scenario criticism
Pages
| Author | Topic: scenario criticism |
|---|---|
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, March 30 2004 07:43
Profile
I've looked at the scenario ratings site, and I'm a bit surprised at how critical people seem to be about these things. The Geneforges and Valley of the Dying Things seem fine to me; I'm still excited just to find a secret door. On the one hand I wonder whether all critics are taking genre into account. There are a lot of very different styles of RPG scenario, any of which can be great if one is in a particular mood, and it isn't fair to criticize an orange for being a bad apple. On the other hand, the toughness of the audience here would also be explained by the existence of many truly amazing Blades of Exile scenarios, which might have raised high expectations. I wouldn't know, since I've never played any other Exile or Avernum games, and I probably won't even register BoA because I really can't afford the time to play more of these things. But I would still be really interested if some of the folks who have complained about shortcomings in the currently available BoA scenarios could give examples, from BoE scenarios, of things that would have made them happier. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4160
|
written Tuesday, March 30 2004 08:54
Profile
The ratings are a little critical I agree... VotD-8 Small Rebellion-10 (Best so far) Zha Run-8 Havent played the last one yet. I love the treasure in the Run :) Posts: 40 | Registered: Saturday, March 27 2004 08:00 |
|
Mongolian Barbeque
Member # 1528
|
written Tuesday, March 30 2004 10:00
Profile
I haven't kept up with how people rate the scenarios, because I dislike critics in general. I enjoyed VoDT and DwtD less than the other two, but I did still enjoy them, and I think it would be a wee bit unreasonable to tear them to shreds just because they're not supersuperb. They're fun, and that's what counts. If/when I finish my scenario, I'm going to make a point of ignoring unjust criticisms. I wouldn't mind being told of bugs to fix, and productive advice for improvements, but some people seem to think that they have to beat something down to show how intelligent they are. Posts: 907 | Registered: Monday, July 15 2002 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, March 30 2004 10:04
Profile
Homepage
Some pretty darn awesome scenarios came out for BoE that raised the bar, that's true. The whole concept of BoA's CSR is based on BoE's CSR, which means that we're probably thinking of BoE scenarios as we rate. Really, rating on the basis of four scenarios is kind of absurd: we need a little more for comparison, which is why we think about BoE. But within BoA itself, I will say that Jeff's scenarios are good, but I expect better to be made. As I said about VoDT in the Lyceum, I gave it that low a number (7.3) only because I want to save room up at the top for scenarios that I think are truly outstanding, rather than just good. By the way, these are my standards, roughly (subject to change at any time without notice, based on playing two BoA scenarios): 10: super awesome; best scenario out there 9: really really really good; I was on the edge of my seat the whole time and enjoyed every word, but some aspect of the scenario (scripting, dialogue, plot, among others), was just good, not superb. 8: quite good; I enjoyed it thoroughly, but it was noticeably lacking in some way 7: good; it was fun, but the scripts were weak, or combat was far too hard/easy, or I ran into some bugs, or the plot was strange, or it was generally uninspiring in some way, but it was still definitely fun 6: on the positive side of mediocre; it was worth playing, but the plot didn't make sense, or there were consistent grammar/spelling errors, or the scripts were truly shoddily done, or it was occasionally buggy, but it was fun at least in a substantial part 5: mediocre; I wouldn't recommend playing it, but I wouldn't advise against it; the plot was nonsensical, or something was just wrong with it; it was fun at times, but not consistently enough 4: on the negative side of mediocre; play it if you like, but I think it wasn't worth it 3: bad; it was just no fun at all at any point 2: very bad; I can imagine things that are worse, but it would take effort to pull off 1: utterly worthless; the thing doesn't work because of bugs, or it has no plot, or it consists of a dungeon with ridiculous monsters and no purpose, or something equally atrocious; I am dumber for having played this scenario I have comments about VoDT and ASR along with my ratings on CSR, so I won't repeat them here. EDIT: I just realized that I failed to say the point of that, which is that I think that what Boots has gone on to say in the next message is quite accurate, that ASR has a quite good rating on CSR, and the others aren't bad. [ Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:11: 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 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 455
|
written Tuesday, March 30 2004 10:04
Profile
