If you could make a game...

[Russell of Los Angeles]

The thing about NPCs is that they're such a pale representation of people compared to PCs. In a multiplayer roleplaying game, NPCs typically have a vastly different role, such as merchants. For a game that's aiming for an immersive roleplaying experience, you can't really pretend to treat relationships with NPCs and PCs the same.

Here's a couple approaches that come to mind for NPCs:

1) Make them a whole different class of people. If they're very numerous, then they're the common peasant folk, while PCs are marked as special somehow, "awake" or "enlightened", (think the illuminated ones, i.e., the illuminati, who control the masses). In my game Intergalantr, NPCs could be explained as androids, or automatons. That's why they're not so good at holding conversations.

2) Make relationships so abstract that there's not much different between relating to NPCs or PCs. This is not the approach for an immersive roleplaying game, but rather a mass society simulator that's something else entirely. Players could have numerous characters, and set options for each on how to respond to other people. For example, you could set some offers for trade, and when someone comes along who makes an offer that meets your parameters, the trade is complete. The players don't need to be online. Trading is a kind of relationship; they're business partners. Extending this concept to other relationships, parameters can be set for forming friendships and marriage as well.

[Peanut]

Ah the sweet smell of game design in the morning. Whatever could be sweeter.

I've been comming up with game designs since ages ago.
I usually spend time thinking of them when I travel by bike or bus, shower, try to sleep.

I'll post a few of my ideas.

Survival game like Survival kids/Lost in blue 1,2,3 with a random location generator, a higher difficulty and more crafting options.

Space engineer game where you design, build the space objects that the npc's and yourself use. (think spaceships, satellites and or space stations) (Also think building those objects from the scratch up like welding the armor plating onto the main frame/etc)

Smithing mini game where you shape the metal with your hammer which moves according to your mouse.

A tower defense and reverse tower defense combined which implements persistent multi player.

etc,etc,etc.

The only reason why I haven't made them yet is lack of time and artist.

[chase02]

The only reason why I haven't made them yet is lack of time and artist.

pfft. art is cheap (or free) or better still, do it yourself. time is a weak excuse.

[Peanut]

The only reason why I haven't made them yet is lack of time and artist.

pfft. art is cheap (or free) or better still, do it yourself. time is a weak excuse.

Sorry but I'm artistically challenged.

I could paint a bullseye on the side of a barn to even shoot at it.

And time is short if you're working and tired.

[Armulus Satchula]

The thing about NPCs is that they're such a pale representation of people compared to PCs. In a multiplayer roleplaying game, NPCs typically have a vastly different role, such as merchants. For a game that's aiming for an immersive roleplaying experience, you can't really pretend to treat relationships with NPCs and PCs the same.

Here's a couple approaches that come to mind for NPCs:

1) Make them a whole different class of people. If they're very numerous, then they're the common peasant folk, while PCs are marked as special somehow, "awake" or "enlightened", (think the illuminated ones, i.e., the illuminati, who control the masses). In my game Intergalantr, NPCs could be explained as androids, or automatons. That's why they're not so good at holding conversations.

2) Make relationships so abstract that there's not much different between relating to NPCs or PCs. This is not the approach for an immersive roleplaying game, but rather a mass society simulator that's something else entirely. Players could have numerous characters, and set options for each on how to respond to other people. For example, you could set some offers for trade, and when someone comes along who makes an offer that meets your parameters, the trade is complete. The players don't need to be online. Trading is a kind of relationship; they're business partners. Extending this concept to other relationships, parameters can be set for forming friendships and marriage as well.

The idea we had banged out for NPCs in a game was to have them as this worker bee class that worked at a mucher lower rate then the average person, but was obviously more trustworthy and wouldn't require people to be trapped inside all the time.

