[SirTank]

Ok, so here is the scenario. I have a pretty well running free hack and slash mud, but that's really all it is. We have a few big hardcoded quests and some assembly progs, but in essence noone really does them. I want to move into incorporating the requirement of completing quests. I know there are systems out there so I don't want this to be a "how to add quests", but more of how to go about successfully moving and motivating players to do quests.

We end up with a lot of high level players that don't know jack about the mud and haven't been to 75% of the world. I want to use quests as a method of introducing them to the most basic of commands to exploring some of the harder zones. I was thinking of doing this by requiring a completion of a quest before the advancement of each level (150), or maybe every 5 or 10 levels.

To do this sounds like a lot of work. I know there are admins, coders and builders, but are there quest makers out there who specifically look for places to implement quests?

Has anyone attempted such a new thing to users and what was the result?

Tanks
Tank
www.lordtrox.com

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (SirTank @ Jan. 28 2005,01:27) Ok, so here is the scenario. I have a pretty well running free hack and slash mud, but that's really all it is. We have a few big hardcoded quests and some assembly progs, but in essence noone really does them. I want to move into incorporating the requirement of completing quests. I know there are systems out there so I don't want this to be a "how to add quests", but more of how to go about successfully moving and motivating players to do quests. We end up with a lot of high level players that don't know jack about the mud and haven't been to 75% of the world. I want to use quests as a method of introducing them to the most basic of commands to exploring some of the harder zones. I was thinking of doing this by requiring a completion of a quest before the advancement of each level (150), or maybe every 5 or 10 levels. To do this sounds like a lot of work. I know there are admins, coders and builders, but are there quest makers out there who specifically look for places to implement quests? Has anyone attempted such a new thing to users and what was the result? Tanks Tank www.lordtrox.com

Look at Worlds of Warcraft. It's 100% hack and slash, xp treadmill game, but they disguise a lot of that with quests that make you feel like you're hack and slashing for a reason.

Beyond that, just make the quests as or more efficient a way to gain <whatever> than bashing is and people will use them.

--matt

[Molly]

Originally Posted by I was thinking of doing this by requiring a completion of a quest before the advancement of each level (150), or maybe every 5 or 10 levels.

I don't believe in forcing players to do things, it detracts from the fun. There should always be a free choice about what to do in a Mud.

That said, implementing a lot of quests is a superb way to keep the players' interest up. Our mud started out as pure hack'n'slash, but is now full of Quests and puzzles, and even the more hardcore killers end up questing, because that is the way to get all the most desireable stuff in the mud.

Originally Posted by To do this sounds like a lot of work. I know there are admins, coders and builders, but are there quest makers out there who specifically look for places to implement quests?

It IS a lot of work, and there are no shortcuts.

A good Quest needs to be well thought out, well designed, and above all balanced, to fit the hardness of the zone and the reward you get from it.  It should also be reasonably 'cheat-proof' (perhaps the hardest part of the design). Another thing you need to decide is whether the Quest should be repeatable or on-time only. Quite often you need special code support for it, although most Quests are run by scripts (mob-progs). Quests should also be IC with the general theme of the mud and the theme of the specific zone they are in. They should have  a meaning, or they just look stupid. Apart from that they can range between simple fetch-and-carry missions and complex 10-step quests to 'save the world'.

In our Mud the Builders make the quests, so they are all integrated with the zones. To make the players aware of them, we often announce a new big quest on th boards. We also have about 100 Questcards, where you get small hints about available Quests. And perhaps the most important of all; we have a Quest Academy on top of our Mud School, where new players are taught the noble art of questing. Among other things that they learn there is that it often gives you more benefits to speak to the mobs than to slaughter them.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Jan. 28 2005,04:07) I don't believe in forcing players to do things, it detracts from the fun. There should always be a free choice about what to do in a Mud.

If you require anything to get anything else, you're "forcing" them to do something. If you use an xp level system, you're forcing them to get xp in order to level. If things in the game cost a currency (gold, whatever), you're forcing them to get gold to get those things.

