Open-ended games (Olympia, Atlantis)

From: hauck@cs.washington.edu (Scott Hauck)

Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 20:11:37 +0000

People have asked whether Olympia was getting stagnant by the end.  My feeling
is that if it wasn't already, it would eventually have to.  The problem
in Olympia, and probably Atlantis, is that there is nothing to stop someone
from expanding, and new players have nothing that helps them compete with the
more established players.  Thus, people will grow large enought that nothing
can stop them, and all they need to do is stomp newbies.

I don't feel GM-added spice can fix this, because anything automated will
get stale as it has been fully explored, and there is a limit to GM creativity.

What I think is necessary for an open-ended game to survive, is some built-in
limit to player power, such that no one faction can hope to control the world
alone.  For example, if mages in Atlantis turn out to be ultra-powerful, the
built-in limit of 3 mages per faction means that allied groups will always be
more powerful than lone monarchs.  This forces player interaction, diplomacy,
and keeps the game interesting via intrigue.

Another possibility I like is to limit the number of control foci a player
can have.  For example, assume that the player's initial character is special,
and only special characters can issue orders.  Thus, a player can have many
normal units, but they will most likely be limited to a single region or
adjacent regions to a foci.  One can imagine other foci joining a player's side
as time goes on, but slowly and only a limited number.  Thus, to accumulate
a large (trading/taxing/fighting) empire requires inter-player cooperation.

Scott Hauck
hauck@cs.washington.edu

References

DM: the Hatchet
picasso@acs2.nntp-read.bu.edu (David Ondzes)
Tue, 27 Apr 1993 10:58:52 +0000

Referenced By

DM: the Hatchet
picasso@acs2.nntp-read.bu.edu (David Ondzes)
Tue, 27 Apr 1993 10:58:52 +0000