I have found that, once I tackle a subject for a few years, there is suddenly no "best" rule set. An example that is coming up more frequently these days: social simulation.
Most people come into the field thinking that they're going to try to discover some underlying truth, some supreme rule set which will be able to do all sorts of social things. Most people, when they first try, come up with some ultra-generic system of addressing some kind of "social atom", like "I'll track how much they like any given thing and how much those things like any given thing and then use a logic chain to determine what the reaction to any attempt to affect any given thing is..." and so forth and so on. The end result, when applied, is labyrinthian and never works.
This is true of other fields as well, of course. Newbies tackling any system tend to come in with a simplistic approach that will solve all the problems of the world.
But there is no "best" approach, at least in games and simulations. There are variety of approaches, but the "best" approach is whatever simulates exactly what you want to simulate.
For example:
If I approach a game based around a social mechanic, I don't think to myself, "what's a good way to simulate social mechanics?" Instead, I think, "What's a good way to make the player feel the pressure and rewards of obligations?" or "What will make the player feel the contrast between the rash relationships of youth and the staid relationships of older people?"
See, the theme of the game isn't "relationships". That's like saying the theme of a game is "blue" or "culture". Instead, the theme is something very, very specific. I generally use a comparison of some variety, because it gives me a basis for the game's core challenge.
Understanding the theme, you can then decide on the rules of the simulation. You don't need to solve strong AI for this, and you never did. Trying to put strong AI into a game is like saying that you're going to build a go-kart, but it's going to have a cold fusion reactor in it. Just build the freakin' go-kart.
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
MYO: Building a Rule Chain
This is part of the make your own guide to creating role playing systems.
Every game has a rule chain. From the simplest game of Pac Man to the most complicated version of AD&D, it's all built around this same concept. I've gone and refined it a bit to be somewhat clearer.
To make it really easy on you, I've broken it into steps. Basically, you follow these steps until you think your game world has enough complexity to keep your players interested.
This isn't about working out all the rules or the percentages. It's about having a guide that shows you how your game is played. Building a game with too much precision too early is a bad idea - that's how AD&D came into being, and that's why it's such a hodge-podge. This will help you lay the foundation for your game system.
When making a system, I suggest writing stuff down on a blank piece of paper "flowchart" style. I'll give instructions on how to do that, too.
1: The Primary Purpose of Conflicts
All games feature a central purpose - something that the players and GM try to accomplish. In D&D, it's reducing HP. In many more modern games, it's to tell a piece of story. There are thousands of possible purposes, choose one that suits you.
But remember, this is the primary conflict you're designing here, not the primary reason for playing. D&D's rules are built around reducing an enemy's HP, but the actual reason for playing is to have adventures. If "having adventures" is going to be the central conflict, then people would roll dice to have adventures rather than having adventures in which they roll dice.
I draw the purpose of a conflict in a triangle at the bottom of the page.
2: Basic Resolution
Now that you know the basic conflict, you need to know how it is usually resolved. For example, in D&D you roll dice to reduce HP, whereas in, say, FastLane, you bet chips on a roulette wheel for the right to tell a piece of the story. D&D's resolution is parallel - IE, enemies can reduce each other's HP simultaneously. FastLane, on the other hand, is perpendicular, in that if one person wins, another person (often the GM) loses.
This describes what kind of resolution systems you might choose, but anything will work, even rock paper scissors or making funny noises until someone laughs.
I draw resolution methods as circles above whatever they resolve, and connect them to their purposes with lines.
3: Add in a Modifier
A modifier is a method of giving a statistical benefit to one side or another. For example, a weapon in D&D allows players to reduce the HP of the enemy different amounts. In FastLane, having a chip pool allows you to bid various amounts of chips on the roulette wheel, allowing you to modulate your chances of victory and failure.
In D&D, rolling to hit is also a modifier. Instead of offering a sure but erratic bonus (2d6 vs 1d8 + 2 damage) it offers an erratic but sure bonus (you get to hit or not, period). This makes it more interesting than simply hitting, because now a beastie can have low HP but be hard to hit, whereas without this modifier all that mattered was the beastie's HP.
The basic rule is that a modifier lets a player express their intents and personalities more clearly. Having a chip pool lets a player be risky or safe, having a to-hit die allows players to specialize in damage or hits (or bypassing the need to roll hits).
