The OverSeer (DM_Player)

Hmmmmm..... interesting concept. I'm not sure how well this would fit into Elemental though. You would essentially be having to trust some individual to be impartial in all things. What would there be in place to stop the overseer/DM/GM from favoring a given player in multiplayer, or from just setting out to screw over all player?

I also don't think it would fit well due to the length of time that some of these Elemetal games. I've not seen any mention yet of how long a game could last, but judging by GalCiv, some games could take days to complete. Personally speaking I wouldn't want to be stuck in this role for that long. I think it could get quite boring quite quickly.

Third and finally, I'd point out that Elemental is a TBS whereas Neverwinter was real time if I'm not much mistaken. Either the overseer or the players could end up sitting around waiting for quite some time while the other completes their turn.

Just my take on the idea though. I'm interested to hear others thoughts.

Well of course you'd have to trust the Overseer(DM)... the same as you would within Neverwinter Nights or the same as within a Dungeons&Dragons board game.  With great power comes great responsibility. 

The great part about the Overseer(DM) role is the game can continue without him watching every turn.  The players would not be aware when the Overseer(DM) would be present or making changes unless the Overseer desired to be recognized by sending messages to the players or playing the 3rd party merchants guild, etc., etc., .  Thus for games which may take even months to complete the Overseer(DM) may choose to only appear when it meets his schedule or when one of the players sends an email requesting investigation, fixing terrain/structure bugs, map expansion, etc., .

As I mentioned earlier the Overseer(DM) does not have to play every turn within a game.  The Overseer(DM) can walk away setting his position in sleep mode where regular gameplay continues.  No real restrictions... only opportunities for increasing the games replay value.

I'm actually against this.  AT least for the normal game (maybe for a mod or something thats fine, in fact it could be pretty cool).

I mean, I'm all about the RPG elements, but if it gets to the point where there should be an overseer/GM player, then its gone too far.  When I sit down to my strategy game, thats what I want.  A bit of RPG 'topping' adds flavor, but if I wanted to play neverwinter nights, I would...   About the closest I'd be willing to go is just to have a master AI (see Left 4 Dead for example) that does it for me.  If you assigned a human player to it, then I think that would be diverting dev time away from features that I feel would add more to the game.  (of course to each their own opinion, but there's mine)

This would be just perfect for an alternate mode of the game, just like how L4D has Versus.

Just off the top of my head there are two ways you could have fun with this:

1. 7vs1: Every player starts out with a modest civilizations, they are all allied in one unbreakable alliance. Opposing them is "god", one (optional!) player who directs (but does not control) a supremely powerful AI civilization. The object of the game is for the 7 allied players to unite and defeat the AI.

2. Dungeon master: Just like a normal game of multiplayer elemental. The only difference is that a single "ghost" player has complete control over random events and the quest based victory objectives.

Actually the Overseer(DM/GM) is optional for those seeking something new in their gameplay or perhaps looking to have a single game extended and expanded thus providing more of a campaign experience.  This feature is not really RPG_ish... but more of an indirect player who adds fun and fixes game issues... more of a neutral god.  You may desire to play the Overseer(DM/GM) if after a year some friends and relatives wish to try the game for the first time.... since you would have a significant skill advantage it's probably best their first game has you in the background helping to provide fun as the Overseer.

In regards to the amount of Dev time...  currently for most games the developers use command switches which enable specific cheats and/or logging.  This suggestion merely has them move the majority of command cheat switches as active under one player who's not really part of the game.   In many ways this would help not only developers test AI opponents and independents, but also the gamers without having to use the typical command switches.

Besides the new gameplay value this feature would be priceless for anyone creating a new race who wishes to identify if the race is properly balanced, if the custom AI script is properly expanding, defending and attacking correctly, etc., etc., . 

These are perfect examples of how the Overseer(DM/GM) can add replay value.   

well, I mean are you really saying you'd want things to be placed on the map in real time?   L4D has versus, but its hardly giving the player control of the master AI, in fact, quite the opposite, its giving the master AI more control of the player (forcing them to change characters and respawn as tank and so on)

I'm not saying its a bad idea, I'm just saying it doesn't really sound like...   this game.     I mean, if something is going to be added to the map, I want it to be an event or something like that.  I don't think the story/events should be designed for human control, it just seems like the wrong direction for me.   I especially think it would downplay some of what the players have to deal with as being channelers.   By putting the world in the hands of another player, it changes the scale that the channelers would have be working to achieve. I can't speak much for what exactly Stardock wants players to 'feel' when they are put behind the reins of a channeler, but if they want the world of elemental to feel alive and mysterious they can't allow it to be just another player.

I'd be down for giving a player control over all the neutral factions, random mobs, and such as that, but I'd imagine it to be really boring for them since they'd loose half the game. 

GM players create a very different atmosphere from AI or mechanical opposition.   Look at board games like Decent (GM player) vs.  Arkham horror (mechanics opposing).   The way the end goal is viewed by the players is very very different, and not just because you loose arkham horror half the time, its because no matter how tough the enemy is, when it becomes another player it takes away its fangs and leaves it entirely to the players to put them back.   (and lets not even get into superiority complexes created by being allowed to play the GM in such games.  I've stopped playing certain games with too many friends because of this effect)

There was a really good interview with some blizzard devs about why the introduced the burning legion in warcraft 3 for the reason (its where I get the metaphor 'fangs' to represent player respect, since they talked about how they didn't want the burning legion defanged by letting them be playable.), sadly I can't find it among the crap that is most WoW story content and interviews.

