Wednesday, May 28, 2008
RPG Design: Letting the Player Drive
On Memorial Day, I played an unusual pen-and-paper (and indie!) RPG called "InSpectres." The game was kind of a cross between West End Games' old but hillarious "Ghostbusters" RPG, and some sort of reality TV simulation.
What was curious about the game was how player-driven the plot was. For many dice results, the players were invited to describe their own results. Then, once per game, a player could have a "confessional" in the style of reality TV, where the player sits in a chair and talks about an upcoming scene in the past tense - effectively writing part of the next scene.
For his part, the game master really doesn't have so much to do but plan the bare bones of an adventure, from what I could tell.
The conceit of traditional RPGs is that you are playing a character, and your ability to interact with the game world is limited to being done completely through your character. But many of the newer pen-and-paper RPGs offload some of the game master's traditional responsibility onto the players - giving them a hand in defining the world and story surrounding their characters.
Naturally, this made me think about how this effect could be translated to computer RPGs. Now, this is far most effective in a social setting with other creative players, of course... computers generally suck at making stuff up on the fly of any creative value. But - the potential is there.
We already do this, to a point, when we are given a difficulty slider. We control how dangerous and threatening and challenging the world would be. But why stop there?
Some of this thinking was part of the genesis of the "Drama Star" idea in Frayed Knights --- though it has since morphed into a much more straightforward spell-like effect. But originally I had ideas of the star powers including such effects as forcing the enemy to make a critical mistake, or getting rescued at the last moment from certain doom - stuff like that. Letting the player earn the ability to change the story.
Soldak's indie RPG, "Depths of Peril," showed us a glimmer of what can be done with a more dynamic world. While the player couldn't directly control events happening in the world, he or she had to make decisions that would impact the setting and their ability to interact with the world. Fail to address the "plague quest" immediately, and the player might have to contend with a lack of surviving NPCs to trade with. And so forth.
Dwarf Fortress garnered a lot of attention last year for being a very "simulation heavy" indie strategy / role-playing game. In a game with a highly detailed and simulated world, why couldn't we throw in a little bit of "god game" (a la Populous, the "Sim" games, and others) onto something like this? We could give the player the chance to move outside their on-screen avatar and change the world in big or small ways. Maybe the player could have the chance to say, "Rocks fall, everyone dies!"
I would dread coding up a user-friendly interface to give the player this level of control, but it could be done. It's already been done, in the form of editors and mod utilities. Just not usually in real-time. And not tied into game mechanics. But anybody who has spent time in the Dungeon Master's mode in the Neverwinter Nights games (or in the Storyteller mode in 2000's "Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption") would be familiar with the potential here.
While this idea wouldn't be appropriate for all (or even most) RPGs, particularly very story-driven ones, this could be a fascinating offshoot of the genre worthy of being explored.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
This sounds like a cool concept that I have seen touched on a few times. The first game that came to mind was Legends of Mana for the Playstation. The disc I bought was used and bad, but I remember piecing my world together as I journeyed beyond the known. It was interesting, but the disc didn't let me go far.
For years real time strategy and RPG have been trying to mix, and with the exception of Depts of Peril, the only elements they mixed were the combat elements. To me, the fun element of an RTS is not the combat. The fun element is the creation. Stronghold is my favorite RTS, and I would like to see some of these elements inCorporated into an RPG.
For years real time strategy and RPG have been trying to mix, and with the exception of Depts of Peril, the only elements they mixed were the combat elements. To me, the fun element of an RTS is not the combat. The fun element is the creation. Stronghold is my favorite RTS, and I would like to see some of these elements inCorporated into an RPG.
It's not necessarily the strategy elements, in my mind, as the dynamic world aspects that you normally get in the simulation in a strategy game.
The flip side is that you'd end up with a somewhat generic RPG, with all the NPCs being cast members that could change or die based on player whim. But there could be some really cool possibilities that might make up for it.
The flip side is that you'd end up with a somewhat generic RPG, with all the NPCs being cast members that could change or die based on player whim. But there could be some really cool possibilities that might make up for it.
I really like the idea of player driven content, although in computer games the designer is still putting work into allowing that content to be created.
I once had an idea for an rpg that was based on The Princess Bride. The player would be reading the story of his character, and the listener could get bored, which would force the player to put challenges in his character's path. It would also allow the player to go "Just kidding, that's not really what happened" when the character dies.