I draw modifiers as boxes above whatever they modify, connected with a line.
4: Split the Approach
It's important to let players approach things in distinct ways by "going behind the back" of a modifier. This can be thought of as assigning modifiers to a modifier.
In D&D, the "weapons" modifier allows you to use different dice and bonuses to deal damage. However, having a weapon is not the only method of doing that. You can use techniques or be a mage. So, the "weapons" modifier has three "paths" - "weapons", "techniques", and "magic". Don't worry about the clumsy naming.
In FastLane, how you change the number of chips in your pool varies. The paths are "Betting/winning", "favor calling/granting", "Ability use", "statistic burn", "life risk", and so on. This is a lot of approaches, but you don't have to come up with thirty approaches at once. You can add more approaches at any time, and it's better to do it in small increments.
While a modifier allows a player to express themselves statistically, an approach allows players to express themselves categorically. They can choose to act like a monk, or a warrior, or a mage, or whatever. An approach can be semipermanent (such as choosing a class) but doesn't have to be.
I make approaches diamonds or rounded squares and put them near the things they modify, connected with a line.
5: Add in a New Conflict Type
Using any of the things you've created, add a new kind of goal it can resolve.
For example, in D&D you can use the "to hit" modifier to resolve noncombat challenges such as picking pockets or applying medicine. You can use the "weapon" modifier to do noncombat things such as healing, seeing in the dark, etc. Putting it under the "weapon" modifier rather than the "weapon" or "magic" approach means that any approach will have these noncombat methods, rather than only one of them. This allows for torches, spells of light, and light related techniques, for example.
In FastLane (or just about any game), the ability to improve your character by spending points is an end goal that gets added at this stage.
Be as specific or general as you like, and choose anything. Don't worry if the resolution method seems dodgy. That will all fall into place.
These give the players who choose different paths different capabilities, making them more unique. They are especially needed in places where you want the gameplay to be more complex than it already is.
I draw new conflicts as triangles beneath whatever controls them.
6: Clean Up
Look over your map. Does anything have an awful lot of connections to the same kind of shape? See if you can condense that into one or two much less specific shapes. An example of this would be the dozens of approaches to your chip pool in FastLane. they can be broken into two basic modifiers: adding chips to/from your pool and adding chips to your bet. Then those can have approaches.
Does anything seem awkward or lonely? See if you can move it to a more root branch. An example of this would be if you wrote "noncombat stuff" as a goal underneath "magic", and decided that it would make more sense if items could accomplish at least some noncombat stuff, such as nets, food, etc. So you roll the goal down to the "weapon modifier" rather than the "magic approach".
If something is misnamed, rename it. For example, the "weapon" approach and modifier allow you to address noncombat issues, so it's best to rename them "item".
This step is pretty important, as it will help you keep your game from getting too flabby and special-caseist.
7: Scrap it?
If what you see doesn't appeal or doesn't make sense, scrap it and start over. Seriously. It's no big loss.
8: Goto 2
Go back to step two and run through them again, but don't focus on whatever part you were focusing on before. Focus on whatever you want to have more depth.
For example, in D&D we can go back and focus on the "weapons" approach (now the "items" approach, since it's not all combat based any more). We don't want anyone to be able to get any weapon, so we add a resolution method: you can have weapons you buy or find. Then we can add modifiers to buying, so that we use gold pieces to try to buy stuff.
In fact, D&D is full of iteration. Range vs melee, saving throws, skills, stats - all of them are these same chains applied in slightly different ways.
This will also happen in game. For example, in the first tests of the first D&D, I'm sure there was no such thing as poisoned weapons. But then someone said, "I should be able to poison my weapon!" and hence poison was introduced. You can go in and add a poison modifier whereever it should be added, then run through the steps to make sure to balance it with approaches and limitations and so forth.
Here's a demo picture because everyone likes demo pictures.
Please notice that "favors" is an approach to the pool, but in the actual game, it's also fed by the pool. It's an approach and a goal simultaneously. To keep things clean, I just leave it as an approach. If you feel the urge, you can make the line a double-headed arrow.
This is mostly for YOUR use, so it only has to make sense to you.
Every game has a rule chain. From the simplest game of Pac Man to the most complicated version of AD&D, it's all built around this same concept. I've gone and refined it a bit to be somewhat clearer.
