Found an old Choose Your Own Adventure in the bookstore underneath my office building the other day. It's from late in the series run, with a number well over 100, and is clearly after the writers had mastered the form, and well into when the writers were bored with the form.
Reading it again has reminded me why I always felt that the Choose Your Own Adventure books were pretty limited as entertainment - there is no logical system to determine whether or not you will succeed, or that will help you predict results. The Choose Your Own Adventure books are essentially large branched narratives - and the pleasure of them is exploring all of the nodes, and seeing the many possibilities, not figuring out how to reach a specific ending. This is clearly detectable in the very late entries in the series where the writers start to experiment with the format, even going so far as to include 'cheater's' endings which could only be found by leafing through the book - there was no way to reach those endings by navigating the book as expected.
I preferred the Lone Wolf books, and a series that escapes my memory at the moment that actually pitted two book equipped players against one another. Both of these series included mechanical systems whereby your player could use certain skills, items, or actions to influence the outcome of a choice. Players choosing options well suited to the task, that they had bonuses or advantages with would perform, on the whole, better. Very simple, and actually not the point I'm coming around to making, but something that remains very true for me.
When I am exploring a system as opposed to a place, I want to be able to poke the system and see what happens - I need access to levers or knobs, or inputs of some type, and then I desire to see how fiddling with different knobs will affect the outcomes of the system. In a broad sense, a Choose Your Own Adventure book can function this way, but in this case, every decision point is a different knob, and many knobs are totally non-pertinent to each specific outcome. The large number of knobs and difficult to parse interrelatability make that system much more difficult for me to explore, and therefore less interesting. Where a Choose Your Own Adventure book works well is as a way to explore a place or event - it gives you paths into the many different nooks and crannies of a story, without concern about probabilities, realism, etc - it makes it easy to tour those nodes or events, without providing any information about how they work.
So, I am wondering what it would look like to write a story about a system. To follow the logic above, a traditional piece of fiction gives a reader a guided tour of a place, time, or story - and that generally matches my personal expectation for a novel, and what I think I get out of a novel. So what interests me today is how I would write a piece of traditional fiction that did that for a system, instead of a story. Or perhaps, more interestingly, viewed its story as a system. Is a system even interesting if you, the reader, have no control over which levers and knobs are turned? Is that the same as asking why folks like on-rails storytelling video games? I think the two things could be different, but I am unsure on what that piece of fiction would look like. Off to do more thinking.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
I call bullshit
I was going to update this once a week, so as I had a place to work out small ideas, and as a sort of healthy rigor thing, and then today has been epically shitty. So, no post today. But I will get something up tomorrow.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Thinking about Classes
So, today's post is going to be just a little ranting and raving about classes in tabletop RPGs.
Classes are, and have been, a major system and method for implementing character advancement and differentiation in RPGs. Starting with Chainmail and early D&D, classes defined different character roles, abilities, and archetypes. I've been reading a bunch of the Old School D&D blogs recently, while also casting back into my library of late 70's/early 80's tabletop games, and thinking about what classes mean, and how they have changed.
In some modern systems (D&D 4E is a good example) the distinctions between the functionality of classes has all but disappeared, leaving class to define the flavor of you character - not WHAT he can do, but more generally HOW he does it, whether with magic, faith, etc. This has certainly led to a leading criticism of 4E, which is that all of the classes are basically the same. However 4E also includes the concepts of character roles, generally imported from MMORPGs and more tactically oriented table games, which means these modern classes may primarily function as skins for similar abilities, but each class has been placed into one of four broader baskets which define WHAT the character chooses to do and is best at - what role he plays in the group when in combat, and to a lesser extent, in roleplay and adventuring.
This topic is rife in the OSDD blogs at the moment, with a lot of great discussion about what a class can and should be, and different ways of looking at classes and how to define them. Check out particularly - The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms, which has an ongoing discussion of class archetypes and examines them in literature and tries to define simple broad characteristics. This partially is to serve the old school commandements of simplicity and restricted character power (encouraging players to creatively use a limited set of abilities or powers rather than to amass a list of powers which are fired off one by one).
I am not, necessarily, an old school only kind of a guy, and actually like some of the power-gaming and more detailed character creation that has come from modern tabletop games. But I think the impulse to define a classes capabilities in a short, clear way is a strong assist to roleplayers at the table, and I think the impulse to have a class cover the role or the what a character does in the game in good.
