0 registered
and 1 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
#1024 - 01/13/08 03:53 PM
Player Ran quests
|
Shadowraith
member
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 106
|
There use to be PC's called Legends who could run quests. They were given tools that let them morph into things, go invis, make a questobj (which they could make appear as whatever was needed) and grant one quest point a day.
The code is still there, but I wanted to see if there was any desire from any of you to be Quest PC's again. If so I could reactivate it and appoint folks, maybe by their volunteering, or maybe by the mud population (or forum population) voting they should be one.
So, what do you think, should we give PC's the tools to run quests and grant a reward?
If so, please also list what you think the rewards should buy, ie, 5 QP = removal of DC or whatever, given that a Legend can only grant 1 QP per 24 hours and not to the same person 2x in a row.
A lot of it of course would be based on faith, ie, abusing the ability to go invis when you werent runnign a quest would be a bad thing, as would morphing when not running a quest, etc.
Thoughts?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1025 - 01/13/08 04:08 PM
Re: Player Ran quests
[Re: Shadowraith]
|
Kim
enthusiast
Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
|
"So, what do you think, should we give PC's the tools to run quests and grant a reward?"
No. Make them quest wizzies, and disallow them from having a player character at the same time. That's the best way. Then you also weed out anybody who just wants the powers, and it's more likely the ones applying actually are interested in making quests.
"A lot of it of course would be based on faith, ie, abusing the ability to go invis when you werent runnign a quest would be a bad thing, as would morphing when not running a quest, etc."
Yes. Rid, no questions asked, if using them when not running a quest would be a minimum punishment, if players are allowed these powers.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1028 - 01/13/08 08:15 PM
Re: Player Ran quests
[Re: Kim]
|
carmy
member
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 164
Loc: South Korea
|
I have to agree with Kim on that one, if someone has a "wiz" title, regardless, they're sort of viewed as administration in some way.
But, an alternative might be to have a questing NPC, where and admin could make a quest, have the NPC verify the quest's completion. Let's say there was an area that was made for a quest, and you needed to collect an item from some boss or something of that nature. Presenting the NPC with that item, would let you complete the quest. Maybe each player can complete the quest once or something, but for rewards... I dunno, I always thought questing was for fun 
If rewards were given, people in this case, would just do the quests for the rewards, and everyone would get the same rewards.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1031 - 01/14/08 10:09 AM
Re: Player Ran quests
[Re: Muod]
|
Kim
enthusiast
Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
|
"Plus they have no punitive powers other than if you intentionally disrupt a quest to be spiteful then of course your practicing harassment."
Perfect example of why this is a horrible idea. Completely subjective, how do you know if somebody hunts them to be "spiteful"? You can't know. In effect, they have Special Subjective Rules about being hunted and killed that other players don't.
"Regarding killing them, you can as always. If they started a quest while being hunted that would be no different than other abuse. "
This means they can never, for example, participate in PK, castle looting or anything that affects other players, since doing that is the same as "being hunted" in one sense. If they assist in looting a castle, they can't ever run a quest, since, in your words, that'd be abuse.
And furthermore, they're given certain powers that makes them harder to kill. Do you really want admins to waste their time reviewing every possible case of this..?
"I think kim meant not hunting them but if you say looted their castle then suddenly you will never be allowed to get into a quest because of their personal feelings towards you in regards to looting/killing them previously"
Not at all. See my previous replies.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1032 - 01/14/08 12:11 PM
Re: Player Ran quests
[Re: Shadowraith]
|
Cerberus
addict
Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
|
I'm at work currently, so this may not be as well thought out as I hope it is. Apologies in advance for any disjointed thoughts, and the length of the post in general.
Edit: Kim is approaching the proposal from the player's view who will not ever be involved in this proposal by choice. For him, it opens up too much gray area in player interactions that would need to interpret rules rather than simply apply them. My opinion on this concern is that while completely valid, it would not be the general perception of our players. I have tried to approach the topic from the sense of a player who would love to see roleplay enabled by allowing for quests, but sees limitations on the ability for exceptionally good roleplay to happen under the current proposal. Anyone can make up quests as a player, but it takes great ability to run full-fledged campaigns.
I feel both SW and Kim's points are valid (carmy's point addresses another topic: static quests in game), and so I'll address only these two. I will be calling these suggested players 'gamemaster's rather than legend, high-mortal, chancellor, demi-god, or whatever else. As I see it, they would be the gamemasters we who table-top roleplay have sat down with for years, so that is the title I am using throughout.
