Article - bjlhct2 On Scenario Design pt 1: Linearity
Pages
| Author | Topic: Article - bjlhct2 On Scenario Design pt 1: Linearity |
|---|---|
|
Warrior
Member # 5520
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 06:33
Profile
I haven't played any of the BoA scenarios but if it is a matter of good or bad scenarios than I guess my experience with the BoE and other rather 'primitive' (used here with much fondness) RPG would qualify me to put some words here. For a start, some multiple ended scenarios, such as described in (option 3) of our honourable colleague bjlhct2, I am afraid, could end up just making the player feeling as if coming out of the toilet, after diarrhoea, without wiping the bum. Yet, I also remember many good multiple ended scenarios among the BoE scenarios that made me wonder what would have happened if I did not do such and such, or where would have I done wrong. . . and play again and again as a dual with the creator. (Luckily that particular scenario - redemption? - was short.^^) Call me outdated. But most of the RPG I played to the end had good strong stories, I tend to get attracted by the story then anything else (confessedly except for a beauty). But of course I think they all had a degree of non-linearity, multiple choice or open-endedness about them. C’mon who among those that played *Ultima* series had not attacked Lord British or use *Skull* to devastate a village? We all rob dragons don’t we? What about Exile II, is it linear or non-linear? Yet on the other hands, what is it that makes me so utterly bored of Diablo? Is it its desperately obvious linearity to the point of being *pointlessness*? Or meaningless slash and hack which was the only fun that soon lost its magic making it *purposeless*? (Quake would have been a much better “role-playing” than Diablo on this.) Oh, and some of the experimental BoE scenarios that looked more like animations than games would be the other extreme, though, I am sure, the berespected makers themselves meant it that way. Yah, I agree with Ash Lael. I go for stories when a game is concerned. It’s the story that makes me keep playing it till way past breakfast time, and make me keep thinking of it when I finally go to bed the next day. I think the worst is the unskilful handling of plots, whether linear or non-linear; one goal or multiple ended: Not the linear or non-linear structure itself but the pointlessness or the purposelessness that seems to push me off. And I think most of the above writers agree on this as well.(am I wrong again?) Cut-scenes as well. The best moments to watch cut scenes (and the ones that I actually read) were when I felt I have made a major breakthrough: after all the strife that sucked the essence of your (gaming) soul out of you , finally my beloved guys have achieved something; when I sit back and feel smug about meself, lit up a ciggy (bad habit though) and look at the result of my deeds. But even at those moments bad cut scenes would work as an anti-climax. Bear with me for adding one last and final thing regarding voice cut-scenes. Oh you divine creators of the scenarios please heed this humble request of a non-English speaker and at least do not put any important clue in in. . . more audience you capture, the more chance you become successful init? Pleeezzzz proveides eet least ssserbteitlesss . . . [ Friday, March 04, 2005 13:49: Message edited by: banned sapmmer ] Posts: 53 | Registered: Saturday, February 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 08:35
Profile
quote:Not really. But the goal should not be to make single player CRPGs like MULTI-player tabletop but rather make single-player CRPGs like SINGLE PLAYER tabletop rpgs. Not that any P&P RPGer would want to play a lot of 'one-GM & one-player'(as opposed to a whole group of players) P&P games but single-player CRPGS should try and emulate THAT experience to great extent. quote:I absolutely DISAGREE %110!! I have always wondered how this thinking came about?! This sort of 'new wave' of tabletop gamers just took over adn replced brilliant game systems like RuneQuest and the HERO system with crap like Warhammer FRP and "Free form" nonsense. The game mechanics themselves are what MAKE a rpg a rpg. We already had "cops & robbers" and "Cowboys and Indians"(roleplaying sans game) before Gygax and Co. gave us the GAME mechanics. "Cops & robbers" is NOT a rpg...it's an argument between children. There is no way to objectively resolve who shot who or if the "robber" ducked behind that tree before the "cop" shot him. Tabletop RPGS gave us mechanics to resolve such issues. D&D may be amongst the very worst game systems ever created but it was the first true RPG and better systems followed(RQ, Champions/HERO, etc.) Mechanics do not have to be 'complicated' but they SHOULD be logically consistent(re: realistic). When designers present "dumbed down" systems they are not creating RPGs. They are just borrowing elements for their platform/adventure/arcade/action game(or boardgame ala Talisman or HeroQuest). Good, well-designed game mechanics do not necessarily entail endless dice-rolling. They just demand a little thought be put into the