To make it really easy on you, I've broken it into steps. Basically, you follow these steps until you think your game world has enough complexity to keep your players interested.
This isn't about working out all the rules or the percentages. It's about having a guide that shows you how your game is played. Building a game with too much precision too early is a bad idea - that's how AD&D came into being, and that's why it's such a hodge-podge. This will help you lay the foundation for your game system.
When making a system, I suggest writing stuff down on a blank piece of paper "flowchart" style. I'll give instructions on how to do that, too.
1: The Primary Purpose of Conflicts
All games feature a central purpose - something that the players and GM try to accomplish. In D&D, it's reducing HP. In many more modern games, it's to tell a piece of story. There are thousands of possible purposes, choose one that suits you.
But remember, this is the primary conflict you're designing here, not the primary reason for playing. D&D's rules are built around reducing an enemy's HP, but the actual reason for playing is to have adventures. If "having adventures" is going to be the central conflict, then people would roll dice to have adventures rather than having adventures in which they roll dice.
I draw the purpose of a conflict in a triangle at the bottom of the page.
2: Basic Resolution
Now that you know the basic conflict, you need to know how it is usually resolved. For example, in D&D you roll dice to reduce HP, whereas in, say, FastLane, you bet chips on a roulette wheel for the right to tell a piece of the story. D&D's resolution is parallel - IE, enemies can reduce each other's HP simultaneously. FastLane, on the other hand, is perpendicular, in that if one person wins, another person (often the GM) loses.
This describes what kind of resolution systems you might choose, but anything will work, even rock paper scissors or making funny noises until someone laughs.
I draw resolution methods as circles above whatever they resolve, and connect them to their purposes with lines.
3: Add in a Modifier
A modifier is a method of giving a statistical benefit to one side or another. For example, a weapon in D&D allows players to reduce the HP of the enemy different amounts. In FastLane, having a chip pool allows you to bid various amounts of chips on the roulette wheel, allowing you to modulate your chances of victory and failure.
In D&D, rolling to hit is also a modifier. Instead of offering a sure but erratic bonus (2d6 vs 1d8 + 2 damage) it offers an erratic but sure bonus (you get to hit or not, period). This makes it more interesting than simply hitting, because now a beastie can have low HP but be hard to hit, whereas without this modifier all that mattered was the beastie's HP.
The basic rule is that a modifier lets a player express their intents and personalities more clearly. Having a chip pool lets a player be risky or safe, having a to-hit die allows players to specialize in damage or hits (or bypassing the need to roll hits).
I draw modifiers as boxes above whatever they modify, connected with a line.
4: Split the Approach
It's important to let players approach things in distinct ways by "going behind the back" of a modifier. This can be thought of as assigning modifiers to a modifier.
In D&D, the "weapons" modifier allows you to use different dice and bonuses to deal damage. However, having a weapon is not the only method of doing that. You can use techniques or be a mage. So, the "weapons" modifier has three "paths" - "weapons", "techniques", and "magic". Don't worry about the clumsy naming.
In FastLane, how you change the number of chips in your pool varies. The paths are "Betting/winning", "favor calling/granting", "Ability use", "statistic burn", "life risk", and so on. This is a lot of approaches, but you don't have to come up with thirty approaches at once. You can add more approaches at any time, and it's better to do it in small increments.
While a modifier allows a player to express themselves statistically, an approach allows players to express themselves categorically. They can choose to act like a monk, or a warrior, or a mage, or whatever. An approach can be semipermanent (such as choosing a class) but doesn't have to be.
I make approaches diamonds or rounded squares and put them near the things they modify, connected with a line.
5: Add in a New Conflict Type
Using any of the things you've created, add a new kind of goal it can resolve.
For example, in D&D you can use the "to hit" modifier to resolve noncombat challenges such as picking pockets or applying medicine. You can use the "weapon" modifier to do noncombat things such as healing, seeing in the dark, etc. Putting it under the "weapon" modifier rather than the "weapon" or "magic" approach means that any approach will have these noncombat methods, rather than only one of them. This allows for torches, spells of light, and light related techniques, for example.
In FastLane (or just about any game), the ability to improve your character by spending points is an end goal that gets added at this stage.
Be as specific or general as you like, and choose anything. Don't worry if the resolution method seems dodgy. That will all fall into place.
