What Is Your Game About?

In the last few days, a number of games bloggers have asked about ‘what’s this game about?’ It’s a commonly asked question posed to game designers, and a fairly apt one considering we’re in a tightening market with fewer dollars available. The problem is, the context of the question will prove troublesome as there are many ways to answer the question.

The one cited by A.L. at Reality Refracted is the one posed most often by John Wick. To clarify, John Wick’s version of the question is intended to have a one word answer and is better asked as ‘what is the theme of your game?’ Now, I understand why he doesn’t use my terminology, for the same reason that the term theme needs to be clearly defined when that same question is asked of amateur writers.

The goal of Wick’s question seems to be to keep the designer focused on the point of the game, and not get lost in mechanics. This is absolutely a good goal, but I wonder if too much focus is a bad thing?

Getting so lost in your theme that even the player’s don’t know where to go gets you the question posed by Andreas Davour over at The Omnipotent Eye: What do you do in this game? He cites some very strong thematic games that fail to answer the question to presented. The mechanics can give the players an easy idea of where to go with your game. Leaving out ‘thematic’ mechanics in an effort to better guide the game play is definitely a good idea.

When I get the ‘what’s it about?’ question, I deliver what Randy Ingermason called a One-Sentence Summary. To summarize the first step of the snowflake method, a One-Sentence Summary is an attempt to encapsulate the entire plot of a novel in a single sentence.  As one sentence limits you in amount of detail, you are forced to boil down your concept to a single idea that can be expressed clearly. In a way, it’s a much freer version of Wick’s question.

In RPGs, the One-Sentence Summary would need to answer a few questions in as few words as possible:

Who do the player’s play?
What is the tone?
What is the conflict?

Without these three ingredients your summary is incomplete and doesn’t make for easy comparison between two products on a shelf. Remember my advice about simplifying mechanics to encourage certain types of game play? Same principle applies to your sales attempts. Make the decision as easy as possible in an effort to leave as little ‘guess’ left for your buyer.

FRE has a simple one sentence summary which is at the head of the rules:

FRE is simple system to help moderate freeform roleplay in any setting.

This gets the idea across succinctly, as it relies on the ‘freeform’ point. The players are whomever they like, the conflict is with whatever comes up, and the tone depends on how things are role played. That explanation aside, I do think I need to provide readers more focus on what the point of the engine is, and will probably include the key point (Conflict.) in the revised sentence I’ll put on the extended version of FRE.

When I was pitching Velocity to early playtesters, the sentence was:

Hovercar racing pilots dealing with underhanded rivals both on and off the track.

And Exosquad:

The first pilots of an experimental armored division fight a war to bring unity back to the solar system.

So, readers, what’s your game about?

Free-For-All Friday: Player Motivations

So, I was good, I wrote my post for today back on Wednesday. Felt it was current enough to be interesting, and was a good topic to muse about. Then, while reading my RSS this morning, I stumble upon an article by The Chatty DM.

He’s covering the idea of player motivations, which is quite different from character motivations that I covered in Hook, Line, and Sinker. I’m going to leave most of his article over there for you to read, but to summarize for this discussion:

The 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master’s Guide lists a number of core player motivations:

• Acting
• Exploring
• Instigating
• Power Gaming
• Slaying
• Storytelling
• Thinking
• Watching

He goes on to make the claim that, regardless of what’s written on the tin, that 4th Edition caters to Power Gaming, Slaying, and Thinking to the expense of the rest.

Now, while I agree that it does cater to these three things in a number of ways (See the character optimization boards scrambling for even +1 damage in the system.), most of these motivations are in fact covered by the design and/or marketing of the product.

Acting: If any of the motivations aren’t given a solid set of rewards or encouragement in the system itself, it’s acting. There is no mechanical reward for it, and very little in the way of support for players who want this sort of thing in the way of advice.

Exploring: Exploring is given a mechanical kick in the rear through action points. The concept of ‘one more encounter, and you’ll earn an action point’ can be enough to keep some groups going. The fact that once it’s earned, you’ll lose it if you sleep makes the odd number encounters something worth running through.

