PBBG RPGs
So I have been looking for about the last month for a pbbg rpg that can captivate me the way torncity did when it was first released. And to date I have failed. I have found Renaissance Kingdoms, which is really good, but isn’t active enough.
There are also a few beta’s that I have been playing in hope that they will head in a direction that I think would be good, but I’m not their developer so God knows where they are heading. What has really been annoying me is all these games that clone other’s and claim to be original. Or the games that are so poorly laid out or so poorly executed, such as description and pace for the players.
“What don’t you make one” people have said to me before. Well I am.
And while I want to play my game, I know exactly everything that will happen. I want to place some one else’s game. I am waiting for Cameron’s Perenthia. From what I have read about it know his blog it looks promising.
But I am going to list my biggest qualms with PBBG RPGs. Please, feel free to debate these points with me. The only way will be ever come up with the best solutions is if we have someone play the devil advocate just to punch hole’s so we can fix them. But anyways, online the list.
- Interactivity
- Pace
- Freedom
- Depth
- Balanced
Interactivity
This is something I have been preaching since I first started discussing web games online. This is a wide category and applies to player communication to player interaction with npc’s or stores or guilds or even other players.
Pace
I have signed up for far too many games where just during the registration process you are presented with about fifty options about your character without links to information about these choices. Take it slow, and walk the player through everything, explaining it all clearly. Especially if you can only have one char and it’s a continuous game. You also need to explain what kind of game play the player should be expecting before having them develop a character.
Freedom
This is more than just giving the players the ability to play outside the boundaries of the game (such as forum based guilds and the such). But to give the player the option to do anything (to a point) that they desire. Say I’m making a RPG that’s surrounds marketing, I would give players options such as steal other peoples goods, the means to give them a bad rep, maybe an option to taint the others goods, to work with other merchants, to create/sell goods as a group. etc etc. Allow the player to choose their alignment and play to it.
Depth
This is something a lot of web games lack and the main reason is development time to add a high level of depth is huge. But we are at the point where players are expecting more from us. But for an explain, quests. Some games will only let you train 4 stats with only one way to train. Or give you 20 quests and after that nothing is left but to train. There needs to be more than just player interaction to give people back to play the game.
Balanced
This is something stat based games have a big problem with. People find the single way to become the strongest and they all follow it. What needs to be done is to have several ways for characters to develop and allow each path to have special skills that set them apart from other paths, but all their skills are relatively equal.
Also making sure there is more than one way to achieve the goal so not all players follow the path the exact same way is important. You want your players to feel special and unique, and an easy way to achieve that is to allow characters to develop in a multitude of ways.
I’m sorry it took me so long to get this out. I have been ridicously busy over the last 2 weeks with attempting to get time in to development my own game and my gf and mine birthdays and she’s moving to university soon 
I hope to next week right a similar article about strategy games. I’m sure you guys have realized that my main focus is strat’s and rpg’s.
Again, I would like to have some debated started about the points I made. As I said, if we don’t analysis and even be the devil’s advocate we start to miss or overlook things.
Cameron said,
August 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Waiting for my game! Hope I can live up to expectations
I would add repetitive actions to that list. I hate having to do that same thing over and over just to increase my level, wealth, etc. I want to be able to embark on different quests, etc. in order to level up and just run around killing stuff when I feel like it.
Interactivity:
I’ve tried to focus a lot on player interactivity but if the game is not fun to play solo then I feel like all the interactivity in the world is not enough.
Pace:
I feel like most people want to start playing something right away and develop their characters as they go. Certain choices such as name, race and gender should be selected from the get go but getting the player into the game as quickly as possible I think lends more weight.
Also, different players will play your game at different paces according to their available time and what they game offers in terms of playability.
Overall though, setting the internal game pace so that the story evolves and flows is probably going to remain one of the most difficult aspects of RPGs, at least, story driven RPGs.
Freedom:
Giving too much freedom to a player can provide you with maintenance nightmares and security holes. Freedom within the game is great but every system has to have some rules in place in order to govern it. In real life people can say and do anything they want but when you have to program a response that ability for players to have absolute freedom becomes virtually impossible.
