Hi Everyone,

I would value your opinions on the following idea:

I am complemplating creating a copy of the Mysticora game world (www.mysticora.com) database for a persistent pen & paper RPG game world. This is similar to a 'Living Campaign'.
For those you who haven't heard of that, what this means is that we would have a group of players with trusted gamemaster status that play sessions of pen & paper RPG games with their friends and report the results of those sessions to us and we make the necessary changes in the game world for this. The gamemasters then, before they start a new game consult our database and download all the necessary data on the setting where would like to play next. This way we achieve a persistent game world where the actions you take in a pen & paper game have permanent effects on the game world.
The novel part of my idea (I hope) is that this process would be fully 'web-automated'. This means that a GM can get and post his data at any time from with a web-browser. It would sort of be like a free-form PbeM game with a network of GMs. The additional interesting feature would be that *simultaneously* PBeM play would be possible with this game.

Thus you would have a living campaign combined with PBeM play for a very dynamic, interactive and open-ended game-world!

Sounds a bit like the En Garde stuff. Are you familiar?

In any case, it sounds interesting to me. What system would it use?

Mike

Mageant

Welcome to the forge. As for the idea of Persistent RPG worlds, there is certainly some precedence for this Idea. Ian Millingtons Ergo game talks about this some, including the idea of using electronic means to handle stuff, you can find info on it at his website .


Aria: Canticle Of The Monomyth had several such persistent/interactive game world concepts in it also. One of it's more novel features was the idea of Interactive Histories, where players could take on the role of cultures/nations/organizations/races or other "groups" and play them like characters over time, building a history for them. Thus a "living history" of the game world could be built over time.

So there is some precedence for this idea, however, you get away from design and enter into database programming and other such details to implement such a thing. One of the pet ideas I had for my game, was that since it features an unique Universe as it's Meta-Setting, to allow players to post their own worlds and game entities to an online database deal, to share with other players out there. Of course, that will have to wait till I actually get the game done and stuff.

Anyway, I think it is an interesting idea surely. Oh, one more thing that comes to mind, In WEG's game TORG, I remember their INfiniverse newsletter talked about players being able to submit "war reports" of their games, and the designers would take these events and actions into account in writing the "meta-plot" to be revealed in the newsletters. I've never seen all the newsletters, but as I said, there is precedence for such a thing. Of course, it would require alot of technical work to complete, truly a volunteer cause:)

HTH

Hm, I found a PBeM game called "En Garde, the Home of Arcadia", is that what you mean?
If so, it's not like that at all.

The system the gamemasters could use for their sessions would be basically any of their choice as long as it's similiar, i.e. easily convertible to the system used for the PBeM game.
We would for one offer our a simple fantasy RPG system of our own and, depeding upon demand, an automatic online 'character convertor' for popular systems such as d20.

Hi Rob,

I checked out your references. They are all very similar to what I mentioned but are not quite the same.
What I imagine is a fully web-enabled, highly detailed database of a game world, accessible in full to GMs. In the most open form the GMs would be able to edit any part of the game world according to what happens in their RPG sessions. Newsletters (automatically generated) would also be made publicly available on the events of the game world.
The questions that would interest me the most are:
1) Would it be interesting?
2) Would it work? Meaning, would the GMs be (or made to be) disciplined enough so that no unfitting changes are made (even without some Meta-GM watching)?
3) What RP system or rules to use? Self-made?

Hello, Mageant,

you wrote: The questions that would interest me the most are:
1) Would it be interesting?

2) Would it work? Meaning, would the GMs be (or made to be) disciplined enough so that no unfitting changes are made (even without some Meta-GM watching)?

3) What RP system or rules to use? Self-made?

Mageant wrote: Hm, I found a PBeM game called "En Garde, the Home of Arcadia", is that what you mean?
If so, it's not like that at all.

The system the gamemasters could use for their sessions would be basically any of their choice as long as it's similiar, i.e. easily convertible to the system used for the PBeM game.
We would for one offer our a simple fantasy RPG system of our own and, depeding upon demand, an automatic online 'character convertor' for popular systems such as d20.

Hi,

To the question, on which RP System to use, I would suggest FUDGE, with some minor modifications/suggests on which mechanics to use.
This system fits very nicely to our PBeM-System since we have the same numerical scale (i.e. a 0-6 system, which is equivalent to Fudge's -3 to +3 system). We would also deliver a magic rules system for this ourselves.

