16 replies to this topic

[Reynard Frost]

http://funpastimes.com/?p=1608

Here is an article I found written by Mikko Ruatalahti (say that 10 times fast) who wrote a great article on the writing process. This applies to video game design because a lot of the hiccups we run into trying to write a story also happen to us when we're trying to make a game. "Writer's Block", "This needs to be planned out completely!" and other common roadblocks we impose on ourselves are addressed in this article.

Have a read and discuss below!

Edited by Reynard Frost, 23 March 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[yieldingmydestiny]

In RPG-making, writing is as essential as coding. It comes with experience. Delivering an RPG's story, lore and its colloquial content with passion and fineness is what any experienced RPG developer does.

I'd like to share one link concerning writing as well. Here is it:

http://lotfp.blogspo...eae01abb6445d32

[BulletPlus]

First thing i did was bookmark Nelneo's post!

Of course success is always more fun than failure. But if failure is not an option, then the success is but an illusion, it’s fake, it’s a lie. And by taking the attitude that the end result determines the fun of the game, then suddenly the process of playing the game is not fun in and of itself.

That is so true.

If there is no true threat, it is not an adventure, it’s a tour.

I laughed so hard on reading that line.

Spoiler

Keep a strict record of time! This wisdom was presented in bold in a major publication and has been laughed at ever since. But it’s excellent advice. Endless searching for secret doors and traps takes but a second to roll for the players, but a good deal of time for the characters. How long does that torch burn? And that lantern? So many referees simply make sure that there’s a torch or lantern present (and if the referee is on the ball, he might make sure that somebody with a free hand is actually the one carrying it) and then ignore it. Players will pick up the pace if the torches and lanterns keep going out… and keeping close track of encumbrance means they can’t just buy a hundred flasks of oil, either. These oft-ignored rules aren’t there to be a pain the ass, they are there to push play along in a system that otherwise rewards characters moving at a snail’s pace.

Have to keep this in mind. It is an interesting concept.

Edited by BulletPlus, 23 March 2012 - 11:01 PM.

[Raven45]

http://funpastimes.com/?p=1608

Here is an article I found written by Mikko Ruatalahti (say that 10 times fast) who wrote a great article on the writing process. This applies to video game design because a lot of the hiccups we run into trying to write a story also happen to us when we're trying to make a game. "Writer's Block", "This needs to be planned out completely!" and other common roadblocks we impose on ourselves are addressed in this article.

Have a read and discuss below!

I bookmarked your link, as it has a truckload of good advice, advice that I think anyone looking into starting their own project needs to read. I also bookmarked Nelneo's link as well.

[Grem]

As a DM, I have to disagree with one part of the LotFP's adventure writing guide. Particularly, this part:

As a referee, your job is to be completely impartial during game play. You have absolute power at the game table and can bequeath success or mandate failure at any time. Doing either of those things ruins the game, as both give no incentive to play well.

Do not fudge the dice. Ever. Luck is a part of the game, and the dice are there for a reason. Resist the temptation of sparing characters that fail or even die due to “bad luck” or a “stupid die roll.”

No, this is not true. As a referee; or rather, as a Dungeon Master, your job is not to be impartial. Your job is to make sure your players are having fun, and to adapt your playing style to those players.

I roll all of my dice behind a screen. Most of the time, I don't fudge it -- I let the roll stick, for better or for worse. It's not unheard of for a character to get knocked out during my watch, and a couple of characters have even died. But in truth, that character never had a chance at dying for good... if they did, the option to resurrect them was either on-hand already or nearby (a magical wellspring, etc).

This is because making a character is a huge investment. I encourage heavily-crafted backstories for my player characters, and I weave their own past lives into the narrative of the game as a whole. So when that character dies... and they die for good... you have just wasted all of that player's work. It's all down the drain. That's not fun... and that's a surefire way to get non-hardcore players to quit your campaign, and to not join any future campaigns you may run. I don't know about the author, but I have maybe one person I can think of who is that hardcore, and the rest would not like me if I told them to create an involved biography, only to die on some boss fight before even hitting level 10.

If a player is playing well, making smart choices, trying their best with their not-stupid build, and the bad guy rolls a critical hit that would kill them... I'll tell them it's just a normal hit. Because I don't believe in punishing people who play well.

