Hey everyone. I noticed that we have quite a few gamers 'round these parts. I'm not sure who has seen this stuff and who hasn't, so here we go.
Gaming is a fun, social activity, and I personally like to analyze it (while _not_ playing) to see how the whole shebang works. I see merit in this the same way the PD community sees merit in analyzing and changing ingrained thought processes, to make it a better, more fun, more challenging activity.
One of the main Models of "what actually happens between us monkeys while gaming" is called The Big Model [wikipedia link to follow]. I see this as a very well thought out model, and one that can be applied to your own gaming activities with some surprising results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Model)
The most hotly contested aspect of the Big Model is Creative Agenda, so before you go and read through the wiki article, lets take a moment to examine that. Here's a really helpful visualization from the article:
QuoteThe Big Model attempts to contextualize the many different aspects of the role-playing game hobby in a set of meaningful, hierarchical relationships by organizing these phenomena into four nested 'boxes'. The contents of each inner box are considered to be within the aegis of the outer box. A "skewer" that thrusts through the set of boxes identifies creative agenda.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/The_Big_Model.svg/480px-The_Big_Model.svg.png)
Now, in the forum that this model came together (The Forge @ www.indie-rpgs.com) they identified a set of 3 basic creative agendas that the group (and the individuals) can hold as primary motivation. This grouping, called GNS, is a hotly debated subject and source of much drama and wank. So, at this point, this GNS issue is the last thing I want to talk about here. The point tho, is that when you sit down with a group of friends to play you have an Agenda for what type of fun you want. This Agenda, when shared, leads to moments of fun happening more often. When the people at the table have wildly differing Agendas then this leads to dysfunction and drama. What we call each person's Agenda doesn't matter at this point, the point is to be on board with each other.
OK! Now, having said that, go and read the wikipedia article. This is the model we'll be working with in this thread, and it will lead to some surprising things for some people, I think.
Later today, I'm also going to be introducing a podcast blog that has started to examine the various techniques and tips that this model has spawned (they guy who runs it is a Discordian I haven't run across before last night), and also interviews some of the core people who have developed the Big Model and the games and techniques that the model has led to.
Hopefully this will be useful to the gamer population of PD.
I'm looking forward to this as a game developer.
what exactly is this model useful for?
:mittens:
There's a simpler model. It's called Flow (http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/introduction.htm).
Thanks Cram. Are you familiar with any of this stuff yet?
Quote from: Kai on June 16, 2009, 02:31:38 AM
There's a simpler model. It's called Flow (http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/introduction.htm).
Thanks Kai. That idea seems like an important part of what I'm going to be discussing here, but that really focuses on video games, which is a player interacting with a computer (or with another player through a computer). This topic is more focused around Tabletop(maybe LARP), face-to-face imaginative play. (Although I can and do translate much of this into video games, as that's what I'm in school for.)
Quote from: Requia on June 16, 2009, 12:39:01 AM
what exactly is this model useful for?
I see it as useful as a meta-framework that allows us to verbalize and examine things that we otherwise wouldn't have the terms and language to verbalize and examine. Mostly tho, it's because ideas only have meaning within a context, and I wanted to be upfront with the context I will be working in when I present the later stuff, the real meat of the thread.
Which leads to:
THEORY FROM THE CLOSET by Clyde
I like this guy. He's got an appropriately self-examining sense of humor, and so far has over 50 podcasts on this subject. I will post his notes from the podcast (when available) here, but I encourage those following the thread to listen to the podcast before jumping into the discussion, just so we're all working from the same source. If you really feel the need to jump ahead and listen to more of them, that's great, but I want to give each one (possibly 2) at a time a chance to drive the discussion for a while.
I'm going to start at the beginning.
Show 001:Does System Matter?http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show001.mp3 (http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show001.mp3)
Quote
Section 1: Introduction
This is where I introduced myself, and explained why I have no business discussing RPG theory or design. I then discussed the goals of the show, which are to be about 90% correct, that's an A, and to build from the ground up so new folks can learn as we go through shows. The specific theory the show is going to start with is GNS theory and the Big Model as that is what I'm most familiar with. I also let people know that I wasn't going to edit cursing, because this is a hobby, and I just don't want to take the time to police that. I think I dropped one F- bomb, and one D-bomb later in the show.
Section 2: Definitions
1. Rule Zero - The first rule in almost all RPG's
2. GM-Fiat - A System where the GM has all control over the fiction.
3. Agenda - Is being referred to as style, I'll refine the word when we get to GNS.
4. Theory Majors - Folks who are already well versed in RPG theory.
5. Shared Imaginary Space (S.I.S.) - The fiction that is created through play.
6. Social Contract - Our Relationships, logistical concerns, and expectations.
7. Big Model - A model for roleplaying theory.
Section 3: Main segment - Does System Matter?
This is where I launch into the main portion of the show. First I discuss various people's views on rules, then I steal the Troll with a tree story. I use this to launch into a discussion of style conflict. This leads to what System is, and then close with some views on freestyle gaming.
Section 4: Outro
Thanks for listening.
Additional Thoughts
So I'm not sure whether I made it clear in the show whether I thought system mattered. I do. I think the definition has changed since Ron wrote that article I link to [below]. As the term is defined now, it is hard to imagine system not mattering. There are people who don't play with a well stated system and that works for them. I wonder how their games would change if they took the time to state their rules, or what might change in their opinions of their play if they actually saw some of their unwritten rules verbalized. I know that the idea has changed my thoughts on how I should go about Roleplaying.