Here's one of the clearest explanations why it is that long-time Blades players find off-the-shelf Spiderweb design a tad grating: Never Doubt Drizzt. Drizzt points to Alcritas' work for contrasting examples, so I'll stick with that. Although Alcritas hardly wrote the first and last word in admirable design and he commits his share of sins, nevertheless -- until his latest release, at least -- he has done something that buys you no end of indulgence from players: he never tells his stories the same way twice. Compare JV's four scenarios to Alcritas' big four (Of Good and Evil, An Apology, Redemption and Falling Stars). A Small Rebellion apart -- and not so far apart -- Spiderweb plots obey a fixed template, no matter how their content varies: the story progresses through the happy and tightly orchestrated coincidence of your career advancement and the rescue of the world; the sole motive driving its action derives from the need to string you along to the next dungeon (Z-K Run isn't, then, an exception to, but the distilled expression of the rule of Spiderweb design). Falling Stars is as close as Alcritas comes to writing that sort of anonymous Wander, Search, Slaughter and Search Again Epick(TM), and, well, to be polite, let's just say FS does more of everything, takes a breath, then does some more (which is not a thing of unqualified goodness, of course). His other three -- I prefer them to FS -- are each thoroughly reimagined: An Apology puts you in the hands of a forgetful and arbitrary frame narrative; Redemption is perhaps the most subtle use of space and scene to tell a story in Blades; Of Good and Evil begins with the qualms ASR only touches on in its final dialog box and proceeds to twist the knife slowly. . . . Familiarity with the first three Vogel scenarios has no doubt bred impatience and impossible expectations among their early reviewers, so their scores -- especially ASR's -- will likely go up as new players encounter them for the first time. But I think you [Student of Trinity] are misreading the existing scores. Check out the list of Rated BoE Scenarios: anything with an 8 or more is widely considered among the best work going. Heck, Brett Bixler, one of the most inventive and interesting designers there is, doesn't have a scenario rated above 8.62. A Small Rebellion's rating is, in that respect, darn good; and VoDT and DwD sit squarely in the worth-playing category; as for Z-K Run . . . . The pre-packaged BoA offerings are demonstration scenarios; their stories exist in large part to display product features and sketch out programming possibilities. Demonstration scenarios are necessary and valuable things, but they rarely enjoy enthusiastic reviews, whether they're by Jeff Vogel or not. See the responses to Spy's Quest, for instance -- a scenario that was crucial to the development of Blades design, yet has not been particularly well-received by its players. [ Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:39: Message edited by: Boots ] -------------------- Forgive them, for they are young and rich and white. Posts: 265 | Registered: Saturday, December 29 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, March 30 2004 11:36
Profile
Homepage
There's also the fact that we're rating for the ages. When we rate scenarios 5 years hence, we'll no longer be "excited just to find a secret door", and that has to be kept in mind. Remember, the whole purpose of CSR is that a newbie can stumble across it at any time (2004, 2005, 2010...) and see an accurate assessment of what scenarios they ought to play. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Tuesday, March 30 2004 18:03
Profile
You wonder why we don't go gaga over JV's scenarios? Short answer: Shadow of the Stranger, An Apology and all the other incredible scenarios that dwarf his work. Long answer: Vogel's scenarios are just too formulaic. He decides a scenario will have a certain number of dungeons, certain size outdoors, plenty of outdoor combat, and then decides to make a scenario within those parameters. He doesn't make them based on what will make them better, he makes based on what he's done before. After all, people seemed to like it. Besides, sometimes they just suck. Look at Za-Khazi. There's a war on, and you have to save the day. Who's the war with? Uh, the sliths. Hey, why not? And there's a time limit. Okay, I'll throw in some stuff to slow you down. Doesn't have anything to do with the story, it just throws in unrelated sideplots that draw focus from what the scenario is really about - trying to get to a fort under seige before it's too late. But I'd better not make the time limit too tough or players will have trouble beating it and won't like the scenario. So I'll make it so large it's not really a limit at all, which kinda defeats the whole point, or lack thereof. If you're going to make a "rush" scenario, darn well make the player rush! Za-Khazi is nothing more than a string of dungeons more or less arbitarily strung together. They're decent dungeons, but still a long way short of what, say, Stareye could do. I'm not going to give a high rating to something like that when a scenario as great as Shadow of the Stranger exists. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Wednesday, March 31 2004 01:34
Profile
Homepage
I think that another factor that goes into my ratings is the 'replay' factor. Scenarios like An Apology, Requelle's Nightmare, Nephil's Gambit, etc. are scenarios that I wouldn't mind replaying or would want to, not just because they have alternate endings (most don't), but because they're fun and gripping. -------------------- "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 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, March 31 2004 06:36
Profile