These give the players who choose different paths different capabilities, making them more unique. They are especially needed in places where you want the gameplay to be more complex than it already is.
I draw new conflicts as triangles beneath whatever controls them.
6: Clean Up
Look over your map. Does anything have an awful lot of connections to the same kind of shape? See if you can condense that into one or two much less specific shapes. An example of this would be the dozens of approaches to your chip pool in FastLane. they can be broken into two basic modifiers: adding chips to/from your pool and adding chips to your bet. Then those can have approaches.
Does anything seem awkward or lonely? See if you can move it to a more root branch. An example of this would be if you wrote "noncombat stuff" as a goal underneath "magic", and decided that it would make more sense if items could accomplish at least some noncombat stuff, such as nets, food, etc. So you roll the goal down to the "weapon modifier" rather than the "magic approach".
If something is misnamed, rename it. For example, the "weapon" approach and modifier allow you to address noncombat issues, so it's best to rename them "item".
This step is pretty important, as it will help you keep your game from getting too flabby and special-caseist.
7: Scrap it?
If what you see doesn't appeal or doesn't make sense, scrap it and start over. Seriously. It's no big loss.
8: Goto 2
Go back to step two and run through them again, but don't focus on whatever part you were focusing on before. Focus on whatever you want to have more depth.
For example, in D&D we can go back and focus on the "weapons" approach (now the "items" approach, since it's not all combat based any more). We don't want anyone to be able to get any weapon, so we add a resolution method: you can have weapons you buy or find. Then we can add modifiers to buying, so that we use gold pieces to try to buy stuff.
In fact, D&D is full of iteration. Range vs melee, saving throws, skills, stats - all of them are these same chains applied in slightly different ways.
This will also happen in game. For example, in the first tests of the first D&D, I'm sure there was no such thing as poisoned weapons. But then someone said, "I should be able to poison my weapon!" and hence poison was introduced. You can go in and add a poison modifier whereever it should be added, then run through the steps to make sure to balance it with approaches and limitations and so forth.
Here's a demo picture because everyone likes demo pictures.
Please notice that "favors" is an approach to the pool, but in the actual game, it's also fed by the pool. It's an approach and a goal simultaneously. To keep things clean, I just leave it as an approach. If you feel the urge, you can make the line a double-headed arrow.
This is mostly for YOUR use, so it only has to make sense to you.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Put In Another Gun: It'll Add Gameplay!
Edit: Recently, someone called this "ranty". I'm a pretty ranty kind of guy, but I'm not trying to rant, here. I'm trying to explain using some specific examples, but it doesn't mean I think more or less highly of those examples than others not mentioned.
Last post, Chill made the following innocuous comment: "Meaning that there may be a few stats, but the important thing is that there a lot of places on that scale that one could be... Point is, the more actually different ways one can affect a system and get meaningful feedback, the better."
I think he was trying to agree with me, but this is a chance to spring some fundamental design principles on both of my readers, so that's what I'ma gonna do. Chill's comment provides a useful springboard.
I no longer believe anything I quoted above is correct.
It hasn't been long since I changed my mind, though. Less than a month.
I think that the key to good gameplay is a few simple rules that produce complex results. But... I don't think that's clear enough. Let's give a surprising example:
In a shmup, you have a spaceship. The interaction is simple: you can move, you can shoot, you can use the bomb. Pretty simple? You know what I think when I look at that?
"What's with the bomb special case?"
The bomb isn't a deep rule. It just rescues your ass when you prove to be too inept. It serves the same basic purpose as a life. Why does it exist?
Some shmups have a really nifty bomb. For example, it switches what enemies you're immune to, or it sucks in bullets and turns them into a super-shot. You know what I say then?
"What's with the bomb special case?"
The core of the game is moving and shooting. You already have moving and shooting. If you need to add a bomb mechanic, don't. Change your shooting or moving mechanics to be deeper. Or make something automatic - either the bomb or the shooting - so that it isn't an interaction rule any more. Having duplicate attack mechanics is just saying "our design-fu is too weak to make any of our stuff actually good, so we give you more rules and hope you don't notice."
...
"Did he just say that shmups are too complicated? Shmups, the simplest game outside of match three?"