player-characters in terms of the quantified statistics(and hence the "interactive" part of teh game). quote:No. They are essentially simulation games, like wargames only instead of measuring the firepower of the M1 Abrams against the structural integrity of a suspension bridge or command bunker, you are measuring the strength and agility of your barbarian rogue against the aim of some crossbow weilding sniper or the halberd skill of the local watchman. You can have a cliche' story/plot and still have a good, fun RPG as long as the mechanics are not dumbed down or too simplistic(or outright bad/inconsistent) but if the mechanics suck it does not matter how innovation you are as a storyteller Some examples of CRPGs that feature some bad mechanics that hinder the ejoyment of the game: Natuk(www.proudft.com) & POWS : In Natuk you create a party of orcs, half-trolls and ogres on a quest for revenge. The half-trolls and ogres get a sizable bonus to the strength attribute due to their immense size(they are HUGE!). This inidcates that 'Strength' is, to some degree or the other, rooted in physique/stature/mass. But then spellcasting(and other physical activity) drains Strength from PCs(leading players to boost their mages' Strength attribute with gained experience to ridiculous levels so they can cast more spells without falling unconcious. Because the mechanics were not well thought out, this leads to player character orc & human wizards and such being twice as strong as the Ogre warriors. A bunch of "bodybuilder mages" running around. If the designer has thought to distinguish the physical size/muscle from the stamina in his attributes(The way that GURPS reversed the HP/Fatigue values so that HP is now based on ST rather than HT and Fatigue is based off HT rather than ST) then this would not be a problem. As it stands however, it distracts from the enjoyment of the games because I cannot help wondering why my tiny gnome mages are stronger and consequently do more damage in HtH combat than my "big guys". That's just one small example but is typical of "simple" RPG designs that try and "go light" with the mechanics. quote:I disagree. Combat is not just another kind of puzzle. Puzzles are dillemas which the player himself can figure out by simply thinking the matter through. Combat measures the accumulated skills & traits of the characters vs. those of their adversaries/monsters taking into account all sorts of factors from chance/luck to cover, range, encumbrance etc. IF I spent all of my experience points building up my "2 handed sword skill" in all the modules/scenarios I had played through and then get into a fight were I am disarmed by some bugbear and must fight with my bare fists, it is a dynamic situation but not a "puzzle". quote:I hate puzzles. Plot I can take or leave. Good mechanics are a must(combat and otherwise). quote:I don't know or much care if "complete interactivity" is even possible. I just don't want to always be forced to be a spectator to the designer's magnum opus. "Final Fantasy" is not even a RPG by any stretch of the imagination. A bunch of young console kiddies have usurped the terminology over teh years and now do not even have any idea that P&P tabletop RPGS even existed or what they were about. TO them a "player character" is 'STR., DEX. ATTACK, MAGIC and HP', along with a stupid name and bad anime graphic. To them a RPG is taking said cutout through a tiled forest and fighting slugs and slimes every ten steps. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2238
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 09:05
Profile
Homepage
How is "Cops and Robbers" not an RPG? You pick a role, you play it, and do things that this character would do. You are playing a role. Roleplaying. I do agree with your analysis of the modern connotation of "RPG". It's a dispicable world we live in. And we have Japan to thank for this. Uh and since I missed this back when the topic was started, my input: linearity = good if you want to tell a story. [ Monday, February 28, 2005 09:06: Message edited by: Retr-O ] -------------------- DEMON PLAY, DEMON OUT! Posts: 1582 | Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 09:29
Profile
quote:"Cops and robbers" IS 'roleplaying', but it is NOT a roleplaying GAME. People often make the mistake of breaking the term down into it's literal components in trying to define the term, which is good for comedy but poor for understanding word orgins and terminology. For example: 'Polytheists' could mean quite literally "Many theists". If you were to break the term up into it's two components, that is exactly what iot would mean. However, if you bother to delve into the word's orgin and historical usage, it means people who worship many GODS. Likewise, "roleplaying games" are not just an activity that involve roleplaying. You can't compare D&D to "Honey, can you put on this French maid outfit and bend over the dresser while I spank you with my riding crop?". One is "roleplaying" and the other is a roleplaying GAME. RPGs are number crunching affairs. They involve quantified mechanics for task resolution. Cops and robbers have no such mechanics and there is no way to objectively determine if the robber got away from the cop or avoided being shot. Invariably, what you have is an argument, not a game("I shot you!"..."No way, I ducked!"). [ Monday, February 28, 2005 09:30: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2238
