The Forge Archives

Awhile ago I said I'd just go and design a gamist game. I've found it's actually pretty damn hard and I probably look all talk and no walk now.

Anyway, one of the main problems is that I don't want to know the intricacies of the game. I mean, that's why I want to design gamist, because working out the puzzles of these systems is so engaging. Ironically what makes me want to design this way is all to likely to be satisfied without play (THIS IS BAD!), since I'm designing it.

I've actually toyed with the idea of a random value system. One where you roll a random set of numbers and keep it. This set of numbers are a key to the values in the rest of the system. For example, one number might determine at what value a mace (for example. Could be a blaster or hedgehog...whatever genre demands) has its damage set at. Another might determine the HP of a certain class. It'd all work off some charts which say what those key numbers mean. Basically all the factors are random...you make your random key and then play. Each key would mean very different combinations of numbers in play. This way I'd never know what the hell play options are optimum for a specific key combination. I'd have to play to find out.

Some side effects of this is that some play options would be super leet in comparison to others. Though that could be a feature rather than a bug...once you've conquered a combination, finish your campaign and roll a new random key.

The only thing I don't like about it is that I've only conquered a random key. In playing D&D, if I find some neat trick, I feel I've conquered (a little bit of) the very same game played by hundreds of thousands of people. I find it a bit prestigious. One answer might to make the key only have around 20 permutations between each number. I dunno.


Another direction is to emulate the play in Baldurs Gate/Champions of Norrath video games. These are games that I've sat and played for hours by myself, and played for hours with several other friends (Also done this with the 'Hunter: The reakoning' multiplayer video game). Often mustering the energy to play even some D&D with a simple story was too much. While handing out the controllers and jumping into some four player co-op (well, co-op with a little competitiveness) was quite easily achievable. I think there's a culture in the hobby to place any blame for not playing (and doing something else like watching a movie or vid games) on the players. Personally I'd prefer to unravel what makes BG/CoN so attractive, in mechanical terms.

One of the things that makes it good, I'm hypothesising, is a 'spot/react' real time element. Basically it's spotting an opportunity and reacting to it immediately. And I really do mean immediately...not waiting for your turn to eventually come around. I'm suggesting that its very rewarding to see and opportunity and act on it in that same half second you recognised it. The more you separate when the player can react and when they can see the opportunity, I think the more of this reward feeling is lost. Personally I'd describe it akin to how dogs are primed to chase a moving target the instant they see it bolt. Likewise I think our own primal reflexes enjoy it when we see a goblin amble onto the screen and we can instantly snap off an arrow at it, lashing out at it instantly.

That's my theory anyway (open for discussion). To emulate it I'd thought of the following. To emulate when the goblin (or whatever threat) comes onto the screen, you can't just have another user put down a figure...I mean, its too obvious and easy. What I thought is that you could have several tokens, each with six icons on them(all tokens have different mixes of icons). Someone places these around the edge of the board and once done with that, he rolls a six sider, which tells you which icon will mean a baddies going to appear on. Immediately all players begin to scan the layed out tokens, looking for one of these icons. If you're the first to plant your own special attack token on where a baddie is coming in, you get first wack and get some special bonus from that hit (prolly a minor XP bonus). The reason for this competitiveness isn't just for competitiveness's sake, but instead because once someone lays down their token it's too easy for everyone else to plant theirs there as well.

Further, I'd like to have something like each baddie having a base, around which is a bit of card with a certain pattern. Again like before, there is some dice roll (which has a corresponding base type listed for each number) and then you can quickly place your attack on a baddy of the right base type for some sort of bonus. I'm not sure if all players should have their turn at the same time and compete with each other in real time, or players have separate turns and the dice is rolled for each player, they then compete against some ramshackle timing device (I have troubles figuring how to implement a timing device).

Finally one of the things I'd like to emulate from BG/CoN is the "I'll just see if I can get in another attack on this gobo before I have to turn and run clear of his attack and then get in another of my own". I'm thinking something similar to the above, but I'm not sure quite how.

Another thing I was thinking of having some 'out of sequence' points for each player. These points regen either when the GM says or every ten minutes of real time. Basically they allow the player to act off turn. Hopefully this allows a different tactical level since even as the enemy figures are moved, you could interrupt to let off an attack at an ideal time...but since you only have a few points of this, you don't do this all the time...just when you can spot an opportunity as the baddies move.

Finally, perhaps in combo with the above points, you can burn up a bit of extra resources and just kill most of the equal or lower bad guys. These bad guys would have a certain rating...drop enough attacks on it and they are considered dead. The big upshot is that the player could do this at any time and just take away the bad guy straight away...very instant reward. It would cost more in resources than traditional turn based attacks, but would be worth it every so often for the sheer entertainment value of "I make him dead!" and snatching away a figure. You know you want to! :)

I'm worried that the above dice thing may be convoluted. Does it sound like that? Or does it all just sound boring? If so, in what way does it lead to boredom? But what I'm really worried about is it being convoluted...there's no point going from D20 to trying to emulate these games if it's just going to be as clumsy at giving easy play gaming.