I'm, therefore, currently playing with the idea of using classes to match to play styles - starting with a very simple set of classes taht resemblt the basic 4, and letting each one's abilities be defined by how the player likes to engage in the game - are they interested in overwhelming enemies with pure physical might, or do they prefer tactical battles where they take advantage of unfair situations. Is the player focused on acquiring magical power and using knowledge to advance in the game, or would they rather harness creative inspiration and risk taking?
Some of this work is going into a project I'm working on at the moment, but I'm interested in what people think about the following four 'core' classes:
Warrior - Attains power through skill of arms, primarily uses equipment to fight monters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is ability to study many different styles of fighting / use many different kinds of equipment and use the appropriate one for the situation.
Mage - Attains power through study, primarily uses magic to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is great flexibility with magic and the ability to touch deep magical reserves restricted from other characters.
Rogue - Attains power through practice, primarily uses skill and manipulation to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is the large resolution bonuses such characters gain when they can catch an opponent at a disadvantage, or create a disadvantage for an opponent.
Champion - Attains power through devotion to an ideal, primarily uses inspired actions and specially granted magical powers to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is the ability to pull of small miracles and stretch the use of their abilities into any situation that their devotion drives them to.
I know thats all a little vague, but you can see the kernels of the classics inside these archtypes, and hopefully how these classes are a little broader while still defining a clear role for the player at the table. These classes would be paired with another defining characteristic to form a complete character, who has both a role in the world, and a history and place to come from.
Classes are, and have been, a major system and method for implementing character advancement and differentiation in RPGs. Starting with Chainmail and early D&D, classes defined different character roles, abilities, and archetypes. I've been reading a bunch of the Old School D&D blogs recently, while also casting back into my library of late 70's/early 80's tabletop games, and thinking about what classes mean, and how they have changed.
In some modern systems (D&D 4E is a good example) the distinctions between the functionality of classes has all but disappeared, leaving class to define the flavor of you character - not WHAT he can do, but more generally HOW he does it, whether with magic, faith, etc. This has certainly led to a leading criticism of 4E, which is that all of the classes are basically the same. However 4E also includes the concepts of character roles, generally imported from MMORPGs and more tactically oriented table games, which means these modern classes may primarily function as skins for similar abilities, but each class has been placed into one of four broader baskets which define WHAT the character chooses to do and is best at - what role he plays in the group when in combat, and to a lesser extent, in roleplay and adventuring.
This topic is rife in the OSDD blogs at the moment, with a lot of great discussion about what a class can and should be, and different ways of looking at classes and how to define them. Check out particularly - The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms, which has an ongoing discussion of class archetypes and examines them in literature and tries to define simple broad characteristics. This partially is to serve the old school commandements of simplicity and restricted character power (encouraging players to creatively use a limited set of abilities or powers rather than to amass a list of powers which are fired off one by one).
I am not, necessarily, an old school only kind of a guy, and actually like some of the power-gaming and more detailed character creation that has come from modern tabletop games. But I think the impulse to define a classes capabilities in a short, clear way is a strong assist to roleplayers at the table, and I think the impulse to have a class cover the role or the what a character does in the game in good.
I'm, therefore, currently playing with the idea of using classes to match to play styles - starting with a very simple set of classes taht resemblt the basic 4, and letting each one's abilities be defined by how the player likes to engage in the game - are they interested in overwhelming enemies with pure physical might, or do they prefer tactical battles where they take advantage of unfair situations. Is the player focused on acquiring magical power and using knowledge to advance in the game, or would they rather harness creative inspiration and risk taking?
Some of this work is going into a project I'm working on at the moment, but I'm interested in what people think about the following four 'core' classes:
Warrior - Attains power through skill of arms, primarily uses equipment to fight monters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is ability to study many different styles of fighting / use many different kinds of equipment and use the appropriate one for the situation.
Mage - Attains power through study, primarily uses magic to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is great flexibility with magic and the ability to touch deep magical reserves restricted from other characters.
Rogue - Attains power through practice, primarily uses skill and manipulation to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is the large resolution bonuses such characters gain when they can catch an opponent at a disadvantage, or create a disadvantage for an opponent.
Champion - Attains power through devotion to an ideal, primarily uses inspired actions and specially granted magical powers to fight monsters and navigate the world around them. Defining factor is the ability to pull of small miracles and stretch the use of their abilities into any situation that their devotion drives them to.
