I'm starting to think about homebrewing my own system. Mostly, I blame Trollsmyth's Moldvay/Basic hack, and Amagi Games. 4e coming out had something to do with it, giving me two related but different games to analyze.
And then there's my own sense that, someday, this is something that I'm going to have to do. Like running OD&D, or owning a sword. (And learning to use it, of course, but I've already started that; I have good luck with friends.) Someday I will write a terrible RPG and inflict it upon my friends. This is a law of my universe.
But lately it's moved off the back burners, and started taking up a bit more mental time. Especially since all this talk of cyberpunk started. If I were to start a serious project, now, it would be cyberpunk -- or rather, a fully cyberpunk-embracing version of that specific setting that was my first campaign. It's been on my mind lately, and while there were serious problems with that game I think there's a pretty decent setting there, cleaned up by my semi-adult self.
What's more likely to happen is that I'll use that setting for this year's NaNoWriMo novel (again) and run some D&D instead. Might be better to do another novel with it anyway, to get the setting into some kind of coherent form. (Not like it needs another incarnation -- this is one of my few really deep obsessions, along with D&D and Batman.) I may write up some notes as the mood strikes, but my school could really use some more D&D.
What I really want to know is, why does this have to hit during WoAdWriMo?
Showing posts with label game. Show all posts
Showing posts with label game. Show all posts
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Friday, July 04, 2008
Powerless 4e
The other day, szilard (of Neitherworld Stories) noted that there are lots of character features that aren't powers in 4e. Which got me thinking: is there a game there?
Take out powers and you'd probably have to redesign classes, to give them a tad more distinction, and I'd want to check to see how many to-hit bonuses attack powers have, to make sure the math still works out right.
But with a few adjustments, it'd work. Combat would have to revolve around stunts, but most martial power effects could be reasonably simulated. Magic might be trickier, but I'd probably use this to run something science-fiction-y anyway.
I don't know that there'd be any point, but it's probably possible. It'd definitely depend a lot more on having the right group than straight 4e.
Take out powers and you'd probably have to redesign classes, to give them a tad more distinction, and I'd want to check to see how many to-hit bonuses attack powers have, to make sure the math still works out right.
But with a few adjustments, it'd work. Combat would have to revolve around stunts, but most martial power effects could be reasonably simulated. Magic might be trickier, but I'd probably use this to run something science-fiction-y anyway.
I don't know that there'd be any point, but it's probably possible. It'd definitely depend a lot more on having the right group than straight 4e.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Spore, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
I'm kind of worried about Spore.
There's the standard "it won't live up to the hype" complaint, but few games do, and even if it doesn't it'll probably be pretty awesome. I've enjoyed every other Will Wright/Maxis game I've ever played, so I'm not worried about it not being fun.
What bugs me is -- IGN describes it as an "evolution game." It's not. If anything, it's an intelligent design game. Which doesn't bother me, intrinsically, because it makes a much better, or at least more approachable, foundation for a game.
But I do worry that describing it as an "evolution game" will get people mixed up, or that it's a sign that they're already mixed up. A minor worry, but something I think about.
There's the standard "it won't live up to the hype" complaint, but few games do, and even if it doesn't it'll probably be pretty awesome. I've enjoyed every other Will Wright/Maxis game I've ever played, so I'm not worried about it not being fun.
What bugs me is -- IGN describes it as an "evolution game." It's not. If anything, it's an intelligent design game. Which doesn't bother me, intrinsically, because it makes a much better, or at least more approachable, foundation for a game.
But I do worry that describing it as an "evolution game" will get people mixed up, or that it's a sign that they're already mixed up. A minor worry, but something I think about.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Games I Want To Play
Recently, I wrote a long, rambly list of games I want to run. It's probably incomplete; sometime I'll sit down and write a decent list, with numbers and things. But in that post, I mentioned that I have another list. A much shorter list.
Games I want to play, rather than games I want to run. There's some overlap, but there are also things I want to play that I'd never think about running.
Like horror. I want to play a horror game. I'd have no idea what to do with that, as a GM, but I'd sure like to play in a well-GM'd horror game. Just because it'd be kind of different.
I want to play in a supers game. This one is a point of overlap: I'd also like to run a supers game. I like superheroes.
I want to play an Eberron character. Already mentioned this one.
I want to play something Ocean's Eleven-like. The whole well-laid plan, absurd heist kind of thing. I really enjoyed playing the parts of the Star Wars campaign that were like that, when we would come up with some crazy plan to sneak into some place. Partially because whenever the campaign moved in that direction, my character got to shine, but I really like that kind of character. Lying all the time is fun.
So I'd like to play a game that revolved around that. Like every adventure was a different heist, and either the GM would come up with a bunch of locations and we could decide which one to break into, or the GM would just give us this week's location and we'd break into it. This is another concept I wouldn't want to GM myself; I just really want to play it.
Can't really think of anything else. This is by no means intended as a complete list of things I would play. It's more a list of "things I would play based on concept alone." Other games, I'd play for the people I'm playing with. Normally, I wouldn't play with people I don't know. But any of these games, I would consider joining a group just to play.
Games I want to play, rather than games I want to run. There's some overlap, but there are also things I want to play that I'd never think about running.
Like horror. I want to play a horror game. I'd have no idea what to do with that, as a GM, but I'd sure like to play in a well-GM'd horror game. Just because it'd be kind of different.
I want to play in a supers game. This one is a point of overlap: I'd also like to run a supers game. I like superheroes.