He's not suggesting anything fundamentally different from that.

--matt

[welcor]

A mud I used to play some time ago had such a fetch-and-carry quest system built in to the leveling system. for every 3rd level above 10th (there were 50 levels AFAIR), you had to bring an item to your guildmaster to be able to level.

The items were generally trash objects put all over the mud, with a nodrop flag (to prevent the items from getting hoarded and sold, passed on to alts, etc.), and fit into the environment of the place it could be found. The quest itself was a riddle, specific to the class - and perhaps race - of the character trying to level up.

The system worked well. It made an interesting diversion from hacking away at mobs, or rather, it gave another incentive, besides just the exp. It also gave quite a chatter over the OOC channels, when people discovered a new riddle.
At the same time the system prevented powerleveling. Of course, a player who knew the mud would have no difficulty in levelling faster than a player who only knew his way around and between the major towns. I believe this is exactly what SirTank is trying to achieve.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Jan. 28 2005,10:34) If you require anything to get anything else, you're "forcing" them to do something.

But that doesn't mean you can't give them a choice as to what they do.

Originally Posted by If you use an xp level system, you're forcing them to get xp in order to level.

The gathering of exp isn't an activity in its own right - its a reward for an activity. If the only way to earn exp is to kill monsters, then you're forcing players to kill monsters in order to progress. But if they can also earn exp through other means (crafting, roleplaying, exploring, etc) then you're giving them a choice.

Originally Posted by If things in the game cost a currency (gold, whatever), you're forcing them to get gold to get those things.

Once again, the earning of gold isn't an activity in its own right - its the side effect of something else. If the only way to earn gold is to kill monsters, then you're forcing players to kill monsters. But if gold can also be earned through missions, quests, contests, trading, etc, you're giving players a choice.

Originally Posted by He's not suggesting anything fundamentally different from that.

The original poster suggested "requiring a completion of a quest before the advancement of each level". That results in a lack of choice; players are forced to perform the quests, or they cannot advance. Molly is proposing the opposite - allowing the player to choose their own form of advancement. If player X doesn't like quests, then he can stick to killing monsters. If player Y doesn't like killing or exploring, she can advance through roleplaying. And so on.

This issue has been discussed many times on MUD-DEV, and is obviously a good idea from a game development point of view, as it allows each player to play the game the way they want to play it - and I think most people who've played games like Deus Ex would agree that it also adds a lot of replay value. It's certainly something worth considering for anyone who wishes to create a mud that appeals to a wide audience.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by If you require anything to get anything else, you're "forcing" them to do something. If you use an xp level system, you're forcing them to get xp in order to level. If things in the game cost a currency (gold, whatever), you're forcing them to get gold to get those things.

Well, KaVir beat me to my response on this, but since I had it all written down already, I'll comment anyhow.

Most Muds define player advancement by xp, level or both. Even level-less muds usually have some equivalent to xp that defines advancement, although the nature of it may be hidden from the mortals for RP reasons.

Not all players like to kill a large number of mobs just to advance. And not all players like to solve Quests either; they may not have the inclination, patience, intelligence, language skills etc. for it.

But if you offer a variety of options to advance your char, you also give the players a free choice what they want to get good at and spend their time on. In our Mud for instance you get xp not only from killing but also from fishing, farming, gardening, lumberjacking, mining, golddigging, gemcutting, tinkering, archaeology, collecting, trading, and questing.

You can also convey exp or training points into gold or Quest tokens and the other way around.

That is what I mean by presenting a free choice.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by The gathering of exp isn't an activity in its own right - its a reward for an activity. If the only way to earn exp is to kill monsters, then you're forcing players to kill monsters in order to progress. But if they can also earn exp through other means (crafting, roleplaying, exploring, etc) then you're giving them a choice.

Similarly, you're free to give them the choice of which quests to do. This isn't a black and white issue. It's a matter of range. Developers are constantly 'forcing' players to do things by virtue of what they choose to include as possible and what they choose not to include as possible. On a very basic level, most games force players to choose a race, for instance.