I once had an idea for an rpg that was based on The Princess Bride. The player would be reading the story of his character, and the listener could get bored, which would force the player to put challenges in his character's path. It would also allow the player to go "Just kidding, that's not really what happened" when the character dies.
Heh - sorta like the storyteller in Prince of Persia saying, "Wait, that's not what happened."
I like your idea for an RPG. It'd be a very interesting mechanic - you have to keep doing entertaining stuff to keep the "reader" interested, or you get something "interesting" dumped on top of you...
I like your idea for an RPG. It'd be a very interesting mechanic - you have to keep doing entertaining stuff to keep the "reader" interested, or you get something "interesting" dumped on top of you...
Since reading your post I have been thinking about one aspect of this - how could a designer give the player more influence over how plot points are resolved without making them totally in control?
Perhaps there are clues as to how this might be handled in some recent boardgames. For example, in the (excellent) two-player game Lord of the Rings: the Confrontation combat is resolved by both players through a simultaneous card draw. This review sums the mechanics up nicely:
In addition to the strength and skill of each character, the game comes with several cards, one of which must be played by each player every time a battle ensues. The cards are either a strength modifier or a ‘special’ card that might allow you to retreat from battle, nullify your opponent's special card or some other dastardly trick. It’s the play of the cards that makes the game particularly special and utterly addictive. If the Witch King attacks Aragorn, for instance, the fight is resolved in the following manner:
Aragorn has a strength value of 4 while the Witch King has a 5. However, the card mechanic makes it so that Aragorn isn’t automatically slain. If the Aragorn player plays a high enough strength card (or a retreat) he can beat (or escape) the Witch King unless the Dark player plays a high strength card in return. But again, this is where the strategy comes into play – how vital is this fight? Do you want to waste a high strength card or a vitally important special card now or do you want to save them for later? It’s the decisions – these frustrating choices – that make the game so compelling.
I wonder if similar mechanic could be applied to minor and major plot points. Now that I think of it, this is *sort of* the inverse of your drama star system. Instead of slowly accumluating the ability to influence the game, the player starts off being able to resolve situations however they please but each time they opt to "play a card" this potential is diminished. "Do I play a high fate card that will guarantee that the party catches the pickpocket who made off with our gold or should I conserve I take a chance instead? - I will probably need it later on.
I guess you would need to replenish the player's hand some times (e.g. a night in an inn).
I'm not sure how this would play out ... just thought I would put it out there.
Anyway, really enjoy the blog. Thanks for the thoughtful posts.
Post a Comment
Perhaps there are clues as to how this might be handled in some recent boardgames. For example, in the (excellent) two-player game Lord of the Rings: the Confrontation combat is resolved by both players through a simultaneous card draw. This review sums the mechanics up nicely:
In addition to the strength and skill of each character, the game comes with several cards, one of which must be played by each player every time a battle ensues. The cards are either a strength modifier or a ‘special’ card that might allow you to retreat from battle, nullify your opponent's special card or some other dastardly trick. It’s the play of the cards that makes the game particularly special and utterly addictive. If the Witch King attacks Aragorn, for instance, the fight is resolved in the following manner:
Aragorn has a strength value of 4 while the Witch King has a 5. However, the card mechanic makes it so that Aragorn isn’t automatically slain. If the Aragorn player plays a high enough strength card (or a retreat) he can beat (or escape) the Witch King unless the Dark player plays a high strength card in return. But again, this is where the strategy comes into play – how vital is this fight? Do you want to waste a high strength card or a vitally important special card now or do you want to save them for later? It’s the decisions – these frustrating choices – that make the game so compelling.
I wonder if similar mechanic could be applied to minor and major plot points. Now that I think of it, this is *sort of* the inverse of your drama star system. Instead of slowly accumluating the ability to influence the game, the player starts off being able to resolve situations however they please but each time they opt to "play a card" this potential is diminished. "Do I play a high fate card that will guarantee that the party catches the pickpocket who made off with our gold or should I conserve I take a chance instead? - I will probably need it later on.
I guess you would need to replenish the player's hand some times (e.g. a night in an inn).
I'm not sure how this would play out ... just thought I would put it out there.
Anyway, really enjoy the blog. Thanks for the thoughtful posts.
Links to this post:
<< Home


