome AI you have spelled out for us.

• You have another system that allows players to organize themselves into groups.  This is very fluid and open ended.  It can be a temporary hunting party, a tribe, a kingdom, an empire, a merchant guild, a military unit, a secret society.  You can belong to any number of groups.  Group members define what it means to be in the group, what responsibilities, privileges, etc. are attached, how people are admitted, expelled, how decisions are made, etc. I believe we have groups implemented in various games. Either short-term, such as "groups, fellowships, etc." or as "guilds, legions, clans, etc." If you are looking for more group functions and improvements overall, I agree. I'm not impressed with guild features in any current game at the moment. I am not even impressed with raids or groups. I feel groups or guilds are too simple, and need to be more complex than they actually are. So perhaps adding this "expulsion" or "decision-making process" you have stated are starters.

The world is big.  There are a lot of players.  The interactions between players and this dynamic virtual world lead to endless emergent complex immersive and INTERESTING outcomes.  (Did I use too many buzz words?)  No grinding for power levels of uber god-like proportions.  No hoping for a drop of some super charged piece of phat loot.  No repetitive dungeons with a boss and mob that everyone fights over and over.  No NPCs giving delivery quests.  Players set their own goals.  They work to accomplish what they can within the constantly changing setting.  They align with those that have similar goals and can help make theirs possible.  Remember, interactions can be come about through both cooperative and competitive gameplay. If the world is big, expect a lot of random trees, mountains, etc...No developer is going to sit there and make a huuuuuuuge world without a little help in random coding here and there. I'd rather have smaller, more detailed, and highly sophisticated worlds than large, open spaces where there is a tree coming out of a rock. Also the features you mentioned earlier are going to take up a lot of time for these developers to implement and they won't have the time to make such a big world. The debate of dynamic vs. static is ongoing. A combination of both is more efficient, appealing, and addictive. Sometimes I want to revisit a certain location over and over again. Sometimes, I want immersion and I want to feel the world is changing. Let me keep the big trading hub I love visiting where my frame rate reaches an all-time low, and certain other places for nostalgia or just general love of the location, and change the areas that the community knows is going to change in a few months. An example of this is a huge volcano that we know will soon erupt one day. Or that area that has not received rainfall in over 9 months, I want to see it turn from forest to desert. In other words, change what we expect to change and keep what we expect to keep. A few surprises here and there don't hurt, either. But a constantly changing world where a casual player doesn't log for a few months and realizes everything he came to love no longer exists? That is a recipe for disaster.

I really like how ghstwolf mentioned play generated content which I took to mean content generated though the actual playing of the game as opposed to the nightmare of player-created content that comes with all kinds of problems stemming from quality control issues and game continuity.  In fact it seems like ghstwolf and I have some similar core beliefs for the genre if I am reading correctly.

But then it comes down to the debate that has been going on after ghstwolf mentioned collective story telling.  Can individuals enjoy themselves in a setting that can be affected (positively and negatively) by others?  I have heard this time and time again.  Can we know without testing it?  Is it promising enough to be worth a try?  I have done some small tests of my own and some kids were in tears from the losses inflicted upon them by other players, but I don't think it was because there were more of them ganging up on loners (the mechanics weren't really affected by that) or because they were maxed level players picking on noobs (it was a fairly even playing field).  From all I could tell it was because they were emotionally invested in their goals (not their stuff) and so once they regained composure they jumped back in and continued playing because they ENJOYED playing the game despite the setback and continued to work towards their goal.

So lets start from scratch. Indeed, if only it were that simple. You're ideas are outstanding, but they are rather difficult to reproduce.

Thank you for the detailed reply.  Just to clarify a few points since I was trying to be brief:

Point one mostly deals with having a decent number of variables that combine to create emergent complexity.  When I said gravity I am not talking about HL2 physics or anything (though that would be nice) but down is down, you can jump, fall, etc.  A few projectile systems might be based on some simple trajectory/thrust/weight ratios and building designs won't implement well if not structurally sound.   None of this has to be a complex gravity engine, but rather cleverly implemented rules and systems that work together to simulate an effect in some basic areas.