Thanks for reading this long post.
Links Provided:
* The Big Model (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/bigmodelpic.pdf), it's boxes not nested dolls, but you should get a clearer picture.
* System Does Matter (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html), by Ron Edwards
* Why System Does Matter: Fun is Portable (http://www.chimera.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=99999999), by Matt Snyder
NOTE: The wiki he mentions doesn't exist. This podcast is about 2 years old and that seems to have not worked out for him.
Ok, on second thought, instead of linking to the mp3 and reproducing the notes, I'll just link to his blog post, which will have the link to the mp3 and the notes.
That first podcast covered a lot of the basics pretty well, so I feel that we can go on to the second one.
http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/01/10/show002-conflict-and-task-resolution/ (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/01/10/show002-conflict-and-task-resolution/)
(Warning: starts with some loud incoherent punk-ish music.)
This is getting to the stuff that really interests me, and should provide much more interesting things to discuss.
Ok, so having finished listening to that podcast I'd like to expand the Task-based Resolution vs Conflict-based Resolution system that Clyde mentions. His examples were a bit light for my taste.
So, Task Resolution means that when the dice hit the table, you're simply trying to see if the task you are attempting succeeds or not. Then the person with narration authority (basically the GM in most versions) describes what happens as a result. D&D has used this Technique pretty much consistently throughout all of it's incarnations.
Conflict Resolution means that the player and the GM agree to Stakes before the roll, and the roll determines how the in-game conflict is resolved.
So, lets have an example: A Thief is trying to pick a lock on the back door to get into a wizard's tower and loot the place. The GM has said that the wizard has a few animated crossbows walking around the tower as a sentry system
With a Task-based resolution system, each roll has a very specific time frame that it takes up and the the only change to the SIS after the roll is made is that time has passed and either the door gets unlocked, or the door remains locked. If the Thief fails the roll, and the GM doesn't introduce a complication, he gets to try again. And again, and again and again. Usually, the GM will only allow this to go on for so long before he introduces one of the walking crossbows into the scene.
With a Conflict-based resolution system, the dice roll can cover various time-frames and before the dice are rolled the player and GM negotiate as to what's actually At Stake with this roll. Let me say that again, because it's important. The player and the GM have a clear understanding that the Stakes in the roll are something Important. Then the dice are rolled and who-ever gets to narrate the results narrates them keeping in mind the Stakes set before the roll.
It may go something like this:
Player (having lurked and sussed out the sentry system): I want to pick the lock and get into the tower without drawing attention from those damn crossbow mini-golems (sets win Stakes).
GM: Ok, so if you fail at this roll you're still working at the lock when the sentry-crossbow rounds the corner. It's going to get a free shot at you (sets fail Stakes).
(In this case, we skip the *fail, roll again, fail, roll again, then something changes* routine. The roll failing means the situation has escalated, and the player is aware of this before attempting the roll.)
On the other hand the system may have Degrees of Success, and it may go like this:
Player: I want to pick the lock and get into the tower without drawing attention from those damn crossbow mini-golems (sets win Stakes).
GM: OK, that's 2 Stakes, unlocking the door and getting in unnoticed. You need an Excellent Success to get it unlocked and slip inside without drawing attention. A regular Success means you get it unlocked and get inside, but in the process you take an arrow in the back and take d6 damage. A Failure means that you can't get the lock to budge, you take an arrow in the back and take d6 damage and we go into a Combat round as you deal with the sentry and you'll have to roll Initiative.
At that point, the Player can decide that that's worth it and go for the roll, or he can continue the negotiation and set different Stakes. He could say that his character is also keeping an eye or ear out for the sentries. The GM may then impose a roll penalty and change the Stakes to reflect that choice. In that case, and Excellent Success means unlocking the door and slipping in unnoticed. A regular Success means unlocking the door right when the crossbow-golem rounds the corner and the Thief gets to respond to the free attack with a Dodge roll, while a Failure means that he doesn't get the door unlocked, but then also gets a Dodge attempt to cancel the free attack.
Conflict resolution takes some getting used to, but can be a very powerful way to drive the plot and to escalate situations, and tends to make rolling for important things a very tense experience.
Does this make sense? Any questions?
Ok, last thing for tonight. I found an excellent post by Vincent Backer (who wrote Dogs in the Vineyard) about some advice for using Conflict Resolution:
http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#7
QuotePractical Conflict Resolution Advice
My friend anonyfan asks: "Do you have any ideas on how to effectively and meaningfully implement 'what's at stake' in a non-narrativist game?"
I sure do.
You won't have any trouble at all, and in fact your group will wonder how you got along before, if you find the magic words. I don't know what your group's magic words are but here are some I've used:
"The danger is that..."
"What's at stake is..."
"What you're risking is..."
"So what you hope to accomplish is..."
Say the magic words every single time, when the dice are in their hands but before they roll 'em.
At first, you'll need to finish the sentence every time yourself, with a period, like:
"The danger is that you'll set off the trap instead of disarming it."
"What's at stake is, do you make it to the ferry in time or do you have to go the long way around?"
"What you're risking is being overheard by the goblins on the rooftop."
"So what you hope to accomplish is to get through the doorway, whether this ogre lives or dies."
But after you've said it three or four or ten times, you'll be able to trail off with a question mark when you want their input:
"What you're risking is...?"
