Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zaratustra]

These coalesced in my brain from many years of Gamasutra articles, wry observationing, and some heavy nights of drinking. Agree or disagree as you see fit. I may write more later.

#1: If the player doesn't see it, it doesn't exist.
#1.1: Don't bother designing things nobody will see.
#1.1.1: It's OK to design things only a few people will see, but don't complain when nobody notices. (see rule #2, #3)
#1.2: If you do something really cool, make sure the player notices.
#2: The player doesn't pay attention to anything.
#2.1: The player doesn't read the manual.
#2.1.1: The player doesn't read the readme.
#2.1.2: The player doesn't read the start screen.
#2.1.3: The player doesn't read the tutorial if they can skip it.
#2.2: The only way to get the player to read something is to not let them leave until they did.
#2.2.1: In which case they'll complain to you they can't leave and your game is broken.
#2.3: The player only notices that which you don't want them to.
#3: Keep it simple and use what you have.
#3.1: (Portal Rule) If your game has a gimmick, work the hell out of it. That's what it's there for.
#3.1.1: (Megaman Charge Shot Rule) Don't make a cool gimmick that obliviates the need for another game gimmick.
#4: Symmetry is the soul of wit.
#4.1: Everything that appears once should appear twice.
#4.2: Set the rule, then break it.

[MadMAxJr]

#5: The players attention span is about five secon--

So these rules are for videogames?  I'd like to see this on boardgames.  "I'm not reading some fucking manual.  SKIP THAT SHIT.  Here's a dog piece.  Now I'm going to add the car.  Now you all start taking bets on how many 2d6 moves it takes for me to get around this race track called 'monopoly'.  Whoever bids the worst has to pry his own fingernail off using the iron game piece."

"This game sucks."

"Fag designers can't make anything cool these days.  LETS GO PLAY TUROK."

[Burrito Al Pastor]

Rule 1.1 is actually kind of a thing in RPG modules right now. D&D modules have a rich tradition of having lots of really awesome little things that will never, ever come up in actual play. My favorite example of this is from a particularly oldschool module called Maure Castle. There's a particular chest that no party would ever actually find in the first place; it's made of adamantine, and has no lid or hinges. The only way to open it is to cast Shades twice, each time duplicating a Major Creation spell - one to create an adamantine lock on the chest, and another to create an adamantine key to open the lock.

I don't think there's ever been, or ever will be, a party that figures that out on their own. It can't be done without metagaming or divination that results in your DM telling you how to solve the puzzle.

Anyways, one of the big problems people have with the 4e modules so far is that they don't have a lot of little things like this; in fact, almost everything in the 4e modules will actually be encountered by the party. And there's a lot of discussion going on right now about whether or not that's an improvement in module design.

[JDigital]

There's a similar set of rules for roleplaying games. I'm wondering how many of them apply to videogames, and vice-versa.

#1: The player will do what he wants.
#1.1: You can't force the player to do what you want.
#1.2: The player will always try things you hadn't considered (the fifth door rule)
#2: Keep the player interested.
#2.1: Bored players quit, or try to find fun subverting your game.
#2.1.1: If this is fun, it's not necessarily bad. (Joyriding in GTA, world-conquering in D&D)

There are others, but I haven't had my coffee yet.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

The same happens in old point-and-click adventures, where you would never guess the solution without reading a guide or using every object on every other. You also see it in bad RPG design. I've even seen ostensibly very good adventures where ample background information is fed to the DM, but the players will never find any of this out. In fact, it's often only there to rationalize why monsters never seem to leave their own encounter area, even to aid allies.

[Detonator]

#1: The player will do what he wants.
#1.1: You can't force the player to do what you want.
#1.2: The player will always try things you hadn't considered (the fifth door rule)
#2: Keep the player interested.
#2.1: Bored players quit, or try to find fun subverting your game.
#2.1.1: If this is fun, it's not necessarily bad. (Joyriding in GTA, world-conquering in D&D)

This is good.  Players hate feeling railroaded, and will repeatedly test the boundaries to see what they can get away with.  Figure out the mood of the game as you play, and make sure everyone agrees with it.  If things get silly, let them be silly, as long as everyone's having fun.  If you get frustrated with the PCs for ruining what you intended, it's pretty much game over unless you learn to adapt to their play style.

There can be bad PCs and bad GMs, but a great PC in one game can be a bad fit for another.

[Kazz]

When I was running a game, my players expected to be railroaded.  I wasn't trying to force them in any particular path, which was apparently confusing.  They'd take any tiny comment from any given NPC and make whatever he was talking about their focus for the session, thinking that I was trying to drop hints (I wasn't).  It was frustrating for me; I had invented a world for them to seek out their ambitions in (whatever they may be), and they spent the game trying to figure out what I was intending for them to do.

Eventually I just started telling them what to do, and I quickly lost interest that way.

[McDohl]

  i...i sorry kazz 

[Kazz]

Next game will be better.  I blame myself; I'm not a great GM, and I let the party get way too weird.  I had no idea why such a pack of misfits was hanging out together, except that your first impulse on arriving in a place was generally to commit an atrocity of some sort.

Every day I want to shoot myself for the whole airship thing.