Quote from: NoonPersonally I'd prefer to unravel what makes BG/CoN so attractive, in mechanical terms.

If I might say, I think thats an odd area for a tabletop to try to nail.
For example, Diablo and its successor, Diablo 2, are beloved and cherished games. Random dungeon design, no two games the same, the ability to play hundreds of other players, it was all wonderful.
The conversion to tabletop? Total suckage, I know of no one with any good things to say about it, even D&D/d20 sycophants.

The video games are a different realm than tabletops in terms of visualization, obviously, but you also have all of the mechanical work done for you. Thus, the system can get all complicated in the background in determining factors and values, calculating in a single click of a button what would take players around a table a few minutes to work out.
That, and its easy to sit down with a console and a disk full of levels, monsters and imagery as opposed to a tabletop scenario.

There are different ways to try to tackle it, but something to consider is the fact the computer is doing the work in those that you'll be expecting people to.

QuoteIf I might say, I think thats an odd area for a tabletop to try to nail.

Is it odd because your suggesting its only possible to convert such video games over like they did? I don't think that's true. For example, I'm basically replacing spot checks/mechanics (and the attached point distribution mechanics behind them) for one roll and pure player skill. Surely I don't look like I'm going to make an mathematically arduous replica of BG/CoN.

QuoteThat, and its easy to sit down with a console and a disk full of levels, monsters and imagery as opposed to a tabletop scenario.

Part of this thread is: why is it left to it be that way?

I've probably screwed my own thread by answering so soon. But I couldn't let it get off topic so early around the assumption that a ton of mechanics/end user work will be applied here. End user work doesn't mean these sorts of conversions wont work, they're just another challenging barrier to overcome (by reducing them significantly).

I was just looking at the remark about mechanically figuring out what made those games tick, and alot of that does fall into the mathmatics behind the scene. Too, Baulder's Gate is a D&D based game. Some of that snap reaction you're looking at there comes from the machine processing a D&D "turn" faster than any playgroup could.

It can be other ways, and if you're not looking at the mounds of mathmatics, coolies. Should be interesting to see what comes ^_^

To be specific I'd said I was looking at what makes them attractive, in mechanical terms (how you would describe it, like my 'spot/react' speculation). Different from how they work mechanically (like rolling dice, keeping score of HP, whatever).

I probably sound pedantic now, but I'm not. This is actually one of the difficult distinctions I've been working on and need help on. So I'm just clarifying the crucial question here. Regardless of what number crunching is going on, what sort of principle/mechanic is happening that is so agreeable to users?

So while the program can process a turn faster, what is good about that for the users? I actually think the nuances of each attack roll that might be savoured in table top ("ooh, my total roll is 19 again, YES!") is lost ("C'mon *bashes button*, just hack through this guy faster so I can get to this other guy"). The computers emulating it so fast you don't get time to stop and smell that particular rose. So that rose isn't the one I'm looking for.

Once I do have the right ones identified, we go from there, back down to making mechanics that suit that goodness.

I agree with Moose in what I think he's saying, in that I think that TT-RPGs are more suited to the pace of deduction/Induction tasks rather than those of mental and physical agility. That may just be tradition speaking, but the computer can make the pace of the interim calculations fast enough that it makes it seem "real-time" enough to be fun in that way. That is, in a CRPG, part of the immersion is that you have to react all the time in real time (although there are usually "timeout" proceedures). If that's constantly interrupted with other stuff, then it might not be as fun.

The nearest thing that I've done was an event that I put together for a con last year. There you moved miniatures around in real time, merely counting squares moved, and numbers of actions taken in a one minute real-time block. Then there was an approximately one minute interphase where you took that number, and did a little quick calculation that determined your remaining endurance.

This managed to get a very "real-time" feel to play (it was exhausting, actually). And it meant that players made the same sort of real-time mistakes that you'd expect - some of which were quite amusing. Still, I'm not sure if the whole thing might not have been better as a computer game which, since there wouldn't be any interphase, would have taken half as long to play out.

Mike

Hi folks,

I think two other factors that apply to videogames are 1) continous involvement and 2) more frequent rewards.  

The first is in the fact that many of these games keep the player actively involved in the point of the game.  That is, if the point is hack and slash, you hack and slash for most of the game, not at sporadic intervals.  In rpgs, this could happen, but few people get the same viseral kick from rpgs as videogames because the payoff is too slow, which brings us to the second point-

Press a button, watch your character throw the fireball, get the satisfaction of watching the enemy burst into flames, immediate gratification.  Say what you want to do, figure out numbers, roll dice, figure out more numbers, then wait form someone else to interpret the numbers into a cool imaginative visual.  These are two totally different play experiences.

Games that speed up the handling time do better, as well as those that cut out the need for a GM(such as wargames).  I'd also say that having physical or at least visual representations of the action(even in the abstract) provides some form of concrete award.  Play well in Warhammer, and you can watch the hordes of Orcs on the table disappear.

