Idea: invitation-only MMO (or MUD) w/ true permadeath

I've been thinking about how so-called "permadeath" in multiplayer online RPG virtual worlds (hereafter referred to as MMOs, although MUDs and their variants qualify) really amounts to something more like reincarnation, as you generally have the option of creating a new character and starting "from scratch," although you actually have important knowledge about the world, its inhabitants, etc., the second time around. I propose the creation of an MMO in which accounts are given only to invited persons without any apparent pattern and those accounts are deleted upon character death. Should your character die, you will completely lose your ability to interact with and experience the game. This restriction could be further tightened by instituting rules banning the posting of game-related materials on other sites, sharing out-of-world contact information in-game, etc., all under threat of account deletion, of course. As I see it, this setup would potentially be associated with certain benefits. Limiting the player base to invited persons would allow for the curation of a higher-quality community, while the threat of near-uncircumventable account deletion would, in theory, provide a meaningful detterent for unwanted behavior. From the beginning of MMO history, we've seen issues with the imperfect separation between the virtual world and the primary world, and this approach would provide the greatest degree of separation possible short of modifying players' material circumstances. Provided the players did not succumb to hopelessness or simply not enjoy the game, the effect on player psychology would likely be significant, causing them to play with a level of caution more similar to what we see in the primary world. The experience of play would hopefully be heightened through the feeling that the stakes are higher. Further, the social dynamics of death would be similarly altered; players might try harder to protect their buddies if they know they won't be getting them back. The way in which you chose to advance your character (assuming a semi-standard advancement scheme) would become more meaningful because you would only ever have one character. Finally, these traits would likely serve to give the game an almost mythical and therefore exciting reputation, an effect which could be intensified through the use of an atypical aesthetic like that of, say, Yume Nikki, and, of course, uncommonly good design. One issue that comes to mind is that players will have no incentive to keep their mouths shut once they've lost their accounts and, in fact, will be motivated to try to ruin the game by the psychological element known as spite. It would be at that point that YouTube videos of pre-recorded play and wikis would appear. Another issue is that the effect on player psychology could be completely lopsided; what could be used to reward players for risking their characters' lives and their own accounts? Would they just end up huddling in caves, afraid to step out? I see no easy solutions to these problems. I have two caveats to mention. (a) The object of such a project would not be to make money. (b) The benefits of invitation-only accounts can be had without the institution of permadeath, but this style of permadeath can, as far as I can imagination, only be had with the institution of invitation-only accounts. This is where you come in, Lain. I'd like to hear your feedback on this idea. Do you know of any games which have used a similar approach? Do you like it? Do you think it could be improved? Do you see any further benefits or issues which you'd like to mention? Can you think of a solution to the problems I mentioned? Is there anything else you'd like to say? I await your response.

This is the closest thing I can associate, but it is single player and it was more about the speech than the game to be honest. https://www.wired.com/2011/07/mf_chainworld/ Those are indeed big obstacles, and I fail to see how I would derive any enjoyment from it knowing there is such a grave penalty for risk taking. I guess I'll have to give it more thought because it is a really nice idea, but it's filled with the kind of issues that you mention and that would ruin it very easily

>>3035 >this style of permadeath can, as far as I can imagination, only be had with the institution of invitation-only accounts Proc-gen world (including skills, lore) + the concept of rounds can replace it. Make a round last X weeks, and during a round, no characters can be created on the server. Give them a week of startup between rounds so they can register. Benefit being, this could potentially have a sustainable playerbase by having enough servers so there's always something playable. Your style would make it realistically impossible to sustain a playerbase long-term, as it's simply too selective.

