PDA

View Full Version : Living Campaign World



Thamir
2008-05-22, 05:10 AM
Has anyone created a truly "living" campaign world where people at home all over the world game in the same setting and by adventuring there you create a dynamic world which changes as DMs all over the world change the setting through play. For example group A in the US might destroy Fang Keep, then edit the wiki saying that fang keep is destroyed however there is now just the rubble which could make a good adventure site. It could create a truly dynamic, living and (forgive the irony) world-wide world.

bosssmiley
2008-05-22, 05:12 AM
RPGA? :smallconfused: spacefill

v-- "Ah right. Gotcha now Ted."

Not AFAIK. I know that both Seamus Young of 20sided (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/) and the lads who wrote "The Dungeonomicon" have thrown the idea of a meaningfully player-influenced MMORG about before. But I've no idea if anyone has tried to implement it on a meaningful scale for a pen-and-paper RPG.

Of course, allowing the fanbase such creative control over an endeavor runs a real risk of either:

1) hijack by organised cabals of single issue/'one true way' roleplayers (see the Tekumel fanbase for a classic example)
or
2) fanboi-driven regression to the lowest common denominator (Drizzles and Shadar-Kai galore, Final Fantoss, D&DballZ, Batmen on every flat surface, etc.)

Participatory democracy: not a good system for creative endeavours. Nothing good was ever created by a committee. :smallannoyed:

Ecalsneerg
2008-05-22, 05:19 AM
RPGA? :smallconfused: spacefill

I think he's implying similar, only the players have a much bigger effect.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-22, 06:11 AM
It's called a MUSH. (Alternatively a MUD or an MMORPG, but they suck.)

Glawackus
2008-05-22, 07:43 AM
What differentiates a MUD from a MUCK from a MUSH, anyhow? Maybe a little off-topic, but I'm curious.

I've seen some experimentation in shared-world games on Myth Weavers, but I don't think they've met with very much success.

Griffin131
2008-05-22, 07:49 AM
What differentiates a MUD from a MUCK from a MUSH, anyhow? Maybe a little off-topic, but I'm curious.
Just the back end.

Blanks
2008-05-22, 08:17 AM
its an awesome idea, which can never be used. Because what happens when i tell you i had a TPK in my campaign and the world now no longer exists (because the players didn't stop the BBEG).

You would have to have a lot of parallel wikis, that you could borrow from. Otherwise the effect would be too big.

Blanks
2008-05-22, 08:21 AM
Maybe I should add, that the problem encompasses all instances were campaigns are mutually exclusive. IE, the king can't both be an avatar of Pelor and a disguised dobbelganger at the same time...

serow
2008-05-22, 08:59 AM
Well, they have 3 living worlds going on over at ENWorld.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-22, 02:26 PM
What differentiates a MUD from a MUCK from a MUSH, anyhow? Maybe a little off-topic, but I'm curious.

A MUD is very system-heavy. You run around killing things, and there's probably no player interaction to speak of. See BatMUD, Kingdom of Loathing, etc.

A MUSH may have no systems - combat especially - at all, or will have very limited systems for that sort of thing. Some are completely free-emote-based, while others can have very complicated parsers. The main focus is on player interaction.

(The MUSH I play has no "enemies" at all to fight, and the only combat system is a "light" consent-based PvP dueling system - it's all about intrigues in a courtly setting. The system has no freemotes, but instead an incredibly complicated parser that uses verbs, adverbs, direct and indirect objects, and many, many prepositions. It's sometimes classed as a MU* rather than a MUSH, since it is way more structured than your average MUSH.)

A MUCK is like a MUSH, except that everyone can build rooms, objects, etc. Never actually played one.

There's a bunch of other terms, like MUX, that I can't really explain too well.

puppyavenger
2008-05-22, 02:42 PM
A MUD is very system-heavy. You run around killing things, and there's probably no player interaction to speak of. See BatMUD, Kingdom of Loathing, etc.

A MUSH may have no systems - combat especially - at all, or will have very limited systems for that sort of thing. Some are completely free-emote-based, while others can have very complicated parsers. The main focus is on player interaction.

(The MUSH I play has no "enemies" at all to fight, and the only combat system is a "light" consent-based PvP dueling system - it's all about intrigues in a courtly setting. The system has no freemotes, but instead an incredibly complicated parser that uses verbs, adverbs, direct and indirect objects, and many, many prepositions. It's sometimes classed as a MU* rather than a MUSH, since it is way more structured than your average MUSH.)

A MUCK is like a MUSH, except that everyone can build rooms, objects, etc. Never actually played one.

There's a bunch of other terms, like MUX, that I can't really explain too well.

what do they stand for?

Kalirren
2008-05-22, 02:54 PM
MUSH = multi-user shared hallucination

One of my favorite examples of a MUSH is one of the first role-playing sites I ever visited and participated in, called Aelyria (www.aelyria.com (http://www.aelyria.com)). They have enough of a critical mass of players that moderators don't run adventures, they run cities. Players become largely responsible for their own initiative, and characters switch moderator/cities all the time.

Of course this comes with its own brand of problems when the hallucination stops being shared. World coherence takes a major hit.

Dunno about the others.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-22, 03:09 PM
what do they stand for?

What do what stand for?

Actually, nevermind. Just Wikipedia it, okay?