Not exactly. I'm saying that shmups have too many ways of meaningfully interacting with the same system. Modulating your movement, shooting, and how you die... if you can't make deep gameplay out of that, you're just screwed as a designer. As a designer, you should be able to make deep gameplay out of any one of those.
There are games with "complex rules". For example, action RPGs. Let's say: combat movement, world map movement, combat moves, items, equipment, money, leveling... tack on optionals like managing team-mates, social management, plot trees, TACOs, skill challenges...
I'm not saying those are bad. The rules in good games are chosen so that they feed each other but don't step on each other. While you can slice with a sword or cast magic fire or throw a grenade, those are actually just one rule: attacking. You modulate the cost and effectiveness of attacking, allowing the player to express himself within the rule.
The problem with phrases like "places on the scale" and "lots of ways to get meaningful feedback" is that they do not actually encourage good rules. They simply encourage rules.
Being at a point on a scale is not a very good way of expressing yourself: it's too one-dimensional. The good news is that in a game like Magic the Gathering, you're not just expressing yourself one-dimensionally. Sure, you show a preference for a particular mana cost, but you also pick a particular color and, hell, particular cards. It's one of the most expressive games out there. While the actual combat has a lot of dumb rules that aren't deep, the actual game of Magic the Gathering lies in creating and using decks of cards... a simple but very expressive set of rules.
Getting meaningful feedback isn't important, either. Again, a rule should allow the game's characters (or other challenges) to express themselves as well. It's not about feedback: it's about establishing a distinct feeling that this part of the game has a personality and something resembling a will.
The rules for combat are relatively simple, but by giving monsters different combat stats and capabilities, the ice caves of Hrraaaalg play very differently from the soldier's barracks...
So don't think of rules as being deep or wide or good or bad. Think of rules as tools for expression, and if you can't think of a way to express a wide range of intents and personalities in the rule, don't put it in.
And, of course, if there's another rule that lets you express yourself in the same way, but not as well, kill it. It's just extra fat.
...
That would have been a good place to end it, but I have to say this:
Adding more guns isn't adding more rules. It's simply adding another permutation to an existing interaction (in this case, the "attack" interaction). This can be good or bad, but it's an entirely separate question.
Last post, Chill made the following innocuous comment: "Meaning that there may be a few stats, but the important thing is that there a lot of places on that scale that one could be... Point is, the more actually different ways one can affect a system and get meaningful feedback, the better."
I think he was trying to agree with me, but this is a chance to spring some fundamental design principles on both of my readers, so that's what I'ma gonna do. Chill's comment provides a useful springboard.
I no longer believe anything I quoted above is correct.
It hasn't been long since I changed my mind, though. Less than a month.
I think that the key to good gameplay is a few simple rules that produce complex results. But... I don't think that's clear enough. Let's give a surprising example:
In a shmup, you have a spaceship. The interaction is simple: you can move, you can shoot, you can use the bomb. Pretty simple? You know what I think when I look at that?
"What's with the bomb special case?"
The bomb isn't a deep rule. It just rescues your ass when you prove to be too inept. It serves the same basic purpose as a life. Why does it exist?
Some shmups have a really nifty bomb. For example, it switches what enemies you're immune to, or it sucks in bullets and turns them into a super-shot. You know what I say then?
"What's with the bomb special case?"
The core of the game is moving and shooting. You already have moving and shooting. If you need to add a bomb mechanic, don't. Change your shooting or moving mechanics to be deeper. Or make something automatic - either the bomb or the shooting - so that it isn't an interaction rule any more. Having duplicate attack mechanics is just saying "our design-fu is too weak to make any of our stuff actually good, so we give you more rules and hope you don't notice."
...
"Did he just say that shmups are too complicated? Shmups, the simplest game outside of match three?"
Not exactly. I'm saying that shmups have too many ways of meaningfully interacting with the same system. Modulating your movement, shooting, and how you die... if you can't make deep gameplay out of that, you're just screwed as a designer. As a designer, you should be able to make deep gameplay out of any one of those.
There are games with "complex rules". For example, action RPGs. Let's say: combat movement, world map movement, combat moves, items, equipment, money, leveling... tack on optionals like managing team-mates, social management, plot trees, TACOs, skill challenges...