Depth:
I am a supporter of deep games myself and as long as the storyline drives it, creating layers within the game to provide alternate paths of advancement is a fun concept. I have actually tried to add some of this into Perenthia, we’ll see how it works.
Balance:
I would agree here in that all games need to provide balance in the economy, skills, spells, etc. What is the purpose of having boat loads of skills or spells if only a few actually provide real power, why not just have a few?
Anyway, those are my thoughts, I’m all for someone playing the devil’s advocate, I certainly don’t do that enough while building my own games.
engtech said,
August 30, 2007 at 3:50 pm
What is PBBG? Play by browser game?
bardicknowledge said,
August 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm
a pbbg is a persistent browser based game.
http://www.pbbg.org/
There is the definition / origin of the term.
And I’m not ignoring you Cameron
I just haven’t had the time to sit down and right a full reply. Hopefully I’ll have time tonight.
Sara said,
September 1, 2007 at 12:03 am
Hello, all! I have an interest in PBBGs… both playing them (if only I could find one that I like well enough!) and also making better ones (collaboratively, if at all possible). I have the ideas and some coding and artistic ability, but that’s about it. I have no knowledge of database integration, etc.
But, I digress. The PBBG that I have found most to my liking so far is http://www.human-age.com. (I tried signing up for Renaissance Kingdoms as well, but got frustrated when I couldn’t receive an activation e-mail). The main problems with Human Age, IMHO, is that there is too little gameplay. It’s a five to 15-minute per day game, max… even if you pay for premium items. However, it’s the closest thing to “what I’m looking for” in a PBBG (other than my unimplemented ideas, of course!) that I’ve found so far.
bardicknowledge said,
September 1, 2007 at 2:19 am
So I’m going to attempt to kind of play the devils advocate here Cameron.
Solo play: Why does the game need to have fun solo play? The purpose, I think many people play pbbg’s is not to play by themselves but with everyone else that is on the server. The foremost of a developers attention should be on multiplayer and ensuring that players can work together in fun and creative ways.
Solo play, such as stat training or item creation should be one of the last things designed since the core focus of the game should always be around the multiplayer.
**NOTE** I do not believe that. As stated, playing devils advocate to get some discussion going on.
I don’t think I can really argue pace with you. While we want to get the players into the game quickly, we need to let them build the character the way they want. But if we let them do this all at sign up, which I dislike, the character creation pace must be slowed down to explain.
If we were on the other hand to just let them pick a race with the obvious racial differences during creation and gave everyone a base stat and let the play mod it during the first 5 levels to meet their style of play, that would be great. Note: use that system just described in RPG.
Freedom: This is what is currently holding the genre back (this is believe). Players in many games do not have enough options or ways to play the game. This just doesn’t exist in PBBGs but in MMORPGS such as WoW or GWs. I know it is a coders nightmare, but this is where games in the next few years will start to stand out I think. We already have great tech on our side. We have pushed it. We now need to move our game design ahead with our tech practices and make it more involved, more complex, but without losing the player in it’s complexity.
Depth: I’m not going to argue but add. Depth just doesn’t need to be story driven plots. It can be player driven with guilds and the ability to war. I’ve played only one game where guild fighting was so intense and political it was actually just fun to read about the events in the forums. Let the players drive the game in part. It is really their world. We just create it for them.
Balance: Can’t argue. Things have to be balanced for it will fall apart.
I await your responses Cameron. And anyone else that wishes to step up. I’ve been thinking of starting a wiki were we, after an discussion such as this, put the agreed upon development plan/cycle in.
Also, thoughts on the new layout? I find these colors far more appealing, and just the post layout makes me feel better.
Cameron said,
September 4, 2007 at 2:44 am
** Keeping this friendly, hard to convey that in type
Solo play IS important, if you are new to the game you are not automatically going to have a bunch of friends you can play with. Interacting with others increases the depth and enjoyment of the game but when starting out new players need a quick path to get them playing and they can meet other folks along the way.