I want to play an Eberron character. Already mentioned this one.
I want to play something Ocean's Eleven-like. The whole well-laid plan, absurd heist kind of thing. I really enjoyed playing the parts of the Star Wars campaign that were like that, when we would come up with some crazy plan to sneak into some place. Partially because whenever the campaign moved in that direction, my character got to shine, but I really like that kind of character. Lying all the time is fun.
So I'd like to play a game that revolved around that. Like every adventure was a different heist, and either the GM would come up with a bunch of locations and we could decide which one to break into, or the GM would just give us this week's location and we'd break into it. This is another concept I wouldn't want to GM myself; I just really want to play it.
Can't really think of anything else. This is by no means intended as a complete list of things I would play. It's more a list of "things I would play based on concept alone." Other games, I'd play for the people I'm playing with. Normally, I wouldn't play with people I don't know. But any of these games, I would consider joining a group just to play.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Things Done Differently
For the most part, I'm happy with the campaign that just ended. I had fun, the players had fun, and some neat stuff happened. However. As there's always room for improvement, I do have a few specific things I wish I'd done differently.
One of them is Session 17. While it's not like it went badly--to the contrary, it was one of the more amusing sessions--I do wish I'd done something along the lines of this new technique Robin Laws has devised: You Have Already Planned. It would have been more in keeping with the style of the campaign, less absurd, and probably more fun, particularly for Captain Blank, who got stuck in a bad position at the end of it. We managed to salvage it, but note that the fight in the next session was not a purely in-character matter.
This hand-wavy off-screen planning thing is brilliant. An interesting way to divide player knowledge and character knowledge. I am almost certainly going to include it in the next campaign, unless I run a campaign without appropriate hijinks. But that seems a slim possibility, since all the good campaigns I've run featured hijinks. The ones that lacked hijinks were pretty awful.
One of them is Session 17. While it's not like it went badly--to the contrary, it was one of the more amusing sessions--I do wish I'd done something along the lines of this new technique Robin Laws has devised: You Have Already Planned. It would have been more in keeping with the style of the campaign, less absurd, and probably more fun, particularly for Captain Blank, who got stuck in a bad position at the end of it. We managed to salvage it, but note that the fight in the next session was not a purely in-character matter.
This hand-wavy off-screen planning thing is brilliant. An interesting way to divide player knowledge and character knowledge. I am almost certainly going to include it in the next campaign, unless I run a campaign without appropriate hijinks. But that seems a slim possibility, since all the good campaigns I've run featured hijinks. The ones that lacked hijinks were pretty awful.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Fin
My fourth campaign is now over, officially. It's the second campaign that I actually finished, rather than just dropping and never getting back to it.
I want to say that it's the first campaign I ever planned to end where it ended, but I'm not sure that's true. If I remember correctly, the first Outlaws campaign did have a planned endpoint, at least roughly, but that's all this one had at first.
This is the first campaign I planned to finish when I finished it. Which I consider a greater achievement than finishing it where I intended to finish it, and more important. "Where" is just a personal goalpost. Getting too attached to it is a bad idea, better to let the ending grow out of the game itself.
But "when?" "When" matters to everyone. I know I'm going to have a situation like this come up again, when I know I'm only going to have sixth months to run a game, because people are moving, or someone else has a game they want to run. To know that I can pick a mark and hit it, that's a powerful thing. That's a valuable thing.
I want to say that it's the first campaign I ever planned to end where it ended, but I'm not sure that's true. If I remember correctly, the first Outlaws campaign did have a planned endpoint, at least roughly, but that's all this one had at first.
This is the first campaign I planned to finish when I finished it. Which I consider a greater achievement than finishing it where I intended to finish it, and more important. "Where" is just a personal goalpost. Getting too attached to it is a bad idea, better to let the ending grow out of the game itself.
But "when?" "When" matters to everyone. I know I'm going to have a situation like this come up again, when I know I'm only going to have sixth months to run a game, because people are moving, or someone else has a game they want to run. To know that I can pick a mark and hit it, that's a powerful thing. That's a valuable thing.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Campaign Planning
The campaign's wrapping up, so that means I need to start thinking about the next one.
I won't actually need to have a campaign ready for at least another couple of months, maybe more. I don't plan on doing another one this summer, and it may take some time after that to get a group together. There's always the possibility of an internet campaign, but that brings up its own set of considerations.
Like how I want to run a supers campaign, and no one in the current group is really into that. I, of course, think it's just because they're not giving it a chance; if they'd just try it, they'd see how awesome superheroes are. But if they're not interested, they're not interested, and it'd be a lot less hassle to find some people who are interested in supers and teach them roleplaying games. Preferably something freewheeling and snappy, like what I've heard Truth and Justice is like, because that's how superpowers are handled in the comics books. It's not a science, it's "wouldn't it be awesome if?" I could, I suppose, use Mutants and Masterminds, which might be easier to convince people to play as it's mostly d20, but it just isn't quite as intriguing.
I don't really want to run Arcana Evolved or Dungeons and Dragons again. Not for a while. I may feel different after the GURPS campaign, but for now I want to get away from the combat, the number crunching, and especially the magic. If I do end up running a d20 campaign, it'll be either Iron Heroes or d20 Modern. Both mean no magic to deal with, and both reduce the number crunching. (Iron Heroes has nifty villain classes; Modern has zillions of pre-made stat blocks.)