And then, once the dice are on the table, always always always make it like this:
- If they succeed, they win what's at stake. They accomplish their accomplishment or they avoid the danger.
- If they fail, they lose what's at stake - and you IMMEDIATELY introduce something new at stake. It might be another chance, it might be a consequence, but what matters is that it's more serious that the former.
"The danger is that you'll set off the trap ... and you do! A dart thocks into your shoulder. The danger now is that you'll succumb to its poison!"
"You reach the dock as the ferry's pulling away. Do you want to jump for it?"
"The goblins overhear you and start dropping in through the skylight. They scramble all over you, biting and screeching. The danger is that they'll get you off your feet!"
"Not only does the ogre keep you away from the doorway, it's pushing you back toward the chasm..."
In combat, you'll probably want to have an overall what's at stake for the fight, and little tactical what's at stakes for each exchange. When you describe the setup, mention two or three features of the environment, like hanging tapestries or a swaying bridge or broken cobblestones, plus an apparent weakness of the foe, like worn armor straps or a pus-filled left eye, and then when you say what's at stake for an exchange, incorporate one of those: "the danger is that he'll push you back onto the broken cobblestones" or "so what you're hoping to do is to further strain his armor straps." This is on top of hitting and damage and whatever, just add it straight in.
It's especially effective if you always give a small bonus or penalty for the exchange before. What's it in D&D now, +2/-2? Give it every single exchange, linked to whether they won or lost the what's at stake of the previous exchange. "The broken cobblestones mess up your footing, so take a -2." "He has to shrug and shift to adjust his sagging armor, so take a +2."
In Forge terms, you've used a couple of nonmechanical techniques to build a conflict resolution system around your game's task resolution rules. Guaranteed plus-fun.
This stuff is awesome!
The Once and Future GM of one of the largest LARP groups in Columbus (200+ at one point), has returned from a 4 year break and we're now developing a LARP for the next Marcon (next May). Traditionally we've run Vampire, Werewolf, Mage or Cthulhu Live. This year we're trying to see if we can develop a new system and world entirely. One of the biggest problems with any of the White Wolf stuff is OOC knowledge. Even if you want to pretend not to know... YOU KNOW why that Tremere has a blue ribbon around their neck. You know that the ugly guy in the corner is a Nos, he can turn invisible and probably beat the crap out of you. etc. Also, we're trying to deveolp very non-intrusive mechanics so that people can spend more time playing, rather than standing in time stop for 20 minutes while 15 seconds of combat go by.
Fantastic bit of synchronicity to find this popping up now! ;-)
this seems like extremely interesting stuff, but I haven't had time to read it all yet.
Quote from: Telarus on June 16, 2009, 02:42:54 AM
Thanks Cram. Are you familiar with any of this stuff yet?
yes, but not with much of the terminology you've employed. Good reading! Don't have time to listen to an hour of podcasts before reading the post though.
I'm with rat, in that this is good timing for bringing this up. I've just signed up as the head writer for this huge-ass LARP which (if all goes according to plan) will be run next September. The goal is to be the melting-pot larp, where you can bring your character from your home game into our universe. Sort of like the pennsic of fantasy larp. This is a problematic project, one which I could elaborate on for pages, but suffice to say:
there are intersting problems in creating a gaming experience for a large number of people. I have 8+ experience running games for ~100 people at a time. I have no experience running games for 500+ people at a time. You need a totally new model. So I've been talking with the other writers about designing plot which doesn't rely on micromanagement, which makes the individual useful but not necessary, which makes players interact with each other to generate plot instead of the plot coming through the NPCs and modules.... interesting challenges!
so this is good stuff to keep in mind as we design it
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 16, 2009, 02:58:25 PM
One of the biggest problems with any of the White Wolf stuff is OOC knowledge. Even if you want to pretend not to know... YOU KNOW why that Tremere has a blue ribbon around their neck. You know that the ugly guy in the corner is a Nos, he can turn invisible and probably beat the crap out of you. etc. Also, we're trying to deveolp very non-intrusive mechanics so that people can spend more time playing, rather than standing in time stop for 20 minutes while 15 seconds of combat go by.
excellent, I'm glad you're thinking about that, because these are some of the major reasons which repel me from white wolf larps. I like my games immersive, I like to forget about the real world. In the LARPs I run / play, there is no invisibility, there is no flying, there are no giants. In one of them, there is no separation between In-Game and Out-Of-Game knowledge - if you know something OOG, you heard it IG too. That means that if you assassinate someone from behind, you can't stand around the body and talk about it, because the spirit can still hear you (even though the guys eyes are closed and he can't see you, he's still listening no matter what). They do this because they don't want players to have to ignore information that they actually know. It means you've gotta keep secrets really well!
at the last vampire larp I played, this guy said to me, "BTW, I'm probably going to kill you at the next event. But I'm telling you that out-of-character. So if you react to it, you're meta-gaming." WTF! Now if I defend myself, I'm cheating?
at the first vampire larp I played, I was a nos, and they gave me this in-game spy microphone that let me walk up to conversations and observe them without "being there". But in real life, I am actually standing there, making this dumb "ignore me" gesture (which only 40% of the players understood), and they DO change their conversation topic to account for that.
/threadjack
Good, I'm glad you guys are finding this useful. As to the podcasts, well, since I have the time at the moment to listen to them, I keep doings so, and then bring the interesting bits and links back to the thread. So you can probably skip them. I'm probably going to start jumping around in that case and highlighting the stuff I find useful.