Honestly, there's some good idea material in here, but I think we need to examine the implications of them all together. Permadeath of a character is a Good Thing when you have the ability to create a new character. This reduces the frustration, knowing that you can fuarrrk up and not lose out on the experience entirely. So, it doesn't go well with "your account is deleted". This ensures there's a balance between risk taking and caution. Permadeath isn't the end of the game, but it still holds a strong incentive to exercise some degree of caution. You could strike a balance between these two extremes, and allow people N deaths before their account is disabled. This would create a looming problem and incentivize care for their characters, while not being too punishing. Invite-only is good if you want to ensure a high quality of player interactions, but it is manually demanding of the sysop. Screening potential players, and inviting people would represent a significant challenge. It would be better to create nodes of engagement around the web where people can learn about the game and engage it. To do this, you might present some special invite codes that are good for N activations. Sprinkle them around the web, and it will serve the function better than you could manually. For instance, it would be good to seed such a code here because of the culture of the board is conducive to good people (on the whole). I think these ideas would be best for a MUD-type situation. MMOs generally require a level of financial backing that people like us simply don't have access to. A MUD need not be text, it could operate graphically in the browser with limited effort. All in all, these are some interesting ideas.

>>3035 > what could be used to reward players for risking their characters' lives and their own accounts? If it's truly an invitation-based mmo, it is reasonable to assume that the player base would be quite small, so keeping track of every player's progress or gameplay (including hostile player encounters) doesn't seem too overwhelming an idea to execute properly. As such, rewarding altruistic behavior could be done in a variety of ways... Either through a "karma system" which would lower merchant prices (for example) based on the amount of players you've defended, or directly through gifts provided by GMs who monitor players or in-game characters (like some guardian angels or something similar) who appear right after a duel when a number of specific conditions have been met, or such altruistic behavior could rise in the game naturally as a kind of social bonding inside a guild, in the form of server reputation (heroes and villains) or something similar. As for the element of spite ruining the game, one possible way to counteract it could be a game server system which is based on a player's death count: instead of "permadeath", every time you die, you start on a different server, so you can never really meet the same people - or even get to experience the same game world - from your previous life/playtime, unless, of course, they die with you and you happen to stumble upon them by accident in the next life and you two recognize each other from your previous life. Of course this approach wouldn't fix all such socio-psychological problems, but I'd like to think that it's a step into the right direction - if there's no way whatsoever of continuing the play, what's stopping someone of spoiling everyone's fun?

>>3039 Think it goes against the core idea of permadeath OP wants if we just go to a different world, wouldn't be any different from those roguelike that generate levels as they go. What he wants is to fundamentally alter the game experience by removing the escapism element, it's fun to think if this does mean the experience can no longer be enjoyable at all or if can game design elevate it to something players actually look forward to