It's true that very few (if any) people would want to give up the ability to play the game in exchange for (in essence) running plot in it. I, for one, have been a gamemaster in a number of games, and the amount of time it takes to set up a good roleplay session tends to be 3x the amount of time it takes to 1) get completely off track and require fleshing out prewritten contingency plans on the fly b) run through the entire session because it's very difficult to judge the time it will take without knowing your players capabilities intimately, or 3) complete the game as planned with some percentage of the participants kept happy.
Also, the number of players a single gamemaster can efficiently keep entertained (and let's face it - live roleplay is a form of entertainment where gamemasters and players share script-writing while gamemasters alone control plot development) is a low ratio. I personally feel that six players is the maximum that any one person can keep fully involved, where two to four are ideal and eight is a serious stretch. The reasons I feel this way are legion, so I'll list only a few:- Roleplay must come from two ends, so if you have six people you would hope for 3 parties of two at most in a table top game. On a mud you'll likely get six different parties that will approach the problem from six different paths, all requiring real-time roleplayed guidance in addition to the travel time and object creation time in order to keep them following the plotline. I imagine that splitting your attention into all of these areas is a nightmare even with wizard abilities like "goto <preset room>". If you have to worry about things like dying, or getting lost, or even another player killing you it will detract from the questing experience on both ends.
- The more players there are, the more contingency plans the gamemaster needs to have. If I make a single object that must be had to move further, what if a player kills another player and steals the object?, what if the mob is too difficult for all the players combined to defeat?, what if one player knows of a different object in the static game that satisfies the theme of the plot without actually following it?, what if the object is lost?, what if another gamemaster running a quest at the same time has points in their story that overlap?, what if a player's personal history entwines with point a, b, or c, in the plot unexpectedly? As the number of players in a plot goes up, the number of unexpected outcomes skyrockets and that leaves the gamemaster in a sticky situation should one of them come to pass - no one likes to hear "We're adjourning for the next 20 minutes while I write some new material."
- With a limited scope of power and rewards, there is also a limited scope of quests to be had. This deals directly with the number of players that a gamemaster can adequately serve because as grander quests are run there is likely to be a need for actual time spent (writing proposals for wizards to code, at the very least) for the elements/changes/rewards to be programmed. For instance, while raising a new city could be a quest for an extremely rich, well respected HM that few would oppose and many would support (say it takes 50 QPs and the area -complete with descriptions, items, and creatures - submitted and approved previously), you may have five or six players actively involved with another half dozen occasionally involving themselves for short spurts - this may be managable by one individual in most cases. If you have built a quest to free Marghuul from his prison, it is likely to warrant rewards in a completely new realm that might include new skills or spells, racial mods, or the complete destruction of an area on the world-map - this is not to say that it would be appropriate to have this particular quest completed ever, only that scale of quests is another issue to be addressed when concepting gamemasters.
So in summation, I feel Kim's point that it would be impossible to have mortals as gamemasters is impossible to reconcile with balancing the powers I feel they would require to be an effective gamemaster with the requirements of mortality.
Instead, I propose that lesser abilities be given carte blanche to all High-Mortals. These would be very much similar to powers historically given to high level characters - glare, enter/exit messages, and the ability to create one item or room to be added to the mud and accessed by mortals. Modus created one of my favorite areas on Darke today, and without directly divulging who he was as a player, I will say only that I highly respected his feared black-hand - a completely IC aspect of his well-worn roleplay.
This would allow for immortal review of the likelihood that an individual who has intimate knowledge of the game (as evidenced by getting to high levels) will better the gaming environment as a whole through becoming a gamemaster. This would require that the player agree to an extended hiatus their mortal and become a gamemaster (wizard) character on the live mud. The time for a return to their previous mortal should not be less than 6 months from the time of stepping down from gamemaster status, in order to prevent information gathered as an immortal to be used by a mortal.
If they should choose to step down from gamemaster, the time spent during the grace period of a return of their hiatused character, they would be encouraged to make a new character which they would use to attempt to find their recommendation for a replacement as gamemaster through roleplay interactions. This would allow for an immortal review of the events they were gamemaster for, and the interactions of the player they have recommended.
Edited by Harold (01/14/08 12:18 PM)
Edit Reason: Responses made while writing this post
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
83 Members
33 Forums
335 Topics
2543 Posts
Max Online: 277 @ 01/07/23 02:30 AM
|
|
|