Ep 003 of Theory From the Closet talks about Stances.
http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/04/08/show003-stances/ (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/04/08/show003-stances/)
Here I'll just copy some definitions from the Forge Glossary. These are good things to keep in mind, but I don't really want to dig into these right now as I've got some other interesting concepts that I do want to dig into.
http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html)
QuoteStance
The cognitive position of a person to a fictional character. Differences among Stances should not be confused with IC vs. OOC narration. Originally coined in the RFGA on-line discussions; see John Kim?s website for archives. Current usage modified in GNS and other matters of role-playing theory. See Actor,Author, and Director Stance.
Actor Stance
The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue.
Author Stance
The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the player's priorities, independently of the character's knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions. When it lacks this feature, it is called Pawn Stance.
Director Stance
The person playing a character determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters. Director Stance is often confused with narration of an in-game event, but the two concepts are not necessarily related.
One interesting thing to note is that usually, but not always, only the GM in games has the authority to narrate things into the fiction that are outside of the Character scope. Players can (usually) only narrate what their characters do, how they react, how they feel, etc.
Some games break this mold, but that gets into who at the table has Narration Authority over certain aspects of the fiction. We'll get back to this subject in a while.
Ok, so after listening to Episodes 003 and 009, we have a few more concepts to introduce.
Kickers, Flags, and Bangs.----------><----------
A
Kicker is a short, (maybe 2-5 sentence) description, written before play, of what has just happened to a (player's) Character that makes going back to a normal day-to-day existence _impossible_. It's what Kick's Off the story for each Character. This should have some sort of open ended aspect that can be resolved during play (but maybe not for a few sessions), or is some sort of dynamic situation that cries out for a resolution of some sort.
A classic example is "I wake up in the morning and go to the bathroom. I'm shocked to find my girlfriend hanging, dead, in the shower. Suddenly, some-one bangs on my front door and a loud voice announces 'THIS IS THE POLICE'."
I haven't used Kickers or played in a game that requires Kickers yet, but it's certainly an interesting thing to think about (looking at Rat and Cram). As Clyde says, "The important thing to keep in mind when you're creating a character is that you're playing a collaborative game, so make it(the Kicker) interesting for the other people at the table, too."
----------><----------
Next up are
Flags. These are thing used to identify what about the game or character is interesting to the player. It is specifically created and written on the character sheet to tell all the players at the table about that player/character's shtick, and specifically what about the game/character/story is important to the player. This is the closest mechanic/technique/rule I've seen to just putting your Creative Agenda out there for everyone to see.
The key thing about flags are to tie them to the mechanics, or to one of the Narrative Currencies (say XP, or Action Points, or similar) or other aspect of the Reward Cycle, or have them otherwise affect the game-world in a clear way, and also to limit the number you can have so that you have to make a choice about what's important.
I've mentioned these with
The Shadow of Yesterday's Keys (in the White Wold thread, I think), and how they give xp when the character is in a scene that 'hits' on those
Keys, the "motivations, problems, connections, duties, and loyalties that pull on your character.. ", with more xp for when a bigger motivational payoff, or larger problem or decision over duties/loyalty, etc comes up.
Clyde also mentions
Instincts and
Beliefs from Burning Wheel.
Instincts are statements like "I always have my Gun on me." These statements modify the actual rules for that story, so the player's character always has his gun on him (yes, even in the shower), and that's one of the most important things about him. That says something meaningful about that character, and it also says something meaningful about how this player wants the story to go. Then, if the player is thrust into (or chooses voluntarily) a situation where he has to act against his Instinct (say a Conflict roll deprives him of his gun), he gets a Narrative Currency (something to spend to give a bonus to affect a scene).
Beliefs are sort of goals for the character. You get 3 of them. The example Clyde gives is "My brother is not the rightful King. I need to remove him from the throne." These statements introduce characters and situations into the game that cry out to be resolved, similar to
Kickers above.
Flags, apart from the mechanical/game-world affecting aspect, also give the GM a handful of things per player with which to drive the plot. This makes it really easy to adapt pre-written scenarios to the unique story being told at the table, and also give the GM something to build further plot, conflict and challenges with. This leads to Bangs! which are driving the plot by hammering suddenly on a player's Flags. If your system doesn't have explicit Flags, go and make them. Otherwise you'll have to tease out from the player and their character sheets/ past stories to find out what to hammer on.
Clyde also mentions, that as players, we need to help set-up these interesting moments (Bangs) that the GM will use. We can do this by creating a conflicted character, one who will have to make hard decisions.He gives the example of a second "Belief" of "I care about how the Kingdom is run, and it turns out that my Brother would probably make a better King for the Kingdom I care about."
----------><----------
And finally,
Bangs.
Quote from: Forge GlossaryThe Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer.
These are sudden events that the GM introduces as a 'story-dilemma'. Something that hits those things that one or more character find important (see Flags or even Kickers). Something that forces the player to make a decision, or puts them on the spot. If you can craft it so it hits more than one Flag and makes a player choose which one is _more_ important, so much the better.
You can plot two or more ways that a Bang can go, but never decide which is the 'Right' way to resolve it. The key to Bangs are that the GM cannot have any stake in how the players actually choose. He just has to throw it out there (BANG!), and then rolls with their answer. This throws the notion of a linear plot, or even a branching tree plot, out the window. Bangs should be thought of in clusters of related opportunities for Cain-level Machiavellianism. You can have future Bangs planned that depend on previous Bangs happening, but don't make too many Bangs that depend on how previous Bangs are
resolved or on the choices that players make to respond to them. If you do have a lot of those, you'll find them evaporating in play when a player or the group makes a decision that surprises _everyone_.