>>3036 That was an interesting article. I suppose this project could end up with a similar monetization problem, where accounts would be sold in secret. Were this to occur, unwanted players, including griefers, would suddenly have an in and could potentially do massive damage to the game. >>3037 >Proc-gen world (including skills, lore) I don't want to dismiss procedural generation out of hand, but, as far as I know, it is very difficult to implement effectively if you're trying to create a sense of wonder in the landscape, etc. >+ the concept of rounds can replace it. I've looked favorably upon the round structure before. In every case I've seen, though, (which is to say Space Station 13 and the MOO Stillborn) the rounds have been relatively short. Long rounds could provide what I'm looking for. If you know that you won't get to play again for 3 months if your character dies, you'll probably try pretty hard to stay alive, but the promise of another chance after that time would give an incentive to toe the line. However, it's hard to say how you would prevent players from getting careless or even suicidal near the end of the round. My last concern with your proposal is simply that there is a notable difference in mystique between the original idea and this one. As an aside, I happen to know that Stillborn's creator has posted here before, so it is possible that we may get their opinion on long rounds, which is probably about as valuable as anyone's opinion on round-based games at the moment. >having enough servers so there's always something playable I would want a hefty cost in terms of ability to participate in the game upon character death, and starting up immediately on another server is probably not it, although it depends on specifics. I say more about this later in the post. >>3038 >You could strike a balance between these two extremes, and allow people N deaths before their account is disabled. This would create a looming problem and incentivize care for their characters, while not being too punishing. I doubt this would work so cleanly as you suggest. It seems to me that players will treat disposable lives as though they are disposable, even if they are finite. One potential negative result of this is demonstrated in this video: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=phVFKAxETlg. >It would be better to create nodes of engagement around the web where people can learn about the game and engage it. To do this, you might present some special invite codes that are good for N activations. Sprinkle them around the web, and it will serve the function better than you could manually. This is an intriguing idea that I hadn't considered, but the fact is that, given the high stakes, the entrance of even one griefer can be disastrous. There's no guarantee that one won't slip through under the conditions of the original proposal, but the odds of such are higher with this idea. >For instance, it would be good to seed such a code here because of the culture of the board is conducive to good people (on the whole). This is a good example, because I know for a fact that there are posters here that would be undesirable as players. >I think these ideas would be best for a MUD-type situation. I agree, but I wanted to preserve the purity of the concept by opening its scope in the OP. The specifics of its implementation are only so relevant, although any proposal which relies on creating large amounts of content in small amounts of time will depend on a textual or otherwise simplified interface. >>3039 I should probably mention that when I referred to their risking their characters' lives, I meant for any purpose, not just for altruistic reasons. The altruism would, I think, occur spontaneously, as a game with such heavy penalties would also provide opportunities for the meaningful practice of charity, self-sacrifice, mercy, and even heroism, which I think some players are intrinsically interested in. Further, I believe that there would be no need for a special reputation system, as the players would understand the merit of altruistic behavior under these conditions and would respond accordingly; in other words, reputation would work as it does in the primary world and would tap into the same psychological and social circuits. >every time you die, you start on a different server, so you can never really meet the same people - or even get to experience the same game world - from your previous life/playtime I think the only way to implement this effectively would be to ensure that the worlds are sufficiently different to give you the sense that you really lost the previous game. You wanted to defeat that dragon and see what was hidden in its cave, but the new world doesn't even have a dragon cave. Maybe the new world isn't even fantastical but instead it's the Wild West or whatever. This would open interesting possibilities for theming, as you could frame this as a succession of dreams or make a point about the nature of reincarnation or whatever. Still, this would do nothing to prevent careless or suicidal behavior among those who didn't like the current server/world and wanted to move on...although that can be said to be a weakness in the original proposal as well. >unless, of course, they die with you I'm intrigued by the possibility of in-game suicide pacts now. "Maybe the next world will be a better place!" >Of course this approach wouldn't fix all such socio-psychological problems, but I'd like to think that it's a step into the right direction Whatever my issues with these ideas, they do more to solve the problem than anything I came up with. So let's summarize what we have so far. In terms of potential solutions for the problem of incentivizing good behavior following character death we have two proposals, after some modification: >(a) Gameplay occurs in long rounds (weeks-months) during which players whose characters have died will not be able to create new characters, but players will be able to play again at the beginning of the next round. >(b) The game takes the form of a succession of worlds which can only be traversed in one direction through character death. A problem with proposal (a) is the possibility of careless behavior at the end of a round. Problems with proposal (b) include the possibility for careless behavior by bored players and the general fact that it would seem to frame death almost as a kind of progression rather than as a penalty. Both proposals lessen the psychological impact of the original death mechanic, possess a relative lack of mystique, and detract from the sense of ever being able to "win" the game in an ultimate sense, as new content is constantly being created.