I agree with on the freedom aspect but still have to say that all worlds have rules, even our real world, such as physics, etc. I know I will continue to struggle personally with giving players freedoms because I am a programmer. I will have to wait and see how people play and what they want.
I think overall having a player driven game is the way to go, where all the focus is enabling players to interact with one another and effect the overall game world through that interaction. I just hope I can pull off some of this stuff.
I like these discussions, they get me thinking outside of my little programming box.
bardicknowledge said,
September 4, 2007 at 6:19 pm
**It’s hard to play the devils side and not side like an ass online eh? lol
I don’t think I can talk for the devil any more on solo play. I do agree that solo play is an important factor in games (mainly strategy I think), but in a RPG environment, without player interaction , and not just “battling” but actual communication and cooperation, the game simply becomes boring.
When designing a RPG, I that the majority of the focus should be spent on multiplayer, but if you can’t make a player feel like they actually have control over their character (solo play), they won’t want to play either. So designers need to find the balance of multi to solo time spent playing the game.
I think anywhere from 65/35 (multi/solo) to 85/15 would be good ratio. Too much multi to cause the player to be left feeling like their character is meaningless in the over arching scheme of the game ( I think/feel). And too little solo makes the player feel isolated from the world and have nothing to really compare their character to, eliminating the sense of growth which is at the core of RPGs.
Cameron said,
September 5, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I do agree with you on player interaction, that is what made the old pen and paper games so fun!
xalthorn said,
September 6, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Hello folks,
I can’t help throwing my own two penneth into this discussion. I’ll try to stem the flow of text and keep my comments brief. However, I usually fail
Interaction
At the beginning of the game, especially for a first character on a newly registered account, I don’t feel that there should be much player interaction.
Players need time to understand what is going on and understand the environment they have joined.
Some people will be happy to read help files, others will want to be shown, possibly by going through an NPC based introduction quest/process.
Initially though, jumping in the middle of a game where there are established players can serve to confuse or scare the new player.
Having said that, I have seen player communities actively help the newbie (please accept the distinction between newbie and n00b) to make their life more comfortable until they find their feet.
But this relies on helpful players being around at the time. I just feel that the initial period should be one where the player is guided by the game until they feel comfortable to enter the game ‘proper’.
The key phrase of course is ‘until they feel comfortable’. If they have read the associated help files, or have a friend who has explained the game, they should also be able to skip this guidance. No point delaying or frustrating a player who is keen to just jump in regardless.
Once the game has started ‘proper’, I feel that the game should fully support the solo player, having the multiplayer aspect add a new dimension to the game without ruining the game for the single player.
My main gripe with online games is non-optional PvP. Many players don’t want to do PvP, will not attack another player, but yet the game allows other players to attack them and interrupt or ruin their game.
Psychologically, PvP can be devastating. I would champion any game that has a well thought out and established optional PvP system, based in an area out of the way of non PvP players. Arenas, battlegrounds, etc are all perfectly possible and keep the PvP players happy whilst not interfering with the solo players.
Some people like to play by themselves, quietly poddling along and treating the game as a locally installed version, not wanting to interact. These players should not be penalised for this view.
The game mechanics should allow for both solo and multi play, not requiring or forcing the player into one or other. The solo game should be fun to play, the multi game should simply add more to the game, breaking the barrier of solo play and giving people the pleasure of playing a game in a group.
Of course, the definition of interaction is vague. It could simply mean that there are chat channels and trade possibilities between players. It could also mean joining forces and playing the game as a group.
Player communication should always exist in online games. There is no excuse not to. However, the individual player should be able to decide whether they use the communications. Also, the communications can vary from a message system, forums, or even chat.
Pace
I agree that the game should start off with few visible features/screen clutter. Players need to learn things in a sensible order, unlocking new features as they need them.
This can also be done with a guide/tutorial system. Also, if the system allows players to skip the guide, it should also unlock all of the features that the guide would have unlocked.