All that said, I think the biggest issue is the frequency of reward to actual play.  A couple years ago, I ran Zodiac, a game based on the Final Fantasy series of games.  We played a weekend marathon, something none of us had done in forever.  The addictive factor was the speed at which people leveled up and were rewarded.  The game always provided yet another carrot to reach for, and the carrots came fast enough to encourage steady play. "But I'm almost to the next level!" was the rallying cry of our fading endurance.

The rewards were quick enough to kick in the Pavlovian response.  In most games, rewards are usually points that don't have concrete influence on play until you've gained a significant amount, which usually means its several sessions before you see any appreciable difference in play.  At that point, your brain hasn't associated the reward with the actual play itself, and you don't have the incentive to push hard in play as much as endure it.

Chris

Hello,

Here's an old thread from Jesse (jburneko) which might be interesting reading for this topic: Gamism in action or why I hate arts and crafts. Perhaps less useful as a thread, but perhaps related, is Spycraft, gamism, & relationship maps.

Best,
Ron

Hi Mike, thanks for the response.

QuoteI agree with Moose in what I think he's saying, in that I think that TT-RPGs are more suited to the pace of deduction/Induction tasks rather than those of mental and physical agility. That may just be tradition speaking, but the computer can make the pace of the interim calculations fast enough that it makes it seem "real-time" enough to be fun in that way.

Is it a focus on interim calculations being performed that makes it fun, or is it continual pressure on ones resources (HP or whatever), in real time, that provokes a sort of pressure cooker fun (the fun coming from beating the pressure). I suppose I'm trying to prise away stuff that is being done, like a D20 roll, plus bonus, compared to a DC, then multiple dice rolled and added up with a bonus, then applied...yada yada yada. Now, I actually think there is a lot of satisfaction to be had from those things in traditional play. But here I think they don't give that much fun. There is fun to be had from the idea of character statistics interacting (a sim pleasure, I think). But I think that the 'in the moment' fun might be quite apart from the intricacies of statistical machinations. I think it's more to do with a 'pressure cooker' effect.

What do you think? Because if it's true, the perceived barrier of how a comp can do lots of calculations quick and players can't, isn't actually a barrier to real time play.

QuoteThis managed to get a very "real-time" feel to play (it was exhausting, actually). And it meant that players made the same sort of real-time mistakes that you'd expect - some of which were quite amusing.

Could you detail how it was exhausting, so I have some things to look out for? Cheers if you can.

And I'll take the note about mistakes in a good way. If you can make mistakes, then player skill is involved...and that's good. So perhaps the design doesn't need to be mega intricate so as to engage player skill.

QuoteStill, I'm not sure if the whole thing might not have been better as a computer game which, since there wouldn't be any interphase, would have taken half as long to play out.

I'd been considering a real time minute/admin minute mixture myself. Perhaps one answer is to make that admin minute more like a reward minute. A rough example might be their collecting gold in the real time minute but making a quick roll in the admin minute to find out the exact amount to note down. More of a 'oooh, look what I got' minute. Sure, other more boring stuff would happen...but hopefully its easily forgotten as the rewards come in.



Hi Chris, thanks for the response.

QuoteThe first is in the fact that many of these games keep the player actively involved in the point of the game. That is, if the point is hack and slash, you hack and slash for most of the game, not at sporadic intervals. In rpgs, this could happen, but few people get the same viseral kick from rpgs as videogames because the payoff is too slow, which brings us to the second point-

Press a button, watch your character throw the fireball, get the satisfaction of watching the enemy burst into flames, immediate gratification. Say what you want to do, figure out numbers, roll dice, figure out more numbers, then wait form someone else to interpret the numbers into a cool imaginative visual. These are two totally different play experiences.

I fully agree with the first part...the second part as well, for that matter. But I'm just wondering about the immediate gratification of the second part. Ignoring the dice part for a second, does it need someone else to interpret it into a cool imaginative visual? I think people in general are open to having images evoked in their minds if stimulus is applied enough. So imagine if a player has a fireball spell and has to describe its 'Searing, fiery mass' each time he uses it (reinforce it like the warhammer fantasy RP 'strike mighty blow' skill, where you miss out on the bonus if you don't say it). After someone says that a few dozens times, it's pretty easy to imagine fire all over the damn place, and a lot of singed gobo bodies. I think a certain imaginative atmosphere will develop as players describe hurling all sorts of havoc everywhere.

On the dice, I'm thinking having pre rolled dice. Like roll five attack rolls and damages, then compare them to four different DC's. Each corresponds to a grading like A, B, C, D. Then you can just look at your first roll and say something like 'Hit a B for 15 damage' without rolling a thing. You write the rolls in a row and use a counter to keep track of them, moving it along as you use one. Once you've used them all, go back to the first (perhaps rerolling the lot every hour or some time period). Also, if we ensure the players know monster stats, then they will know what grade they need to hit and what damage will take one out, further speeding up the process.