----------><----------
Ok, so now we can see how these ideas are interlocking and becoming more than their individual meme-packets.
Any question? Comments....? Want to start a quick online game? All we need is an agreed on rule-set and a resolution mechanic (die-roller, etc).
MEANWHILE:
I started this horrible blog to give NERO staff members tips for running NERO, a live combat fantasy larp. It's terribly nerdy, but has some relevant LARP theory in there. http://nerology.wordpress.com/
What the FUCK? RPG theory?
Look, all I want to do is get the refinery out of my head on the weekend by hacking shit up. Just give me something with a CR that's like 3 too high for my dude, and a big honkin' sword, and that's all I fucking need. THEORY, MY ASS! I JUST WANT TO KILL SOMETHING WITH TENTACLES!
Roger, you open the door.
... THERE IS A HUGE MOTHERFUCKING MONSTER WITH DARK PURPLE TENTACLES AND YOU ARE RAGING AT +7 STRENGTH WHAT DO YOU DO YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR +2 SWEARING SWORD OF SEWAGE SAVAGERY AND IT GOES GODDAMNIT NOT ANOTHER FUCKING PURPLE MEGA SHITFUCK TENTACLE MONSTER DAMN FUCK POOP CHOLERA SPRAY HOSE LET ME FUCKING AT IT I WILL BLOODY SLASH ITS SHITTY SQUID SUCKERS INTO SYPHILIS SUSHI SLIME
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 23, 2009, 11:57:05 AM
Roger, you open the door.
... THERE IS A HUGE MOTHERFUCKING MONSTER WITH DARK PURPLE TENTACLES AND YOU ARE RAGING AT +7 STRENGTH WHAT DO YOU DO YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR +2 SWEARING SWORD OF SEWAGE SAVAGERY AND IT GOES GODDAMNIT NOT ANOTHER FUCKING PURPLE MEGA SHITFUCK TENTACLE MONSTER DAMN FUCK POOP CHOLERA SPRAY HOSE LET ME FUCKING AT IT I WILL BLOODY SLASH ITS SHITTY SQUID SUCKERS INTO SYPHILIS SUSHI SLIME
...now roll a silly looking pair of dice.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:00:37 AM
What the FUCK? RPG theory?
Look, all I want to do is get the refinery out of my head on the weekend by hacking shit up. Just give me something with a CR that's like 3 too high for my dude, and a big honkin' sword, and that's all I fucking need. THEORY, MY ASS! I JUST WANT TO KILL SOMETHING WITH TENTACLES!
Theory is more for people like me who design the damned systems.
Yar. I'm working on a modern fantasy rpg. This could be useful...
I'm starting to think that the best chance for running a game on this forum is using a system that allows for player authorship.
We'd probably be able to run a sweet Inspectres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InSpectres) game, for example.
Bump. Here's notes from an article I had to read for class:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4024/examining_game_pace_how_.php?page=2
Examining Game Pace: How Single-Player Levels Tick
Bullet notes:
-=// Pacing: determining good from poor pacing \\=-
-=// 4 Fundamentals of Pacing \\=-
* Movement Impetus -- the will of the player to move through the level.
* Threat -- the notion of danger.
* Tension -- the atmosphere and mood of the level or perceived danger which is reflected in the player.
* Tempo -- the level of actual action currently being experienced by the player.
-= Movement Impetus =-
There are many elements that increase impetus to move:
* Introduce a threat from behind -- as long as the threat is significant it will cause the player to want to move away from it.
* Present an objective ahead -- dangling the carrot is one of the most effective methods of encouraging movement. A clearly defined goal is vital in creating this urge to follow it.
* Impose a time limit -- quite obviously the restriction of a time limit will encourage the player to not hang around. Too many imposed time limits can be extremely frustrating however.
* Narrow physical options -- limiting the space in which to travel -- i.e. long corridors as opposed to open spaces, limits the amount of choice available to the player and in turn increases the speed at which they tend to move.
* Draw the eye -- items of interest will pull the player towards them. Judicious use of these will help to pull the player through parts of the level. Bear in mind that once they reach the item of interest they are likely to pause at that point.
* Architectural pressure -- specific forms of architecture promote movement. Walls that angle down, long corridors, junctions, etc all have psychological impact upon the player.
* Snatch desired object -- taking away a desired object will often trigger the player into chasing after it.
* NPC leads the way -- having a third party lead the player though the level will nearly always directly affect the movement impetus.
Provide Breaks! [This is about Pacing after all.]
Conversely there are also many elements that decrease impetus to move:
* Wow moments -- stunning scenery, dramatic actions, impressive vistas or other elements that halt the player for a while.
* Obstacle -- something blocking the progress ahead will decrease movement impetus and force the player to find a way around or a way to clear the blockage.
* Altered movement -- a different movement method may require more thought, such as scaling walls via handholds.
* Introducing a threat ahead -- a group of enemies ahead, a flaming pit or any other potential threat will slow the player whilst they plan to deal with it, then execute said plan.
* Increased tension -- when tension is particularly high (usually through a high perceived threat and good atmosphere) then the player will often be fearful of moving quickly. Dead Space is a classic example of this -- many players tend to move slowly to ready themselves for sudden attacks.