Similarly, some VERY popular MUDs (Everquest, for instance) require that you do a specific quest or kill a specific monster in order to get a specific piece of equipment. They're "forcing" you to do a single activity in order to get that piece of equipment.

Originally Posted by This issue has been discussed many times on MUD-DEV, and is obviously a good idea from a game development point of view, as it allows each player to play the game the way they want to play it - and I think most people who've played games like Deus Ex would agree that it also adds a lot of replay value. It's certainly something worth considering for anyone who wishes to create a mud that appeals to a wide audience.

And yet the most popular MUDs out there (Legends of Mir, Worlds of Warcraft, Lineage II, etc) are some of the most restrictive in terms of what you can do. None of them really reward you for any playstyle other than "hack and slash."

I mean I agree that it seems intuitive that you'd want to appeal to a wide range of playstyles, but experience shows it's not necessary.

Further, all I was taking issue with was Molly's claim that "forcing players to do things...detracts from the fun." I think the RPIs that force people to roleplay (which is an activity, albeit it a very broad one), for instance, would certainly disagree with that. Or take another random example: City of Heroes. 150,000 subscribers or so. They force you to do certain quests at the beginning of the game in order to continue to play.

--matt

[the_logos]

I just wanted to expand on my reply since this is an interesting topic.

First, it's clear that what's fun differs dramatically from person to person. It is rarely to never possible to accurately say "Design X isn't fun" or "Design X is fun" without the added implication that what you're really saying is, "It's fun/not fun for person/group Y."

Choice is fun to some people. Many people (myself included) adored Morrowind in the single player realm because of the relatively expansive range of choice the developers chose to grant the players. On the other hand, one of the most successful arcade games of the 80s was Dragon's Lair, in which your -only- choice was which way to press the joystick, and if you didn't do it in precisely the right order and with the right timing, your game was over. A completely linear game that forces you to do things in exactly one way, but which was fun to many, many people.

To say that increasing the range of choices is an inherently good thing in terms of pleasing an ever-widening range of people is a viewpoint that doesn't seem to hold up under the light of reality. Indeed, the games that probably have the most choice (heavy roleplaying games with as little hardcode as possible) also appeal to very very few people. That's not to say that kind of game design isn't fun; just that it's not fun to most people.

But on the other hand, look at the most popular PC game ever: The Sims. Fairly free-form and provides lots of choice, though with certain major areas of typical gameplay totally cut off (killing for instance).

In summary, what choice does is create wider gameplay possibilities. This, however, has little, inherently, to do with fun. Many gamers do not want a ton of options thrown at them: They want a directed, focused experience. In the MUD arena, it's the Lineage philosophy vs. the Ultima Online philosophy. Ultima Online throws tons of choices at you. Lineage throws very few. Lineage, on the other hand, was an order of magnitude more popular.

--matt

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Jan. 28 2005,15:55) But on the other hand, look at the most popular...

First, it's hard to compare muds using the popularity yardstick across media. Even horribly done graphical muds attract more players than your best text muds.

Second, marketing and advertising can be a significant factor in the popularity of a game as well. Many have noted that one's first mud experience tend to set expectations and perceptions, particularly if one enjoys that first mud experience. Those who can capture the attention of the newbie mudder determine perceptions and expectations.

No money spent on advertising a game dooms it to the status of Smith's soap versus Ivory soap. I bet You've never heard of Smith's soap, but you have heard of Ivory soap. Which is better? Who knows?

[the_logos]

4-->

Originally Posted by (Tyche @ Jan. 28 2005,18[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]4)]First, it's hard to compare muds using the popularity yardstick across media. Even horribly done graphical muds attract more players than your best text muds. Second, marketing and advertising can be a significant factor in the popularity of a game as well. Many have noted that one's first mud experience tend to set expectations and perceptions, particularly if one enjoys that first mud experience. Those who can capture the attention of the newbie mudder determine perceptions and expectations. No money spent on advertising a game dooms it to the status of Smith's soap versus Ivory soap. I bet You've never heard of Smith's soap, but you have heard of Ivory soap. Which is better? Who knows?