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 10:06
Profile
Homepage
Cops and Robbers isn't a game? What is it, then? Every game has the potential to be a roleplaying game. Stats mean nothing, it's about envisioning yourself self as something. Wanna jump off that cliff 'cuz you think Gordan Freeman has gone suicidal due to his experiences in Black Mesa (Half-Life)? That's roleplaying. Wanna lead your troops into the middle of an obvious ambush because you, their great general, has tunnel vision (Age of Empires)? It's roleplaying. Dare say it's not? [ Monday, February 28, 2005 10:07: Message edited by: Retr-O ] -------------------- DEMON PLAY, DEMON OUT! Posts: 1582 | Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5512
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 10:41
Profile
ah but while you are correct in combat being a comparison of values, it is also a puzzle - more so in BoA than say, FFX tactics and what you do with your characters makes it a puzzle of sorts - ableit an easier one to understand than pushing mirrors around in differen directions. Attacking who with what and when is a simple puzzle. As for my earlier comment about successfull franchies, i submit a correction - the most popular cRPG is FF. The most popular RPG is DnD and its subsidiaries. -------------------- Gir! What did you do with the Guidance chip? I took it out to make room for the CUPCAKE!!!!! Posts: 30 | Registered: Thursday, February 17 2005 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5048
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 11:43
Profile
Wow, there're gonna be some explodin' heads by the time I finish. Posts: 33 | Registered: Sunday, October 3 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3610
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 12:03
Profile
SkeleTony, I think you are confusing games with simulations. I highly recomend the book The Art of Wargaming to you on the subject. In a game, combat is a puzzle. There are a whole set of valid solutions to combat, much as there are a whole set of solutions in game theory. Different solutions have different outcomes, but will still end the encounter. Even death is a valid solution, just not the optimal one. Each "round" of combat, or each action constitutes a move in the puzzle, in response to which the puzzle changes, much like any other puzzle. The whole series of moves constitutes the solution to the puzzle, or the end of the encounter. Looked at in the right light, anything can be a puzzle. How you get out of the consequences for tardiness can be considered a puzzle. Of course, in reality, and in simulation, I consider combat as significantly more than a puzzle, but that's really getting into philosophy. A game is just that: a game. The mechanics can break the game, but they do not make it. Freeform RPG's can have no rules at all beyond the ad hoc rulings of the GM, and they are still fun, while something like ENWGS (Electronic Naval War-Gaming System) is a very good simulation of naval warfare, possibly the best, but is often not considered fun, in the traditional sense. SkeleTony, you appear to be a realist, so let's try some realism. When you game, and your character is on a long march with few rations, do you want to feel the hunger, exhaustion and weary feet? More poignantly, do you want to be shot every time your character is? Of course not. If you really wanted that experience, you'd enlist. Personally, I perfer either futuristic or fantasy games because I have no need for the full-on experience of war. I plan to join the Navy after college, and many of my family members are or were in the armed forces. I game to get away from the world, so I have no problem going a bit lighter on the mechanics. But back to the issue of what is an RPG, and what are mechanics, Cops and Robers has mechanics. Are they very complicated? No. However, the fact that there are rules, and the rules for how to shoot each other constitutes mechanics. Chess is a wargame. It's a very simplified and outdated wargame, yes, but even so, it is a wargame. Let's look at the acronym RPG: Role-Playing Game, not Reality-Playing Game. An RPG can actually be as simple as practicing for an interview, or job training in the service industry. Indeed, practicing how to act in front of a custromer is often refered to as role-playing or the excercise as and RPG. Are there in any rules in, say, practicing for an interview? No. Are there people playing roles? Yes. Ergo, it is an RPG. In this very simplified case, there is minimal backstory: you are being interviewed by someone for something. It may not even have an assumption on who the someone is or what the purpose of the interview is. There is no real resolution. The rules are nothing more than that you need to present yourself, or the person you are pretending to be, in the best light, or maybe not even that. There are no "win" or "loss" conditions. Still, it is an RPG. Posts: 129 | Registered: Tuesday, October 28 2003 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5520