I know thats all a little vague, but you can see the kernels of the classics inside these archtypes, and hopefully how these classes are a little broader while still defining a clear role for the player at the table. These classes would be paired with another defining characteristic to form a complete character, who has both a role in the world, and a history and place to come from.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Bad Valve, No Biscuit
Was at the Game Developer's Conference Last week - as usual, it was great fun - lots of neat sessions and talks, great people, and very interesting discussions and meetings. One of the most entertaining sessions each year is the Game Design Challenge - 3 designers are given a concept and asked to design games around them (not to implement, tho). Always provides some very interesting presentations. This year's challenge was to design a game about sex and autobiography - "My First Time." One of the participants was Kim Swift, a designer on Portal and a Valve employee. Except Valve forbid her from participating. Now, if I were a responsible journalist of any kind, I'd stop here. But, instead, on with groundless speculation!!!!
First though, let me make it clear that this is all groundless speculation from here forward. I have no idea why Valve said no, and no delicous insider information on how it went down. Nor do I intend any disrespect to Heather Kelley and Erin Robinson, who ably took Kim's place and won, nor to Steve Meretsky or Suika Haro, the other participating designers.
Lots of ideas were thrown out as to why Valve might have done this, but one in particular stuck in my craw. It is entirely possible that Valve forbid Kim from participating because Valve does not want a Valve emplyee to have a higher profile than Valve itself.
This is nonnsense. First, Kim's popularity will only serve Valve in the short run, and Kim is not likely to stay an employee of the copany forever. We are entering a point where Game D?esigners are going to become their own brands - as more pople grow up with games, more will want to make them, and their heros will inevitably be working designers - this is happening,a nd the smart move is to support and nurture this idea, and to support these designers. If Kim is happy with Valve as an employer, then she will naturally want to extend that relationship if and when she moves on to her own projects. Wouldn't Valve want Kim brinign future indie projects to the Steam platform first? Doesn't Valve want a high profile personality in games on theri sie rather than against them?
Second, Valve ahs been great recently at supporting indie work, marketing it heavily on Steam, and releasing some very non-traditional games through the platform. And, I love Left 4 Dead.
So I'm confused. But strongly encourage all companies out there to view their designers as precious above the line talent, and not as property. Support young, burgeoning designers to both promote the health of games in general and to win yourself allies and ambassadors to the public that will only become more necessary and valuable over the next dozen years. Game Designers should be Rock Stars, and its happening whether you want it that way or not.
First though, let me make it clear that this is all groundless speculation from here forward. I have no idea why Valve said no, and no delicous insider information on how it went down. Nor do I intend any disrespect to Heather Kelley and Erin Robinson, who ably took Kim's place and won, nor to Steve Meretsky or Suika Haro, the other participating designers.
Lots of ideas were thrown out as to why Valve might have done this, but one in particular stuck in my craw. It is entirely possible that Valve forbid Kim from participating because Valve does not want a Valve emplyee to have a higher profile than Valve itself.
This is nonnsense. First, Kim's popularity will only serve Valve in the short run, and Kim is not likely to stay an employee of the copany forever. We are entering a point where Game D?esigners are going to become their own brands - as more pople grow up with games, more will want to make them, and their heros will inevitably be working designers - this is happening,a nd the smart move is to support and nurture this idea, and to support these designers. If Kim is happy with Valve as an employer, then she will naturally want to extend that relationship if and when she moves on to her own projects. Wouldn't Valve want Kim brinign future indie projects to the Steam platform first? Doesn't Valve want a high profile personality in games on theri sie rather than against them?
Second, Valve ahs been great recently at supporting indie work, marketing it heavily on Steam, and releasing some very non-traditional games through the platform. And, I love Left 4 Dead.
So I'm confused. But strongly encourage all companies out there to view their designers as precious above the line talent, and not as property. Support young, burgeoning designers to both promote the health of games in general and to win yourself allies and ambassadors to the public that will only become more necessary and valuable over the next dozen years. Game Designers should be Rock Stars, and its happening whether you want it that way or not.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
So, here's what I was thinking
I've been meaning to start blogging for years, I suppose, but time, the great devil always slips away fro me. But now I'm unemployed, and what the hell - I should apply myself constructively to anything. Mostly I'll post here when I have stray thoughts about storytelling, games, art, independent media or politics. Or if I see something really goddamn cool on the internets.
I'll also try to post updates about upcoming and ongoing independent festivals and media events. You, know, just to keep ya'll in the loop.
Cheerio, Pip Pip, and all that jazz.