But of course, there's still the issue of the tension of challenge. That can be solved with something very simple: design sense. Instead of permanent death being the worst consequence a player can suffer, be original. No need to be a slave to the rules. When a player of mine dies but is resurrected, it might come at a cost -- they might owe the party gold for the Church of Pelor's fee. If they were revived at a magical wellspring, maybe a ghost of some sort now resides in them, and possesses them at inopportune moments. Maybe the resurrection process was imperfect, and until they can see a better cleric, they're technically considered undead (and if they're a cleric themselves... oh man, the possibilities!!).

I had a party wipe against a powerful boss in one campaign. So they were all dead forever, right? If I take the LotFP blog's advice, it's time to start a new campaign, roll up some new characters. "Tough," as they say. No, this is not how I roll, and not how that boss rolled either. All of the characters woke up in a large monastery in chains, bound to serve the army of the one they were just trying to slay. Holy crap! How do they get out of it? Well, it'll be tough. And your characters will have to be a little humble, since their weapons aren't on them, and you might have to do some things you're morally against. But that's the fun of it... they get to roleplay their characters in a dire situation. It feels tense, they know they failed, and yet they're still able to go on enjoying themselves. "Failure" doesn't have to be "permadeath," and thinking failure only has to be such is limiting and closed-minded.



... wow, that's a lot of words. I guess I'm kind of passionate about that topic. Thanks Reynard and Nelneo; while I liked Mikko's article much more, it's good to read things you disagree with. It gives you perspective, and while it may not change your mind, knowing how other people think is never a bad thing.

EDIT: I feel like I should reiterate that the LotFP's blog post is excellent advice if that is how your players are. If your players don't enjoy that style of DMing, then it is terrible advice. My players are the second camp.

Edited by Grem, 24 March 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[Reynard Frost]

But you are following his quoted advice with your workarounds to death. You didn't let them succeed, you punished them for failing in a way that kept them going, but realized that they failed. What he's talking about is to avoid not letting the party wipe at all, keep trying to help them succeed, etc. You're talking about changing up the story and having the story continue despite failure. You don't encourage them to succeed, but you encourage them to keep playing. Two different things. You just don't end the story right there. He's not talking about ending it either. Just punish failure.

Edited by Reynard Frost, 24 March 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[Grem]

Agreed to that end, but what sparked my exasperation is the notion that the DM is "just" a referee. We're not; it's our job to make a game conducive for players to have fun.

I agree with some parts of the article:

Good game play will tip the scales of fortune and those that rely on pure luck deserve what they get – either way. At the same time, if an incredibly lucky roll derails the entire adventure and gives the players a quick victory, it should stand. It needs to work both ways. When the dice go badly for the players, they should be thinking of how to not let a roll of the die be the sole determiner of their fates. And when the dice go a little too well for the players, the referee should note what he needs to do to prevent a single die roll from determining the course of an entire adventure.

I don't like the "they deserve what they get" attitude -- that's part of what makes me so irritated with this article -- but the reasoning here is sound. I find this agreeable.

This is an example of what I don't:

It is not the referee’s job during a session to provide excitement for his playing group. His job is to administer the setting and resolve character actions. If the characters are taking no action and are not interacting with the setting, then the referee has literally nothing to do. The players are wasting his time.

No, this is not how I feel it is. I feel that if there is no action, either you didn't plan it well, are withholding too many details, or your players are having an off day. Either way, you can step in and provide light encouragement without removing the suspense or the thrill.

I guess what I'm really against is their hands-off attitude of DMing. They seem to think they're just a living embodiment of the rulebook, with no feelings towards anything. I disagree; I think the DM has a responsibility to keep the game fun for everyone, and if they're not having fun, you have to step in and do something about it. There are good ways to step in and there are bad ways; I can't help but think this author has only seen the bad.

EDIT: Formatting issues.

EDIT 2: Interestingly enough, I'm now organizing a hardcore Pathfinder game with a few handpicked friends to see how it goes, and how enjoyable it is. It'll be a nice change of pace, and maybe I'll get some insight into what JimLotFP is advocating.

Edited by Grem, 24 March 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[Reynard Frost]

But you also have to take this article and view it through the lens of Video Game Design. You're not going to be there to poke the character in the right direction, so you need the stand-alone product to cause the player to take action and go forth. One of the major differences between tabletop and digital gaming. I agree that dropping hints here and there is nice (And you can likely do that in a video game if the player takes too long to figure something out), but you shouldn't be directing the player by the hand to figure out what to do next. Have the info there for the player to use, but the player must go out and seek/use that information.