[BlueNine]

Survival game like Survival kids/Lost in blue 1,2,3 with a random location generator, a higher difficulty and more crafting options

Try looking up URW or the UnReal World

[Peanut]

Survival game like Survival kids/Lost in blue 1,2,3 with a random location generator, a higher difficulty and more crafting options

Try looking up URW or the UnReal World

I know about URW. It's appealing as well. But it lacks certain things.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

The thing about NPCs is that they're such a pale representation of people compared to PCs. In a multiplayer roleplaying game, NPCs typically have a vastly different role, such as merchants. For a game that's aiming for an immersive roleplaying experience, you can't really pretend to treat relationships with NPCs and PCs the same.

Here's a couple approaches that come to mind for NPCs:

1) Make them a whole different class of people. If they're very numerous, then they're the common peasant folk, while PCs are marked as special somehow, "awake" or "enlightened", (think the illuminated ones, i.e., the illuminati, who control the masses). In my game Intergalantr, NPCs could be explained as androids, or automatons. That's why they're not so good at holding conversations.

2) Make relationships so abstract that there's not much different between relating to NPCs or PCs. This is not the approach for an immersive roleplaying game, but rather a mass society simulator that's something else entirely. Players could have numerous characters, and set options for each on how to respond to other people. For example, you could set some offers for trade, and when someone comes along who makes an offer that meets your parameters, the trade is complete. The players don't need to be online. Trading is a kind of relationship; they're business partners. Extending this concept to other relationships, parameters can be set for forming friendships and marriage as well.

The idea we had banged out for NPCs in a game was to have them as this worker bee class that worked at a mucher lower rate then the average person, but was obviously more trustworthy and wouldn't require people to be trapped inside all the time.

Did anyone suggest an in-game explanation for why the NPC people were different from PC people?

I'm feeling more and more that explanations ("fluff" or "lore" i think it's called in gaming) are important. Look at spawning in Cantr. The term "spawning" got transfered right from OOC to IC because nothing else was provided. And while it's left completely open as to the whys and hows in-game, I haven't seen any satisfying religious interpretations. How spawning has influenced (or lack of influence) the in-game culture of Cantr would be an interesting sociology report.

[*Wiro]

Some of my character describe it as a long, long road that takes years and years to walk over... and that it's quiet along the way.

[Armulus Satchula]

The thing about NPCs is that they're such a pale representation of people compared to PCs. In a multiplayer roleplaying game, NPCs typically have a vastly different role, such as merchants. For a game that's aiming for an immersive roleplaying experience, you can't really pretend to treat relationships with NPCs and PCs the same.

Here's a couple approaches that come to mind for NPCs:

1) Make them a whole different class of people. If they're very numerous, then they're the common peasant folk, while PCs are marked as special somehow, "awake" or "enlightened", (think the illuminated ones, i.e., the illuminati, who control the masses). In my game Intergalantr, NPCs could be explained as androids, or automatons. That's why they're not so good at holding conversations.

2) Make relationships so abstract that there's not much different between relating to NPCs or PCs. This is not the approach for an immersive roleplaying game, but rather a mass society simulator that's something else entirely. Players could have numerous characters, and set options for each on how to respond to other people. For example, you could set some offers for trade, and when someone comes along who makes an offer that meets your parameters, the trade is complete. The players don't need to be online. Trading is a kind of relationship; they're business partners. Extending this concept to other relationships, parameters can be set for forming friendships and marriage as well.

The idea we had banged out for NPCs in a game was to have them as this worker bee class that worked at a mucher lower rate then the average person, but was obviously more trustworthy and wouldn't require people to be trapped inside all the time.

Did anyone suggest an in-game explanation for why the NPC people were different from PC people?

I'm feeling more and more that explanations ("fluff" or "lore" i think it's called in gaming) are important. Look at spawning in Cantr. The term "spawning" got transfered right from OOC to IC because nothing else was provided. And while it's left completely open as to the whys and hows in-game, I haven't seen any satisfying religious interpretations. How spawning has influenced (or lack of influence) the in-game culture of Cantr would be an interesting sociology report.

If you want to look at it from a Dungeons and Dragons perspective they could just be commoners and the players are actually adventures or more skilled people.