Of course, seeing as I mostly play D&D, and that's what I have books for, my planning tends to run along those lines. Superhero stuff is different, of course, but when I think fantasy I tend to think, "How would this work with D&D?" (Or Arcana Evolved, or Iron Heroes.) So I have a couple of potential campaigns that I've developed for D&D. I could go back, take the concepts, and rework them for another system, but that just seems like unnecessary work. One revolves around an arcane aristocracy and the infernal and celestial powers meddling with it, drawing mostly on Girl Genius and Dune. The other has less material for it, but it's mostly my latest version of this ancient kingdoms in the desert idea I've always liked, built around Iron Heroes. And that wacky-crazy megadungeon I want to do.
Then there's Eberron. Which I'd really rather play than DM. (There aren't many things that fall in this category, but they are there.) Elves in Eberron really rock, and, of course, there's the warforged. Unfortunately, I often get frustrated playing, because there's an element of "that's not how I would do that."
Probably when it comes time to actual run a game, I'll have some completely different idea of what I want to do, based on whatever weird obsession I've just developed.
I won't actually need to have a campaign ready for at least another couple of months, maybe more. I don't plan on doing another one this summer, and it may take some time after that to get a group together. There's always the possibility of an internet campaign, but that brings up its own set of considerations.
Like how I want to run a supers campaign, and no one in the current group is really into that. I, of course, think it's just because they're not giving it a chance; if they'd just try it, they'd see how awesome superheroes are. But if they're not interested, they're not interested, and it'd be a lot less hassle to find some people who are interested in supers and teach them roleplaying games. Preferably something freewheeling and snappy, like what I've heard Truth and Justice is like, because that's how superpowers are handled in the comics books. It's not a science, it's "wouldn't it be awesome if?" I could, I suppose, use Mutants and Masterminds, which might be easier to convince people to play as it's mostly d20, but it just isn't quite as intriguing.
I don't really want to run Arcana Evolved or Dungeons and Dragons again. Not for a while. I may feel different after the GURPS campaign, but for now I want to get away from the combat, the number crunching, and especially the magic. If I do end up running a d20 campaign, it'll be either Iron Heroes or d20 Modern. Both mean no magic to deal with, and both reduce the number crunching. (Iron Heroes has nifty villain classes; Modern has zillions of pre-made stat blocks.)
Of course, seeing as I mostly play D&D, and that's what I have books for, my planning tends to run along those lines. Superhero stuff is different, of course, but when I think fantasy I tend to think, "How would this work with D&D?" (Or Arcana Evolved, or Iron Heroes.) So I have a couple of potential campaigns that I've developed for D&D. I could go back, take the concepts, and rework them for another system, but that just seems like unnecessary work. One revolves around an arcane aristocracy and the infernal and celestial powers meddling with it, drawing mostly on Girl Genius and Dune. The other has less material for it, but it's mostly my latest version of this ancient kingdoms in the desert idea I've always liked, built around Iron Heroes. And that wacky-crazy megadungeon I want to do.
Then there's Eberron. Which I'd really rather play than DM. (There aren't many things that fall in this category, but they are there.) Elves in Eberron really rock, and, of course, there's the warforged. Unfortunately, I often get frustrated playing, because there's an element of "that's not how I would do that."
Probably when it comes time to actual run a game, I'll have some completely different idea of what I want to do, based on whatever weird obsession I've just developed.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Strangely Attractive
This is the geekiest, and the most frightening, thing I've seen all week. Batman. LEGO. LEGO Batman. Naturally, Nightwing has truly strange hair.
There are plans for a video game.
There are plans for a video game.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Nethack Quiz
|[..+#
|.c.|
#+...|
If I were a NetHack monster, I would be a cockatrice. People tend to go out of their way to avoid me; those that don't have to treat me very carefully indeed.|.c.|
#+...|
Monday, May 14, 2007
Call of the Weird
I want to run a game where the dungeons are really weird. Nonsensical, illogical, and happy to be that way.
I got the idea from Jeff Rients. I want to run a game where all the dungeons are like that.
Most of the dungeons I've made have made a certain amount of sense. I knew who the designers were, and a lot of the structure sprang from that. I knew why all the monsters were there. True, for one dungeon, that reason was "a wizard did it," but I knew enough about the NPC in question for it to make a certain amount of sense, at least to me.
Still. All the other dungeons I've made have been pretty straightforward. I'd like to run a game where they were, for the most part, intentionally irrational.
I got the idea from Jeff Rients. I want to run a game where all the dungeons are like that.
Most of the dungeons I've made have made a certain amount of sense. I knew who the designers were, and a lot of the structure sprang from that. I knew why all the monsters were there. True, for one dungeon, that reason was "a wizard did it," but I knew enough about the NPC in question for it to make a certain amount of sense, at least to me.
Still. All the other dungeons I've made have been pretty straightforward. I'd like to run a game where they were, for the most part, intentionally irrational.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Fable
Finally played some Fable, after months of meaning to. It's an interesting game.
Even if Dvorak does cause it to crash. Apparently, it can't handle non-standard keyboard layouts, and it causes crashes in very specific parts of the game. Crashes that involve the character aging prematurely, at random times. It was weird, and very irritating.
The tutorial was not so much fun, either, but that was probably because I had to do it about eight times. Compared to Lionheads other efforts in this area (Black and White 2! The horror!) it was positively divine.
But enough griping. There are lots of aspects of the game that are engaging, interesting, and fun. Like having the townspeople refer to your character as "Piemaster." No other game provides this experience!