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 12:16
Profile
Sirs. the puzzles astounds me to my utmost puzzlement. Please allow me to clarify myself. First of all, most of us know the portcullis type ‘puzzle’ which normally do not involve any danger of dying unless you dance too much in front of them and starve to death. This kind of puzzle that we meet in the Exiles can surely be totally distinguished from combat? Though there are in between situation where both elements are mixed like the test of speed or strength in the second chapter of Exile II. In this term, I totally agree with Skeletony on his opinion regarding the existence of distinction between such puzzle and such battle. Secondly, nobody would be able to argue with Lynfox that different tactics could change the tide of battle.(did I get it right?) This, I believe was what implied by Skeletony when he used the word ‘dynamic situation’ though Lynfox also called a puzzle for which I think both could be right cause Skeletony seems to confine the word ‘puzzle’ as against combat within the play-game situation or character point of view,(am I the only one wrong?) While Lynfox seems to think the word ‘puzzle’ as something that ‘puzzle the players mind’ and the stubborn player uses all his (well in my case) intellectual power to sort out or player point of view. Thirdly, if Thurryl said ‘combat is just another puzzle’ I would have thought it an overstatement, though it is understandable in his context which was even outside gamer's point of view rather than the 'game character point of view' Skeletony adopts. However, in this matter, Thurryl merely said ‘combat is just a certain kind of puzzle’(emphasis mine all MINE) and now for me this sounds as if he is still giving more distance than if he said ‘just another puzzle’. . . no? Suffice it to say that there are puzzle element in battles perhaps???(am I not only puzzled but dumbfound?) But what about Cops and Robbers where can I download it? Is it any good? [ Monday, February 28, 2005 12:19: Message edited by: whitenightever ] Posts: 53 | Registered: Saturday, February 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 12:24
Profile
Homepage
I think the difference between role-playing and a role-playing game can be summed up in one word: game. If you're role-playing but not playing a game (ie prepping for an interview), then you're not participating in an RPG. If you're role-playing and are also playing a game, then you're playing an RPG. It is worth noting that Gygax himself didn't want the rules of D&D to be perfectly clear. From what I've heard, he wanted each game of D&D to be customizable to the particular group's needs, rather than setting forth a single set of rules to standardize all D&D everywhere. Some other people didn't like this, which is part of the reason for the later editions and the abandonment of the various levels of D&D in favor of straight AD&D. Some people may prefer one format over another, but I think the most interesting thing here is that no one view is inherently right. If someone wants to make a scenario like what SkeleTony wants, then that person is free to do that, and some will like it and some won't. If others (like myself) want to make a scenario in which you have very little choice by the very nature of the job that you signed up to do, then I can make it, and some will like it and some won't. You can make the kind of scenario that you like. Getting someone else to make the kind of scenario that you like is harder, though. [ Monday, February 28, 2005 12:24: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 12:42
Profile
Homepage
I think that beating an Orc chieftan, getting the Ring of +3 Armor, and then heading off to the Ogre Dungeon to level up some more is just pointless, tedious, and boring. This does not interest or excite me. Why do I play scenarios? I want to be excited. I want to be placed in the middle of a story and I want to find out what happens. I want to be swept up and moved along. That's what I find fun. Also, there are some different kinds of puzzles: Tactical challenges - different and challenging combat More conventional puzzles - Get across the bridge without it breaking, etc. Riddles - these are awful and should just be thrown out -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5520
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 12:48
Profile
quote: Drakefyre Riddles - these are awful and should just be thrown out Enchanting!! Posts: 53 | Registered: Saturday, February 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 13:04
Profile