* Multiple Routes / Open World -- choice requires thought and thought slows movement impetus. Multiple routes and open world games offer a plethora of choice. Perhaps the ultimate example of slowed impetus is the moment when a player exits the sewer in Oblivion and sees the huge expanse of the world before them. It takes a moment or two just to take it all in.
* NPC halts player -- just as an NPC can lead the player, they can also halt the player or slow them down.
* Taking stock of inventory (collecting items) -- whenever a player encounters an item they are likely to slow down to investigate. Complex inventory systems will also require management that will slow movement impetus. Further still -- having collectible items in the first place will encourage exploration.
* Dialog / Roleplay -- moments of dialog with NPCs or getting into the character will generally require more involvement from the player, and will thus slow movement impetus.
* Story exposition -- generally the exposition of story will require the player's attention and will thus slow movement impetus.
[Don't slow down too much or you will deprotagonize your players.]
"A balance needs to be struck in providing a sense of movement and accomplishment and allowing the player time to themselves to explore, soak in the atmosphere or to take stock of their situation. "
-= Threat (Actual Danger) =-
* The pace of the game can also be increased by the sense of peril that is experience by the player. The more threat the player believes they are under, the quicker their pulse, the more nervous and often more panicked them are. Different threats produce different pacing behaviours.
* Level of threat is detremined based on threat of external force, or threat of one's own mistakes. Threat from external force quickens pace/panic, internal threat allows one to gather one's thoughts or find a plan and gives a sense of retaining control.
* Proximity of Threat matters. NEAR. .....far
* Adding time limit increases perceived danger. You have removed some of their control.
-= TENSION (Perceived Danger) =-
* Occurs from the belief (gamble) in an unknown danger.
* Must be created in Context, an 'atmosphere' that you can get invested->immersed in.
* Can also be acheived through a lurking known threat.
* The Usual Tropes can get you investment ("buy-in"), such as the alien from Aliens (see TVTropes.org for more).
* Suddenly engaging in enemies at close proximity sharply ramps up Tension.
-= TEMPO =-
* Tempo describes the level of intensity of action -- how much concentration is required by the player to achieve their goal.
* Low tempo gameplay tends to be that which requires serious thought and contemplation -- generally puzzles.
* High tempo gameplay is generally gameplay that requires fast reactions and split-second decisions. High tempo action often induces stress or panic and often at its highest level might be termed "frantic".
* Sure fire Tempo game-changer are Time Limits, or 'Forced Pacing'.
* Tempo in Movement ~
Tempo when moving around the environment gets determined by the mechanics of the game and the environment itself.
Explorative movement tends to be low tempo, as the player has time to look around and determine their own route.
High Tempo feels acrobatic, and good Flow needs greater attention from environment and mechanics (Prince of Persia:Sands of Time).
* Tempo in Puzzles
Puzzles by their very nature tend to be low tempo -- the only real way to create a high tempo puzzle is to add a time pressure.
Puzzles with Forced Pacing serve as a counterpoint to high paced action like combat.
* Tempo in Combat
Usually High Tempo, split second decision making, requires high levels of reaction. Tempo may change dramatically during a battle.
General Skirmishes~ A general battle against a group of enemies in a game tends to follow a bell-curve pattern. The tempo of the battle builds to a certain tempo before it hits a turning point, where the more the player removes the incoming threat, the easier it becomes to take out the remaining threats.
(http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/feature/4024/fig1.jpg)
For example, a Left 4 Dead horde encounter follows this pattern -- the initial build up of enemies increased fairly rapidly up to a maximum number and a frantic tempo, before the player manages to destroy enough to turn the tide of the battle. At this point the lesser numbers make it easier to kill the remaining zombies and the tempo drops off.
Boss Fights~ Boss fights tend to have much more of a crescendo feel -- they are generally eased into the first part of the fight, but as they start to chip away at its health it begins to attack with more and more ferocity, until the final phase where it is particularly dangerous. Of course once it is defeated the threat has been completely eliminated the tempo drops to pretty much nothing.
(http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/feature/4024/fig2.jpg)
-= Structure of Pacing =-
* Pacing as a waveform model - Moments of Actions interjected with periods of calm, peaks and troughs.
* Linger in a trouh to long and boredom and tedium deprotegonize.
* Linger on a peak too long can desensitize players to the action, repetitive and boring.
* Incorporates the idea of 'varied repitition' found in music.
* Elements of Music Theory to consider~
**Rhythm -- in music rhythm is the timing of particular notes. In gameplay this could translate as the timing of events that determines game pace. See TEMPO ~ the feel of intensity that the player experiences from moment to moment.
@Ways to alter Tempo (general music terms applied):
***Accelerando -- gradually increasing (accelerating) the tempo. This is very applicable to level pacing as it is often the case that the average tempo of the level increases towards the end.
***Ritardando -- gradually decreasing the tempo. This may not apply across a whole level, which generally will increase in tempo, but might occur after particularly fraught sections -- rather than simply drop the pace completely it may bring it down gradually.
***Precipitando -- going faster than previously. This would increase intensity of gameplay over the preceding section.
***Calando - going slower than previously. This would decrease intensity of gameplay over the preceding section.
***Stretto -- temporarily speeding up. This would be a change to bring up the intensity of the gameplay or raise the challenge for a short time.
***Ritenuto -- slightly slower than the previous tempo, holding back. This might be used in level pace to punctuate a battle with a smaller skirmish before returning to a larger battle thereafter.