One thing that stands out about the game is its strange tendency to wander into the whimsical. One minute, you're getting a Beauty and the Beast-style story time, the next minute you're hearing a guard--who's wearing a baseball cap--tell you about how he only got a "C+ in hostage rescue."
Even if Dvorak does cause it to crash. Apparently, it can't handle non-standard keyboard layouts, and it causes crashes in very specific parts of the game. Crashes that involve the character aging prematurely, at random times. It was weird, and very irritating.
The tutorial was not so much fun, either, but that was probably because I had to do it about eight times. Compared to Lionheads other efforts in this area (Black and White 2! The horror!) it was positively divine.
But enough griping. There are lots of aspects of the game that are engaging, interesting, and fun. Like having the townspeople refer to your character as "Piemaster." No other game provides this experience!
One thing that stands out about the game is its strange tendency to wander into the whimsical. One minute, you're getting a Beauty and the Beast-style story time, the next minute you're hearing a guard--who's wearing a baseball cap--tell you about how he only got a "C+ in hostage rescue."
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Wonderful World of Work
They have jobs like this. This is a legitimate source of employment. It's an entire field, even.
I had no idea.
(Quoted because that link will probably change at some point.)
I had no idea.
(Quoted because that link will probably change at some point.)
Creative Designer – Digital Games
Requisition ID 1999
Full/Part Time Full Time
Location Renton, WA
Description Suits Optional ...
...Brains Required!!
Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. and the world's largest publisher of adventure games, including Magic: The Gathering® Trading Card Game and Dungeons & Dragons® Roleplaying Games, has an exciting opportunity for a Creative Designer to join our team.
Why us? Because we offer competitive salaries, a great benefits package, and the excitement of working in a creative organization. But the best part of working here is that most of us think selling games that bring hours of enjoyment to millions around the globe is an inherently cool way to earn a living.
PURPOSE
The Creative Designer in the Digital Games group is responsible for the development of concepts, names, and flavor text for Digital games under development.
In this position you would be responsible for sourcing and coordinating a team of internal and external writers to produce creative text for cards, packaging, inserts, and assorted other purposes. In addition, the Creative Designer contributes to world-building and Intellectual Property (IP) development for Digital games.
Key Relationships
-Project Team: Producer, Art Director, Lead Developer, Lead Designer, Concept Illustrator
-External contacts may include illustrators, writers, and vendors.
-Interactions focus on information exchange, receiving and providing direction, or receiving and providing training.
Duties and Responsibilities
Creative Direction:
-Ensure continuity and quality of names and flavor text
-Meet all quantitative and qualitative goals and strategies defined by the R&D.
-Coordinate a team of writers and possibly other creative staff providing hands-on direction.
- Monitor design and output ensuring all text is editorially appropriate for the product line.
-Help connect textual materials with art assets
-Assure excellent quality, consistency and timely completion of all projects.
Administration:
-Ensure that timely and effective communications are affected among the various parts of R&D (Design, Development, Creative, etc.) to enable successful development.
-Establishes consistent scheduling and resource use in coordination with the Lead Developer.
-Work directly with writers and designers to execute world building on a scheduled basis.
-Manage external contractor, either teams or independents.
Process and Standards:
-Work with the R&D leadership to define non-existent or dated processes and set goals and participate in action to establish, eliminate or improve these processes for the benefit of all stakeholders.
-Meet or exceed all department and corporate standards for business, including work hours, professional conduct, mutual respect, and teamwork.
Knowledge, experience and Skills
Required:
-Minimum 2 years experience as a writer or artist or manager of creative talent
-Demonstrated ability to write high quality, concise creative text and explanations
-Working knowledge of game mechanics, ‘races’, characters, environments, and their trends and implications.
-Ability to develop, coordinate, and maintain the overall style of intellectual property
-Must foster a highly creative environment, and manage (self and others) effectively in a fast paced environment.
-Strong oral and written communication skills, with the flair to “sell” creative ideas
-Strong creative intuition and ability to recognize and develop outstanding creative/written work produced by others
-Consistently have authored creative materials through an understanding of the target customer, consumer patterns, usage patterns, popular and economic trends.
-Enthusiastic and knowledgeable about other fantasy entertainment properties.
-Strong initiative, stays current on emerging products as well as industry trends.
-Ability to lead and participate in brainstorming sessions to develop unique concepts.
-Strong interpersonal and team building skills, must be an organizer and a motivator.
-Ability to see the big picture and ensure that all the small details support it.
Strongly Preferred:
-BA or BS —Creative Writing, Technical Writing or other creative field preferred.
-Previous work in creative writing is strongly desired.
-Ability to produce quality sketches and paintings is a nice bonus.
-Ability to write fictional prose in multiple genres (fantasy, science fiction, etc.) is strongly desired.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Praise Be To Kord
I want to start a new religion. One where you worship whatever you want, as long as it comes from a roleplaying game, video game, or similar source.
I'd call it "video game polytheism," except that'd rule out Vecna and Pelor and all that gang. And I'd call it "RPG polytheism," except that'd rule out Mar and whatnot.
It'd mostly be an excuse to go "By the nine!" in casual conversation. Not that I need one.
I spend too much time thinking up ways to make people think I'm weird.
I'd call it "video game polytheism," except that'd rule out Vecna and Pelor and all that gang. And I'd call it "RPG polytheism," except that'd rule out Mar and whatnot.
It'd mostly be an excuse to go "By the nine!" in casual conversation. Not that I need one.
I spend too much time thinking up ways to make people think I'm weird.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Alignment
I am currently pondering the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system.