QuoteGames that speed up the handling time do better, as well as those that cut out the need for a GM(such as wargames). I'd also say that having physical or at least visual representations of the action(even in the abstract) provides some form of concrete award. Play well in Warhammer, and you can watch the hordes of Orcs on the table disappear.

I really want to get rid of a standard GM role and hope its possible. Also, I've essentially imagined it on a battle grid from the start. I think figures are a reward in themselves, visually. Straight imagination leads to intricate images, but I think figures mechanically give a reward rather than solely leave users imagination to reward themselves.

Quote"But I'm almost to the next level!"

That's cool! :) Were there other accumulation of rewards that spured on play as well? For instance, I've noticed in the grand theft auto games I would often think 'hey, just one more package and I'll get another weapon at my base' or 'Oh, I'm nearby to a gun spawn here...I'll just cruise by and grab it' and 'Oh, I'll just snag a banshee for the garage while I'm at this end of town'. There were multiples of these and you guessed it, once you accumulated one, you were near some opportunity to collect something else for an advantage. Did you have gold in your game and people wanting to also play on because 'I've almost got enough to buy this cool weapon!' and other such things?

Anyway, I fully agree on supporting the pavlov type response. Indeed, even a narrativist design like TROS uses it. And clearly in the game's your finding gold, potions and items cropping up the more you push on the control stick and hack/open chests. Engage and you are rewarded. It's a very fun type of play. BTW, would you be able to tell more about that Zodiac marathon. Snippets of actual play, if you can please. :)



Hi Ron, thanks for the links:
I'll just quote bits and ask about them:

QuoteAnd it was HARD. I mean DAMN HARD. Go ahead and draw the map of a standard 3 story keep. You've probably got about 75 rooms on your hands. Now a certain percentage of those rooms will be empty. Probably about 10 to 15. The rest you actually have to fill with something. And it can't just be room after room after room of monsters because that will get old. You at least have to give some variety to encounters. I mean even if the whole place was filled with Kobalds, you've got to make each Kobald encounter unique some how. You have to vary the parameters of the challenge. Maybe the Kobalds are armed with special weapons. Maybe you have to fight the Kobalds in and around some traps. Maybe you have to get involved in a three way fight between yourselves, goblins and kobalds. And of course it can't be all fighting either. So you throw in some traps but, man, trap creation is a subtle art I tell you.

Emphasis mine.
Now, this is something similar to how I feel when I design a dungeon or whatever site based stuff. But now, getting to look at his experience from the outside, I'm wondering if it's a sim based priority along with the gamist. I mean, why as stated does it get old? I think like how Chris mentioned having rewards coming thick and fast, the whole 'must have variety', 'each kobold is different', 'each kobold has different weapons', 'your in the middle of a three way fight between kobolds and gobos', are all examples of lacing the adventure with simulationist rewards. All these are very rich in rewarding the imagination, I think. It's the same thick and fast reward mechanism, but revolving around sim. But what not supporting that!? All the kobolds are the same, but they keep dropping gold or items, and there always seems to be some gold/item around the corner if you poke around for it. Now pursue it! The thick and fast rewards all revolve around gamist play, either dive in or don't play.

Indeed, I'd speculate the spacing between gold/treasure items in traditional play is purely so it doesn't overwhelm the perhaps more delicate simulationist imagination reward. Which becomes a habit in session design even if you want to facilitate gamist more.

Anyway, perhaps that's what you meant by giving the link! :)

I'm not sure why you gave the other link. The relationship map is a potential stumbling block to design. But then again it could be bug turned to feature as a mission selection type mechanism. What did you mean?

Also, I think you should check out the Progress Quest comp game (link is below), just for quick research purposes. It's strangely engaging!



To all:
I'm also wondering if I'm stressing the player input part to much. This would be the strategy part of gamist guts and strategy.

It's because I'm seeing parallels between BG/CoN and Progress quest ( http://progressquest.com/ ). This is a satirical game, but I suggest you down load and run it for game research purposes (it's a minute file). Because of it's satirical part...there is zero player input required. What happens is you have a bunch of stats, equipment etc and it just automatically conducts combat. You just keep fighting stuff and collecting stuff. And for some reason it's quite fun. Indeed, for a game that requires no input, it has fairly active forums of people posting.

I'm wondering if part of the appeal of BG/CoN is the progress quest parts...where you just kill the goblin, there isn't anything clever you can do except press the attack button repeatedly. Well, okay, sometimes you can draw out some monsters while keeping cover between you and ranged guys, or such like tricks (and they are pretty basic tricks). But a great deal of play is mostly just wading in and mashing the attack button.

Now, that's not everything in BG/CoN...there are some bits which are more like traditional table top (and funnily enough, are done at the same pace as table top). But is this progress quest style valid to support? Would it just be boring? Or does a certain level of often repeated pavlov like rewards make it mildly compelling? Is it enjoyable in a way that is like stepping into a sports car and revving the engine? That purring engine has nothing to do with your personal skill...but it begins to feel like an extension of you. Is that 'oomph' of the progress quest type enjoyment?