** Melody -- describes notes in a successive series to create 'phrases of sound'. This could be comparable to a sequence of events in a level to create 'phrases of gameplay' -- something that might be termed Flow in game design.
@Flow - the pattern of game mechanics that make up a sequence (terms for Melody include...)
***Monotone -- the repeated use of a single element.
***Ostinato -- a repeated phrase or game mechanic (separate to monotone in that it is punctuated with others).
***Ornaments -- elements that are used to embellish the principle element -- i.e. smaller game mechanics in a sequence that focuses on one particular mechanic as its main theme.
***Tremolo -- rapid alternation between mechanics.
** Harmony -- is the combination of notes of different pitches to create pleasing sounds, something that can easily be equated to combinations of game mechanics within a sequence to create a pleasing play experience. Disharmony exists anc can be used/avoided.
** Form -- the structure of a piece of music. Potentially this could be applied to the organization of gameplay events to form particular patterns over time. Includes
***Strophic form -- verse, chorus, verse [choruses tend to be louder, more impactful sections between quieter and more relaxed verses. This is very similar to the peaks and troughs ethos of many games' level pacing.]
***Rondo (to return) plays a different melody each verse, but returns to one main theme each time.
***Other structures are very much like mini narratives, such as Fugue or Invention, which tend to have exposition, then development and then finished with recapitulation.
***Variation has a main theme that is played slightly differently each time.
** Timbre -- the quality of the note. This is generally related to the type of instrument that creates it. This could be applied as the different types of mechanics used to produce the desired gameplay (or the different emotional content in the event). Polish the little events to improve the overall look/feel.
** Dynamics -- refers to the volume or sound of a note. This could translate to game design as the specifics of a particular piece of gameplay, such as the numbers of enemies used in a combat sequence or the height and length of jumps in a platforming sequence.
***Legato -- long and smooth flowing.
***Staccato - short and detached.
** Texture -- describes the 'amount that is going on' in a piece of music at any one time. In gameplay this can simply translate as how many different things are happening at any one time-slice. Ranges from comlpex to simple, rich to bland, among other descriptors.
***Monophony - single notes at a time, or in the case of gameplay, single mechanics used one at a time.
***Homophonic -- using harmonies, such as chords on a single melody. This would be the use of mechanics that work well together in defined patterns.
***Polyphonic -- multiple melodies playing at the same time. This would be extremely complex scenarios in terms of gameplay, where different gameplay elements are occurring in their own patterns. This would be fairly rare without being a complete mess.
***Heterophonic -- the same melody is being played with slight variations at the same time. This is more likely to be workable than a polyphonic scenario, as it would be more readable in terms of what is going on.
Balance Threat, Tension, Movement Impetus and Tempo to drive the pace forward.
Descript each Event with a rating in the above 4 stats. Frame the opening and closing of "Scenes" aggresively.
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory
wow, cool post! Thanks Telarus, that was really interesting.
I'm reminded of a text on LARP dramaturgy (http://knutepunkt.laiv.org/kp05/Incentives%20as%20tools%20of%20larp%20dramaturgy..pdf) which talks about using incentives to motivate players to move through a live narrative. Surprisingly, it has similar elements to single player level design...
here's an exerpt
The Fog of LarpUnlike texts in linear media (the theater, the novel, the film) a larp is typically unpredictable. Some larps are planned "open-ended" or "player-driven", purposefully unpredictable, others risk seeing the carefully crafted plans of the larpwright failing utterly when played. Bøckman's maxim states that
Quote"is impossible to control the direction of a game as long as the plot-structure is hidden from the players, and that an action appearing the only logical step to an organizer don't necessarily do so for the players. (...) For any given problem, there are an infinite number of solutions, and as an organizer, you may take for granted that the players will think of those you did not."
(Bøckman, 2003) .I call the unpredictability implied by this maxim for "the fog of larp", and the fact of it's existence can be attested to by any number of larpwrights and players.
Markus Montola's application of a chaotic behavior metaphor to larp (see Montola, 2004) sheds further light on the fog-of-larp. Chaotic systems are not random, i.e. not "pure chaos", but become unpredictable due to their qualities of non-linearity, recursivity and dynamism. Montola makes the convincing case that role-playing can be described as a chaotic system, and recommends that larpwrights view their activity not as authoring scripts but as establishing attractors. An attractor is "a dynamic pattern of behavior the chaotic system tries to follow". We can think of attractors as paths or roads leading through the fog of larp, which players may try to follow but from which they may also deviate or be forced to deviate. Montola's example is that of the race-car which attempts to stay on the racing track until it strays too far off-course and picks a new track leading into the forest. A web of incentives involving the election of the next Pope may be the focus – the attractor being followed - for the Cardinal characters of a larp, until suddenly the Visigoth characters decide to attack Rome and the cardinals jump onto the attractor called "defend the Vatican".
Integrative techniques make attractors stronger, bringing the larp closer to order and hence predictability, while dissipative techniques nudge the larp towards chaos and unpredictability. Integrative and dissipative techniques can be used by larpwrights and players both. For the larpwright to issue
Incentives as tools of larp dramaturgy clear instructions as to the purpose of the role-playing ("Elect a new pope!") is an integrative technique, for the player to ignore them ("fellow cardinals, enough in-fighting – let's get drunk instead!") is a dissipative one. The fog of larp gets thinner when integrative techniques are used, thicker with dissipative ones.