I'll also outline some ideas I've had regarding the initial proposal. (i) To begin with, I believe that the problem of motivation could solve itself so long as there is a clear victory condition. Certain players will want to be "the one" who overcame lethal obstacles in order to seize the Grand McGuffin of Horace. Further, if only a few characters can succeed, others could, in theory, be spurred on by the possibility of missing out. The original MUD had "start back at square one" permadeath with the ultimate goal of becoming a "wiz" and gaining immortality and special powers. Richard Bartle, MUD's co-creator, later identified two different types of contenders for wizhood: those who had "that spark," i.e., were willing to apply themselves creatively and wholeheartedly to the task, and those who wanted to "plod" to victory through repetitive, low-risk activity. He eventually ended up saying (I paraphrase) that plodders were boring people and should not be catered to. I don't think there's really anything wrong with making a game which caters to those with "that spark," and such individuals tend to want to climb mountains because they're there. To some degree, player motivation is a problem of picking the right players. (ii) Interaction with any new NPC, creature, etc., would be made much more intense by the knowledge that, should they surprise you, the game will be over. I imagine much more careful experimentation on the parts of the players. (iii) Any in-game means of extending life would become that much more desirable, and each possibility could carry intriguing penalties, associations, and weaknesses. Quick examples: resurrection rituals (perhaps they need multiple sacrifices per resurrected character), vampirism (standard penalties such as sunlight), etc. The mere rumor of a font of immortality would be enough to drive action...and the crafty player could take advantage of that. This works well with the next point. (iv) A game of this kind would have a better platform for handling themes regarding the gravity of death as we know it. As mentioned previously, self-sacrifice becomes real sacrifice. There's a meaning to sparing an enemy's life. On the other hand, there's a meaning to killing, and players inclined toward "evil" characters will feel more of the weight of those decisions...and everyone else will hate them more for it. The game world could be full of references to death's inevitability and yet show vibrance in spite of it. You could also get interesting reactions from one-off events such as, say...a pandemic which kills some meaningful percentage of those who contract it? The list goes on. (v) If there's truly no distinction between character death and account deletion, there's no reason to deal with transgressions in the typical way. You can have lightning strike the offending player's character out of a clear sky or have a mysterious black knight ride out of the woods to relentlessly wear them down in combat. This creates fun material for the survivors. "The black knight is just a myth." "No way, I swear I saw him lop her head off! It was wild, man!" I'll conclude this post by pointing out that, while my examples tend to be fantastical, you may consider any genre for the purposes of this discussion.

>>3040 >Think it goes against the core idea of permadeath OP wants if we just go to a different world Quite right, but what I had more in mind was a total loss of the character, including all the items and friends and game experience (i.e. where items are located, what the items do etc.) s/he had, reducing all your progress to zero, which, if you think about it, isn't going to be very productive or even fun at all in terms of trying to complete or advance in the said game. I know it doesn't serve OP's initial objective (preventing escapist tendencies in video games), but to me complete permadeath is too radical, especially since you can get the same effects by other means (PUBG comes to mind, which I personally play very cautiously, because I very much dislike dying in such a "final" manner, but I guess that's understandably as I've become accustomed to temporary death, having played WoW and Enemy Territory, neither of which has such a game mechanic).

>>3041 >Problems with proposal (b) include the possibility for careless behavior by bored players and the general fact that it would seem to frame death almost as a kind of progression rather than as a penalty. I propose three ways to counteract said proposal's shortcomings: 1) keep the game mechanic secret and proactively claim and advertise the opposite: that it's a "true permadeath" game, when in fact it's not in its entirety. That way people will initially, at least, behave as if it were their last game, and in the advent of death, and with the total loss of social connection to your buddies from your last life, they *hopefully* won't be able to inform others of said mechanic. 2) couple the reincarnation death mechanic with what >>3038 suggested: "allow people N deaths before their account is disabled", something like two strikes and you're out, and when you've been reincarnated, you get a message which informs you that this time will be your last one, so make it count. That way players don't have to throw away *all* their game experience, and they can try and redeem themselves, whereupon you'll hopefully diminish the level of frustration on the part of some bad players/sore losers who don't mind ruining the game for everybody. 3) make the other world(s) as miserable as possible. That way - in the event that the reincarnation death mechanism is revealed to the main player base - no one can treat it "as a kind of progression". Kind of cruel for those who hope for the next world to be a better place, but hey, what can you do... (...other than laugh at their silly notions! hueh hueh hueh >:D)