The game should also have a sensible progression curve. Initially, players will want to feel a sense of achievement. Even if they aren’t aware of the full scale of the achievements available. When they progress further into the game, they will learn and appreciate the achievements and be prepared to take longer to achieve them.
But a player shouldn’t be thrown through initial levels/achievements too quickly, gaining feature after feature faster than they can cope with. I’ve seen games where the player is taken from level 1 to level 5 in a matter of minutes. Why not simply start the character at level 5 if levels 1-4 are so unimportant.
Freedom
The player should be able to play their character how they want ‘within the confines and rules of the game’. They should also not be able to detrimentally affect the game of another player unless that is part of the game itself.
The freedom of action should be planned at the design stage. Think about the games you have played in your chosen genre. What you liked, what you wished you could do, etc. Make sure you put all of the viable things into your design.
Depth
This is closely linked with pace. No matter how deep your game is, someone will get there. You have to be careful not to keep adding content to satisfy the older characters as the new characters may find the depth daunting and wonder how they will ever catch up with the others.
Having said that, obviously you want a certain amount of depth from the start. You don’t want a game that someone can complete in a week. You need to either adjust the pace or make it deeper.
Look at your game, see what can be achieved with it and forecast how quickly someone can get there. Also, look at whether these achievements create an ‘end game’ situation where the player can advance no further and has no reason to keep playing. If that is the case, there is something seriously wrong with the design.
Depth in the sense of peripheral achievements/systems is sometimes called the metagame aspect of a game. Players will always find ways to make a game more interesting.
Some ways are to complete a quest/dungeon/task as fast as possible, complete tasks with certain penalties, and so on.
This works really well in games like Fable where you can take ‘boasts’ for quests such as ‘take no damage’, ‘fight without weapons’ and so on. If you are successful in your boast you gain more exp or treasure.
Metagames that you control and create add depth to the game, but if you find that your players are creating their own metagames to make the game interesting, you have to ask why they are finding the game boring in the first place.
Grinding
A phrase that refers to the mindless repetition of tasks to advance your character somehow in the game.
Players are starting to accept this more and more as ‘part of the genre’, but why?
I play Dofus and that game has a serious amount of grinding. I do it because I have to, but I resent paying to ‘work’ online rather than play.
Closing
Oops, as usual I’ve waffled on and written far more than I think I should have….
Sorry.
bardicknowledge said,
September 6, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Thank you for your comments. Don’t worry about writing too much… we won’t hold it against you
So I would like address a few things you have mentioned in your post, some I agree with, others, not so much. But if we agreed on everything, we’d all be producing the game designs, and that would be boring.
Interaction:
Though I was saying differently in the comments, I do agree with you to a point. Players do need time to grasp the game before they can truly interact with players on a proper level.
But I have played games (and playing one right now for a review) where I’ve played for weeks and I still can’t figure out how to interact with players. But I also refuse to read guides. Games should be able to be learned through menu exploration and common sense.
So having a player be in a newbie mode which they can exit at whim, but limits their growth, is an idea I have played with for some RPG designs.
PVP:
I personally don’t draw a line for where PVP can occur. It can occur anywheres and everywhere. But, there are conditions and consequences that one will have to face. Such as in one I have in mid-design (I’m on a break), you can attack players in the town, but the guards may beat you, or just arrest you.
I see no reason to not include it. I want to give my players all the freedom I can at the start of a game and see what they will do. The world will almost always balance itself out. And if it doesn’t then make tweaks.
Solo:
Solo play depends on the game style. As I said above, I personally go for 65-70% multi and 30-35 % solo play. Thats just me and the style of game I make.
Depth:
Depth is a tricky thing. Especially in rpg. Because to properly achieve this, you need to let the players mold the world. There is a point where the designer will have to step back and let the players create their own part of the game.
You spoke of metagames. Well this is meta-story/history. Guilds/clan/whatever are a great way for this. Guilds allow players to interact in new ways with each other and can develop develop their own style of things and history.
I am trying to build the closest thing to a living world I have been able to imagine for a multiplayer rpg. As far as I can tell, something like this hasn’t really be done before.