[McDohl]

I did too when I gave my party an airship...

[Friday]

Structure is important. Create structure, then let your plays explore it, and even leave it, if they want. There's no reason not to have the option of following the beaten path, or whatever you want to call it. Most of the time, the path is beaten because... it's the best, or most interesting, path.

[Kazz]

My beaten path involved hunting rare monsters.  Unfortunately the party didn't want to do that at all.

[Detonator]

When I was running a game, my players expected to be railroaded.  I wasn't trying to force them in any particular path, which was apparently confusing.  They'd take any tiny comment from any given NPC and make whatever he was talking about their focus for the session, thinking that I was trying to drop hints (I wasn't).  It was frustrating for me; I had invented a world for them to seek out their ambitions in (whatever they may be), and they spent the game trying to figure out what I was intending for them to do.

Eventually I just started telling them what to do, and I quickly lost interest that way.

To clarify, did the PCs need to be railroaded to complete a predetermined goal, or were they given no motivation and dropped in a world together?  If the PCs don't all have similar goals, then the party won't last very long.

Regardless, there should always be in-game clues to help out if the players are stuck.  Making a plan out of nothing is a challenging task, and I don't even think I'd be up to it.

[Rico]

Oh was this the wrong kind of idiot-proof design thread?

Oh, wait, idiot-proof.  My double-bad.

[Zaratustra]

that mug is not left-handed

[Romosome]

When I was running a game, my players expected to be railroaded.  I wasn't trying to force them in any particular path, which was apparently confusing.  They'd take any tiny comment from any given NPC and make whatever he was talking about their focus for the session, thinking that I was trying to drop hints (I wasn't).  It was frustrating for me; I had invented a world for them to seek out their ambitions in (whatever they may be), and they spent the game trying to figure out what I was intending for them to do.

Eventually I just started telling them what to do, and I quickly lost interest that way.

Cohesion is important, yeah.  You can't lack a planned route AND motivation...you can have one without the other, but not neither, mostly.  If players are to seek out adventure on their own they need a motivation, not just to do stuff but to do it as a party.

I played in an awesome game once that, if it hadn't had some nicely set-up adventures, might've floundered badly in parts because the party initially had no reason to be together.  They were a ragtag crew on a ship and then the captain quit playing and they no longer had...a captain, or a leader.

Of course, once they'd adventured for a while, their experiences were enough to keep them together and keep them going.  We're sticking together because we're friends and comrades now; we're going onward because that freak we met must be stopped.

It's the initial stage-setting that seems to be the pitfall.

[Kazz]

Initially it was "We're all monster hunters, but we work together because monsters are too scary to hunt alone!"  And then Doom kind of put all the targets to sleep for the first few sessions, making them very easy when they were supposed to be very hard.

Then the party was together because they were on the run from the law.  Then once that was handled (Doom's character died) they really had no reason to stay together, but did anyway.  This bugged the crap out of me, so I had Doom's new character show up and tell them to steal an airship, which nobody's character wanted to but which they did because I basically left no other path.

[Bongo Bill]

I always use "We various individuals of disparate backgrounds and motivations have come together under a common cause for reasons that are, variously, tedious, embarrassing, or forgotten in a drunken stupor. The less said about them, the better." and then, as the character dynamics develop, retroactively apply what we've figured out.

For myself, if I ever find myself with a character that doesn't seem like they fit, I just say "(s)he lost a bet" and leave it at that.

Anyway. Structure. Structure is a very important thing and you should include it even if you don't intend for it to be used. Even if all you do with the structure is ignore it, it's better than not being there at all. The freedom to wander from the beaten path is much more interesting than the beaten path's absence.

[JDigital]

The world-conquering thing happened in a game of mine. I have to admit now that I was a terrible DM, because I had no idea what my players wanted or how much of it to give to them. I'm convinced I'd be a terrible father.

Rule #2 in my list should probably say, "Keep the player engaged". In any RPG or video game, at no point should the player or players decide they want to stop playing, except that the game or game session has come to an end. I admit that I haven't played World of Warcraft, but I imagine that it's so addictive because it's so rewarding that players keep extending their game session.

I suppose then it depends how you define a game session. When the player leaves the game, but with the intent of returning, that's a good session end. If he leaves before finishing, you've failed to engage him. Working out what's rewarding and how to give that, though, that's the tricky aspect that I'm not sure even most professional game designers understand.

[Zaratustra]

there's a big difference between tabletop rpg and videogame design tho in that in videogames the players understand there are certain boundaries to their world while in tabletop they're encouraged to be as creative in their exploration as possible

this is also the greatest strength of tabletop rpg and it pisses me off that 4th ed D&D defuses it so thoroughly

[Catloaf]

More videogame rules:
#6:  There must be challenge involved in completing a task.
#6.1:  Do not make it too hard.
#6.1.1:  If you do, players will get frustrated.  You want to make them just barely be able to complete a task and thus feel a sense of accomplishment.
#6.1.2:  You can however, make it too hard for comedic effect (IWBTG)
#7:  Variety is required.
#7.1:  If there is no variety, either the game is too short to be called a game.  Or it is assuredly no fun.


And for a general rule for any artistic venture:  Plan what you want to create before you create it!