Character improvement in skills would be entirely possible to a great extent (I should have specified).  What this design has that is a vast departure from your standard MMORPG is no huge advancement in uber god-like character power, especially in the traditional areas of strength and hit points.

Interaction with the community is an integral part of the design and the major focus.  The group systems allow for you to interact with the community in many different ways between both individuals and groups.  It could be anything from interacting with the local government to a transaction with a local merchant shop, or as a hired sword for a party setting out for uncharted territory.

Creature interaction would go far beyond the basics and would be done for a reason, not just to grind up levels.  This could include extermination from a problem area (they don't just respawn but others could migrate in), harvesting resources that make sense (why do rats have gold in their pockets?), attracting animals for capture, tracking, observing, domestication, breeding, riding, etc.

Although good AI would be nice, what I was talking about there were ways for players to manage their resources, even NPCs with relatively little AI.  The point is that the design is not just for your traditional character advancing MMORPG where all you have to worry about is your inventory, but has other things to do while you interact with the world such as managing political relations, setting up supply shipments, operating a mining or farming industry, positioning your army strategically, and so forth.

The world needs to be big for several reasons.  For long distance trade to be meaningful the space separating goods from markets must be significant.  It also allows different developments to take place in relative isolation.  Real factors will cause like-minded individuals to concentrate themselves in certain areas, but there will always be frontiers, low population areas, political units that have had no in-game interaction until they expand to a certain extent.  I have no problem with some or all randomly generated terrain as long as it fits the need to create enough variety as the game requires.  Terrain and resources should not be uniformly distributed but found in different and unique combinations in many areas.

As for change, I am afraid I can not back away from this point.  It is the core of the design.  It is what makes the world alive.  It is what would make anyone want to be a part of the game world.  Now I am not saying that things will change over night.   Even a casual player will be able to see change coming and take part in preventing it if that is what they desire.  The real changes come through player interaction and so it is up to players to preserve what they value in any way that they can.  That is a compelling goal in a game, and even when it fails the reality of the investment in an idea can continue to drive further interactions.  In most games what do you build?  You spend hours and hours grinding a character up the levels and collecting all sorts of uber stuff.  If you were to lose that in such a game, of course you would probably quit.  The means to get there was boring and mindless.  The end was the goal and the focus.  You would have to do almost exactly the same thing to get there again and that is frustrating.

But what about a game where you set your own goals and interacted with other real people to achieve them and then fought to defend what you had built, and lost?   They took away your stuff, they burned your city to the ground.  Can they take away your experience in working with those people and fighting with those comrades?  Can they stop you from forming the resistance and continuing with hit and run tactics and sabotage.  Can they stop you from scraping together what you can to set off to a new land to start again and build something even better.  What about joining with their enemies when the opportunity comes to bring about their ultimate downfall?  You see it is about playing, not winning, not getting there.  It is the journey and the changes each player brings about in some small way with every action.  The change IS the game.  I have run enough tests to know that it works even on the most basic level. 

Sure there are design challenges, but why shouldn't there be?  Such a vision can be implemented even in a very basic way and still reach the desired effect.  I have run everything from a forum theoretical simulation to a 30 player board game on this design principle.  I have seen browser based games that had the dynamic potential I am talking about.  The real problem is just what this thread is about, starting from scratch.  A big MMO company isn't going to do that.  Even a community developed browser game will run into trouble getting everyone on board with such a thing.  I don't really mind people pointing out what would be hard to implement or code.  It just helps one generate ideas.  The only really hard part to wrap ones head around is what comes up time and time again, and what doesn't mesh with what we have come to expect from every RPG from DnD to singleplayer to multiplayer RPGs, is the proposed lack of focus on me and my character and whether I am advancing and feeling like the hero and the center of things.  That was fine with 5 friends around a table top rolling dice.  The technology that allows us to all share a persistent virtual world could offer so much more.