So people say that actually the reviews are mostly not that bad; the Valley is fine; but that there are indeed some really outstanding BoE scenarios out there. And from reading Drizzt's insightful piece linked to by Boots, I think my genre conjecture is substantiated. The 'chain of quests for dungeons' scenario is such a durable mainstay of RPGs that I really think it deserves to be considered a respectable genre. People have been happily playing this kind of thing, in various media, for decades now. Like all genres it has a lot of conventions, which get stale with overexposure. But saying you've played too many of the genre isn't saying that it is inherently bad. Genre-busting can be great, of course. But I suspect that really hard core Blades players and designers may value novelty more than the average newbie, who really would enjoy the secret doors. I think the 'raters for the ages' should bear this in mind. I wonder whether a five star rating system (with no half-stars), like that used in Baf's Guide to the Interactive Fiction Archive, might be more useful than the ten point scale. It makes less attempt at precise evaluation, but there is so much comparison of apples and oranges involved that I think greater precision may be spurious anyway. Baf's rougher ratings seem to be extremely accurate, in the sense that everyone seems to agree with them. And they tell you all you want to know when you're trying to decide whether to play something. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 455
|
written Wednesday, March 31 2004 09:42
Profile
What is it around here with fetishizing nominal relations as if they were capable of producing absolute values? The existing Spiderweb BoE tables employ a five-point system, yet that system has curiously failed to secure results which anybody can understand, let alone agree or disagree with. And since when has the goal of reviewing been to hack out a conventional wisdom? The value of the Lyceum's CSR is that it incites productive and instructive disagreement. I might dispute some scores, but after reading the reviews, I've never found myself led astray; provided enough people detail their responses, one can tell what is on offer in a given scenario -- usually as a result of the disagreements among those responses. If you asked me to rate Falling Stars on a five point scale, I couldn't give it a five, since I found it annoying and self-indulgent in stretches, but neither would a four (80%) be just: that's the same score I would give A Small Rebellion, and, well, there's apples and oranges, sure, but then there's a crisp, entirely satisfying apple and a lifetime supply of crisp, entirely satisfying apples. Nephil's Gambit is a chain of quests. Shadow of the Stranger is largely a chain of quests. Amazonian Saga is a chain of quests. The Nature of Evil is a chain of quests. Quintessence is a chain of quests. Emulations is a chain of quests. None differs in "genre" from the Vogel scenarios, at least if we're defining genre in such abstract terms. But they are all, in their ways, nastier, more surprising, funnier, sadder, and more compelling than the best of the pre-packaged scenarios. Drizzt's point -- or maybe my point, which I've misunderstood him to be advancing -- is that the Exile model encourages designers to take the joins in a chain of quests for granted: to reduce every individual link to an end in itself with no substantive relationship, besides that provided by your player accepting a certain rote template, to any other link. The question isn't "genre." The question is the execution and development of the fit between gameplay and plot. String together pearls, and you've got some jewlery. Skewer lamb chunks, and you've made a kebab. Hand me a chain of pearls and lamb, and I'm not sure what I've got. When people criticize JV's scenarios, it's for doing something like that (a mishmash of linearity and openendedness is the way it's often described). Why is there a town of ogres in A Small Rebellion? What does it have to do with the other "quests"? The story coughs nervously: Morrow Island, it seems, is one of those facelessly "wild" corners of the Empire -- you know, that, and, well, there's a demon involved. At which point, you have to assume either, as The Creator charitably does, that the designer is trying to make his town quota, or, as I less charitably do, that the designer can't imagine a more fitting way to shim a training dungeon into his scenario -- which there's no reason for him to be doing in the first place. Either way, the plot's chain has been broken. Likewise, why is there a town of goblins in Diplomacy with the Dead? Similar coughing. Okay, so the combat will at least be nasty and tough, or maybe tactically elegant, as promised, right? Ummmm, you see, you'll be standing in a row here, and there'll be a big bunch of them standing a civilized distance away in open space, and, well, you've heard of the Napoleonic Wars, right? I could go on, but I'm rehashing points others have made better elsewhere, and in any event, why isn't this dispute going on in CSR? [ Wednesday, March 31, 2004 09:51: Message edited by: Boots ] -------------------- Forgive them, for they are young and rich and white. Posts: 265 | Registered: Saturday, December 29 2001 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Wednesday, March 31 2004 15:34
Profile