(sorry to any WoW fans, just my opinion, take it as nothing more.  I will stand by the fact that WoW has destroyed the eredar and the burning legion's image created by warcraft 3, but talk with me about it elsewhere.  I'm just using the example)

Well just like within Neverwinter Nights this is an optional setting... and the Overseer(DM/GM) could play one of many roles which has been agreed upon by all players.  This role might include purely correcting and addressing game bugs such as a broken structure which needs to be deleted and recreated  or  a square of lava which appeared in the middle of an ocean or an independent unit stuck in a corner of the map.   Another role might be to expand the world map once the first part of a game has been completed introducing a new larger realm with new enemies allowing you to keep your current land, places, champions and players...  thus literally creating sequels to a novel.  Another role might be to monitor the game balance of a newly created race or the game balance of a newly created map.  The list goes on and on... for the ways it can be not only fun but helpful.

The Overseer(DM/GM) has never been boring for any of the games I've played where this position was available.  The greatest part of this being within a PC game is that the Overseer(DM/GM) can be as active or inactive as desired... but the main focus should always be knowing the other players are having fun.  Naturally the Overseer(DM/GM) can choose to provide players with a different atmosphere otherwise not available, but a different atmosphere only adds replay value.  The role of the Overseer can play many different levels which should be agreed upon by all players.

I never played warcraft3 or WoW since I have not been impressed with Blizzard during the last 4 years.  Personally upset about the limited map size details I heard about warcraft3.  If the players agreed the Overseer would be controlling some of the AI decisions/actions then it would provide a new experience... and once the Overseer became skilled and wise using the unlimited Overseer powers it would provide all players a good experience. 

Well, that kinda goes without saying.   I imagine that role is often the 1st thing to be cut from almost any project in which it MIGHT be playable since it takes so much time to properly create.  Its hard to give bad published examples, but I've had enough rapid game prototyping to tell you when you do come accross a bad example, it does leave a bad taste in your mouth.   It isn't even that the GM role is not fun, more over it is just apparent how broken a system really is (especially with the wrong person in the driver seat).  I mean, you really can't cut any corners, which is something you sadly need to do once in a while to actually have a playable product out sometime in the decade that its announced *cough*dukenukumforever*cough*, and pretty much all forms of media have that point where the write/artist/animator says 'its done!' without giong back and adding or fixing something that might make it better.

Really what it comes to be is when it adds reply value, at what cost?   its hard to even say when just looking at it on paper, since its one of those 'looks good on paper' kinds of ideas.  so I'm reserving further judgement on the subject until I get my teeth into a beta to see what the game IS like before I'm going to make any further assumtions about what it is going to be like.

I estimate if this idea becomes a reality it could start as something simple where the Overseer(DM/GM) is only able to view the whole map and any battles... which would help gamers testing newly created races.  Then over time it can gradually evolve with more control such as being able to add/delete units, structures, weather and terrain... then eventually being able to expand an existing map and create upcoming events.... and finally being able to control decisions of AI opponents and independents.  

What's nice about this feature is we can start with something small and the developers can add more control over time.

The beauty of a DM controlled story is that the story ends when the DM says it ends. If the players derail the story and make it crash and burn that doesn't count.

If the quest scripting engine is robust enough the DM could drop down various story conditions during a normal game. There could be a big invasion from another continent and a story based quest to repel it. IE kill the general/head honcho guy of the invading civilization. The player who manages to pull it off gets the prestige of a win but also most of the tech used by the invading force. The DM could then slap down another quest for everyone else who didn't beat the first quest. Steal the technological secrets from player 1 before he can fully unlock them.

Since these things play out in game turns and not real-time the DM doesn't have to be around for the whole thing. In fact it might even be possible to script out the whole thing from the beginning and only intercede to keep things on track.

All this makes me think of the time I was playing everquest 1 and for a very brief time they had introduce the possibility to slip inside as a monster in the game. INstead of playing your hero you click monster and you would spawn as a monster somewhere in the game. This lasted abouta  day and I swear it was the coolest thing that I ever seen in a a game like that.

All this to say that anything that will change your point of view is not a bad thing. Actually it's a really great thing. I would enjoy playing god a once in a while.

Is it possible to implement?: of course

Would it be fun?: For some of course it would be

Should it be done?: Who knows

To quiet everybody fears a simple on/off switch will do the trick for poeple that want it and people would do not want it. Stardock is famous for the way they let us adjust lots and lots of setting in the game. When you create a game put the switch on your desired option and everybody is happy.

My favorite thing about refs in table-based RPGs is that they have the power to 'break the rules well.'

Having a role like than in an online TBS-RPG fusion could definitely draw me in, provided I found a ref whose style I liked. I'm especially intrigued by the idea of a game that could have a ref who did not need to actively work every turn.

I didn't ref real RPGs as much as I played them and doubt I'd want to ref online these days, but hypothetically, I'd be really interested to see what might happen if I built a world, ran some players actively to get them all comfy and 'started,' and then left them alone with the automation for a while. That almost sounds like it could provide a 'whole new game' on account of the radically different user perspective on the engine. Modding is a clear path to deep replayability for many folks, so maybe a ref role for Elemental could open up a slightly different route to increased bang-for-buck.

Exactly. The DM would control the flow of the story. His skill as a DM would be the ability to keep the story going, period, until it reaches is destination. For example the DM says : "the players must move from A to B" and a mountain is in the way. The job of the player is to reach the end of the story and the DM's job is to make the process interesting. When the players say "we dig a tunnel" the DM does NOT say "rocks fall, everyone dies". Not only is that being a jerk but the story is over! The players are unlikely to start again at the beginning.

So instead of being a generic jerk, you can be a Magnificent Bastard.

"Your tunnel strikes water"

Although this has a few legitimate issued from a gaming perspective, it would be SO INCREADIBLY USEFUL from a modding perspective! Of course, this is provided that you can set up a game containing only AI players with yourself as the Overseer, but still... I'd be willing to try it out.