quote:You are missing the point here. Let me try another example: "Burying the hatchet" This term, when examined literally, would seem to mean the act of physically burying a small axe-like tool for chopping wood. However, the term, when invoked in it's most common usage and in a context outside of discussion of literally burying tools in the earth, means to forgive or forget old grievances/grudges(e.g. "I am tired of fighting over whose kid is the best ballplayer Carl. Let's say we 'bury the hatchet' and start anew as friendly neighbors?"). The term "roleplaying game" can only be defined as you are defining it if one ignores the historical/common context of the term and attempts to apply a literalist interpretation where any sort of "playing" = "game" and any sort of "roleplaying" = "role playing game". This is an incorrect usage however in THIS discussion. Clearly in here were are talking about a specific type of gaming which evolved from tabletop wargames, the first of which was D&D and appeared in 1976. Before that there were no "roleplaying games". It is a very specific type of game that encompasses quantified mechanics for resolving situations in simulated fashion. A "cop" in a roleplaying game has a specific chance to shoot the "robber" based on his skill, experience, the weapon he is using, the robber's defensive measures etc. Roleplaying games solve the dillemma of the children's game "cops and robbers"wherein any pretend 'shooting' results in an argument which cannot be solved(i.e. "I shot you before you ducked behind that truck!"...No you didn't because I blocked it with this hubcap!"..."No way because I richocheted the bullet off the side of the house and hit you in the kneecap!" etc.). Again, you have to make a distinction between "roleplaying" and "roleplaying GAMING". "Roleplaying" occurs between husbands and wives and hookers and Johns in bed. It occurs between children at the playground("Let's play superheroes! I will be Spiderman!"). It occurs in drama club/theatre. It occurs in therapy sessions. None of these forms of "roleplaying" have jack to do with roleplaying GAMING which takes place at a table(with players, a GM, dice, pencils etc.) or on a computer(where there is usually a single player(unless online) and the GM, die-rolling and such is all handled by the computer. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 13:11
Profile
quote:Again, to each his own but what I find weird is that when I want to experience the sort of "excitement" you describe, I read a book(or two). In so doing, I get swepted up in a (hopefully) great story adn follow these great characters through their trials and tribulations. But what is the point of calling this a "game"? A scenario where you have no choices is a book or movie(however good or crappy one thinks it). A scenario with FEW choices/options is a "choose your own adventure" book. A scenario in which the player has a good deal of input/interaction is a roleplaying game. THat is what distinguishes RPGs from books and movies is the interactive part. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3610
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 13:34
Profile
To use your example of burrying the hatchet, I think we can take it one step further. People ended their dissagreements long before the phrase "burrying the hatchet" or any other euphimism for it existed. Similarly, people role-played and played RPG's without realized that what they were doing was what we might call role-playing. In many cases, the whole concept of role-playing games was actually a return to the basis for many of the wargames that it grew out of! Most wargames started as small individual or small unit simulators, and grew into tactical, operational, theartre or global simulations. Then people wanted more individual game play, so they took the tactical simulations and cut them down to squad and then individual simulations. Members of special operations forces were doing what ammounted to RPG's long before the dawn of a fomral D&D system. Certainly the Ranger School of the late 50's had on the ground role playing, and as part of training for Army Special Forces (Green Berrets), there is substantial roleplayeing, up to the point of what we would consider an RPG, even in the early Sixties. The graduation excercise then called GOBBLER WOODS, and now known as ROBIN SAGE was and is the true epitome of live action RPG's. Thus, just because we didn't call it an RPG then, there are still RPG's. Posts: 129 | Registered: Tuesday, October 28 2003 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5520
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 13:38
Profile
Dear SkeleTony. To each his own. . . then why would you argue that because you find 'the sort of "excitement"' in books, if others find 'the sort of "excitement"' in a game it is absurd, and cannot it be called a game? Should it then be called a book instead? Correct me if I am saying nonsense please. Now you point out the defining characteristic of RPGs as A scenario in which the player has a good deal of input/interaction is a roleplaying game. (quote: SkeleTony) I think you could clarify this meaning further. When you said 'a scenario', did you confine it to the BoE or BoA scenarios, I believe you did not, for surely there are other RPG games than Exiles and Avernum and for that BoE or BoA. Then you mentioned 'interaction' but what are the parties that are typically engaged in this interaction that you define as RPG elapses me. And, how much is a 'good deal'? Not to fester you with dumb questions. But, for, as surely* as I know the meaning of 'Interaction', one has to put a lot more input in the interaction into a two player beat up games such as Tekken and Street Fighters whether one plays against com or human. No? I trust you would enlighten me on this further. * Well now I am beginning to be not so sure though. ** sorry for frequent editing I will be more careful next time. [ Monday, February 28, 2005 13:45: Message edited by: whitenightever ] Posts: 53 | Registered: Saturday, February 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 14:13