Criticising a movie that is nothing but explosions and pointless gunfights is not criticising the action genre. I can hate a movie like Lethal Weapon 4 and love a movie like Pirates of the Carribean. The difference is not genre, it's that the elements of the genre in question are not made essential and important - they're glued on. In VoDT, you fight a bunch of gremlins because, well, a scenario has to have fights. It's got nothing to do with the main plot, but who cares? In the "for the good of the individual" path of Of Good and Evil, you fight a bunch of sliths. Why? Because you refused to hand over to them the sacrifice they demanded. You disobeyed orders in the name of morality and plunged your country into war. Every battle you fight and every casualty your side takes is because of your ethical stance. You're not fighting because a scenario needs fights - you're fighting to redeem yourself in the eyes of your country, and you're fighting for what you decided was right. In Of Good and Evil and so many other great scenarios, the combat, the dungeons, the quests, the missions, drive the scenario. They're utterly essential, and you just could not have the same scenario without them. Same genre, done much better. quote:I hope I've done that now. EDIT: I suppose if you had a 1 to 1 rating system, that would be the most accurate. Certainly you'd get no disagreement over the scores. [ Wednesday, March 31, 2004 16:33: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 07:12
Profile
Those are good rebuttals. I agree you can make a chain of quests where the links all make sense, instead of being arbitrary, and that up to a point this is better. In fact, it's not so much a matter of doing something better, as of doing something well versus not doing anything. The point (which I do get) is whether there is continuity between the different scales of the story, from the overall scenario theme down to individual battles. I am not really trying to defend VotDT as a great scenario, except as a sort of devil's advocate trying to elicit the sorts of examples that have now been given. I think that a scenario can be too tightly scripted, though. There should be some loose elements, the odd settlement of ogres who just happened to set up camp because there are ogres in the world and that's what ogres do. A certain level of randomness gives the feeling that you are exploring a small part of an enormous and complicated world, rather than taking one role in a five-act play. So for example I don't see it as a problem that the gremlins in VotDT are there for no reason connected to the player. Gremlins are magical creatures, the School is an abandoned magical facility, so gremlins infest it. It isn't always about you. The point of the Bafian five star system is that five stars does not mean 'perfect'. It's a matter of saying what league a piece is playing in. Beyond this, a short review is almost always helpful, although for the best things it is hard to write a spoiler-free review that explains what's so great. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 09:20
Profile
Homepage
Randomness interferes with the plot. Alcritas placed hobgoblins in OG&E, merely for the purpose that RPGs need wandering fights and "that's the way things are". I guarantee you, culling them would be an improvement. If I were to place ogres in Bandits II, people would wonder "why?". If Creator was to place trogs in Revenge, people would wonder "why?". Brett DID pull off some pretty random encounters in DotS, and people DID ask "why?". If Drizzt were to place slimes in SotS, people would ask "why?". In a larger RPG, I don't mind seemingly random encounters. In a scenario like AtG, your comments hold water- If AtG didn't have wandering rogues, nephils, trogs, etc, I'd wonder if I was in a play. In a short or medium scenario, however, there is so little time to say what needs to be said that not only does randomness destroy whatever chain of sequences needs to be established, in the worst cases it can outright dwarf the plot itself. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 09:55
Profile
Homepage
Okay. AtG=At the Gallows. SotS=Shadow of the Stranger. What's OG&E, and what is DotS? :confused: -------------------- Encyclopaedia • Archives • Members • RSS [Topic / Forum] • Blog • Polaris • NaNoWriMo Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. I have a love of woodwind instruments. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 10:51
Profile
Of Good And Evil, Destiny of the Spheres. Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Thursday, April 1 2004 14:06
Profile
I dunno, I found the wandering fights in AtG to be very annoying. Here we are in the heart of the Empire, and there are demons and stuff wandering around! Man, is this civilization? It's no safer than Exile! They're just there because "A scenario has to have fights." There's plenty of fighting in that scenario that IS related to the plot, so I see no need to throw in ones that aren't. I'm not saying you can't throw in some kind of side plot/quest - but it should always relate in some way to the central story. Perhaps it could have been that the gremlins came and messed about with the waste storage (Which the mages had kept safely contained) and released it all. And now the sickness down there is so bad that they've been driven up onto the surface. Hey, look! You've got your fights, and they're related to the plot! No need to throw in that pointless goblin tribe now! But even so, I just don't see that combat is at all necessary, in of itself. When it's filling a purpose, sure, but otherwise it's just wasting the player's time. Election has exactly one fight, Tomorrow has three, Zankozzie's Big Mistake has none. All would be seriously harmed by the inclusion of more combat. Scenarios don't have to have fights. Edit: I was going to link to my article on The Tactics of Hack'n'Slash, but unfortunately it's not back up yet. [ Thursday, April 01, 2004 14:12: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 12:11