If so, am I stressing the player input part when this is just as valid a play style.

Hi Callan,

I don't think it is necessary to have someone else interpret the results, although I think the gamist reward in tabletop play occurs when the interpretation is actually placed within the shared imaginative space, as opposed to the individual player's head.

But just describing a cool action is not sufficient, it must come with a cool outcome for folks to really get the gratification in play.  The first without the second is the painful part of the Whiff Factor, and the second without necessarily the first often is revised via Fortune in the Middle for many groups.  "I swing, 20, critical, ooo, max damage!" then becomes, "You jump up land on his shoulders and drive your sword into the top of his head!"

For gamism, color alone isn't the satisfying part, it also has to be backed solidly by System, there has to be mechanical backing to make it appeal to the players.

In regards to my Zodiac experience, the reward wasn't just leveling up, but at each level you got points to build a new power.  So, the players were looking forward to getting a new power each time, and since each power added to their effectiveness and strategic options, it was a lot more rewarding than simply getting +1 to hit, or a little extra damage.  It's rather like getting a new magic card, with completely different powers that can stack or modify everything else you've got going.

The game itself is based on the Final Fantasy series of videogames, which pretty much is random battles mixed with linear boss battles.  This being the case, I would simply set up a list of set encounters, with "rest points" and we had participationist gamism going on.  The events were entirely prescripted, but the players had full control over what their tactical choices were during battle.  

Folks typically levelled after 3 encounters, and I had initially statted up something like 12 encounters, ending in a big boss fight.  Players usually took somewhere around 10 minutes to finalize their decisions for leveling up, which gave me time to upgrade or write new encounters to deal with their rising power levels.  After the intial scenario was run through, I spent about half an hour writing another, and off we went.  Ron's issue with same kobolds, unique experience, was solved for me in two regards-

1)  Creating new, unique monsters in Zodiac is pretty easy, and you just base them around a different power, or set of powers, and its a completely different tactical experience

2)  Leveling up quickly on the part of the PCs allowed me to introduce new, different and more challenging beasties at them quickly.

In D&D, or most other systems, you're lucky if you level up once a session, and maybe, just maybe, you get a new ability that changes your gamist options.  This means the monsters or challenges have to stay pretty much in the same range, which can get stale quick.  With Zodiac, the speed of character development(aka, increase in power and strategic options), allowed for me to vary things significantly through play itself.

It basically took the joy that folks get from thinking, "What will my character be like, at level 10?" and all that strategizing, from thinking months ahead, to say, the end of the session.  Character creation becomes almost an ongoing thing, and it definitely has a level of appeal to it.

Chris

Quote from: NoonIs it a focus on interim calculations being performed that makes it fun, or is it continual pressure on ones resources (HP or whatever), in real time, that provokes a sort of pressure cooker fun (the fun coming from beating the pressure). I suppose I'm trying to prise away stuff that is being done, like a D20 roll, plus bonus, compared to a DC, then multiple dice rolled and added up with a bonus, then applied...yada yada yada. Now, I actually think there is a lot of satisfaction to be had from those things in traditional play. But here I think they don't give that much fun. There is fun to be had from the idea of character statistics interacting (a sim pleasure, I think). But I think that the 'in the moment' fun might be quite apart from the intricacies of statistical machinations. I think it's more to do with a 'pressure cooker' effect.

I'd say that the "satisfying" parts of the process are when you note the "hit," and when you note the damage (especially if it's a kill). That is, the mechanics themselves aren't fun, it's the feedback of the mechanics that the players look forward to. This is where the computer excels, because it does the mechanics, and then gives you the feedback. That is, in a TT game you have:

1. Input action.
2. Perform mechanical steps.
3. Note output.

and then repeat. In a CRPG you have:
1. Input action.
2. Note output.

All the good stuff is still there, without the "work" which the computer does for you. The HP pressure cooker is a real phenomenon, but, again, because player mental and phyiscal agility are being tested. That is, can you recognize that your character is in trouble, and heal/retreat in time.

QuoteWhat do you think? Because if it's true, the perceived barrier of how a comp can do lots of calculations quick and players can't, isn't actually a barrier to real time play.

Well, the question is whether or not you see the actual die rolling, reading, math, etc, as work, or fun themselves. I'm guessing that, for most players at least, that they're work. They only want the feedback so that they can make their next decision. The decisions are what involves the player, the feedback is the reward. In between is only work, unless you have a fetish for these things.

Quote

QuoteThis managed to get a very "real-time" feel to play (it was exhausting, actually). And it meant that players made the same sort of real-time mistakes that you'd expect - some of which were quite amusing.

Could you detail how it was exhausting, so I have some things to look out for? Cheers if you can.

Well, let me describe it, and I think you'll see. I had a stopwatch. I would ask "ready?" and when all were ready, I'd hit it, and say "go!" Players would then scramble over the table to move their mini and perform other actions. During which I had to play referee, and be the source of instant rules. With six players, even with an assistant ref that I had, I was still constantly involved during those one minute periods. In addition we had to modify the map cover so that the players would only see what the character were seeing more or less.