I have been thinking about what I would do if I were to build a game with nothing to work from beyond "Internet game allowing thousands to connect at once."

I would still build a virtual world. I'd set it inside a sort of surreal fantasy world, within someone's subconscious mind or dreams, with different areas to explore. As you go around the world encountering objects and creatures, you'd be able to interact with them, either by selecting an interaction or interaction tool, or through a radial menu. (I am not a fan of radial menus). As you play and encounter creatures and puzzles, how you interact with them would affect a series of  stats which would determine how creatures (and perhaps even the inanimate objects) react to you and possibly even how they look, if that can be done clientside.  I'd like to start the game with a few interactions available (touch, take, examine, rotate, flip, negotiate, pet and slap), with further interactions, positive or negative, earned based on how you've interacted with things in the past.

For example, if you pet all the bunnies you meet, perhaps when you go to a garden area, all the bunnies in that area might follow you and  do tricks for you. You might gain the "feed" interaction to feed the bunnies. Later, perhaps befriended bunnies become pets or bring you trinkets.

If you slap every bunny you meet, perhaps bunnies will hide from you. If you've slapped enough bunnies, perhaps you'd get a "smash" interaction... You see where that's going. Later, perhaps bigger bunnies find and smash you.

Once something was created, moved, destroyed, it would remain in its new state until acted upon (again) by players. I'd like for unique things to happen on occasion, and for the results of certain actions to be occasionally very surprising (but not frustrating). For instance, if a giant maneating toaster appears, and the players kill it, then the toaster remains... and maybe it turns out to be the entrance to a new social area-- "Giant Toaster Cafe" or "Giant Toaster Condos".

I'd really like it if there could be some areas where socializing was rewarded somehow-- new actions that could be used to interact with the rest of the world, perhaps?

Meh. Just an off the wall idea.

---

Originally posted by ironore

• You have another system that allows players to organize themselves into groups.  This is very fluid and open ended.  It can be a temporary hunting party, a tribe, a kingdom, an empire, a merchant guild, a military unit, a secret society.  You can belong to any number of groups.  Group members define what it means to be in the group, what responsibilities, privileges, etc. are attached, how people are admitted, expelled, how decisions are made, etc.

---

Why do you need a system for this? There is no system in real life. People start a club together and either let other people in or they don't. I think the whole in-game mechanics controlling everything is one of the major problems of MMOs at the moment. The whole point should be to remove mechanics not add them.

Want to go to war with another guild? Just attack them. They can either sue for peace (by good old fashioned talking and negotiation) or they can fight. There should be no in-game mechanics for this though. Players must be forced to interact with each other. That is the whole point of MMOs, game mechanics remove that from the game.

Originally posted by Cactus-Man

Ok I have an idea,

We all operate on a bunch of assumptions.  I think these cloud the development of ideas.  If I were to ask you what is in a MMO you would rattle off a series of mechanics.  But I think that is the problem, MMOs are too well established in our brains to the point where it is hard to come up with anything original or doesn't fit in the formula.

So for this exercise, forget everything you know about MMOs, forget the terminology, concepts of grouping, combat, questing, server structure, whatever, forget the term MMO even exists.

So your task now is to come up with a game idea that can be played by a lot of players, what constitutes a lot to you is your own discretion.  Don't fall back into old terminology and thinking.  I am not asking for a design document just some ideas, be a little specific.