Profile
quote:I believe I read it back in the 80's if it is the book I am thinking of. But I am not "confusing" anything. RPGS ARE simulations! We cannot really temporarily become a hulking ogre running from the militia of Somewhereville adn objectively match our Ogre msucles against the rusted portcullis to escape the militia's halberds. In a RPG we simply quantify different attributes as numbers and apply modifiers due to archetypes(races and classes and whatnot such as "ogres" and "warriors") and the GM quantifies the 'strength' of the gate our character wants to lift. THis gives us a definite chance(usually expressed as a percentage or a 1 in X chance) Dice are rolled(or numbers are otherwise randomly generated) to determine if we succeed. Same goes for most conceivable traits from intellect to 'pocketpicking'. They are simulations. quote:Depends on the game. In Chess, combat is a straightforward puzzle disguised as a skirmish between nations/armies. In RPGS combat is not a puzzle unless you are using the term in such a broad manner that "puzzle" has no real signifigance or distinction. When I think of puzzles I think of something which is solves solely by contemplation and/or trial and error. Riddles, button-pushing/color-switching schemes, mazes, etc. Combat can and often does indeed entail tactical thought but even the poorest tactician ever can simply mow down his enemies through brute force, blazing speed and blind luck. In other words, while cobat CAN be something to 'figure out', such contemplation is not a requirement for it to be combat. Two idiots charging one another is combat(and not a puzzle). quote:I understand what you are saying, it's just that by this line of reasoning EVERYTHING is a puzzle and the term is of no consequence here. Talking with the king about joining the navy is a puzzle wherein you offer a proposal or communique to the king and this triggers a certain response and eventually the conversation/dillemma/goal is realized/solved. "Fishing for small-mouthed bass" is a puzzle. Trying to start a fire is a puzzle. quote:EXACTLY! So there is no point in even invoking the term in this discussion. It is just like the guy who defines "roleplaying game" as any type of game you can think of(from Half-life to 'Cowboys and indians' to Monopoly). If we are going to discuss definitions then we must make distinctions. quote:I hate free-form RPGs and there is a whole contingent of veteran RPGers who share this view. Free-from RPGs & play-by-post are not games. They may well be "roleplaying" but they are not roleplaying GAMES. Roleplaying Games consist of mechanics and yes, the mechanics DO make the game. Otherwise you might as well say that RuneQuest and sitting around daydreaming that you are a rock star are the exact same activity(both are "roleplaying games"?). Mechanics, in ANY game can break a game if not well thought out. Monopoly is a perfect example of this. That game is broken four ways and it's design is simply the opposite of elegant and consistent. It is ugly and cumbersome. In RPGS you have many examples of games that are brought down by poor mechanics...D&D, Warhammer FRP, Marvel Superheroes(the one from the 1980s) etc. but they are still RPGs precisely becuase they have mechanics for resolving situations and tasks adn quantification. quote:No. What does this have to do with gaming? I also do not want to feel a knight's lance disembowleing me when I play chess. Precisely why I play games rather than grab an actual sword and set out on a quest to be shot by Tacoma police officers. quote:What does that have to do with anything?!? Non-sequitor? quote:I am of the same mindset(except for the "going light on the mechanics" bit I guess) but you seem to draw a false correlation between having 'realistic' game mechanics and experiencing real life tramau!?! When I say that I appreciate good game design as far as the mechnics go, this in NO WAY equates to "I want to play a game where I work 40 hour weeks in an office and try to keep up on the house payments while I spend my leisure time on teh internet talking with gamers!". RPGs are divided into the subject/setting and the systems/mechanics. You can have an utterly fantastic setting adn utterly logical game mechanics. You do not have to sacrifice realism in game mechanics for 'fun' or ease of use or fantastic settings. I have seen hardcore realistic RPG systems that were FAR easier than any 'rule-less play-by-post game(this may sound counterintuitive but trust me, it happens). quote:No "Cops and robbers" does NOT. It has no mechanics and that's why there has not been an episode of "cops and robbers" in history that did not feature the traditional argument that precedes one or more children leaving in anger(The "I shot you!"