Subject: Re: radical departure
From: Pekka Toppi (pot@norssi.oulu.fi)
Date: Mon Nov 15 1999 - 18:47:39 EET
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, joshua 'hook' corning wrote: > But it got me to thinking about how ppl adapt and create sociaties and > cultures around differnt enviornments. You see york wants to make the > world flat and i don't. My main argument about that is that it could > radicaly change how sociaties and cultures develope. It could effect > tides, compases weather, why is it cold in the north and on and on and > on. I agree with that, but does Majik have to have the same laws as our world? For example, Pratchet's Discworld is flat and it works. It's a cool world, also. > Anyway it got me thinking how would sociaty develope differntly on a > flat world. Well to be honest i don't think anyone alive including yorka > has the imagination to imagine such a world. But everyone alive put > together could do it. If we let ppl develope the cultures and sociaties > by themselves then a sort of self orginizing system should emerge. A > system that will bear unexpected and surrprising results. Even if we > kept the world round and identical to our earth we stil coulden't factor > in all the geopolitical factors needed in truly designing a city. It > would be a false construct. If we are giving the power to the players to > make and destroy cities then what we make will probably be destroyed any > way. The only way to keep it the way we intended it would be to > constantly fiddling with the players affairs something that goes against > our whole game design pholosophy. > What we should do is let social darwinism do the work for us. Let the > players choose where to build while playing the game. let the players > set up churches and desipher the role of the gods. screw the who namhas > is the god of balance and mandor is the god of evil and azlok is a demon > created by the old gods to fight the new gods. Let the game determine > history and the roles that the individuual gods play. If mandor wants to > be the evil god then he should have to tell the players that he is and > see who worships him. Lets have the game start at the begining: day one > rooms crash game starts. if gods want a church or want his followers to > have swords then he/she will have to teach them. also don't dictate what > or how the races and species act let the players decide. If a large > group wants orcs to be magic using city dwellers then let them be. if > dwarves want to live in tree forts then let them. No. I wouldn't want to play a game with no history. Chasing the old legends (and creating new ones) is fun. I want the game world to be ready, to some point atleast.If I want to make desicionsabout the game, I'll design, not play it. (doing it =) The idea of history writing itself is good and we need to make the world as interactive as possible, but still I think it's better to create a complete world and then let the players take it from there. If they don't like the gods or something about the world then they can change it, or atleast try and since in Majik the gods do interfere(?) with mundane matters, we, in a way, have a right to fight back, to some extend. > The only thing that should be already in the game is perhaps some ruins > with books or swords or what ever in them and the world is only > populated with npc monsters > > Anyway this idea is true to the faq and i hope you consider it. I > realize that alot of work has been done on the design side that will > have to tossed but this includes alot of work that i have done i am > willing to make that sacrifice. Well, I haven't actually designed anything yet, so...... -Pekka Toppi/Mirithil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:03:23 EET