>>3044 I think at this point we should ask what this convoluted setup would achieve that the "long round" proposal wouldn't. >(3) make the other world(s) as miserable as possible Now I'm amused by the image of a "last world" in which characters are resurrected in the usual MMO fashion but which is, in fact, the lowest of hells, a childish, insubstantial playground conceived for no other purpose than that of trapping the game's worst losers so that they won't flip out and muck things up for the players that we really care about. Many of them would probably continue to abide by the rules just for the sake of their continued membership in a secret club.

i didn't read the entire thread so feel free to ignore me if this is irrelevant, but what about a variation on this >>3044 where there is some hierarchy of worlds and your transcendence or descent in this hierarchy depends on whether you survive through the round? this is definitely getting further away from the original concept but would solve the issue of people getting careless near the end of a round while maintaining the balance between real consequences for death and practical consideration for the player (i mean, it would really suck to die due to some griefer or a buggy enemy encounter or something like that and then never be able to play again). something like a hierarchy of afterlives would be relatively easy to work into the lore of your game as long as it has some kind of metaphysical component.

>>3046 It would wreak havoc on the original concept, but an interesting alternative concept would be to have a succession of worlds of the sort you're describing and then have the ultimate objective of the lower worlds be to ascend to the higher plane again. Even if you "win" a lower world (which should be a feat in itself) all you get is another shot at the original world, starting from scratch. Once again, this is a completely different concept, but it's promising in its own way.

>>3046 >>3047 And I just realized that what I posted was probably what you were already describing, as you use the word "transcendence." Well, anyway, hopefully that clarifies it for any other readers.

>>3046 Oh, and why would we be using both rounds and the "hierarchy of worlds" concept at the same time? They were introduced as separate ideas. I know I just triple-posted, but this post threw me for a loop.

>>3048 >what I posted was probably what you were already describing essentially, yeah. although i was thinking when you transcend (or possibly even when you die/descend) you keep some of your bufs, or at least your core character stats so that it still feels like one "life". the main difference with this vs. traditional "permadeath" that just makes you roll a new character would be that from the perspective of players in the world you died in it would actually be like you died, since they can't interact with you unless they also die (or you work your way out of the grave over a long period of time). lots of ways to tweak this by e.g. messing with the rules of what exactly carries over through death/ascendance or even punishing deaths with a descent through multiple worlds while a successful ascendance only brings you up one level.

>>3050 >although i was thinking when you transcend (or possibly even when you die/descend) you keep some of your bufs, or at least your core character stats I'm very much opposed to the idea of carrying progress between worlds. I had to master myself for a moment in order to type out "very much opposed" rather than something harsher. It seems to me that you're diluting the original concept to the point of meaninglessness. What you (and other posters in this thread) seem to be missing is that death, under this concept, is supposed to hurt, and badly. Any mitigating proposal which is based on the fact that it would suck to die is missing the point. Yes, we should seek to minimize pointless deaths due to griefers, glitches, etc., but there is a certain amount of a "is like kicking dead whales down the beach to be you" attitude which must, in practical terms, be embraced if we are to have the additional meaning which comes with the possibility of outright, colossal failure. If we were to expand on the hierarchical worlds model just for fun, though, it is conceivable that one "world" could actually be a layer or reflection of another in terms of theming. As an example, you might die in the original world and find yourself as a ghost in that world's spirit realm, which might appear as a twisted version of the other world with meaningfully different landscapes, means of traversal, dangers, etc. (See Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver for a single-player game that already did this.) Were the two realms to have some limited interaction, new possibilities would appear. A shaman "class" (if we're using classes) would be interesting. Can you channel spirits in order to get an edge? Does that give them sway over your character? I'm imagining that shamans would become more powerful as the game went on and more characters became ghosts. What if ghosts have to use their subtle influence in order to kill two living characters to fuel their one resurrection? Can ghosts contact the living in dreams? Can they create minor gusts of wind? Maybe shaman characters can relatively easily contact ghosts and channel them but have the hard task of deciding which ones are trustworthy and which will screw them over. On the other hand, what if there's no way to pierce the veil and yet you still need something from the living in order to return? You'd have to prepare a pact with your buddies before ever dying, which would incentivize making connections.