Then the watch would go off, and I'd exhort everyone to do their math, with the hope that these interphases would be on average 60 seconds, too. The scenario was 120 turns, representing two hours running around in a zombie infested mall (I used over 400 of the minis from the popular Zombie! game). During the interphase, I had to move all of them that were in sight/hearing of the characters. Often about 60 or so. They only moved one space (zombie shamble rate), but that was enough.

I'm sure that I've forgotten some things that I had to do.

So, with 120 turns with about 60 second interphases, the game ran in it's con slot perfectly, going four hours. Basically, I was furiously busy for four hours. Uh, we took one five minute break in the middle (for bathroom), and finished almost exactly on time.

QuoteAnd I'll take the note about mistakes in a good way. If you can make mistakes, then player skill is involved...and that's good. So perhaps the design doesn't need to be mega intricate so as to engage player skill.

This was positive, and an intended effect of the design. I wanted something with the open-endedness of a RPG, but with the pressure of real time. Not having a mall and 400 extras to play zombies for a LARP, I did what I could. Given that the interphases had math etc, and ended when all were finished, there was little time for strategizing. In fact they were not allowed to talk to each other during interphase (I started the clock the first couple of times they started talking, and they soon learned not to do that).

In any case, there was basically only one game mechanic, which was the endurance thing. Basically one huge resource management exercise. The "tactics" of the scenario were mostly based on the situation - given the character's goals, do they stick together, or split up, and which shops do you break into, what do you pick up?

The "Most Creative Shopping" award was for the guy who got a bowling ball in sportswares to break open the gun case.

Best mistake of the game? At one point, the guy playing the Donald Pleasance priest character (of course) picked up the M-16 that one of the SWAT team guys had dropped several minutes earlier, and pointed it at said SWAT guy, to stop him from doing something heinous. The player looks at me, "That's the one I dropped earlier?" I nodded. He said, "I grab the weapon away from him." The priest's player says, "I fire!" Me, "Click...it doesn't have a clip in it."

The SWAT guy was still carrying the remaining ammo in a backpack.

Runner up was the guy who broke into and out of the department store twice, and then remembered that he had earlier found the keys. So there were all these Zombies streaming into the department store through the broken windows where they'd been unable to get before. All of which took about five times as long as if he'd just used the keys.

QuoteI'd been considering a real time minute/admin minute mixture myself. Perhaps one answer is to make that admin minute more like a reward minute. A rough example might be their collecting gold in the real time minute but making a quick roll in the admin minute to find out the exact amount to note down. More of a 'oooh, look what I got' minute. Sure, other more boring stuff would happen...but hopefully its easily forgotten as the rewards come in.

In the game we played, the players had little cards, and they simply wrote down whatever they picked up on them. Then, if they wanted to drop something, they'd just leave it on the map. Part of your endurance cost for the turn was based on the total bulk of stuff you were carrying at the beginning of the turn.

So the "rewards" came in the "in-game" portion in this case. One of the best bits of play was the moment they came up the elevator in the department store, and noted the gun rack on the far wall. As I'm saying "ready" players were looming over the map, and when I said go, they were actually physically pushing each other to get their mini to the gun rack to "shop." I was laughing so hard that the minute was almost over before anyone figured out how to break into the rack.

I have to say that it was one of the most fun games that I've ever run, and that I'm running it again this year at the same Con (which is in February in Milwaukee if anyone is interested in trying it out - PM me for details). I've made several substantive improvements to the game, and it should rock even harder this year.

The advantage over a computer game is that there was no limit on what the players could do. When they went into the candle shop, someone said, "Can I get one of those cans of oil that they sell there?" I had no idea what he was talking about, but I said, "Sure!" and made up the counter on the spot just like everything else. This was the start of how the mall eventually burned down (but not before many of the players had accomplished their goals).

Now, given a good enough modeling of the mall, which would entail like terrabytes, I think a computer model would have worked better in full real time like a multiplayer FPS. But, sans that technology, the game worked about as well as I could have imagined.

Mike

Mike, that game sounds extraordinary, and I'd love to run something along those lines.  I appreciate your sharing the idea and discussing how it proceeded; do you have any more formal writeups of the idea / ruleset lying around?

Uh, actually, no, I don't. It's currently "all in my head" and in revision there, to boot.

But, quite simply, the system is that all actions have a cost that you count up as you do them - generally single digit like one go go a space, so counting up as you go is really easy. You start counting at the level of the total "bulk" of whatever you're carrying. So, if I start with ten bulk, and go ten spaces, that's 20.

Then you check a chart to see what the endurance cost is on a sliding scale between turns - so that the more you do in a turn, the more quickly you become exhausted. If you sprint for one minute, you can cover almost the whole mall - and may not be able to move for the next two hours. Whereas if you pace yourself, you can get a lot done in that two hours including getting to the other end of the mall.