I'm wondering if it's possible to take it out of the game. And if I should. Or if I should go the Eberron route and just maybe make it kind of not matter so much.
It's not that I dislike the system, in the abstract. I'm just thinking about it's in-game effect, and whether I really want players to be able to tell whether or not someone is "evil" with a first level spell. And what I want that to mean.
I want to run a campaign that involves the players trying to figure out whether various people are on their side. I don't know if this is actually a good idea; the concept may change at some undetermined future point, but that's where it is right now. I do know that having the alignment system in place, as it is written, will make that difficult. More difficult than it would be, without it in.
Because that's what the alignment system is for: telling you whether a given person is on your side. Yeah, there's a lot of silliness in the books about how it's a "guide to develop your character," and I am aware that it's possible (more than possible) for two evil-aligned or chaotic-aligned or even good-aligned groups to come to blows, but that's still basically what it's for. It tells you, the player, whether or not a given creature is okay to kill.
This is cool. If what you want to do is kill wizards, it's an excellent system. Having some elaborate system, ideally involving extended surveillance and social puzzle-solving, to figure out whether you can kill the wizard would, in this sort of game, be actively detrimental to the game play experience.
However. While I've had fun running "kill the wizard" type games in the past, that's not what I'm planning at the moment. I'm planning a game that involves the calculations and challenges that the alignment system is explicitly designed to bypass. Something involving politics as well as wizard killing. And while I'm pretty sure that the alignment system, as written, is going to interfere with that, I'm not exactly sure what I should do about it.
Should I change the actual mechanics of alignment, or just adjust what the little words "mean"? Should I remove references to it entirely, or change them to something else? By which I mean--should detect evil be entirely purged, or changed to, say, detect foe?
Making any change to the system is going to alter cleric and paladin power. Changing things to "detect foe" and "smite foe" would make them more powerful; removing them from the game would make them less powerful. But how much more or less powerful? Is there any way to tell?
Do I need to change anything? Is it really going to be that big of a problem? Or can I get away with, say, banning paladins?
These are questions I may not even be qualified to answer.
I'm wondering if it's possible to take it out of the game. And if I should. Or if I should go the Eberron route and just maybe make it kind of not matter so much.
It's not that I dislike the system, in the abstract. I'm just thinking about it's in-game effect, and whether I really want players to be able to tell whether or not someone is "evil" with a first level spell. And what I want that to mean.
I want to run a campaign that involves the players trying to figure out whether various people are on their side. I don't know if this is actually a good idea; the concept may change at some undetermined future point, but that's where it is right now. I do know that having the alignment system in place, as it is written, will make that difficult. More difficult than it would be, without it in.
Because that's what the alignment system is for: telling you whether a given person is on your side. Yeah, there's a lot of silliness in the books about how it's a "guide to develop your character," and I am aware that it's possible (more than possible) for two evil-aligned or chaotic-aligned or even good-aligned groups to come to blows, but that's still basically what it's for. It tells you, the player, whether or not a given creature is okay to kill.
This is cool. If what you want to do is kill wizards, it's an excellent system. Having some elaborate system, ideally involving extended surveillance and social puzzle-solving, to figure out whether you can kill the wizard would, in this sort of game, be actively detrimental to the game play experience.
However. While I've had fun running "kill the wizard" type games in the past, that's not what I'm planning at the moment. I'm planning a game that involves the calculations and challenges that the alignment system is explicitly designed to bypass. Something involving politics as well as wizard killing. And while I'm pretty sure that the alignment system, as written, is going to interfere with that, I'm not exactly sure what I should do about it.
Should I change the actual mechanics of alignment, or just adjust what the little words "mean"? Should I remove references to it entirely, or change them to something else? By which I mean--should detect evil be entirely purged, or changed to, say, detect foe?
Making any change to the system is going to alter cleric and paladin power. Changing things to "detect foe" and "smite foe" would make them more powerful; removing them from the game would make them less powerful. But how much more or less powerful? Is there any way to tell?
Do I need to change anything? Is it really going to be that big of a problem? Or can I get away with, say, banning paladins?
These are questions I may not even be qualified to answer.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Cope
If you have any interest in game design at all, you should be reading James Wallis's blog, Cope. (Loving the subtitle, by the way.)
I've been meaning to link to him for some time. He writes about storytelling in games--Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Half Life 2, as examples--as well as more basic "don't do this!" issues.
I finally got around to it today because he writes about Will Wright, talking about Spore, and storytelling in games. Read it, read what it links to. It's interesting. And important.
I've been meaning to link to him for some time. He writes about storytelling in games--Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Half Life 2, as examples--as well as more basic "don't do this!" issues.
I finally got around to it today because he writes about Will Wright, talking about Spore, and storytelling in games. Read it, read what it links to. It's interesting. And important.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Why Martin Is Awesome
I threatened, a while ago, to describe why I think Martin is a cool character. And now it's late, and I'm tired, and I need to write something. So I've compiled a list. Well, the rest of the list.
He's not annoying in combat. I mostly credit his use of ranged magic attacks for this. (If only all NPCs were so skilled.) He doesn't hit me, he doesn't get in my way, and most of all . . .
He doesn't die. Except for a couple of plot critical points, he can't. Now, sure, this makes the game easier, but it also makes it a lot less annoying, because you don't have to worry about him wandering off and getting himself into trouble. Which is good, because he wanders off to fight bandits more or less constantly.
As an added bonus, his immunity to death means that, if for some reason he ends up very angry with you, you can just knock him out. When he comes to, he'll have no memory of whatever it is you did that ticked him off. There is endless entertainment value in this phenomena.