Profile
I probably don't really disagree with anybody in this thread. I'm sure there are many truly excellent and creative BoE scenarios, which demonstrate that there can be far, far better things than VotDT. The reason I've made more than one post here, though, is that in making that point, several people seem to have set up as a standard the idea that every single thing in a scenario ought to be tightly connected. Is this really what people believe? Or is the point more that the editor makes it easy to slap in pre-fab elements, so if you're not quite careful about just how you do this, the result gets a 'glued on' feel? If the latter, I would think that there must be a wider range of options, in avoiding 'glued on', than the single strategy of 'wire everything to the main plot'. Aren't there any good ways of incorporating disparate elements -- character actors and cameo bits -- in a scenario? -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 13:12
Profile
Homepage
Not everything has to be so tightly knit, but it's just that people have a much harder time making a loosely-tied game that's actually fun to play. -------------------- "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 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 13:33
Profile
Homepage
The trouble is that to make a rich world, you have to make it big. This is why the Exile series isn't so glaringly flawed as the BoE scenarios; it has enough scope to add in plenty of background without distracting. In a small scenario, it's hard to prevent the extraneous details from feeling either tacked on (if only one or two are added) or crowded in (if too many are added). It can be done, but it requires subtlety, which, frankly, Jeff isn't that great at. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 455
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 13:50
Profile
Even though anything I post in this thread will earn me further abuse from The Crheator over in The Lyceum . . . . Measle, for one, wrote a very good scenario -- The Nature of Evil -- which makes no pretense to coherence. Its story is linear, certainly, but only because it hurtles through one unrelated event and scene after another. If you had nothing more than the announced justification for this -- the ol' "alternate dimension" gambit -- to go on as a player, the experience wouldn't be satisfying, even though, in this respect, everything would be "wired to a main plot." The Nature of Evil does nevertheless satisfy because, having announced its intent to be "random," it sets about being truly and spectacularly random -- random in a way that an ogre town popping up in the middle of the Empire doesn't remotely approach. At a given moment in the story, you're won't be doing or feeling the thing you would expect to be doing or feeling; each reality you pass through has its own unique and strange logic, and each jump between them comes at a cost, at the very least, of disorienting surprise. One difference: in an RPG, the physics behind your "normal life" as a player derives from random number generation, so nothing surprising ever results at the level of gameplay from random numbers or a related combinatorics. That's the problem with wandering monsters: they're the most predictable event you can script into a Blades story. Alcritas notoriously discovered the general statement of this problem in Kallagoshisiswhatchamacallit, an experiment in generating a plot almost entirely from random numbers, which ultimately produces little variation or surprise (except the most minimal and predictable sort of variation: the story either works or it doesn't). So, again, in addition to Thurl's excellent point, the shortcoming in Exile-influenced scenarios is not that they're too loosely constructed, it's that their structure comes from that sort of combinatoric logic: there's no "price," no significance in the world of the game, for the fact that there's an ogre town in the middle of Morrow Isle or nephils hanging out with goblins in VoDT. It doesn't have to be a significance welded to the main plot. Nethergate -- one of JV's better efforts -- has so many "random" side quests that he's forgotten how one of them is supposed to work. Only a few have connections to the larger story; but several "know" about each other, and through their inter-relationships, they weave the texture for a world. That's a more compelling background than one filled in with monsters, dungeons and cameos placed as discrete "details." (Though as for cameos: they're all over the best Blades scenarios.) -------------------- Forgive them, for they are young and rich and white. Posts: 265 | Registered: Saturday, December 29 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 14:15
Profile
Homepage
