> >>>>Michael Kluskens wrote... >>>> The other point is that the computer RPGs are not role playing, >>>> especially Dialbo, it's pure hack and slash. No one bothers to >>>> put the intelligence into the programs for any level of role- >>>> playing, I think some level of role-playing is possible, but you >>>> would have to study several good GM's to understand it and have >>>> access to the right programmers, the cost would be high and >>>> reduce the profit. From: Michael Taylor <MichaelTaylor1@compuserve.com> I think this is a very valid point. I think one of the underestimated qualities of table-top RPGs is the 'peer pressure' that exists within a group. The 'social contract' of a group of players telling stories to each other is very difficult to simulate in a setting.
Michael Kluskens,I have been thinking about what you wrote for two days. I agree with Michael Taylor, I think you have put a fine point on it. Hack & slash or role-playing. Excellent GMing or automated computers. My several attempts to respond have been less than satisfactory. I seem to keep writing up complaints about how computers are not people, VR isn't the kitchen table, and snacks have to be eaten alone. I trashed those responses and kept starting over. I don't think one should know what one is running from. I feel one should know what they are running towards. AI in computer simulations are so simple they are sad. Even with tons of work, the predictable patterns still emerge, and the players adapt and overcome. Just think, Space Invaders used to be a challenge. I submit that characters as well as monsters should be played by actual people on-line. I'm sure that last sentence was less than persuasive. As it is the thesis of this post I will elaborate (and hopefully not bore.) I have been studying computer AI for twelve years. Ten years ago I was helping students at Louisiana State University working in the AI lab outline ?decision making? and ?learning algorithms.? I still help computer science students graduate. All the rage these days seems to be the ?Expert Program.? A program designed to model the procedures used by a very experienced person in their field. This is similar to what you wrote above. ??Study several good GM?s?? Take a plumber for example. One with forty years experience. There are thousands of little mistakes that are no problem to said plumber because of the way they do things. By modeling the software on his approach the software gains from the benefits of his experience.
?The best optimizer in the world is between your ears.?
-Michael Abrash's Graphics Programming Black Book
When I designed my fifth TFT campaign in the 80?s (the one I am still
running now) I had had some experience with compu-serve and the old Text
based internet. I designed the setting so the city was over run with
adventures. They had all been drafted for the war. Going into the pits of
hell was a challenge but far more people died trying to cross the street, or
going to buy better armor. It became famous among the players. They would
warn new players ?You can get killed crossing the street in branya.? After
time it became ?Oh no one goes down into the pits of hell anymore. There is
plenty of experience right here in town.? Things were like this for many
reasons built up in the campaign background, but they were also like this
because I imagined that is how players would behave on-line, if real on-line
gaming ever became possible. Experience had shown me that players are far
too volatile to make it out of a bar without picking a fight, let alone out
of town, or all the way to the Labyrinth. With a city full of 5,000 Player
Characters, this becomes even more true.
The adventure multi-player games has borne this out. As a whole people
behave terribly on games like Diablo, Ultima, et al. Artificial restraints
have to be put in place (no fighting in town), and sometimes fighting among
players is completely disabled (no damage to allies). I find this counter
productive. Experience has shown me that the more computer game designers
try to restrict this behavior the more attractive it becomes. Particularly
to the hackers.
If one player walks up behind another and kills them, I don?t even
think a bounty should be put on their head. Their icon, or avatar, or skin,
or what ever they are calling it this week, should turn into a monster right
there. They are a monster now. When they re-spawn they are still a monster
and they have to come up from the bottom of the pits. They are literally
?escaping from hell? as it were. To start as a humanoid again they would
have to make a new character.
People who like killing other players will get instant gratification.
They will get nifty looking horns and spikes growing out of them. The more
PCs they kill the more demonic looking they will become. It?s a fantasy
game, and being bad is yet another thing that the players wouldn?t do in
real life. To sum up, at the beginning of a campaign there are zero
monsters in the pits, towards the end almost nothing but. AI quickly
becomes a non issue in this arrangement. And to end with the thesis, to
propose a solution, the last sentence of this post shall be this. I submit
that characters as well as monsters should be played by actual people
on-line.
David Michael Grouchy II
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"