Introduction

By Logan Horsford and Kevin Pietrzak (note - please contribute to the fund for Mangled Last Names)

Warning - this game does NOT exist. If someone gives me a few million dollars (US) and if I can hire a bunch of competent programmers and artists, then it may. This is pretty long, your eyes may fall out if you try to read it all at once. Various sections will be updated when I feel like it.

I realize that not everything in here could be done - what could and what could not be done would be up to the programmers, budget, etc.

Though I have attempted to keep everything in the right category, I realize that I need an editor. If someone wants to edit this, great, I will put your name in the credits.

Due to the huge length the FAQ has reached (over 125 pages) I have decided to break it into sections. People will be able to reference whatever topic they are interested in.

The only problem with that 'Dream FAQ' is that many ideas are contingent upon others. This will be made more evident in reading the FAQ.

The basic philosophy the game would follow includes the following:

(This section by Kevin)

Most successful games have had a visionary leader around at the time they were conceived and the stronger the vision, the tighter the developers cling to the vision, generally the more consistent the game is. These design philosophies often rear up in strange and unexpected places. Games designed with very linear progressions, often break down when expanded past the original design, because there was no though given to anything greater than what was present at the start. As another example, any time a game tries to build inter class dependencies, the true result is total dependence upon a certain class, and resentment built up against classes perceived as needed.

The basic philosophy the game would follow includes the following areas, and because Logan and I share these views, they are constantly present throughout all areas of the game, not just in the obvious references given. Summaries of the various ideals follow, along with a brief description of how they have effected this document. If the entire document was lost, these guiding principles would permit the reconstruction of something that would basically be identical to this document in every significant measurement, without actually being the same document.

Trade offs

The most important philosophy present in the game is the simple fact that everything needs to be a trade off. Sadly, there are very few games where this is even given consideration. This shows up in games with a loot spiral, where they next uber loot is dropped off mobs so ridiculously powered, that only the guilds that conquered the previous boss mob even stand a chance. It also shows up in games where people achieve the "best" and then quit, because there is no more to achieve.

The game described in this document has great potential to trap people into its spider web of addiction for long periods of time, simply because of this issue along. If there is no absolute best, how can a player that is motivated by achieving the best stop playing? There will be endless player discussions, with great merit on all sides, over which is the best item to use overall, simply because there really is no answer. The trade off effect pops up in housing, as well. You simply cannot build the biggest castle you can afford, you have to consider your income, and build what you can maintain. Yes, this is an economic trade off, but it works, and it adds depth to the game.

Even skills are forced through this system, because players must decide to maintain several high quality skills, or attempt to have a greater arsenal. This concept is more radical than it sounds at first. Most games with a skill tree have a geometric progression, and could technically be called a trade off, however what they lack is the fact that a good offense always translated to a better chance "to hit". In this game, having the best catapults in the game will prove overwhelming against the group that went for massive fortifications, yet at the same time, relatively useless against someone with a massive cavalry force modeled on the Mongols.

Even GM handouts for quests/events would consist of a trade off. The item might be very powerful, but with the drawback of expensive maintenance to slow its inevitable decay or something that requires a very expensive, hard to preserve component to use it's powers. In all cases the item would be something that anyone would want, but after using for a while lose potency, or become such a burden as to no longer be worth using.

The Ability to affect the World

The next principle that this game holds fundamental, is the ability of the players to influence the world around them. This has the ability of making players stick around longer, because they have something concrete (perhaps even literally, hehe) that is theirs to point to and admire. Because of the fact that we are all about a trade off, the ability to build comes with the ability to destroy. Initially, destruction would hold more of an attraction than building, because it is easier, and because it has a more immediate effect on the world. Chopping down a forest, leaving a barren landscape might appeal to some people, especially those longing to prove their power.

This is where the trade offs come in to play. First, in a global sense, resources must regenerate in an appropriate amount. If forest is stripped from "civilized" lands, a decision needs to be made, do we want forest to crop up elsewhere to maintain a certain percentage of forestland. If the forest does not recover, you can bet you will have a forest free world before too long. This is artificial, but within the game's philosophy totally expected.

Another artificial construct forced on the game by its philosophy, is that player made structures cost more to destroy, than to build. This was put in, so that it requires a conscious decision to destroy a building, rather than merely a desire to see it burn. The ability to negatively impact the landscape is a great ability, but for gameplay reasons needs to be restricted.

The final concession to the computer gods in reference to this is that some changes might "go away" when left alone with no observers. For instance, if a player should dig a ditch in an area, and leave it, after a certain time with no players within sight of it, the ditch might just vanish. This would not happen, if the ditch was continuously watched by a player, and would only be done in order to limit the amount of memory in game to preserve the player made artifacts. It also is a nice replacement for the forces of nature causing the ditch to fill in, become overgrown with weeds, and eventually vanish, as it might in real life.

The Pursuit of Fun

Finally, the last guiding principle of the game design presented here is that the game is meant to allow people the "pursuit of fun". This does not mean that every aspect of the game will be fun, it only means that the ability to have fun is there. By actually making the tradeskills useful, and putting in true tradeoffs so that Joe Dragonkiller isn't also the best tailor in the world, we have created a lot more niches in the game than are usually found. By making the game one large world, without levels, we have eliminated the problem of not being able to group with friends that get on the game at different times, even months or years after each other.

The pursuit of fun, allows everyone to try and find something they enjoy, without having a huge penalty for choosing wrong. The ability for the power gamers to progress into the fearsome warriors and battle wizards they desire, at the same time as the stay at home tradeskiller to seek refuge in the safety of a town, to practice their trade leaves everyone happy. The PvP rules being determined by land ownership allows for many people to avoid something they dislike, and allow the hard core seekers of PvP bloodshed to raid each others towns, and have fun doing so.