It's true that you cannot isolate game design in a game's success. But pick a category (major graphical muds, text muds, hobbyist text muds) and you'll still find that the ones that offer the most freedom to do what you want (relatively light-on-coded-systems roleplaying text muds in my opinion) are definitely not the most popular, by a long shot.

But none of this is really the point. The point is that saying "X isn't fun" isn't really a valid statement unless you include an "X isn't fun to most people', which is fine. You may be doing X and trying to appeal to the people it IS fun to. That is, after all, what text MUDs are doing to begin with. A text interface is certainly not superior to a graphical one to the vast majority of people but that doesn't make text MUDs any less fun. It just makes them fun to less people.

--matt

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Jan. 28 2005,19:11) It's true that you cannot isolate game design in a game's success. But pick a category (major graphical muds, text muds, hobbyist text muds) and you'll still find that the ones that offer the most freedom to do what you want (relatively light-on-coded-systems roleplaying text muds in my opinion) are definitely not the most popular, by a long shot.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to compare something like AmberMush to Artic either, it's like comparing finger-painting to football. The easy way to get to your conclusion is to compare similar games with relatively equal exposure. Checkers is more popular than chess. Hearts is more popular than bridge. It's not the conclusion I question but how you get there.

Of course the less is more principle isn't really going to help the OP, considering those expectations have already been set. When you're stuck with a particular game design, there's not a whole lot you can do short of a complete overhaul and rewrite to dramatically change the audience, make it a lot more appealing, or extend the average player lifetime. That's not to say that Diku-style games couldn't do with a massive interface facelift and polishing, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in that from those creating derivatives. They seem to prefer 'hey let's add more stuff' approach.

But to go further afield, I think someone using the less is more principle coupled with an onion or russian doll style unfolding game might be able to stake out a nice sweet spot in text muds.

[Iolai]

We on DuneMUD implemented quests as a mean to advance your character beyond normal limits. For example, if your Knives and Daggers skill maximum is at 100%, doing a certain quest allows you to advance this skill over 100%. Another example is increasing your base stats permanently by a few points.

Players should not be forced to do anything, but they should know that if they don't do an activity (quests, in this example), they will be less powerful.

Another example is a quest where you can receive a very powerful weapon if you complete it.

I believe that forcing players to do quests to advance levels or anything of that sort will kill the MUD. Under any circumstances the player should not be forced to do anything, there are other ways of making players doing things, like rewards.

I am not talking about restrictions such X amount of stats per level or something like that, of course, those are balance issues.

Iolai.

DuneMUD

[KaVir]

As Tyche points out, it's not really something that you can easily compare, as popularity has far more to do with other factors.  Are Deus Ex, GTA3 and Morrowwind popular because they are non-linear, or because of their marketting campaigns (although on the flip side, I can't recall ever seeing a game promoting itself by offering 'very linear gameplay').

However in the case of this thread it's much more straightforward.  We have a fairly well-established mud in which players can only progress through killing monsters.  The original poster wants to change it so that, beyond a certain point, players can only progress by completing quests.

Is it this going to make the mud more popular?  Or are players more likely to prefer having the choice between killing monsters or completing quests?  In my opinion, the latter is almost certainly the case.  If the OP wants to encourage people to explore more then he can certainly offer incentives, but forcing (rather than encouraging) an established playerbase to change their playing style is generally a bad idea.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Jan. 30 2005,14:38) As Tyche points out, it's not really something that you can easily compare, as popularity has far more to do with other factors. Are Deus Ex, GTA3 and Morrowwind popular because they are non-linear, or because of their marketting campaigns (although on the flip side, I can't recall ever seeing a game promoting itself by offering 'very linear gameplay&#39. However in the case of this thread it's much more straightforward. We have a fairly well-established mud in which players can only progress through killing monsters. The original poster wants to change it so that, beyond a certain point, players can only progress by completing quests. Is it this going to make the mud more popular? Or are players more likely to prefer having the choice between killing monsters or completing quests? In my opinion, the latter is almost certainly the case. If the OP wants to encourage people to explore more then he can certainly offer incentives, but forcing (rather than encouraging) an established playerbase to change their playing style is generally a bad idea.