In general, though: He does things. Granted, sometimes he does annoying things. (Dammit, Martin, I just need one point of blade to level up!) But for the most of the game, he's actually kind of useful. He tells you a lot of interesting things. He's as involved in the whole "saving the world" gig as you are. But what he does, he does without upstaging you. In a major way . . .
He helps you be cool. He's constantly coming up with crazy plans that, basically, only you can pull off. Because no one else is awesome enough. And he never doubts that you can do it. Every conversation you have with the guy reaffirms your awesomeness.
And, of course: He's kind of geeky. I'm serious. There's no other way to describe someone who's constantly coming up with bizarre schemes, covers a table with books, gets another table so he can cover it with books, and responds to you showing up with an incredibly evil artifact by saying, "You should give it to me, because it's, uh, dangerous. Yeah."
Why does this make Martin cool? Because the only people who care whether he's cool are geeks. RPG geeks. The kind of people who actually watch video game cut scenes. The kind of people who combine English major style literary analysis to video games. Even if video games are going mainstream, RPGs are still played by some pretty geeky people.
I'll probably come up with some more reasons, eventually, but those are the basic reasons why I think Martin is cool. Besides the scowling, anyway.
He's not annoying in combat. I mostly credit his use of ranged magic attacks for this. (If only all NPCs were so skilled.) He doesn't hit me, he doesn't get in my way, and most of all . . .
He doesn't die. Except for a couple of plot critical points, he can't. Now, sure, this makes the game easier, but it also makes it a lot less annoying, because you don't have to worry about him wandering off and getting himself into trouble. Which is good, because he wanders off to fight bandits more or less constantly.
As an added bonus, his immunity to death means that, if for some reason he ends up very angry with you, you can just knock him out. When he comes to, he'll have no memory of whatever it is you did that ticked him off. There is endless entertainment value in this phenomena.
In general, though: He does things. Granted, sometimes he does annoying things. (Dammit, Martin, I just need one point of blade to level up!) But for the most of the game, he's actually kind of useful. He tells you a lot of interesting things. He's as involved in the whole "saving the world" gig as you are. But what he does, he does without upstaging you. In a major way . . .
He helps you be cool. He's constantly coming up with crazy plans that, basically, only you can pull off. Because no one else is awesome enough. And he never doubts that you can do it. Every conversation you have with the guy reaffirms your awesomeness.
And, of course: He's kind of geeky. I'm serious. There's no other way to describe someone who's constantly coming up with bizarre schemes, covers a table with books, gets another table so he can cover it with books, and responds to you showing up with an incredibly evil artifact by saying, "You should give it to me, because it's, uh, dangerous. Yeah."
Why does this make Martin cool? Because the only people who care whether he's cool are geeks. RPG geeks. The kind of people who actually watch video game cut scenes. The kind of people who combine English major style literary analysis to video games. Even if video games are going mainstream, RPGs are still played by some pretty geeky people.
I'll probably come up with some more reasons, eventually, but those are the basic reasons why I think Martin is cool. Besides the scowling, anyway.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Arbitrary Revelations: Not Cool, Man
This suggests what might be bothering me about the Oblivion main quest ending.
The reversal comes at the end.
My intuition tells me that this is unusual. Most goal based stories--most video game stories--have a fairly reliable structure. They set the stakes, the win condition, and then they don't usual mess with it too much. They might raise the stakes, through villains or other opposition, but they usually don't make that goal totally irrelevant.
When they do, it's to make a point--it sets the other events of the story into a new light, that reveals new things. I'd list an example, but even mentioning that a movie has a reverse ending can destroy the viewing experience, because in the best one's you're not even expecting it, but it still makes perfect sense. Oedipus would be a good example, except that the audience is in on the secret from the beginning. (That's what makes it ironic, ya see.)
Oblivion's ending is not like this. It comes out of left field, is not anticipated at all, and doesn't cast any kind of new light on the existing events of the tale. It just makes the goal you thought you were working towards through the whole quest totally worthless.
The details of the reversal make it even more annoying. Basically, you find out there was a time limit on your goal, and you just blew it. Trick is, because it's a video game, you know that this "time limit" nonsense is ALL LIES. If the little number hasn't been counting down, you know it's just a cheap excuse for the game to spring it's reversal on you. No matter how fast you complete the quest, or how slowly, you're always going to show up just five minutes after you were supposed to.
It doesn't help that the NPCs act like they've known about the time limit all along. And by NPCs, I mean Martin. One of the neat things about the game is that it makes him actually useful, because he knows what's going on with all the daedra stuff. (And he's satisfyingly cryptic about just how he knows about it.) If you need to know something about the rules, how this whole "Oblivion vs. Tamriel" thing works, he tells you.
So when you suddenly learn this new rule, and he acts like it's totally obvious, but somehow never bothered to tell you about it, it's kind of irritating. Especially since, if I'd known about this rule, I probably would have picked up the pace a bit. Wouldn't have done any good, but at least I'd have known I tried.
I suppose the reason you're not informed of this secret time limit is because if you knew about it, it'd be totally obvious that it was going to come up. That's just how video games work.
However, if a plot twist is that obvious, the solution is not to withhold information from the player for no good reason. Make it some weird new thing that the bad guy's done, at the very least. Make the reason that the player doesn't have the information make sense.