I'll also try to post updates about upcoming and ongoing independent festivals and media events. You, know, just to keep ya'll in the loop.
Cheerio, Pip Pip, and all that jazz.
SXSW Suggestions
Alright. First things first. SXSW is just around the corner, and though, once again, I am completely incapable of attending, I've been slathering over the schedule for days now. Here's the things I would be sure to check out:
Music
This is just a small selection, I don't know most of the bands playing - but I'd imagine a bunch of them are awesome, but these are the ones i know are awesome:
M Ward
Camera Obscura
Decemberists
Andrew Bird
MC Frontalot
And you shall know us by the Trail of Dead
Cory Branan
Sage Francis
Film
Strongman - Wonderful docu about Stanless Steel, a professional strongman getting older. Don't Miss.
Music Video Block (Mister Novocaine, Jerk It) - I've seen about half of these videos, and those two are my favs, but this block is probably a don't miss.
Reel Shorts 1 (That’s My Majesty) - Very Good short, playing with several others I haven't seen and a few I have. Should be a nice selection of short film.
Midnight Shorts (I Live In The Woods) - This short is hilarious. Rest of the block looks intriguing, but I don't know most of it...
Adventureland - Mottola's new flick. Should be funny.
Little Dizzle - Missed it at Sundance, heard great things.
Slammin Salmon - New Broken Lizard film. Very Funny.
Make-out with Violence - Intriguing title and description. Filmmakers have done good work in past, but otherwise I know nothing about it....
It Came From Kuchar - Solid docu about B Movie makers. Great characters, fun subject.
Dungeon Masters - Docu about Pen and Paper gamers.
Interactive
Being Indie and Successful in the Games Industry - Awesome indie developers.
Marketing Meets New Media: Building Your Audience Online - some interesting folks talking about marketing. I hate marketing, but as such, should go to more of these things. Also Burnie Burns and Kos on the same panel? Weird.
Funologists Live and In Person: Guerilla Game Research - Tracy Fullerton is AWESOME.
What we can learn from Games - Henry Jenkins is clever.
The BBC, Six to Start and ARGs : Bringing TV to the Web - I'm fascinated by mixed-media storytelling, and the BBC did a bunch of clever things over the past year.
New Interfaces for Performance - Ummm. I like virtual performance.
Bruce Sterling Session - Actually, I wouldn't go to this, but if you've never seen him talk, well, you should go.
Times and such are all on the schedule. And descriptions.
Music
This is just a small selection, I don't know most of the bands playing - but I'd imagine a bunch of them are awesome, but these are the ones i know are awesome:
M Ward
Camera Obscura
Decemberists
Andrew Bird
MC Frontalot
And you shall know us by the Trail of Dead
Cory Branan
Sage Francis
Film
Strongman - Wonderful docu about Stanless Steel, a professional strongman getting older. Don't Miss.
Music Video Block (Mister Novocaine, Jerk It) - I've seen about half of these videos, and those two are my favs, but this block is probably a don't miss.
Reel Shorts 1 (That’s My Majesty) - Very Good short, playing with several others I haven't seen and a few I have. Should be a nice selection of short film.
Midnight Shorts (I Live In The Woods) - This short is hilarious. Rest of the block looks intriguing, but I don't know most of it...
Adventureland - Mottola's new flick. Should be funny.
Little Dizzle - Missed it at Sundance, heard great things.
Slammin Salmon - New Broken Lizard film. Very Funny.
Make-out with Violence - Intriguing title and description. Filmmakers have done good work in past, but otherwise I know nothing about it....
It Came From Kuchar - Solid docu about B Movie makers. Great characters, fun subject.
Dungeon Masters - Docu about Pen and Paper gamers.
Interactive
Being Indie and Successful in the Games Industry - Awesome indie developers.
Marketing Meets New Media: Building Your Audience Online - some interesting folks talking about marketing. I hate marketing, but as such, should go to more of these things. Also Burnie Burns and Kos on the same panel? Weird.
Funologists Live and In Person: Guerilla Game Research - Tracy Fullerton is AWESOME.
What we can learn from Games - Henry Jenkins is clever.
The BBC, Six to Start and ARGs : Bringing TV to the Web - I'm fascinated by mixed-media storytelling, and the BBC did a bunch of clever things over the past year.
New Interfaces for Performance - Ummm. I like virtual performance.
Bruce Sterling Session - Actually, I wouldn't go to this, but if you've never seen him talk, well, you should go.
Times and such are all on the schedule. And descriptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