Here's one I think measurably more traumatic:

Originally Posted by From this day forward we are a roleplaying mud. You must think, act and talk like dwarves, hobbits, elves, wizards, warrior and what not. We'll be watching you. Thanks, The Management.

But yeah you can't screw with expectations that are set. The must quest to level does that. How traumatic that is...well I wouldn't venture to guess. If you have 10 players does it really matter as much as if you have 75. Thinking you will attract a new audience I think is unreasonable, especiially because it doesn't change the dynamics of that audience which is fixed by the set expectations of the same game. You are just exchanging player preferences and borrowing players, not expanding the audience. Keegan's ancient piece in JOMR laments that. He doesn't get his finger right on it. And I won't pretend to either.

The other problem when implementing the choice of advancement option (quest or level-grind) is the goal stays the same (stuck with the initial game design). The reason that's a problem is invariably either one or the other will be the shorter path to the cheese. Your achievers will figure that out in very short order and if the new way is shorter... well you've shortened the the player experience time of your game. Achievers wil become explorers in the sense that they are "exploring", but not in the sense that they are real explorers. Someone (can't remember who) suggested explorers really don't exist anyway. I found it semi-convincing, but not at the gut level. One might conclude then that making the new way harder is better. Well... I believe that many HnS games are flush with achievers, and that would in my view make the quest feature little used. Perfect balance then? Maybe.

Do nothing? No, a static mud is no fun. From the staff's view who likely pursue it at their pleasure and from a long time players view it isn't either. I think you are stuck with the initial game design and to have a living dynamic game, you have to resort to content creation, expansion packs(?) - new stuff, additional levels -remorting - subclassing - specialization. New races and classes are different as they represent opportunities to screw up as they aren't extensions to the goal path but represent potential shortcuts to the cheese.

I think the above is an important question: Is a feature an extension of the path, or is it another way on the same path?

Odd as it may be, I think adding 10 levels to your game and the content go along with it is far better for the game than adding a new race or class.

Or even better... experimentation with sub games with DIFFERENT GOALS. Not subgames that feed back into the reach the hero level goal, but present new goals. You can certainly do that with questing. There is no reason questing need feed directly into the reach hero goal. And that's potentially more interesting.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by The other problem when implementing the choice of advancement option (quest or level-grind) is the goal stays the same (stuck with the initial game design). The reason that's a problem is invariably either one or the other will be the shorter path to the cheese.

I think that depends on the game design - as you say, the initial design may well limit you, but if designed properly I don't see why you couldn't provide a choice of advancement.

Take a game like Fable, for example (a very linear game, but it does provide a reasonable amount of choice as to how you reach the end goal). You can complete each mission through either magic, combat (melee) or skill (ranged/stealth). Each of those three categories then earns its own set of exp which can be spent (along with general exp) to improve your abilities.

Fable is actually pretty well balanced - I found all three skill categories useful, although each tends to be better in certain situations. However the approach of "use what you want to be good at" could easily extend to muds (actually many skill-based muds already do this).

Originally Posted by Your achievers will figure that out in very short order and if the new way is shorter... well you've shortened the the player experience time of your game.

Well obviously it needs to be balanced against other methods of advancement - pretty much any feature can break a game if implemented poorly.

However I don't see a problem with shortening certain goals for different approaches, as long as there are pros and cons for each form of advancement. Most muds have this already to a certain point - player skill, willingness to take risks, time investment and (in some cases) financial investment are all things that speed up your character advancement over a period of X days.

Of course you can fiddle around with the value of each of the above depending on what you're trying to achieve. If your goal is to make money from the mud, then you'd make it so that cash gave the biggest advantage. If you wanted people to invest time into grinding, then you'd make playing time the big