"Combat" just adds to your count if you're hurt. Generally, getting through zombies in a space costs the square of the number of zombies as you plow through them. If you ever are out of endurance and co-located with zombies, you are killed. Killing a zombie costs one with a bullet (they don't dodge, it's just work), or a number of dice in cost if using a hand weapon - the chainsaw is most efficient. So there are no separate rules for combat, and players can handle it without the GM doing more than glancing over.

In the game we played, one character died, trying to kill zombies. He just waded into a crowd of zombies shooting them, and couldn't knock down the figures fast enough in one minute (and, or was simply becoming exhausted). After two minutes of this, they swarmed him, and there was nothing he could do. It was just like scenes in zombie movies, including the player getting that horrified look on his face as he realized that he'd stood there too long, and couldn't take them all out.

If the game hadn't been real time, the player could have made the calculations, and wouldn't have fallen into this trap. He simply miscalculated. What I worry about with the system is that some player will learn it well enough that they can do the calculations on the fly, and not be in this danger. But running it only once a year, that's not likely to be a problem.

In a CRPG, however, the calculations like this are done behind the scenes secretly so the player can't calculate. Instead, they do like they did in my game, where they play around with the character a little to get the feel for what they can do. In fact, the first few minutes were quite like watching somebody play a video game. Which I thought was amusing. I'm thinking that this time out, I'm going to have a training session to get past that before play.

I mean, I tried to guage the actions to a one minute timeframe, and I think it was pretty realistic. But somehow looking at miniatures on a board, the players didn't get the sense of exhaustion until they saw the numbers on the sheet going down after the first few minutes of frenzied zombie killin'. :-)

Oh, and I won't describe the precise mechanism, but to give a hint, it's something like the Ars Magica endurance rules, actually (and IIRC).

Mike

Chris:

QuoteI don't think it is necessary to have someone else interpret the results, although I think the gamist reward in tabletop play occurs when the interpretation is actually placed within the shared imaginative space, as opposed to the individual player's head.

But just describing a cool action is not sufficient, it must come with a cool outcome for folks to really get the gratification in play. The first without the second is the painful part of the Whiff Factor, and the second without necessarily the first often is revised via Fortune in the Middle for many groups. "I swing, 20, critical, ooo, max damage!" then becomes, "You jump up land on his shoulders and drive your sword into the top of his head!"

Not sure about that as a requirement. For example, I can enjoy 'Before I kill you Mr Bond' with and without people describing how each spy dies horribly. Such descriptions and their appreciation don't carry anything about the players skill. I think this is more a sim type of fun A good quality if I can manage it, but not a necessity IMO. And for the pace I want, I need to differentiate so I can cut back on such things if needed for that goal. I think another way to support this is to have a wrap up done by somebody...IMO, it's not so much important that my action is described in amazing detail, in terms of supporting sim, but instead the confirmation that others have taken on my contributions to the SIS. A wrap up confirms that nicely. Of course, this is all based on my assumption of what sort of reward type a description is.

QuoteIn regards to my Zodiac experience, the reward wasn't just leveling up, but at each level you got points to build a new power. So, the players were looking forward to getting a new power each time, and since each power added to their effectiveness and strategic options, it was a lot more rewarding than simply getting +1 to hit, or a little extra damage. It's rather like getting a new magic card, with completely different powers that can stack or modify everything else you've got going.

Yeah, I had a look at Zodiac. It answered my 'are there lots of things that are near advancement at all times' question. Definitely the derived stats are like pots on the boil, since at each level you've likely got one you can tip over into the next bonus. I must do that too! It's neat!

I agree on the +1 thing being perhaps too dull, but found Zodiac's creation rules difficult to absorb. But then again it mentions the pre-made ones on the site, which is essentially how I think I'll handle it. Having pre-made combo's listed in the book...which are nice to start with, but then game play compels you to think about other combo's.

And as to the powers, they are refreshingly wonky (rather than down to earth). I mean, they do all sorts of crazy stuff compared to normal RPG powers, and I felt there must be all sorts of tactical nuance there because of the odd things they do (It sounds like Exalted actually, from what I've heard). Which is cool too.

Thanks for telling me more about your session, it's been very useful. Have you ever played again (a normal session length)? And I assume you've never done a write up for actual play?

On a side note, Ron didn't have those probs, I was quoting another guy from a link Ron gave. But I take your drift with the new monsters which present new tactical opportunities.

QuoteIt basically took the joy that folks get from thinking, "What will my character be like, at level 10?" and all that strategizing, from thinking months ahead, to say, the end of the session. Character creation becomes almost an ongoing thing, and it definitely has a level of appeal to it.

Yeah, I like it. Though my simulationist side has nagging questions about how could they level that fast, etc. My sim side doesn't like the idea of good and cool mechanics first and world elements being designed afterward to support that, but he'll just have to deal! *LOL*


Mike:

Quote from: Mike

Quote from: CallanWhat do you think? Because if it's true, the perceived barrier of how a comp can do lots of calculations quick and players can't, isn't actually a barrier to real time play.