...No you didn't!" argument). Game mechanics, again, are defined as (more or less) objective systems for quantification adn resolution. If Fred has a Strength of 17 adn Tom has a Strength of 10 then Fred will ALWAYS be stronger than Tom, so long as this does not change. In "Cops and Robbers", whether Fred or Tom is stronger varies from moment to moment adn is usually resolved by an actual blackening of someone's eye(as opposed to a mechanistic resolution within game) or somesuch. quote:There are no such rules. Kids simply point fingers or cap guns at one another and bother declare they are trimuphant. quote:Not in the strict sense, no. It may well be the precursor to all wargames but Chess itself is a simple(not simple to master mind you) board game. A huge step up on the complexity-meter from Checkers but of the same "family" as checkers(not part of "Advanced Squad Leader"'s brethren). quote:Again, you are making the same mistake the other guy made. By YOUR definition almost EVERY activity we can think of is a roleplaying game adn we have no use for the term as a distinction. "Pong", daydreaming while knitting, "Battleship", Mario Bros., Duck-Duck-Goose, King of the Hill, etc....all RPGS. That is nonsense. The term "roleplaying game" did not even come into common use until 1976, with the advent of D&D adn ever since then RPGs have stuck to pretty standard conventions that easily distinguish them from non-roleplaying, GAMES as well as Non-gaming, ROLEPLAYING. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 14:34
Profile
quote:Again, you are still not understanding me here. Politics: This word comes from the Greek "Poly" meaning "many" and "Ticks" meaning "small blood-sucking insects". Therefore Politics means "many small, blood-sucking insects." Funny, but not accurate. You are doing a similar thing with the term "roleplaying game". If the term were so broadly defined as you indicate then everytime someone mentioned an RPG in conversation you would have no idea what they were talking about. They could mean anything from a Pong-clone(with shield-bearing knights replacing the rectangular "paddles") to a game of "Candyland" to a sexual liason which involved you dressing up as an anthropomorphic animal('furry'). But you DO know what people mean when they say "I want to play a good RPG." You immediately recognise a gaming concept that involves creating characters with quantified attributes/traits and a fictional world/setting filled with adversaries and dangers. If your psychaiatrist says "Let's do some roleplaying" you know full well that this will be nothing like D&D or BoA. You know that this term, in this context is going to involve either you assuming someone else's identity in order to empathise with someone else or the doctor taking on the role of someone you have issues with so you can work out your issues. In THIS thread, the context of "roleplaying game" is clear. We are not discussing puppet shows, therapy sessions, Monopoly(in which you "roleplay" a real estate investor) etc. It is easy to make the mistake of looking at the components of the term seperately then applying the term as a whole to anything which can be said to encompass those components(I.e. "I am pretending to whip my girlfriend using a length of yarn while humming the theme from Raiders of the Lost Ark and mentally tallying a point evey time she yells "knock it off!" therefore I am playing the Idiana Jones RPG!") but this is wrong. We cannot have a meaningful discussion about the term because your defintiion is so broad and unlike the common usage that it is of no real meaning or distinction. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 15:05
Profile
Homepage
Does this really matter? It's all semantics. On the one side we have SkeleTony who thinks that RPGs should be about the player doing what they want and getting stronger (simplified, I know). On the other, we have people like me. You ask why I don't read a book or watch a movie. I'm not inside of a book. I'm not a character in a movie. I can be a part of the story in a scenario. I think it's fun. And that's why I play scenarios. I think we could definitely have scenarios that we both thought were great. A totally immersive world like in Exile II or Geneforge. I like both of them. But we don't have the tools to make them in Blades of Exile/Avernum. There are limitations. More often than not, scenarios tip towards one end of the spectrum, usually a lot. But we have to wee with the willy we've got. And we've got a rather small willy. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3610
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 17:12
Profile
I'm gonna stop now. Just remember, the person who screams louder isn't always right. I think we will have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Certainly, I can't convince you, and I know you can't convnice me. I'm not willing to go rooting around for sources to agree with me or not. It's just not worth it. If it pleases you, then you can assume I'm agreeing with you. You've won. Posts: 129 | Registered: Tuesday, October 28 2003 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 18:06