The chaos model is a useful tool for analysing larp dramaturgy, not just on a theoretical level but also in the practice of authoring larp. It forces us to think about which parts of the larp we can predict and which we can't, and on how the dramaturgy will actually affect the larp - as opposed to how good it looks on paper. Comparing the concept of "attractor" to the concept of a "plot" or "incentive web" helps us to see the difference between the structures visible to the larpwright and the structures that are followed by players.
Dammit PD ate my post in this thread too :argh!:
QuoteBoss Fights~ Boss fights tend to have much more of a crescendo feel -- they are generally eased into the first part of the fight, but as they start to chip away at its health it begins to attack with more and more ferocity, until the final phase where it is particularly dangerous. Of course once it is defeated the threat has been completely eliminated the tempo drops to pretty much nothing.
The crescendo feel to boss fights sounds right, thinking about the good boss fights I've faced, but bosses that get stronger as you supposedly weaken them are annoying as hell. The buildup in danger should come from draining the resources of the player.
Good reply, thanks Cram!
Req, I think the "it begins to attack with more and more ferocity, until the final phase where it is particularly dangerous" refers to things like in D&D4E the monsters (such as dragons) get one shot powers that they can only use after they've taken a certain amount of damage (or get 'shaken').
This is video game RPGs, not P&P RPGs I thought?
But D&D 4E is trying to be a video game, so I guess that makes sense.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 22, 2010, 11:01:24 PM
This is video game RPGs, not P&P RPGs I thought?
But D&D 4E is trying to be a video game, so I guess that makes sense.
Yeah basically. Think the later bosses from the Metroid series, that have 'forms' of increasing power level after you blow off the outer armor shell, etc, etc.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 22, 2010, 11:01:24 PM
But D&D 4E is trying to be a video game, so I guess that makes sense.
after decades of RPGs based on D&D, the D&D designers decided to take one or two cues from other popular styles of gaming
Quote from: Cramulus on May 23, 2010, 01:59:28 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 22, 2010, 11:01:24 PM
But D&D 4E is trying to be a video game, so I guess that makes sense.
after decades of RPGs based on D&D, the D&D designers decided to take one or two cues from other popular styles of gaming
:lulz:
Bump. Can somebody throw this in the RPG Ghetto?
[Ooops, somebody already _has_ thrown this in the RPG ghetto. ahaha ]
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:00:37 AM
What the FUCK? RPG theory?
Look, all I want to do is get the refinery out of my head on the weekend by hacking shit up. Just give me something with a CR that's like 3 too high for my dude, and a big honkin' sword, and that's all I fucking need. THEORY, MY ASS! I JUST WANT TO KILL SOMETHING WITH TENTACLES!
Ok, so your Flag is that you want to kill things with tentacles. That's good. We're getting somewhere.
Quote from: Unqualified on April 08, 2011, 03:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:00:37 AM
What the FUCK? RPG theory?
Look, all I want to do is get the refinery out of my head on the weekend by hacking shit up. Just give me something with a CR that's like 3 too high for my dude, and a big honkin' sword, and that's all I fucking need. THEORY, MY ASS! I JUST WANT TO KILL SOMETHING WITH TENTACLES!
Ok, so your Flag is that you want to kill things with tentacles. That's good. We're getting somewhere.
Straight up hack and slash campaign, then, that's easy. :lulz: THOSE I can just about run without notes, with a system I'm comfortable with.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 23, 2009, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:00:37 AM
What the FUCK? RPG theory?
Look, all I want to do is get the refinery out of my head on the weekend by hacking shit up. Just give me something with a CR that's like 3 too high for my dude, and a big honkin' sword, and that's all I fucking need. THEORY, MY ASS! I JUST WANT TO KILL SOMETHING WITH TENTACLES!
Theory is more for people like me who design the damned systems.
It's taken me two years to see this, but it still made me laugh.
Guess what I was doing from 1999-2003, Requia? Take a fucking guess.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2011, 06:23:00 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 23, 2009, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:00:37 AM
What the FUCK? RPG theory?
Look, all I want to do is get the refinery out of my head on the weekend by hacking shit up. Just give me something with a CR that's like 3 too high for my dude, and a big honkin' sword, and that's all I fucking need. THEORY, MY ASS! I JUST WANT TO KILL SOMETHING WITH TENTACLES!
Theory is more for people like me who design the damned systems.
It's taken me two years to see this, but it still made me laugh.
Guess what I was doing from 1999-2003, Requia? Take a fucking guess.
:lulz:
Betcha I know.
Quote from: Luna on April 08, 2011, 06:29:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2011, 06:23:00 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 23, 2009, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:00:37 AM
What the FUCK? RPG theory?
Look, all I want to do is get the refinery out of my head on the weekend by hacking shit up. Just give me something with a CR that's like 3 too high for my dude, and a big honkin' sword, and that's all I fucking need. THEORY, MY ASS! I JUST WANT TO KILL SOMETHING WITH TENTACLES!
Theory is more for people like me who design the damned systems.
It's taken me two years to see this, but it still made me laugh.
Guess what I was doing from 1999-2003, Requia? Take a fucking guess.
:lulz:
Betcha I know.
"ROGER, YOU JUST LEAVE THE THEORY TO SMART PEOPLE LIKE ME!"
:lulz:
Yeah, I don't know what the hell I was thinking.
Lots of good info in this thread. I got a lot of ideas, but need some time to digest it all!