I found this article and while geared towards rogues, it has some good ideas.

20 underused Game Mechanics

That's interesting… don't know how most of it is only applicable to Roguelikes since it all came from video games.

The amusing thing is… the very first one on the list is what every MUD *should* be using. MUD designers (and MMO designers in general) have gone down the path of "every character should be able to solo all the content", which is stupid. MUD's were designed to be electronic versions of the old D&D pen-and-paper game, presented like Zork. Did you ever play D&D solo? Did you enjoy it?

That's something of a strawman, what usually happens is the game is designed in such a way that players can play it on their own - that doesn't mean there aren't also benefits, incentives, or other activities that can be played with friends (or against enemies). But in the case of MUDs, it's actually a very smart move to make the game playable solo, otherwise many players (particularly when your playerbase is very small) will be forced to multiplay several alts in order to make any progress.


MUDs were designed to be Multi-User games in the style of Dungeon (aka Zork), and people certainly enjoyed playing Zork solo. While it's often fun to play with or against other human players, not everyone wants to be forced to team up in order to play the game. One of the most important parts of designing a game is to know your audience.

First, re-read what I said. I never said the game shouldn't be playable by people playing solo. YOU put those words in my mouth. I said not every character should be able to solo ALL THE CONTENT, and I stand by that statement. Look at graphical MMO's for a moment. Think about the most popular ones, which I'll go ahead and name as Everquest and World of Warcraft. Why were they so popular? Was it just the fancy graphics?

If you'll remember, there was controversy around Everquest because the gameplay was so much like DikuMUD that many people believed they stole the DikuMUD source as their core. But clearly, it wasn't just DikuMUD with graphics… that wouldn't have been enough to make such a large jump in the size of the player base.

What Everquest did, and what World of Warcraft later polished and perfected, was the group experience. You could solo both of those games, and force your way from level 1 to whatever their level cap was (or is), without ever grouping with another player… but if you did, you'd have missed out on a huge chunk of the game's content. Both games were FULL of challenges that could not be done by a solo player unless they had out-leveled it by such a degree that it made it pointless to do, other than to see the lore aspect.

Think back to the various text MUD's you've played, back in the early 90's when they were very popular. What are your best and most vivid memories? Are they of you soloing things, grinding your way up the level tree? Or were they of group battles, where you and several others had to work together to get past something?

So yes, knowing your audience is important. I can't see the audience that grew up with games that not only encouraged but REQUIRED group play to complete the most impressive and challenging content being happy with a game you can solo 100% of the way through. What's the point? Why not just release it as a single player game and add a chat client to the intermud network?

—-

On the other topic, if MUD's were designed to be "multi-user games in the style of Dungeon", why is it that very few MUD's have ever actually PLAYED like Dungeon?

Sorry, but if that was their design goal, they failed, utterly. The two most popular branches of MUD's, Diku and LP, both feature combat as a central element, and that combat tends to be very similar to the Dungeons and Dragons RPG. I can't speak for early LPMUD's, but DikuMUD combat was modeled directly on AD&D 2nd edition rules. The MUD's which I've seen that don't feature combat as the main activity, Tiny and MUSH, focus on social role play and/or building… which again has nothing to do with Dungeon/Zork.

Even the Lima LPMUD mudlib, developed on/with ZorkMUD, didn't really have much of Zork in it, except that the parser was designed to accept the same type of command sentences.

I wasn't around for the original MUD, so perhaps that one did feel more like Zork. Or, perhaps Bartle *wanted* to make a multi-player Zork, but ended up making a game that wasn't really much like Zork at all, other than having text descriptions of rooms, and accepting commands.

I never enjoyed group battles, they were so spammy I couldn't see what was going on, and just as I was catching up with the text the leader would drag the group off to the next fight. Combined with the automated combat, it felt more like a spectator sport than a game. I'd always end up leaving the group and going off to do my own thing.

What I always enjoyed most was going around on my own, but encountering other players on the way - sometimes I'd kill them, other times they'd try to kill me, occasionally we might coordinate our efforts, and other times we'd ignore each other. I recently started playing GTA 5, and I play it online the same way I played muds back in the 90s: For me, the best part about other players is that it makes the world feel more dynamic, more alive…less predictable.

I wouldn't play a game that forced me to group up, because that doesn't match my definition of "fun".


TinyMUD is more popular than Diku or LP, and its derivatives usually have no combat. DikuMUD combat was clearly based on D&D, although later derivatives have used other systems (my old Diku implemented the WoD rule system for example). Other non-Diku codebases have used other approaches, for example Gemstone (which predates Diku) uses the Rolemaster combat system, God Wars II has a custom combat system inspired by Richard Bartle's Spellbinder, and so on.

There's an interesting article here from 1987 in which Richard Bartle describes how MUD takes the "Adventure" way while Island of Kesmai takes the "D&D" way, and why he felt he "should resist all attempts to D&Dise MUD". There's some interesting insight into the state of the genre back then, in particular the view that there are "two things necessary to be classified as an adventure: puzzles and a goal".

>I said not every character should be able to solo ALL THE CONTENT

I say they should, just not in the same way. Sure a thief would not kill a mega beast to get the prize the same way a warrior does, a mage will use smart tactics to avoid direct confrontation, or a cleric use his power to grant himself a safe passage inhostile environment.