We would also give guidelines or even strict limits on character creation and development, so that the Power levels & development of characters would be roughly equal. Mainly, the game world itself would suggest what characters are capable of doing and becoming.

Channing

If this is the En Garde I'm thinking of, its not strictly RP; but RP-like behaviour tends to develop between players.

Characters are all courtier-wannabe's in Musketeer-ridden France, under Cardinal Richelieux. The goal is to be top dog - flat out competition. You do so by acquiring points of prestige, many of which come from holding positions of rank in the army or government. Also from having affairs, throwing parties, fighting duels, keeping mistresses and performing battelfield heroics.

Now almost all of this is rules-mediated; there are specific mechanisms to govern how likely you are, for example, to seduce a mistress of certain social standing. But, when PLAYERS interact, they often do so in character; frex a player needs a hand getting appointed to some prestigious regiment and contacts the other player who presently holds the rank to make the decisions. If you can persuade them to let you in, they can! So players can be really, really useful to one another, which can breed plots, conspiracies and factions.

Now the down-side. The En Garde games I've seen have suffered very heavily from Pythonesque names. This is not too bad from the PBEM perspective but blows holy hell out of proper RPG. And it is in this regard that the idea of the un-gated persistent world falls down: its not just the facts, but the tone. How comprehensively can you select your participating mmembers? Can you enforce sanctions if you had to? Doesn't this imply that its going to be someone's full time job? Who answers consistsency questions? And how long can you maintain the momentum?

Ah yes, it wasn't hard to find - the Arcadia site contains Brevet Lt-General Viscount Locutus D'Borg and an Elvis La Roi. The reason that I think this is roughlyu analogous to the persistent worlds idea is because of its attempt to universalise an environment that is subject to very specific alterations by multiple, unrelated parties. Conceivably, with a vigorous enough system (but I'd say give up the idea of multiple systems, at least unless you ditch magic in toto), the whole arrangement might be coherent enough to to be useful... but it still sounds like a ull time job to me.

And furthermore: there is no reason that a group of like-minded [players could not play a really serious game of En Garde, more-or-less as a heavily socially-focussed RPG; I can see that happening. But as a system available to public inputs, I have difficulty imagining it will preserver much coherence.

OK, so it will be a bit like En Garde.
Actually there will be two distinct modes of play into a single game-world:

a) Play the game like a PBeM (play-by-email), similar to "En Garde" or "Legends" (Midnight Games). This means you give orders to your character via the simulation engine (server). The simulation sends back reports of what happens to your character.

b) Otherwise, play your character in a normal pen&paper session with your GM. The GM downloads the data on the setting from the server and will update the server-database with the results from the session.

Trying to keep the world coherent is definitely a challenge, but, like one previously said here, the GMs would have an incentive to do so, otherwise the whole point in playing this way is moot. It is an 'honor system' on the part the GMs that they do nothing foolish. Of course a general outline of the possible powers of characters and a development will be given at the start.of the game. To have someone inforcing this though is would indeed be a full-time job, and would only work if it is commercially viable.

Check out our PBeM to see how mode a) of gaming would work.

Channing

The method I'm about to suggest could get very political (as it does in certain online environments), but you could have the GMs be a self monitoring body. That is, when play reports are submitted, the other GMs vote on their acceptance. If a GM submission is not accepted, then that GM will not be allowed to post again. New GMs apply simply by making a submission.

I'm seeing "voting" as simply more "yea" votes than "nay" votes, meaning that a submission needs to be sponsored more or less to get at least one vote for it, and each submission only requiring the attention of one GM at a time. Basically if two GMs disagree, the nay vote carries, which means that the sponsor would need to drag another GM into it to get it to float.

Very elitist, but that's what you need to maintain the quality you're looking for. The idea is to make the GMs act responsibly by monitoring each other's perfformance. The idea that you could be kicked out at any time if you can't get another GM to support your latest play, would hopefully mean that GMs would work hard to stay within the guidelines. To the extent that they do, and require other GMs to do so as well, means that you'll have a viable game.

In fact, with the right "seed" or "charter" GMs, you could establish an environment so tight that the GMs would be required to monitor their own effects on the world as a whole, and thus reduce the workload for the Continutity Managers.

The other option is the dictatorship rout, but that's a difficult one to perform, and to maintain, in my estimation. As soon as it seems to be the dictator's bias showing, you lose participants left and right, I'm assuming. And, as we all know, it's almost impossible to not show bias, or at least to be seen as showing bias.