Instigating: This one there isn’t a real mechanical reward, except as it relates to Power Gaming. Instigating players are as likely to cause trouble as they are to advance the in game narrative, and to them, that shaking up of the status quo IS the reward. In other words, this one doesn’t NEED a mechanical award.

Power Gaming: Optimization is rewarded.

Slaying: Like most versions of Dungeons and Dragons, most of the rules are how to kill things better and what happens when you kill those things.

Storytelling: This one is one of the better supported motivations below the key three Chatty DM called attention to. Via Skill Challenges, which admittedly needed work to become as good as they could be, and Quest rewards, the system actively encourages advancing the narrative in ways other versions of Dungeons and Dragons didn’t. It even produced support, not in mechanical aspects, but help for GMs in the Dungeon Master’s Guide 2.

Thinking: I actually feel this one could have been done better out of the box (Back in 2008), but think they’ve made some definite improvements with the new monster design and more cohesive classes that work even better as a team.

Watching: This is another one I think Wizards of the Coast did a wonderful job with. Watchers often just want to spend time with friends, and possibly make new ones, and between the character builder, Encounters, and an active push to make Dungeons and Dragons ‘mainstream’ to some degree has definitely made this a good time for casual players to get into the game.

To summarize, I think most player motivations that can be planned for were planned for well. Some in the core rules themselves, and some via the marketing efforts of the company. Does this mean some of them couldn’t be improved? Absolutely not, and I wish the Chatty DM the best of luck in his efforts. I’ve literally just discovered him, but even cursory examination of his blog is interesting, and if you like my thoughts on design, his aren’t far off. Definitely check it out.

FRE is going to be getting a one page Primer written soon to take advantage of KORPG’s One Page RPG challenge. And while the Primer is only going to be a page, expect a bit meatier version coming eventually after I’ve worked out how ‘fiddly’ I’d like it.

ExoSquad is on a back burner right now, the holidays sucking up most of my time.

Velocity is of course still awaiting its edit.


Last thing: Obviously, I've picked a new theme, what does everyone think? Better than white on black? Should I dig around for another good template? Or can anyone suggest a good (Cheap.) designer?

Minimum Competence

I promised an ExoSquad update, and while there isn't much in the way of firm rules yet, as I'm a firm believer in designing by design. But that said, even after the ideas are there and the design bible written, you have a crazy idea that you've just got to try.


I stumbled upon that idea today. Imagine never missing. You roll the dice knowing you'll hit, but the dice tell you something more than a simple pass or fail: they tell you how effective you are.


Low rolls mean you graze or just scare your opponent, high rolls are deadly accuracy.


Applying this idea to ExoSquad, I've got a quick idea of how I can go about it.


Assuming a twenty-sided die, I'd make 1s always give a single point of heat.  After all, that's what heat is, right? It is something to worry about, even if it doesn't hit. Then, in the 2-5 range, it'd be based on weapon, maybe a smaller amount of heat, or a small beneficial effect like forced movement.


Stepping up the ladder, we get into the 6-13 range, the classic range of potential hit zones.  This will be your baseline effects, mostly damage, with an added benefit.


Then we push into the 'guaranteed hits', 14-18.  They aren't 100%, but a good portion of the time, a 14 (Or 70%+ for percentile.) or better is going to hit the target.  These get bonuses: a more powerful secondary effect, more damage.


Then we have the 'critical range' of 19-20. In Exosquad, this zone will be for the absolutely amazing effects at each level. And most of them should include an immediate threat roll from the enemy, in addition to whatever benefit it offers.


So, one roll determines effect, another spits out the specifics of the hit. Of course, each type of weapon and attack will have different riders and abilities, with different levels of damage to go with it.


In an effort to speed up game play, as most tactical RPGs have a bad habit of bogging down in combat, how do I apply this concept to the NPC killables? My idea is simple: a choice. Each enemy offers either two effects, and the player may choose which they want.


Perhaps an infantryman with a mounted machine gun can offer either an amount of heat (Say. . . a four-sided die.) or one heat and a forced move to represent a tactical retreat.