Grinding:
I don’t build games that require grinding. The option will exist, but I refuse to make it necessary. I try my damnedest to reproduce table top roleplaying.
You used fable as an example earlier and I will do the same. Did you grind in that game? No. You did quests. The same applies for all D&D pc games. This is what I want to reproduce for the web.
I hope this piqued your interest enough to reply again. And I hope that everyone else that read it will voice their opinion ^^
xalthorn said,
September 6, 2007 at 7:34 pm
you’re right. If we agreed on everything, only one person would ever need to post an opinion
However, I have also been known to change my opinion after a good discussion
Game guides
I also agree that game guides should not be an essential part of learning, but they should always exist. Also, I never intended exiting a newbie mode to limit your growth. Simply that it would lead the player by the hand through the basic understanding of the game.
I don’t like games where the first few levels are a forced walkthrough. The walkthrough should teach you by demonstrating but not confer any bonus over the person who chooses to learn by other methods.
PvP
I have played many games where PvP is fully allowed and there are inbuilt guards or labels (playerkiller, murderer, etc). However, I’ve yet to find one that works.
Despite my general hatred of free PvP, one idea I’m working on is a game with as much freedom of self control as possible given to the players. One aspect of this is player run civilisations. As such, the policing of these areas will be up to the players.
The stronger players would earn and take positions of responsibility, having to be the ones to do most of the policing. In other words, they maintain the peace in their cities for the smaller players to feel safe in.
I’m well aware that many players absolutely love PvP (usually the younger ones) but I’ve seen too many hide behind the game mechanics for safety with no real threat apart from being killed by another player (if there is one to challenge).
PvP would be better controlled I think if there was a real socio economic penalty for doing it out of character or out of the adopted world rules.
I won’t go into too many details now, but you should get the general gist of it.
Solo vs Group
I agree that as with all game designs, the balance of these two is up to the game designer and is something that should never become an absolute value. I just try and make sure that the solo player is able to progress as far as a group player.
Depth
Player inspired depth is a good thing and can certainly add life to a game that may otherwise be rather dull. I played inselkampf for a couple of years and the inter alliance element was the main thing that kept the interest going for the established players.
As I’ve already hinted at, I am also working towards a very dynamic and modular game. However, due to it’s complexity it isn’t one I shall be finishing any time soon
My interest has certainly been piqued. It seems to be very hard to find an active … community to discuss such things.
Cameron said,
September 6, 2007 at 8:35 pm
PvP
I have personally never enjoyed PvP, but I am also old so I guess that accounts for it.
I have planned to incorporate PvP into my game, just haven’t decided yet how I want to do it. I was thinking of giving the player the option to participate in PvP once they reach a certain level and then only allow it outside of the cities. I also am toying with the idea of “safe” PvP in an arena where players who do not want to opt for out all PvP can still fight other players but the results would be gold and special items instead of the loser being subjected to the winner’s strip searching, which occurs in some games.
Grinding
I have also played Fable and found it to have some fun play aspects but it did have a lot of grinding. I found myself doing the same things over and over, just in different landscapes. Some people enjoy that though so I don’t want to completely remove it but I am trying to provide some more apealing quests, that may only result in knowledge of some kind or a reward without killing a boss monster. We’ll see what happens with that.
xalthorn said,
September 6, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I’m no spring chicken myself… it might explain my attitude towards pointless and downright aggressive PvP (no pun intended).
My personal preference for PvP is the arena/challenge system where players actively opt into a limited period of PvP.
It allows players to posture and pose, gaining reputation etc. without interfering with other players.
I’m also well aware of indirect PvP techniques thanks to my time as a MUD implementor many many (far too many) years ago.
I caught people PKing by summoning players to dangerous areas and looting their corpses, summoning monsters to their victim, and many other methods.
I guess these underhand methods are one of the reasons I hate involuntary PvP. Far too often, players who PvP are bullies and will only attack people much weaker than themselves.