Edited by Reynard Frost, 24 March 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Raven45]

But you are following his quoted advice with your workarounds to death. You didn't let them succeed, you punished them for failing in a way that kept them going, but realized that they failed. What he's talking about is to avoid not letting the party wipe at all, keep trying to help them succeed, etc. You're talking about changing up the story and having the story continue despite failure. You don't encourage them to succeed, but you encourage them to keep playing. Two different things. You just don't end the story right there. He's not talking about ending it either. Just punish failure.

We're also talking a DnD like game versus a video game. Video games have the advantage of saved games that can be quickly reloaded. So in which case, the game developer might as well put the screws on the player character so long as it doesn't take away from the fun of the game; make it difficult and frustrating, and the player's will feel like they accomplished something when they're done, and of course reward them as well. If they fail, well make it hurt, there's always the load game button.

[Grem]

@Reynard: Oh, yeah, my beef isn't with taking the advice for video games, not at all. Taken that way, it's sound. I mean, you can still fudge the dice (City of Heroes has a streakbreaker mechanic for those who miss too much in a row), but it's not something I'd expect. Viewed that way, yeah, there's nothing wrong at all.

[Reynard Frost]

We're also talking a DnD like game versus a video game. Video games have the advantage of saved games that can be quickly reloaded. So in which case, the game developer might as well put the screws on the player character so long as it doesn't take away from the fun of the game; make it difficult and frustrating, and the player's will feel like they accomplished something when they're done, and of course reward them as well. If they fail, well make it hurt, there's always the load game button.

I brought it the forefront to view it through a Video Game lens. XD

[Reynard Frost]

Pardon the double post, bumping this so newer members can have a read.

[SolarGale]

@Reynard
Man, for some reason the link in your first post doesn't work for me, all I see is a white page (wtf?)
It's a shame because reading the discussion it seemed like an interesting article, is this happening to anyone else?

[Reynard Frost]

@Reynard
Man, for some reason the link in your first post doesn't work for me, all I see is a white page (wtf?)
It's a shame because reading the discussion it seemed like an interesting article, is this happening to anyone else?

It shows up fine for me using Chrome. Try clearing your cache or refreshing the page?

[SolarGale]

@RF
Aha! it works now, I was using chrome and did try everything you said previously but nothing happened... although now that i click on it again it worked, so thanks anyway, i guess some things solve themselves. :3

[Kaelan]

I kind of agree with Grem on this, even from the perspective of a video game. This is more related to Game Design than writing, but I'm really really annoyed by gameplay mechanics that rely on randomness, in which you can be screwed over by bad luck with the RNG. It's fine if there's an appearance of randomness, but it shouldn't actually be completely random - you should always make sure you avoid the worst case scenario, or have some kind of failsafe against the really annoying situations.

One of my favorite examples is some of the quests in WoW which require you getting X many drops from Y monster. It's stated to be a certain % drop rate, but inside the game code, it will actually force a drop if you go through a certain number of kills without getting anything. I've also heard of other games doing similar things, where each time you don't get a particular drop, the rate increases until you get it; at which point it returns to normal. So you're never in that situation of "getting a bad roll" 20 times in a row.

[Reynard Frost]

I kind of agree with Grem on this, even from the perspective of a video game. This is more related to Game Design than writing, but I'm really really annoyed by gameplay mechanics that rely on randomness, in which you can be screwed over by bad luck with the RNG. It's fine if there's an appearance of randomness, but it shouldn't actually be completely random - you should always make sure you avoid the worst case scenario, or have some kind of failsafe against the really annoying situations.

One of my favorite examples is some of the quests in WoW which require you getting X many drops from Y monster. It's stated to be a certain % drop rate, but inside the game code, it will actually force a drop if you go through a certain number of kills without getting anything. I've also heard of other games doing similar things, where each time you don't get a particular drop, the rate increases until you get it; at which point it returns to normal. So you're never in that situation of "getting a bad roll" 20 times in a row.

Well it's not so much about randomness as it is about not walking the player by the hand and instead making them figure things out on their own. I agree that if the player is suffering due to low dice rolls, that some alterations should be made, but don't ignore the player making a bad decision. Let them know they screwed up and react accordingly.

Edited by Reynard Frost, 23 June 2012 - 03:51 PM.