Profile
Homepage
quote: -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 18:26
Profile
This game is very close to the roots of the first roleplaying games. The first consumer wargame was put together in Little Wars by H.G. Wells -- it was basically arranging soldiers with guns. This followed with various tabletop type military simulations. In 1970 Gary Gygax invented a game called Chainmail a precursor to Dungeons and Dragons. It was a medieval miniatures simulation game of small unit tactics. It was played on a tabletop with miniatures. You had a small unit with missioins to take care of. In a similar manner-- reading various threads Avernum started as a tabletop game. You had a small unit. Thus it was not pure pencil and paper roleplaying at all. The game is designed around building a small unit which is sent on missions to complete. Thus in a sense it is more of a simulation of a tabletop miniatures roleplaying game with miniatures and fully laid out maps than a pencil and paper game. You can see the sense of the tabletop with how the grids are laid out for the dungeons and the graphics are designed for monsters. Also the maps in the game are grid maps. The characters at first appear to be standard heroic fantasy types but they are not. They are an amalgam of characters who would function as either a party of explorers, a guerrilla fighting unit, covert operations crew, -- basically military specialists. Thus they do all things which these kind of people would do -- retrieve things, blow up things, solve problems, deliver packages, spread disinformation, raid enemy camps, perform assassinations, hunt down people, scout enemy territory, etc. This is not necessarily heroic. It is also much more interesting-- reading up on this kind of thing as a designer would seriously expand the kind of missions being created. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, March 1 2005 13:31
Profile
quote:Not even (over)simplified but outright wrong! You are still not really understanding what I am saying. Basically, RPGS are, at their core(and as Toasted said) a slight evolution of tactical wargames(keeping in mind that "evolution" does NOT mean "progress", just change). The chief difference in the two is that RPGs introduced the concept of improving "units" through experience and variable inventories. Also as part of this evolution, RPGs went even further than small unit tactical wargames to concentrate on teh very smallest units possible...the individual characters. The fact that these games are ripe for hanging all manner of plots, stories etc. on is to be celebrated but don't make the mistake of assuming a game with such marvelous scope is better served by removing much of what makes it so(the mechanics). Simplifying/dumbing down these games so that what is left are a few people sitting around a table(or posting at a message board) doing improvisational acting/storytelling(ala Exquisite Corpse) might still be considered a "game" but it has little, if anything to do with RPGs(e.g. D&D, RQ, BoA etc.). quote:EXACTLY!! Starting to see where I am coming from now? If the scenario designer(or game designer or whatever) creates the characters and leads them by the nose through his linear story, relegating you to the role of glorified mouse-clicker(re:page turner) then how is it different than reading a book? quote:I too enjoy scenarios where I can have interation and my decisions affect on how the adventure plays out. Which is exactly why I don't enjoy scenarios where the designer has created the characters and expects me to simply turn pages to reveal how his grand creative vision looks with the pixelated illustration. quote:You may be right to one extent or the other about BoA. Time will tell. But I will enjoy it just the same(though I prefer less linearity). My point in here was simply that this commonly parroted mantra we hear so often that rules/mechanics are inconsequential to RPGs and/or 'any activity you can imagine is the same as playing D&D/RQ/BoA' is wrong. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, March 1 2005 13:38
Profile
quote:Who is "screaming"? I can be convinced of ANY truth provided you can make your case through argument. I am probably about the LEAST 'closed-minded' person you will meet. Thuryl disagreed with me as well but he was able to make some points which I came to agree with(e.g. the point about playing pre-generated parties to experience playing one you would not otherwise have thought to construct) and a few points I don't agree with but he did not have to characterise me as "screaming loudly". Anyway, take care and thanks for the replies. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 148
|
written Tuesday, March 1 2005 14:01
Profile
I'm getting lost reading this. I get the feeling that linearity is equaling 1)being over controlled by the designer and 2)limiting choices. Am I incorrect? -------------------- My ego is bigger than yours. Posts: 480 | Registered: Thursday, October 11 2001 07:00 |