I think the same thing applies to scenarios as Strunk and White said about sentences (and I'm very loosely paraphrasing here): they should be as short, clean, and simple as possible. They need not be small if the topic is large. They must only be the size they need to be, and no more. The problem in ZKR is that almost nothing relates to the actual plotline. In fact, there is very little in the way of plotline. It's just a series of caves and monsters and a journey. The issue is that BoE users play fifty scenarios or more. If these scenarios are all just sad excuses for more combat (which at times VoDT felt like, and ZKR probably was), they get really old really quickly. So the idea maybe should not be that everything relate to one central plotline, but that everything at least have a plotline associated with it. That doesn't make much sense, but let me give an example: Why did the gremlins infest the Tower of Magery in VoDT? Sure, it's a magical place and they're magical creatures, but where did they come from? When did they get there? Did they find food there, or what? What specifically influenced them to come? How do they survive there? What do they eat? What do they drink? Do the poisons affect them? How or why not? Do they have any sort of social order or hierarchy set up? There are an incredible number of potential questions about every group of monsters there, and the more that are answered, the greater the plot balance, and the more the feeling of realism. Which is a good thing. At the same time, we have to keep from throwing too many disconnected elements together at once. The designer should know the answers to all of these questions and design with these answers in mind, but need not answer them all within the scenario. The problem was that Jeff probably never answered these questions about the gremlins, or any of the other monsters in VoDT, for that matter, even in his own mind. Thus we have no idea where the gremlins came from, how the live, etc, and they only exist to act as combat, which in itself only exists to provide a challenge to the player, rather than to allow the player in on a story in a world. As people can probably tell from my other posts, I try to be *extremely* thorough in thinking through the background of a story before I tell it. To include anything in a scenario, one ideally must know where it comes from, what it is, why it's there, and basically everything about it. If it's too much work to come up with this back-story, don't include it. If it doesn't serve a purpose, one way or another, get rid of it (which I think is Boots's point -- I agree with what he wrote). This process can create a scenario that *feels* tightly connected (and feels real, which is probably even more important), even if it contains many sub-plots that aren't related to the main quest. EDIT: I think that between all of our comments, we have at least one or two articles here. It might be worthwhile to hammer those out. [ Friday, April 02, 2004 14:17: 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 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 455
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 15:35
Profile
For what I've been driveling, the articles already exist, or will soon -- the Honorable Member from Tokyo willing -- exist again. In fact, halfway through that paragraph about randomness I recalled that Alcritas had written a much more thoughtful consideration of the same which now (I think) can be found here, and which makes a more subtle point than I did: randomness can be an effective way to control when something happens, but is less interesting when used to control if something will happen. EDIT: What do they drink? Gremlin wine! [ Friday, April 02, 2004 15:37: Message edited by: Boots ] -------------------- Forgive them, for they are young and rich and white. Posts: 265 | Registered: Saturday, December 29 2001 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 16:39
Profile
EDIT: Rereading that post, I realised it's a bit tangential to the discussion at hand. So I deleted it and started again, dealing with the subject at hand. Does EVERYTHING absolutely HAVE to be connected in some way? Good question, and to a large degree it depends on the scenario. In Measle's 'Back to Normal' you play an adventurer returning home triumphantly. You've beat up the goblins, slain the dragon, and stolen the treasure from the evil temple. You have successfully won the game. (Yes, this is the start) Then you get home, and your Mum tells you to stop playing around like some hero and you aren't allowed back inside for dinner until you've fixed up the mess you've made in the neighbourhood. So you have to go apologise to the goblins, resurrect the dragon, and return the treasure to the evil temple... Great premise, and one of my favorite scenarios. Yet there's a lot of unconnected stuff in it. The Hermits' Convention, for example, or the Church of the Enema. Why does this one get away with it when ZKR doesn't? Probably because it's a comedy. I can't think of any other reason. In a serious scenario, I suppose it's okay if it's purpose is to provide atmosphere and/or depth to a scenario rather than just another challenge for the player. i.e. Drizzt's bean pets. Also, they really should be optional if they don't relate directly to the plot in some way. I can't think of any exceptions to this. [ Friday, April 02, 2004 17:20: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, April 2 2004 17:03
Profile
Homepage
We have someone from Tokyo in the community? EDIT: Oh, right. [ Friday, April 02, 2004 17:04: Message edited by: Tentacle Monster ] -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 278
|
written Sunday, April 4 2004 07:22
Profile
I do think that it is a little unfair to compare the somewhat lackluster adventures in BOA with the BOE scenarios done by others. Jeff Vogel is obviously an excellent novel writer--the Exile trilogy is really three novels--but not such a great short story writer. Also remember that his BOA scenarios are taken from his BOE scenarios, and at that time the endless possibilities of the BOE engine were unrealized. And that's his real genius-the creation of the BOE engine that spawned so much creativity among the community. Posts: 92 | Registered: Wednesday, November 14 2001 08:00 |