Mike

I don't think thats necessarily elitist myself... rejection does not IMO opinion pass significant judgement. I'd be inclined to support a quorum level, though, just so you can;t be assues of trying to sneak em in on a quite day when only your buddies were online.

But this idea of computer-aided persistent worlds, supporting a conceptual structure that is part Aria, part Civilisation... I think that so many people are heading toward this convergence that I increasingly think it must be doable. Should be done. But, having checked out the Mysticora site, I'd have to say that the numbers look too clunky.

I just decided to check it out and got a porn site. Not good, here at work...

Mike

So to toss some ideas around, partly becuase theres cleraly a lot of work and thought gone into the Mysticora site and if you guys are willing to do that maybe we could float a few ideas for how this tool could be built and what you know of what it can do at the moment.

From the sim angle, my dream would be a world that has news, is alive, stuff is happening. The advantage of computers makes the old wandering monster table realistic again, as it does a highly complex combat model which is essentially invisible to the player. Transparent. And, computer generated graphics allow for a lot of world realisation; frex if your terrain map included a height field you could output photo quality stills from Terragen, mark them down as the valley of X and file the image in dbase. (a big dbase I would think). We could buildings with free 3d modelling tools.

Conceivably, a big player base might be very useful for producing this sort of thing, in that a GM who wants to go to a place could be expected to generate a terragen file for it, or provide a wandering critter table for the region or whatever. There are already some shared world type PBM games on the net in which players provide a sort of encyclopedia entry for the state they run, although this suffers from the multitude of visions problem we have already touched on.

It might even be possible to build a game that operates at several scales, so that there is some simcity type stuff if your character holds an appropriate position, perhaps personal local, regional, national scales. What would be needed is that each scale produce inputs and recieve outputs to and from other scales elegantly. Hopefully a computer would add a lot of flexibility to how the numbers are used because crunching can be done in the background.

The aim of this I guess would be to produce a world which feels inhabited. The complexity would arise in synthesizing differing visions. As a voluntary exercise, it might be best to establish some external source, I would expect that to more focussed than just an open world. Arguably working from some totally external authority might be easier than an open world; it still risks heavy argument of course but that might be controllable. A historical period, or a common product like LOTR might be easier.

Not only do I think this sort of thing is technically feasible, but it might interest wargamers who want a world to play general in, or the players of simcity type games, the far end of the gamist spectrum. lots of people might find such a thing interesting if it could be done, and especially if it could be done as an engine which different groups could tailor. The modelling would be complex, undoubtedly, but there are a lot of pre-existing pure games which could surely be mined to provide sub games; there is quite a body of game models of socio-economic dynamics. So perhaps something could be synthesised out of all of those.

Well, you could go the MUD model, where every GM is responsible for one location, i.e. local dictators. Although I think the elitist model Mike mentioned is the best, IMHO.

You'd probably need multiple worlds(they could be created by each 'seed' group of GM's or all start the same). I think having to many groups having input into a world would just create to much potential for conflict. Finding the right balance would probably require some work, but it could be a cool idea.
In this case it basicly becomes a way for GMs to have shared persistant worlds. GMs would hopefully be smart enough to try to prevent different groups from meeting directly, as that would be strange. Also, the fact that different groups play at different rates might make it hard to maintain coherent time. That could be a sticky problem.

There is a problem with our DNS-registration (our ISP is looking into it).
Do *not* go to mysticora.com,

Go to www.cjgames.com


Mageant

Just found this thread.

En Garde games to check out are as follows:

www.timeofhonor.com

http://www.cooneysite.com/starengarde/

www.londonengarde.com


http://www.horseguards.org/en%20garde.html

There's several other good ones. Games differ on the silly name thing, some allow it and some discourage it. Most of the ones above discourage it although few GMs absolutely ban it as it was present in the original game. Personally if a game uses a lot of silly names I tend not to play in it as it wrecks RP for me.

I'll post later on how en garde works online, it is roleplaying heavy - much more so than a bare read of the rules would suggest. I'll also read what this thread is actually about but I'm pushed for time right now, I posted this as I saw Mike's request :-)

contracycle wrote: And furthermore: there is no reason that a group of like-minded [players could not play a really serious game of En Garde, more-or-less as a heavily socially-focussed RPG; I can see that happening. But as a system available to public inputs, I have difficulty imagining it will preserver much coherence.