You could also think of it like this.  What kind of experience do you want to make and how you you make it multiplayer?

for the record there have been several models of games labeled mmo that bear no relation to the standard mmorpg mechanics you are most likely referring to

games like freestyle (mmo basketball) and war rock (mmo fps) bear no relation to social networking mmos (second life) and none that ive listed share similar mechanics with mmo rpgs like WoW or EQ, even within the rpg factoins there are stretches to the game mechanics: EVE and AOC for example are tweaked evolutions of the standard rpg mechanics... now lets go another direction i havent even touched the mmo dance games like audtion with its rythem based mechanics....

the list goes on... im not sure what you mean by standard mechanics being reused in mmo's when there are already so many different genre's of gameplay that have been converted to mmo's that do not share mechanics

i think the only thing i havent seen done as an mmo would be tower defense and i already know how to make that multiplayer, though im not sure it would work as much more than small scale 1 vs. 1 without it ending up like all the mmo rts games that already exist

Originally posted by Loke666

Well, the original starting point is pen and paper RPGs.

In MMOs case, D&D. D&D is all about loot, character development is simple and secondary to items.

I would like to start from Runequest instead. RQ is based on how your character becomes better. Gear is secondary and you can play for years with basically the same gear. There are no levels and you will keep your hitpoints but if 2 guys start out with the same character they will differ a lot after that time.

I would also want to focus less on combat. Thiefs should really be able to steal stuff using non combat skills instead of just killing everything. There should be more things to do than just kill everything you see.

I think a MMO should be about the same things as P&P games: To build a good story with your friends. Current MMOs is all about the end but the journey there should actually be at least as fun.

I could see every guild getting a small town to take care of, helping the npcs with the usual stuff but the village should grow depending on what the players did. Evil players would make the village gloomy and it's inhabitants scared or evil themselves. Just getting a home for you and your friends actually adds a lot. The players could get parents and maybe siblings with random occupations and agendas. A smart guild could get access to resources, tools and even money for taking care of their village.

what you are referring to only applies to mmorpg

what was asked is mmo

massively multiplayer online does not require or imply anything related to rpg and there are many mmofps, mmorts, mmo-dance, mmo-basketball, mmo-add-genre-here that are not rpg

Originally posted by Nizumzen

 

---

Originally posted by ironore

• You have another system that allows players to organize themselves into groups.  This is very fluid and open ended.  It can be a temporary hunting party, a tribe, a kingdom, an empire, a merchant guild, a military unit, a secret society.  You can belong to any number of groups.  Group members define what it means to be in the group, what responsibilities, privileges, etc. are attached, how people are admitted, expelled, how decisions are made, etc.

---

Why do you need a system for this? There is no system in real life. People start a club together and either let other people in or they don't. I think the whole in-game mechanics controlling everything is one of the major problems of MMOs at the moment. The whole point should be to remove mechanics not add them.

Want to go to war with another guild? Just attack them. They can either sue for peace (by good old fashioned talking and negotiation) or they can fight. There should be no in-game mechanics for this though. Players must be forced to interact with each other. That is the whole point of MMOs, game mechanics remove that from the game.

adding realism creates its own set of problems

as soon as you forget that a game is supposed to be fun you very quickly begin adding grief to your game world

as soon as you forget that a game is supposed to be fun you begin removing features that players use to save time and stay organized to enhance their fun

what you forget is that in the real world there are consequences, the average person doesnt just randomly go out and decide to kill people or annoy them for fear of being arrested or punished in some way

the moment you remove real world penalties you end up with idiots causing grief to those around them and havig fun at others expense

the primary reason for in game mechanics is to enhance the fun aspects of the game while minimizing the drawbacks of a reality where there is no punishment

you have to examine every side of the issue for every mechanic in question. if you can only see it from your perspective than you are not a very good judge of design.

for every element you want removed, look at it carefully and understand its purpose, dont ask whether its "real" compared to the real world, ask whether it exists to stop random moron #123451233 from ruining another persons fun or whether its there as a tool to speed you through some tedious aspect of boring repitiion

in game tools like guild interfaces exist for a reason: because its hard to stay organized with people youu dont know outside the game world so those mechanics should be part of the game, etc

i coud go on but you either get it or your most likely just another griefer looking to ruin another persons play experience