Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?

From: srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 20:25:37 +0000

>I was just pointing out that, using the methods you are using, you
>can't make the discovery phase last forever for those for whom it is
>important.

I'd argue that just as the advent of the computer as an active,
semi-intelligent agent in gaming makes it possible to do away with
revealing the game mechanics, so it also makes possible a continually
changing, evolving game.  Obviously some things should stay the same.
But there's no reason that things like magic and non-player-entities
should be stupid, utterly predictable automata.

It'd be particularly neat if the Sacred Grove Genie that Faction X
discovers on turn 3 by chopping down a tree saves Faction Y from
extinction a few turns down the road and says "I think you owe me a
favor.  There's this faction X that I think deserves some punishment.
Here's the sacred Staff of Calyx.  Do your best."

Of course, that's probably a ways off.  The point is, though, that
computers make it possible to have games where the element of
discovery is more than just "what's behind this door".  The challenge
is to design and build such games.

>I think you _can_, if you choose, make a replayable game of discovery,
>by making the attributes and formulas for each game be randomly
>determined.  This is the principle on which rogue is based.  However
>I've never seen anyone attempt to design a much more complicated game on
>this principle, so I don't know how well it would work.

I don't think randomness alone is all that interesting, although it
can be a useful tool.

-- Scott T.

References

Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 15:51:53 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 17:35:19 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 18:44:03 +0000