Or, just don't mess with the twist ending. This is a personal quirk. I don't tend to appreciate twist endings, if they're done just for their own sake. They're usually either really obvious, or really stupid. Often, both. (Atlantis, I'm looking at you. First time I watched that movie, my brother had already seen it, so when I turned to him and said, "That guy totally goes evil and betrays them," about two minutes after the character was introduced, he got kind of weirded out.)
I'm also not sure if video games support twist endings all that well. That's another topic, though.
Bottom line: Don't totally change the rules of success for the protagonist at the last minute. Especially in a video game. It's irritating, and frustrating, and generally not a good idea. Like all "rules," in storytelling, you can break it, but only if you know what you're doing, and you have a good reason. Trying to trick the audience does not count as a good reason.
The reversal comes at the end.
My intuition tells me that this is unusual. Most goal based stories--most video game stories--have a fairly reliable structure. They set the stakes, the win condition, and then they don't usual mess with it too much. They might raise the stakes, through villains or other opposition, but they usually don't make that goal totally irrelevant.
When they do, it's to make a point--it sets the other events of the story into a new light, that reveals new things. I'd list an example, but even mentioning that a movie has a reverse ending can destroy the viewing experience, because in the best one's you're not even expecting it, but it still makes perfect sense. Oedipus would be a good example, except that the audience is in on the secret from the beginning. (That's what makes it ironic, ya see.)
Oblivion's ending is not like this. It comes out of left field, is not anticipated at all, and doesn't cast any kind of new light on the existing events of the tale. It just makes the goal you thought you were working towards through the whole quest totally worthless.
The details of the reversal make it even more annoying. Basically, you find out there was a time limit on your goal, and you just blew it. Trick is, because it's a video game, you know that this "time limit" nonsense is ALL LIES. If the little number hasn't been counting down, you know it's just a cheap excuse for the game to spring it's reversal on you. No matter how fast you complete the quest, or how slowly, you're always going to show up just five minutes after you were supposed to.
It doesn't help that the NPCs act like they've known about the time limit all along. And by NPCs, I mean Martin. One of the neat things about the game is that it makes him actually useful, because he knows what's going on with all the daedra stuff. (And he's satisfyingly cryptic about just how he knows about it.) If you need to know something about the rules, how this whole "Oblivion vs. Tamriel" thing works, he tells you.
So when you suddenly learn this new rule, and he acts like it's totally obvious, but somehow never bothered to tell you about it, it's kind of irritating. Especially since, if I'd known about this rule, I probably would have picked up the pace a bit. Wouldn't have done any good, but at least I'd have known I tried.
I suppose the reason you're not informed of this secret time limit is because if you knew about it, it'd be totally obvious that it was going to come up. That's just how video games work.
However, if a plot twist is that obvious, the solution is not to withhold information from the player for no good reason. Make it some weird new thing that the bad guy's done, at the very least. Make the reason that the player doesn't have the information make sense.
Or, just don't mess with the twist ending. This is a personal quirk. I don't tend to appreciate twist endings, if they're done just for their own sake. They're usually either really obvious, or really stupid. Often, both. (Atlantis, I'm looking at you. First time I watched that movie, my brother had already seen it, so when I turned to him and said, "That guy totally goes evil and betrays them," about two minutes after the character was introduced, he got kind of weirded out.)
I'm also not sure if video games support twist endings all that well. That's another topic, though.
Bottom line: Don't totally change the rules of success for the protagonist at the last minute. Especially in a video game. It's irritating, and frustrating, and generally not a good idea. Like all "rules," in storytelling, you can break it, but only if you know what you're doing, and you have a good reason. Trying to trick the audience does not count as a good reason.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Stupid Plot Tricks
Hey, 100th post. Not bad. Naturally, it's about Oblivion.
One of my favorite little things about the Oblivion main quest is this structural switcheroo it pulls right at the beginning.
Traditionally, a story starts with some kind of setback. The protagonist starts out in some kind of minor trouble, so they can have some kind of minor achievement, which then makes you care when they experience a major setback, so then they can emerge victorious from the crushing doom. Down, up, double down, double up.
Most stories don't follow that pattern exactly, because it's a hideous oversimplification. But, generally speaking, the move out of status quo is a move downward. That lets the early part of the story be about the protagonist trying to restore the status quo, until they figure out what it is that they're actually supposed to be doing.
Following this principle, in Oblivion, things start to go bad quickly. Jauffre sends you to Kvatch to find Martin; when you arrive, Kvatch is a smoking ruin. (Which is how it will stay, nigh unto eternity. On fire. Forever.) You bring Martin safely to Jauffre; you find that Jauffre's lost the damn amulet.
Getting the amulet back drives most of the rest of the game. The funny thing is, though, is that it's not all gloom and doom. In a way, you're actually better off at that point, right after the enemy steals the amulet, than you were when you gave the amulet to Jauffre.
Because at that point, you've got Martin, and you're fairly sure that he's not going to get killed. Not without you getting killed first, anyway, and since you're a video game character (in a video game that's not Nethack) you're functionally immune to death. So you've still got one of the two dinguses you need to win the game. You have, essentially, traded the Amulet for Martin, and that means you've come out ahead.
(Assuming that the amulet is a proper artifact, in the D&D sense, and can't be destroyed. Mankar Camaron's behavior establishes this as more than idle fancy--he doesn't destroy it, even though it'd be really smart for him to do so. Thus: he can't destroy it. It does end up being destroyed, at the end, but I have a theory that it could only be destroyed in that specific way.)
For a video game, this is incredibly clever. There's an early setback to drive the rest of the action (find the dingus!) but you also have a sense of accomplishment. You've done something useful.