As for a religion in cantr explaining how spawning works I had a pretty good one based around the idea of spawning. But she got beaten to near death and doesn't speak about it anymore.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

The thing about NPCs is that they're such a pale representation of people compared to PCs. In a multiplayer roleplaying game, NPCs typically have a vastly different role, such as merchants. For a game that's aiming for an immersive roleplaying experience, you can't really pretend to treat relationships with NPCs and PCs the same.

Here's a couple approaches that come to mind for NPCs:

1) Make them a whole different class of people. If they're very numerous, then they're the common peasant folk, while PCs are marked as special somehow, "awake" or "enlightened", (think the illuminated ones, i.e., the illuminati, who control the masses). In my game Intergalantr, NPCs could be explained as androids, or automatons. That's why they're not so good at holding conversations.

2) Make relationships so abstract that there's not much different between relating to NPCs or PCs. This is not the approach for an immersive roleplaying game, but rather a mass society simulator that's something else entirely. Players could have numerous characters, and set options for each on how to respond to other people. For example, you could set some offers for trade, and when someone comes along who makes an offer that meets your parameters, the trade is complete. The players don't need to be online. Trading is a kind of relationship; they're business partners. Extending this concept to other relationships, parameters can be set for forming friendships and marriage as well.

The idea we had banged out for NPCs in a game was to have them as this worker bee class that worked at a mucher lower rate then the average person, but was obviously more trustworthy and wouldn't require people to be trapped inside all the time.

Did anyone suggest an in-game explanation for why the NPC people were different from PC people?

I'm feeling more and more that explanations ("fluff" or "lore" i think it's called in gaming) are important. Look at spawning in Cantr. The term "spawning" got transfered right from OOC to IC because nothing else was provided. And while it's left completely open as to the whys and hows in-game, I haven't seen any satisfying religious interpretations. How spawning has influenced (or lack of influence) the in-game culture of Cantr would be an interesting sociology report.

If you want to look at it from a Dungeons and Dragons perspective they could just be commoners and the players are actually adventures or more skilled people.

As for a religion in cantr explaining how spawning works I had a pretty good one based around the idea of spawning. But she got beaten to near death and doesn't speak about it anymore.

Well, in D&D the table top game, NPCs are controlled by the DM, so they're perfectly capable of carrying on conversations and forming relationships with the PCs. Computer controlled NPCs in a computer rpg though, can't really roleplay and get into character. So, it's not a question of power. E.g., Lord British in the ultima series is computer controlled, and a fine character for a single player game, but still can't provide the depth of a PC in a multiplayer roleplaying game.

I'm sure your explanation for spawning is pretty cool OOC. That's theory. Now, if you were to get it to take off as an in-game cultural phenomenon and widely accepted by people across multiple regions, I'd be really impressed. That's the tricky part.

[w.w.g.d.w]

I am contaminated with "cantrian" thinking.
I have conception of space and fantastic games which have specific history and situation but you aren't a cosmic emperor or lord who have third village like in many other games but as one person who is one among many in village or planet.

Maybe it's why I like Erepublik.

[Mr. Black]

Erepublik is okay. But it got boring for me after a few days, so I moved on to NationStates, then NationStates 2, then Cyber Nations. I have too much free time.

[w.w.g.d.w]

It's boring for me after a few days.
It's interesting if you had power above a whole society but only if you have considerable possibilities of differing from neighbours and using in action.
If we will add enough complicated world where for example raw materials are only partly renewable it would be very well.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

How well do you think a forum-based MMO RPG could work?

I saw one once years ago... The innovative twist for the game was that you could roleplay out scenes that occur at different times for your character.

So, say you're in one town packing for a trip over the mountains. As you're roleplaying a conversation in town, saying your goodbyes, and making preparations, you can go ahead and start a new thread that is set in the mountains, describing yourself traveling. Somebody might post a reply and meet you in the mountains while your conversation in town is still ongoing. It is simply assumed to occur chronologically in order. Everybody makes an effort to keep continuity. If necessary, continuity can be fixed retroactively. Characters only die with player consent.

The depth of the player-generated setting was... deep.

Anybody know of it?

EDIT: found it! it's Aelyria.

Anybody want to make our own?