From: gspall@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Spall)
Subject: Re: wishlist for the ultimate role-playing advent
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:53:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.184338.26322@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> For the ultimate *computer* driven role-playing game:
> 
> 1) It should be possible for each player (each *must* have a separate
>    terminal) to move through the world independently of any of the
>    other players.


There is a good amount of games along this line already, excluding MUDs.. 
  :-)

ie almost any game involving a modem link-up...

> 
> 2) Independent players should be able to interact with each other in
>    any way they wish - and there should not, necessarily, be any ways
>    for players to tell whether characters they meet in the game are
>    controlled by other players or the computer.  (I did say *ultimate*
>    didn't I?)

This is a little more difficult, but give the computer industry another
10 years, and you'll probably see computers capable of COMPLETELY fooling
just long enough for you to interact and then leave that character or beat
up on it... :-)

> 
> 3) Each player should be free to decide on an independent objective:
>    whether it be making money, becoming famous, living peacefully,
>    or whatever.  There should be no GM imposed victory conditions.

... uhhh...   errrr.... well, ok, I don't have one for that!!! :-)


> 
> 4) The game should be mostly strategic in nature.  That is, few arcane
>    and arbitrary puzzles which, once solved, are just a nuisance.  The
>    game should consist of different players (and non-player characters)
>    each competitively (or cooperatively) pursuing whatever their 
>    objectives are.

For the Amiga ... examine the game ... 'Mechforce', or Battle force as I
THINK I've seen it called.  It's basically a BattleTech Simulator with
up to 4 teams, 12 players on EACH team, therefore allowing up to 32 players
at one time!!!!   Mind you, I would NOT want to see how long the game
takes!!!


> 
> 5) Since the game has no imposed victory conditions, the game can proceed
>    for long periods of time - possibly forever.  The program should be
>    extended with new forms of allowable interaction as the game technology
>    improves.

Again, in another 10 years, we will probably have this.. being allowed to
create a program which creates a different world (no.. not like
Civilization!!) every time a new game is created.

> 
> The optimal game is like chess - it remains hard even after you've
> played it for years.  This is not because of the game itself getting
> harder, but because the competiveness of your opponents improves even
> as you do.  Of course, chess has to limited a range of interactions
> to be interesting as a role-playing game (state the obvious first:
> a cardinal rule in writing).
> 
> There are two problems to solve: the types of permitted interaction
> need to be many and very flexible; and the program needs to *learn*,
> so that program controlled characters aren't static.  Different players 
> should be permitted to converse through their characters (though doing 
> so will allow you to guess which characters are player controlled and
> which aren't - unless you can write a program which passes the
> Turing test).  
>    
> -- 
> J. Giles

I agree with most of you 'points' on the 'ultimate' RPG computer game, 
these are definately, at least, SOME of the factors we need in a good
Computer RPG.  But I have another theory of why Chess doesn't get any 
easier... but I don't want to start getting yelled at that I should
post it to rec.games.chess ... :-)  just one point..

Chess doesn't get any easy, because you keep trying to outthink yourself!!


anyway, toodles...

						The Ditto
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games