I am also aware that there are people who PvP with a story or reason behind it, but they are rare.
xalthorn said,
September 6, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Hmm, I seem to be overly concentrating on PvP. Whilst it is obviously my biggest gripe, I need to stop with the soap box before I end up dragging people around in circles on the subject
I think it’s safe to say that PvP in some form or other should exist in games, the amount of involvement a player should expect should also be made clear before they get too far in the game though.
To move on, one of my big concerns with persistent games is the ‘fat cat syndrome’. Established players will usually sit pretty at the top of the rankings being almost untouchable by other players. And if the game allows, they will swat anyone who looks as though they might rival them.
The behaviour of the fat cats is completely dependant on the personality of the player and what risk is posed to their character should anyone get close to them.
I was wondering what people’s views were on the longevity of games and the maxxing out of characters. What can/is/should be done, if anything, to prevent such a situation.
Cameron said,
September 6, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I’ve been running through the same scenarios myself in regards to players reaching the highest level, or the end of the game for most of them. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to offer new content or new worlds the players can enter once they max out where the challenges would require a maxed out player. I haven’t nailed down all the details yet but these are my initial thoughts:
Create an area/world/island that only the highest level players can go to to face new monsters and new quests. Maybe have them invent or discover new technologies and any quests they complete can advance them further or just get posted where everyone can see, something along those lines.
I mean, you want players to become fat cats but also don’t want them to unbalance the game so it is something that will probably have to be tested via the old trial and error method, which is how I do mostly everything in life…
This is a great discussion by the way!
Xalthorn said,
September 7, 2007 at 12:04 pm
One of the biggest problems with the fat cats is that they constantly demand more cream (content).
Satisfying this demand has its good and bad points.
On the one hand, by creating content, your loyal established players are not left stagnating which means that they will likely remain loyal as they are being respected and rewarded (not all fat cats are evil).
On the other hand, you have to be careful not to increase the overall power of the game by simply adding more and more higher level items and rewards.
This will cause a situation where everyone is racing to get to the high level content because it is so amazing. This will create a void in your low level playerbase, not to mention widen the gulf between a low level and higher level character which would simply increase the fat cat effect.
Also, if time is taken to create new high level content, it may take valuable development time away from the creation of low and mid level content.
With my current project (first to be dealt with in a rather long queue), I am keeping track of the amount of content in the game and at what level it applies to in an attempt to ensure content is maintained at all levels.
Naturally, when the game goes live and a player base is established, there will be different concentrations of players at different levels. The new content will have to be adapted to suit the greatest need at the time. I just hope my cunning plan to deal with the fat cat syndrome actually works, otherwise the concentration of players will be top heavy after a while and leave me back at square one.
And yes, it’s a great discussion
bardicknowledge said,
September 7, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I feel your pain when dealing with fat cats. Too many times have I played a game where the top players simply can’t be touched and do whatever they please.
I’ve also thought about sending them to a different ‘world’ but I do and don’t like that idea. I like it because it keeps players in places where their skills are relatively equal. I don’t like it because you are splitting up your community into sections.
I think the best solution for what I’m designing is to offer such a huge selection of skills and abilities that no one person could master them all. I’m looking at offering about 20 abilities in the game I’m designing and a player may master two within a year. This would support player diversity and suppress the fat cat problem by making it so no one player can really be the master of everything.
I really feel the fat cat syndrome is a problem that arises when designers only take into consideration the first 6 months of a game. If a game is well planned out and is expecting that players will grow very strong they can create ‘blocks’ that will slow not the development of players but their advancements. So say there is a point in the game where instead of doing higher and more powerful quests, players can choose to expand maybe into another class or work on different skills such as potion making or hunting.
Xalthorn said,
September 7, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I would advise caution when you start setting targets that you feel will be unreachable for many years. I’ve seen developers do this before thinking ‘no-one will get there for a while so we don’t have to worry about the details yet’.
Some bright spark will work out how to get there quickly, or people will start looking into ways to automate your game (more so than normal).
I’m not suggesting you are being as short sighted as that, but I raise it anyway.
Also, if it will take six months to a year to master an ability I would ask whether the abilities are still effective before that.