This system leaves the effects entirely in the hands of the players, who can choose between significant damage and stuns, or movement into what may be a less useful position and damage.


So, think about it, maybe try it out at home with a quick system hack in your tactical RPG of choice.  Let me know!


For a little bonus, I’ve also been thinking on Velocity, and have decided it’ll be more interesting as a ‘shared story’ type RPG where winning the dice roll means you decide the narration of the event, instead of determining pass/fail. I’ll need to set the thresholds regarding when you can actually knock an opponent out of the race, though leads will be determined by the narrator.


Come back next week for part three of Hook, Line and Sinker, and find out how Adventures should be planned using narrative tools.


Your initiative, readers; comment below:


Do you think removing the ‘whiff factor’ from games is a good idea?


How would you like to steal the DM’s thunder and choose the outcome of events in Velocity?

Where I Went Wrong

This week I want to discuss how I think I've failed on Velocity.  But what good does it do you, readers, if you've never seen Velocity?  So, here's the download for the primary play test: Mediafire.  It's unpolished, without art or even much flavor.  But it presents my system as I initially imagined it.

Now, Velocity reads as an easy entry, rules light game, which was one of the design goals.  It's also familiar to some RPG players, since it uses opposed rolls with a net success system.  It also tries to use the names of the mechanics to keep the play focused, I even worried about the fact that gamers have a bad habit of abbreviating anything that is too wordy. (Initiative, anyone?)  So that's the good, right?

Well, no.  I think in meeting my design goals I alienated the point of the game.  The game is intended to be white-knuckle racing, with every choice you make effecting the potential outcomes.  So, let me break it down:

Stat + Skill: I really like stat + skill systems.  But Velocity is meant to be fast, and having to count dice every time, plus whomever you're in conflict with, it just adds up to a lot of calculations over the course of a game.

Too Simple: One issue I have with Velocity as it stands is that it is in fact too simple.  You make a choice at character creation and choose whichever method you put your stock in at the beginning.  It's hardly realistic, and makes for some damn boring conflict.  Related, the equipment, for a game that is probably more about the equipment than the characters, is lacking.

Low Risk VS Reward: There's very little reason to push yourself in any category as the risk almost always outweighs the reward.  Part of me knows I was intending to increase the mechanical risk/reward system further down the development line, but I think it's important enough to focus on at the start.

So, the redesign coming, much more regulated RISK/REWARD, more complex decisions, and find a way to cut down on the counting game.  That makes design goals!  What do my readers think: are these desirable goals?  Let me know below!

Next week I'll expand on my thoughts on design goals and the need of a design bible.

Game Ideas

I've already discussed Velocity lightly.  Fast paced, conflict driven, team oriented racer RPG.  I've got that first draft burst finished, but I'm unhappy with the rules.  Will be working on that, and applying some of the mechanics and ideas from this blog to the game.

The second idea in its infant stages is a mecha game.  I know there's a few of these on the market, but I want to find a way to fit the tension sensitive special attacks and the 'unbeatable until. . .' bosses into the game.  Tactical movement will be minimal, but attack choice will be critical.  These are the initial ideas, will build on them soon.  Also: it needs a title, anyone care to help out?

Failures

I started designing games a long time ago, and honestly, most of them were terrible.  You won't see most of them because the designs got lost, or any of various other events.  But I've learned since then, and decided I want to make an RPG.  Not just any RPG though, because there are already all those RPGs on the market.  No, I want a space racer game that is fast and fun.  And so I started Velocity.

I finished the initial document.  I might even share it some day.  It had a few good ideas, but was hung up on some established game design, and I think it weakened the concept.  So I'm starting over, and I'm bringing you along with me.  If you ever wanted to design a game, and just don't know where to start, I hope my failures can help you along.

I've found I like failures.  They suck when they happen, but they give you an example of what not to do.  And studying what didn't work is always good for you.  And, keeping Thomas Edison in mind:

Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. -- Thomas Edison

I don't want to give up on my goals just because I screwed up.  Here goes nothing.