Well, the question is whether or not you see the actual die rolling, reading, math, etc, as work, or fun themselves. I'm guessing that, for most players at least, that they're work. They only want the feedback so that they can make their next decision. The decisions are what involves the player, the feedback is the reward. In between is only work, unless you have a fetish for these things.

I completely misinterpreted you before, I though you were saying they were fun (I thought you refering to the causality they inspire, sort of a sim fun). Personally I've always enjoyed a certain drum roll effect while the dice rolled and as their final result is tallied, somewhat like waiting for the bead in a roulette wheel to stop is a pleasurable tension, I imagine (or Van Dam (sp?) getting half a dozen replays of one kick before you see his foe actually take it). Is that fetishism?

Anyway, moot point now. In terms of '1. Input action. 2. Perform mechanical steps. 3. Note output.' I think your always going to have step two. Computers don't remove it. You still need to look at the screen, push the stick in the right direction and press the button repeatedly. It's still work, it's just that it's a tiny amount of work. For example, imagine if you had to do all that but it took hours of it to get any reward from a game. When the reward drops low enough, it clearly becomes work.

Basically you can either reduce its size like the comp games do, or dress it up as a reward. For example, if you have to roll percentile, check a table, add a modifier and do a bunch of things too boring for me to describe adequately, its work. Okay, what about when you remove three goblin figures from the table (and you sit them in front of your sheet for latter talying), does that feel like work? It is, but it feels more like a reward. Given this approach, you can hide the work involved. And obviously it's easier to hide smaller things.

Though I'm not sure now if you were suggesting there's this rules barrier to a speedy game of this type, or hinting at the (lightweight) mechanics needed in light of that. What can you tell me?

On the write up, thanks for that, it was very informative (also useful to another poster and thus possibly more, too)! I don't really have any further questions except about the timer. It was a stop watch with some sort of alarm? Where did you get it and how much? Also, in a pinch, do you think you could have worked with just a regular wrist watch? What do you think would have happened if you did.

QuoteNow, given a good enough modeling of the mall, which would entail like terrabytes, I think a computer model would have worked better in full real time like a multiplayer FPS. But, sans that technology, the game worked about as well as I could have imagined.

Probably nothing that'll aid the topic, but I'm not sure about putting it this way. Admittedly I'm trying to emulate the fun of a computer game, but you seem to be saying that if you'd been able to do it all with a FPS (with good enough modeling), you would have and this was just the next best alternative. I'm not sure the activity actually lacks qualities which would otherwise make it a viable choice next to such a FPS. I dunno why I'm noting it or how different a design attitude it is, but I'd prefer to work from the idea of starting with RP, which is a valid entertainment choice right next to FPS's, and then reverse engineer fun elements from games like BG/CoN and insert them into the RPG, making it better. Perhaps that's what you mean too. But I'm not sure its gained by comparing it to how I guess a really well modeled FPS would have handled it. I think it's more about testing whether I stole the CRPG elements successfully and hybridised successfully. I can't quite explain the difference, but I think it's there.


To you guys and all:
Have you ever played an old game called 'Bust a groove' (I think it was called?) or the dancing mini game in GTA: San andreas. Both simply involve a sequence of button presses scrolling across the screen and a steady music beat. Basically you needed to hit the listed buttons (of which there were only four) at the right moment to do some cool dancing. It sounds easy, but it's actually hard (in a similar way to how tetris sounds simple and perhaps easy).

I'm thinking of a similar method, where the PC's have a certain number of listed attacks. When the GM declares a bad guy is attacking them, the player (under a time limmit), must recall and say the correct combo to dispatch the enemy. It's basically a memory test under perhaps at times confusing conditions. Also, cover and other things may make altering the combo slightly the optimum solution...fighting the urge to just do the usual combo and seeing the opportunity in the first place requires further skill. Finally, even monsters of the same type but different weapon configs or poses, would require different combo's. All adding to the skill required, which wouldn't be that much skill if an amount of real time pressure wasn't added.

In addition, I was thinking players could do attacks while the GM is dealing with someone else. They'd have a certain amount of some tokens they can give up for each attack. The trick here is that, with a certain movement allowance, they might be able to do attacks until they see the GM coming to them, then fall back outside the monsters movement rate. This often happens in BG/CoN, where you attack until the bad guy is about to reach you, then you run away so you can let off some more ranged attacks. Spotting the GM coming will be the skill (and somewhat humorous IMO, which is a good reward in game (for some games) as well). Can you tuck in one more attack before the GM gets ya!? :)

If you want something that allows the players to snap react to things, might I suggest something as simple as cards? Have the players situate a number of cards in front of them equal to their total combative actions (perhaps to include defensive and assisting actions like healing spells, etc.) and when it comes time, they must pick up the card and "play" it on the spotted target.

One of the pitfalls I'd see with any system of this nature is the sheer amount of information that the GM would have to be able to process in a small amount of time. If it's the group -vs- one target, then it's easy. But if, in real time, the GM must have a squad or disparate group of enemies react to the PCs and be proactive as well, the GM may tend to make more mistakes than is reasonable.