The reason I ask is because in Dofus, professions take a very long time to master (level 100). The lower levels still have a chance of success, but in the case of the craft professions, people rarely ask for anyone other than a level 100. This causes frustration for the crafter as they need to craft to level and they simply won’t get paid work, they have to provide all the resources themselves.
It’s the main gripe about the game, the fact that you are paying subscription fees to work as you try to level your profession.
Also, please bear in mind that I have no idea how your ability system works and how important it is to master one. Hopefully it’s completely different to Dofus
Cameron said,
September 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I had that happen to me on an older game of mine. I thought to myself “no one will get this high for a while”. Two months later someone had maxed themselves out, quite an eye opener for me and a huge blow to my ego since I thought I was being clever.
A lot of stuff I am trying to do now is new for me and will probably require a lot of trial and error but if any of it works hopefully I will be able to keep fresh content in the game.
Xalthorn said,
September 7, 2007 at 4:03 pm
It’s an extremely hard thing to get right. If you make it non time dependant then people will simply grind away and achieve it.
If you make it time dependant, people may get frustrated by the forced delay.
The cardinal sin is making some progressions time based and some non. A classic example of this is Everonia. There are six professions there (only five of which are implemented) and of these five, three can be levelled as fast as you can click, and the other two are limited to either once per hour or once per day.
I’ve made numerous comments on the game’s forums but so far the balance isn’t being addressed.
Matty.B said,
September 11, 2007 at 1:46 am
Hey all… Just found this site with a google search… Why am i here?
To ask around and see if there is anyone willing to help me to create a New PBBG (meaning its not about gangsters, medieveil times, ninjas etc) It’s basicly a game that a mate and i are making into a Board Game (not played on the net lol)
We basicly wanted to also create a version to be played o nthe internet.. So far looking through MANY PBBG/RPG games i have found (samuraioflegend.com) to be basicly what i want (has all the features and the layout is perfect!)
If someone could get back to me over email or msn my contact details are.. mattyb.vlexo.staff {at} msn {dot} com
Cheers for taking the time to read this… Oh and i am willing to pay!
David said,
August 7, 2008 at 2:53 pm
try Muelsfell (http://muelsfell.com) or MagicDuel (http://magicduel.com) pretty unique games along with a nice community in each, I’m pretty new to these games too but they’re both awesome!
Good Luck !!
zombiepandemic said,
August 9, 2008 at 8:06 am
You might want to check out our game currently in development: http://www.zombiepandemic.com. Hopefully we will be able to offer all the aspects you ask for!
Cheers
Biggest_Baddest_Wolf said,
May 18, 2009 at 4:59 pm
There is a game called Cantr, found at http://www.cantr.net, that has been going strong for years.
It’s basically text-only, with ability to create items and travel from location to location, even from island to island.
That’s about all that’s coded, gameplay-wise, that and the animals you hunt or that hunt you.
Beyond that there is no set goal, players simply play out their characters and develop them like real people would develop in the real world.
Some build cities, some dwell the wilderness, basically anything goes as long as it doesn’t upset the rest of the player base.
This basically makes it free-form roleplaying in a persistent world that constantly develops.
Cantr is a great game, but it does have some setbacks.
Still, it’s the single best pbbrpg that I’ve encountered, where things are done in a sort of semi-real-time.
Semi-real-time because obviously not everyone is online at the same time, sometimes it could even take days before you get an answer from another player’s character.
Apart from Cantr, there were once many free-form forum-based rpg’s where players ended up building a persistent world.
Were, because over the last five years I’ve seen all those forum-based games that I knew, take a dive.
They went the same way as the plethora of MUD’s before them.
And there’s another thing to mention… many MUD’s turned into free-form persistant worlds where players provided the gameworld with history, structures, lands, factions and whatnot.
But alass, the great ones fell, overrun by a flood of games that call themselves RPG’s or pbbg’s but essentially are nothing more than yet another “build army, buy weapons, research tech, build bigger army”-game, or “raise stats, buy better weapon, defeat weaker player, raise stats further, buy even better weapon”-games.