One of my favorite little things about the Oblivion main quest is this structural switcheroo it pulls right at the beginning.
Traditionally, a story starts with some kind of setback. The protagonist starts out in some kind of minor trouble, so they can have some kind of minor achievement, which then makes you care when they experience a major setback, so then they can emerge victorious from the crushing doom. Down, up, double down, double up.
Most stories don't follow that pattern exactly, because it's a hideous oversimplification. But, generally speaking, the move out of status quo is a move downward. That lets the early part of the story be about the protagonist trying to restore the status quo, until they figure out what it is that they're actually supposed to be doing.
Following this principle, in Oblivion, things start to go bad quickly. Jauffre sends you to Kvatch to find Martin; when you arrive, Kvatch is a smoking ruin. (Which is how it will stay, nigh unto eternity. On fire. Forever.) You bring Martin safely to Jauffre; you find that Jauffre's lost the damn amulet.
Getting the amulet back drives most of the rest of the game. The funny thing is, though, is that it's not all gloom and doom. In a way, you're actually better off at that point, right after the enemy steals the amulet, than you were when you gave the amulet to Jauffre.
Because at that point, you've got Martin, and you're fairly sure that he's not going to get killed. Not without you getting killed first, anyway, and since you're a video game character (in a video game that's not Nethack) you're functionally immune to death. So you've still got one of the two dinguses you need to win the game. You have, essentially, traded the Amulet for Martin, and that means you've come out ahead.
(Assuming that the amulet is a proper artifact, in the D&D sense, and can't be destroyed. Mankar Camaron's behavior establishes this as more than idle fancy--he doesn't destroy it, even though it'd be really smart for him to do so. Thus: he can't destroy it. It does end up being destroyed, at the end, but I have a theory that it could only be destroyed in that specific way.)
For a video game, this is incredibly clever. There's an early setback to drive the rest of the action (find the dingus!) but you also have a sense of accomplishment. You've done something useful.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Light Years Behind . . . Painting
Not too be too down on BBC News, but their tech guys are idiots. Complete and utter maroons.
They've got this article about how, according to the industry "experts," we are at most two years away from photo-realistic humans. Which is total nonsense. We may be two years away from photo-realistic movement, but that is not the biggest challenge standing in the way of photo-realism in games.
That, hands down, is skin. Human skin absorbs and scatters light in a way that we don't really have the technology to do, even in pre-rendering, let alone real time. You'll notice that a lot of games, like Oblivion, with high quality graphics have characters that kind of glow. It's a way of tricking you into letting computer people be pretty, and not freakish. We may not be able to simulate subdermal refraction, but we can at least make people glow!
That's not my favorite part, though. My favorite part is down at the end. After the article has made a big deal about how, in the future, computer characters will be totally indistinguishable from humans, it quotes Ian Livingstone of Eidos: "We will be able to play with people's emotions - we can make them laugh, we can make them cry, we can make them sad."
Because, y'know, you totally can't affect people emotionally, unless your characters are totally, perfectly human. We're totally impervious to anything that doesn't look 100% real. Without the perfect visual experience, without being able to see every nuance of the characters action, no one ever feels any connection to a story.
Because no animated movie, or novel, or radio show has ever made anyone feel sad.
Honestly, I think that games would be better off if they went less realistic with their graphics. Not lower quality, mind you. Just less realistic. Characters drawn with broader strokes can actually be more effective, emotionally, because it's for people to invest in them. It's easier to imagine them as being exactly what you want them to be.
Eventually, computer games are going to figure out that there are other kinds of art out there. Naturalism isn't the only way to make pictures look good. Someday, video gaming is going to discover impressionism. And they're going to realize that suggesting an image, and capturing a feeling, and making it really pretty, are all way more important goals than "realism."
They've got this article about how, according to the industry "experts," we are at most two years away from photo-realistic humans. Which is total nonsense. We may be two years away from photo-realistic movement, but that is not the biggest challenge standing in the way of photo-realism in games.
That, hands down, is skin. Human skin absorbs and scatters light in a way that we don't really have the technology to do, even in pre-rendering, let alone real time. You'll notice that a lot of games, like Oblivion, with high quality graphics have characters that kind of glow. It's a way of tricking you into letting computer people be pretty, and not freakish. We may not be able to simulate subdermal refraction, but we can at least make people glow!
That's not my favorite part, though. My favorite part is down at the end. After the article has made a big deal about how, in the future, computer characters will be totally indistinguishable from humans, it quotes Ian Livingstone of Eidos: "We will be able to play with people's emotions - we can make them laugh, we can make them cry, we can make them sad."
Because, y'know, you totally can't affect people emotionally, unless your characters are totally, perfectly human. We're totally impervious to anything that doesn't look 100% real. Without the perfect visual experience, without being able to see every nuance of the characters action, no one ever feels any connection to a story.
Because no animated movie, or novel, or radio show has ever made anyone feel sad.
Honestly, I think that games would be better off if they went less realistic with their graphics. Not lower quality, mind you. Just less realistic. Characters drawn with broader strokes can actually be more effective, emotionally, because it's for people to invest in them. It's easier to imagine them as being exactly what you want them to be.
Eventually, computer games are going to figure out that there are other kinds of art out there. Naturalism isn't the only way to make pictures look good. Someday, video gaming is going to discover impressionism. And they're going to realize that suggesting an image, and capturing a feeling, and making it really pretty, are all way more important goals than "realism."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)