But they ALL should be able to get to the final prize. And soloing (with the help of charmies/pet to give them a little help in the departments they really lack). Sure some prizes would be harder to get for some classes (to give an incentive to group) but grouping should never be an obligation to access all the content. Grouping should just be an accelerator.

To be honest, I always used to play games solo too, and I still do quite a bit of soloing in the MMO's I play. However, the things I remember most, and the most fun I've had, have been various dungeon events that require teamwork. Any soloable challenge is pretty much a game of rock paper scissors. If it's combat, you either overwhelm it, or you figure out the weakness, usually by trail and error. If the monsters hurt you with rock, you come back with paper and mow them down.

Group content offers the possibility that there isn't any single answer. Maybe the rock critters will target your scissors character, and the paper character is busy dodging other scissor critters and trying to lead them to the rock tank, who can keep them occupied. While that's happening, maybe there are objects in the room that have to be neutralized every so often, or they launch a giant AOE attack that will kill any players who are below 2/3 health.

I always encourage people to visit tankspot.com, and look at some of the video guides they have for various dungeons. Since I'm old and don't have the energy to put in 20 hours of gameplay a day, I'm no longer in any sort of top-tier raiding guild that gets to figure out how to beat the dungeons through trial and error. By the time *I* see them, they're well known and you're expected to have at least read something about them and have some idea what to do. That's what these videos do, they show you the mechanics of the fight so you can do your part, even if you aren't the best at playing your class, or even if your gear sucks.

However, even if you do't play the game, it is fun and educational to watch the complexity of some of the dungeons. For example, here's one boss fight from that dungeon. There were several bosses per wing, and four wings in the citadel, each with their own flavor. Generally speaking, it took a couple of hours to do each wing, and most guilds only did one per session unless everyone was familiar with it.

I would LOVE to see a text MUD offer content with this level of complexity and teamwork. Maybe somebody has one, but I've never seen anything even close.

So, you assume there is, and can only be, ONE final prize? Why should any given player be able to beat everything in the game? If you're playing a cavalry troop, why should you be able to magically best a phalanx of spearmen who exist SPECIFICALLY to beat cavalry? Why should a guy with a big sword in plate mail be able to wade through a bunch of longbowmen, who are specially designed to defeat heavy armor?

I don't have an issue with creating solo content, and having such content for each of your various classes. But it seems cheap and pointless if you have to water everything down so the lowest common denominator can make it through everything. And if you swing that word "balance" at me, I'll reply with the term "generic". If everything in the game is "balanced" so that every class can beat it, then every class is boring and generic, and your game offers no challenge.

If the many *MILLIONS* of MMO players are any indication, they agree with me, that it's far better to have soloable content aimed at particular classes. Sure, some will be doable by everyone, but the best solo content should be tailored to particular classes so it forces players to use their brains and pick which battles they fight. But, those same millions seem to also agree that there needs to be content that can't be done solo, and requires cooperation.

In fact, if you bother to read any forums for any MMO out there, you'll find that most players treat the "solo" experience of leveling as the tutorial to learn how to play your class, and they consider the "real" game to start at the level cap. Think about that. Once you reach the level cap, you have two things to do… PvP, or Dungeons. Both involve other players.

Nope but seems like you assume that I do assume that….


Because why would you want to make stuff impossible to beat for a player ?


Because you are smart enough to lure the cavalry in the forest where its advantage become a disadvantage, as an exemple….



You are totally ignoring what I said about the methods to get the content should be different depending on the class you are, so I don't see the point keep arguing with you.

A good way to get your point of view on underused game mechanics across would be to write an article about them for the next issue of Imaginary Realities! ;-)

On the topic of soloable vs. non-soloable content, I think arguing against either extreme is easy, while striking the right balance for your game is hard.

On the topic of making people group, or more generally interact and befriend one another, I think it's all about the finesse. A great online game can convert even players who are initially looking to just quietly dominate. Conversely, an awful game may try to force newbies to go and convert their social networking friends before persuading said newbies that the game is actually worthwhile. I prefer seduction to rape.

What a gentleman…

As for on-topic conversation, I'm a big fan of asymmetric co-op. A lot of MUDs "kinda" have that already - different classes with different roles in combat. However, it would be interesting to take it farther, giving the cooperating players completely different modes of play, different (but closely aligned) objectives, etc.

What do you mean by different modes of play?

Something like this, perhaps?

Not a MUD, I know, but it is the first example that comes to mind.

Yes. That is a good example of what I was referring to.

I think the asymmetric co-op gameplay is exactly what sparked the popularity of modern MMOs. Yes, teamwork or combined effort was part of it, but really what has been tested by contemporaries is symmetric gameplay and it hasn't been nearly as popular. Most people initially like the idea but in practice find it very boring.

I don't think it's the only way, but I do agree with Quix somewhat. I would design a game with cooperative goals to use mechanics that make it practically impossible for single people. It's important to understand that this may mean managing mechanics that just aren't practical with two players. For what it's worth, I haven't had good experiences with multiplayer in muds at all. I think the spammy nature is very bad for it.