>>3051 >death, under this concept, is supposed to hurt, and badly. what i'm getting at is there are ways to make death hurt that are more inventive than just losing all of your soykaf. clearly that punishment alone isn't enough because its exactly the thing you were trying to replace with your original idea. if losing your account and never being able to play the game again is, in its own right, central to your concept then i would absolutely encourage you to try it. i've never seen it done before and it's a very interesting idea. however, i got the impression that you just wanted to make death have permanent consequences in game and "true permadeath" was just the best idea you had to achieve that. the thing is true permadeath has tricky gameplay consequences, and giving people multiple lives doesn't really do anything to mitigate that (imo it's just a worse version of your original concept since if the game is too hard for 1 life to be reasonable you could simply make the players harder to kill and get roughly the same effect as multiple lives). so that's where i think the "multiple worlds" concept comes in. it solves one part of the player death problem: how the death is perceived by surviving players. if a player is booted to another world they might as well never log in again from the perspective of the people they know in their original world (assuming you don't implement a "climb out of hell" feature). the other side of the coin is the player's experience of their own death, and that's where the punishment has to happen. i like the idea of making them suffer on as their old character in a more hellish world rather than letting them re-roll their character. that's why i was suggesting keeping base stats. i think there are good arguments for and against letting them keep their buffs (perhaps less good arguments for letting them keep their loot but i still think its worth considering). first of all "you're dead now: your soykaf is gone so get grinding" isn't a particularly interesting way to punish a player, even though it might be effective. functionally it's basically the same as giving them a new character (besides the impact it has on other players, as i mentioned). i'm not sure what the best alternative would be, but i guess i'm just saying it would be interesting to explore the idea of a kind of "fate worse than death" where the nature of the afterlife they end up in is in itself a deterrent.

>>3051 actually the more i think about it the more i like your spirit realm idea. i'd imagine once you're in there you're stuck for good, and there are certain things only living characters can do. that alone is enough to make it a major deterrent for player death beyond what any other game has done (to my knowledge). the trick would then be to make it so that it isn't completely pointless to keep playing at this point. giving the spirits their own objectives that require cooperation with "mortals" is a great way to do that. of course resurrection could be the dangling carrot, and its certainly the most straightforward way to handle the issue, but on the other hand you could probably come up with a way to make playing as a spirit be engaging enough without that. yeah i think this is better than what i was saying here >>3052

>>3053 I honestly hadn't considered making the ghost status permanent, but it jives with previous concepts. Let me just type up a basic summary...So we could have only two layers, the world and its spirit realm, with traversal between the two going one way only. In the spirit realm, you never truly die but instead reform after being dispelled or whatever. Ghosts can be given their own objectives to complete in order to keep them occupied. Further, they will at least have the consolation of having what is essentially a spectator mode (there has to be a joke there with "specter" and "spectator," but it's not coming to me). If we were to preserve the purity of the original concept, there would be no interaction between the two layers (or at least the ghosts wouldn't be able to affect the living). That said, creating cool ways to involve the two layers with each other is very tempting and is worth doing at least as an exercise. Even under the strictest separation, though, there is the possibility of out-of-game information sharing between the players of living characters and the players of ghosts, supposing that the spirit realm does act as a spectator mode. I'm imagining throwing in a basic ritual to "banish peeping spirits" for the living to employ. This would be most useful if its function were explained outright, but I admit that it would be fun to make it look useless until you actually became a ghost yourself. Of course, you could throw some lines into the lore which would hint at the function (and what happens after death) for the player who can read between the lines. Any such hints would tend to disrupt the original "dead and it's over" impression, though, but you probably couldn't keep the existence of the spirit realm secret for very long anyway.

>>3054 i think the way spirits and mortals interact should be confusing and indirect rather than a straightforward spectator mode. like ghosts can't perceive mortals directly any more than mortals can perceive them, at least not at first. perhaps learning how to consistently influence the mortal realm as a spirit could be your main gameplay challenge and motivation.

>>3055 >like ghosts can't perceive mortals directly any more than mortals can perceive them, at least not at first. perhaps learning how to consistently influence the mortal realm as a spirit could be your main gameplay challenge and motivation. I'm seriously starting to like this shamanic, pseudo-permadeath mmo genre! For me this crystallized the idea of using the spirits of the deceased players as shamanic power in the form of trapping "lost souls" (players) into items or spells, which would lead to actual permadeath on the part of the deceased player (it would prolly spawn virtual satanist guilds that prey upon the dummies to get their souls, which, as a concept, is kinda exciting too). To avoid being turned into a battery, you have to fight, toil and think your way out of the underworld and only the most skilled/committed players could ever pull it off (and there's a limited number of times you can do this), which would suspend all the bad players into limbo, only to be used as batteries for the living player base, while the reincarnated players are given a second chance at their climb to the mountain /search for the holy grail /wizhood / etc.

>>3056 >trapping "lost souls" (players) into items or spells First off, this is (part of) the premise of the World of Darkness tabletop game Wraith: the Oblivion, although it's actually older ghosts trapping younger ones into the form of ghost currency, so check that out if you think this is cool. If you don't know about World of Darkness at all, definitely correct that (I like Vampire, personally). Secondly, I don't see how > which would lead to actual permadeath on the part of the deceased player is going to fix the original problem we were trying to solve, which was how to keep players who have suffered the ultimate loss from ruining the game. We've just pushed it back a step. >it would prolly spawn virtual satanist guilds that prey upon the dummies to get their souls, which, as a concept, is kinda exciting too I suppose the historical precedent here is how gangs of murderous marauders formed in the classic MMO Ultima Online. It was less "exciting" and more "game ruining" in that case, though, but I suppose that ghosts are losers anyway and may as well be mistreated (hyperbole). Personally, I was picturing a more symbiotic relationship between shamans and ghosts, and I think it's more fun if ghosts are capable of seriously screwing with shamans while shamans maybe can't do so much to ghosts. I'd want it to be a "risk in exchange for power" dynamic rather than a "ghosts can screw you over any time" dynamic, though. As a specific idea which has just come to me, we might recycle the Sorrow's shtick from Metal Gear Solid 3 and have a sufficiently advanced shaman be capable of temporarily summoning/manifesting the vengeful ghosts of a character's victims in such a manner that they can inflict harm. This imposes a hefty cost on the worst killers. I'm also partial to the idea that shamans get little in the way of direct protection from and power over ghosts and instead must rely heavily on negotiation and good faith. In the given example, perhaps the ghosts can also harm the shaman for the duration of the summoning (or they also summon their victims?), so the shaman has to make sure he/she has good relations with the relevant spirits. That may include upholding promises to them regarding actions which only the living can accomplish (find my friend and tell him...), giving them offerings which empower them, etc. If the shaman fails in his/her responsibilities, the undying spirits will haunt their steps to the last, as the dead have so few distractions...If a shaman fails to practice the "discernment of evil spirits," then an apparent ally may turn on them, and likely at the worst possible moment because it is directed by a human intelligence. If you're a shaman player and you deal with a ghost player who's smarter than you, you may find that your "servant" becomes your de facto master. If there were a resurrection mechanic, maybe that would be it: you weasel into a shaman's good graces and eventually boot their spirit out of their body, taking it for yourself. Alternatively, there may be no permanent resurrection, but you may be working to maximize the amount of time you spend in control of the body. Then there's the other option which is that there is also no direct possession and you have to convince the shaman to do what you want using words and the pitiful services a ghost can provide.

>>3057 >we might recycle the Sorrow's shtick from Metal Gear Solid 3 and have a sufficiently advanced shaman be capable of temporarily summoning/manifesting the vengeful ghosts of a character's victims in such a manner that they can inflict harm Eureka! After typing this up, I realized that we can work to channel the anger of the dead back onto the living players (and maybe each other) so that it isn't directed at the game administrators...which works fine until someone digs up an old, archived lainchan post...

>>3056 i agree with >>3057 >>actual permadeath on the part of the deceased player >We've just pushed it back a step. the afterlife is in itself a permadeath. spirits are in some sense immortal but they lose a great deal of their agency when it comes to accomplishing things in the mortal realm. the idea of summoning ghosts into the mortal realm is an interesting way to deal with the resurrection issue too. if you did that you could probably get away with not having a true resurrection option in the game. instead ghosts must be summoned if they want to behave like players. this would only work for a limited time until they would have to be re-summoned. if you still want to have proper resurrection i would suggest a "came back wrong" kind of angle where resurrected ghosts aren't actually normal humans they're like zombie/lich type things that have benefits and tradeoffs. perhaps you could discourage bee-lining resurrection by making your mortal form be dependent on your level as a ghost. if you just try to resurrect without becoming a powerful ghost you end up as like a soykafty zombie mook that can't do anything and gets killed by the first player they encounter, whereas grinding up, cooperating with mortals, accomplishing some goals in the spirit realm, etc. will let you come back as something more lich-like.

>>3057 >I'm also partial to the idea that shamans get little in the way of direct protection from and power over ghosts and instead must rely heavily on negotiation and good faith. >on Lainchan >not designing a trustless system Joke aside, having thought about this a bit more, I'm imagining a symbiosis forming as the result of a process which can be likened to an arms race. Perhaps the more a competent shaman player interacts with a competent ghost player, the more leverage they gain over each other and the more they can demand from each other. Eventually, the goals of both are subsumed into the whole and neither can make a big move because of MAD. I think that would be really neat. I'm having fun now. >>3059 Honestly, I think I let the resurrection mechanics get away from me. Dr. Bartle (whom I respect immensely having read his work) mentions in his MMOs from the Inside Out that designers have a way of saying they want permadeath and then contriving a way around it later. Let's not make that mistake, or at least let's make that mistake in the least harmful way possible. Ok, permanent resurrection is dead. I have killed it. May it not rise again. While I acknowledge the merits of the approach, I dislike the idea of willfully trapping players in a game. Suppose we were to give ghost players the choice between involving themselves further in the affairs of the living and seeking the old dissolution/"moving on" ending for their characters (in a way that looked sufficiently organic, of course). There's obviously some thematic meat there regarding acceptance of fate, "[going] gently into that good night" vs "[raging] against the dying of the light," etc., and that can be doubled by having "death" stand in as a metaphor for horrid, irredeemable failure (which is interesting, because that is what it literally is in this case, but we're using a metaphor to discuss it because the player probably doesn't want to be told outright that they lost). Just imagine what that would be like. You screw up at a critical moment, the whatsit rips your throat out, and it fades to black. In a moment, you come to, everything is green or whatever (there are more interesting ways to do this, but for our purposes), and the first guy you meet says, "You're dead, mate. There's no way back, not for good; we've tried it. The question is, 'what are you going to do now?'" I think that could be very meaningful in terms of dealing with a Bebop-esque "your most important years are behind you" idea. You can throw yourself into hollow reactions (revenge, whatever), or you can seek detachment from the past; this is perhaps more interesting if you can't simultaneously seek power through shamans and seek transcendence (one detracts from the other in some way). In any case, "moving on" (by moving through the 18 planes or whatever you like) allows players to pass out of the game while feeling that they still achieved some kind of significant victory, lessening feelings of bitterness. Once out, we still have no leverage over them, but they will have been distracted for long enough for the interesting things to happen (hopefully). If we gave those players access to the only OOC lounge, though...Also, the thematic content takes an even more interesting turn if winners among the living also eventually end up as ghosts, with the mood of "what do your accomplishments mean in the face of death?" Final point: the spirit realm concept limits our genre options somewhat, unless https://dev.invidio.us/watch?v=w34fSnJNP-4