I'm not saying those are bad. The rules in good games are chosen so that they feed each other but don't step on each other. While you can slice with a sword or cast magic fire or throw a grenade, those are actually just one rule: attacking. You modulate the cost and effectiveness of attacking, allowing the player to express himself within the rule.
The problem with phrases like "places on the scale" and "lots of ways to get meaningful feedback" is that they do not actually encourage good rules. They simply encourage rules.
Being at a point on a scale is not a very good way of expressing yourself: it's too one-dimensional. The good news is that in a game like Magic the Gathering, you're not just expressing yourself one-dimensionally. Sure, you show a preference for a particular mana cost, but you also pick a particular color and, hell, particular cards. It's one of the most expressive games out there. While the actual combat has a lot of dumb rules that aren't deep, the actual game of Magic the Gathering lies in creating and using decks of cards... a simple but very expressive set of rules.
Getting meaningful feedback isn't important, either. Again, a rule should allow the game's characters (or other challenges) to express themselves as well. It's not about feedback: it's about establishing a distinct feeling that this part of the game has a personality and something resembling a will.
The rules for combat are relatively simple, but by giving monsters different combat stats and capabilities, the ice caves of Hrraaaalg play very differently from the soldier's barracks...
So don't think of rules as being deep or wide or good or bad. Think of rules as tools for expression, and if you can't think of a way to express a wide range of intents and personalities in the rule, don't put it in.
And, of course, if there's another rule that lets you express yourself in the same way, but not as well, kill it. It's just extra fat.
...
That would have been a good place to end it, but I have to say this:
Adding more guns isn't adding more rules. It's simply adding another permutation to an existing interaction (in this case, the "attack" interaction). This can be good or bad, but it's an entirely separate question.
Monday, January 15, 2007
What's in a Game?
So, I was designing the whole game-tool-cascade thing, and I accidentally wrote another essay in the process. Here's that essay.
A game is, generally speaking, a system for manipulating content on a foundation. For example, Sim City is about placing buildings on terrain. An RPG is actually two or three games, one of which is slotting equipment/skills/spells into "character nodes". An adventure game is about activating content which has been placed on a terrain.
Obviously, games don't let you just go around willy-nilly placing buildings, slotting equipment, and activating content. Instead, they use a variety of rules to limit and direct the ways content acts and reacts. This adds a level of complexity to the game, allowing the content to remain interesting longer. If done right.
There are four kinds of systems used to create these rules. Each kind of system generally requires content to have specific attributes.
Global effects are ones which affect the world in some global way. For example, a building which requires 2500 "dollars" to build pulls that money from a global pool. Similarly, in an FPS, getting health adds to your global health pool. Also, a game where a structure can only be placed once, or with a maximum unit cap - these are also global effects.
Generally, content which interacts with rules like this needs to strike a balance between costing and providing global resources. Not that any given piece of content must be balanced, but content in general needs to be balanced. As an example, buildings cost money but provide tax revenue. Monsters cause damage to your global HP supply, but health packs restore it.
This kind of effect is used to unify and centralize content: all content can be related to its global costs and rewards.
2) Local Effects
Local effects are ones which affect the local area only. An example would be if buildings require power to work. It doesn't matter if there's plenty of power on the other side of the map: there needs to be power here. Similarly, if you have four people in your party, equipping one with a better weapon doesn't improve the others. A building might produce traffic locally, and spikes only kill you if you fall on them.
Content with local effects is generally very unbalanced rather than balanced. IE, most content will require specific things, and very few pieces of content will provide them. This unbalance keeps the content somewhat centralized, allowing players to create recognizable and straightforward infrastructures for remarkably large and convoluted systems.
Also, there is generally quite a lot of "enabler" content which allows the infrastructure to be configured more efficiently. An example is highways and power lines in Sim City: they aren't really "buildings", but they allow you to create your infrastructure more efficiently. An interesting thing is that, if given long enough, players will develop their own "enabler" strategies even if you don't include any.
Not all local effects have to be constructive: trampolines, lava, poison, anything with a continuous local effect falls into this category. Things can even move around and have local effects, such as the cats in ChuChu Rocket.
This kind of effect is generally used to create a complex but clear system for challenging players spatially. Some games use "light" local effects to create a kind of "spreadsheet" feel - various locales exist, but don't directly affect each other. This is very common in multi-character RPGs and tactical games.
3) Intermittant Effects
A lot of games use content that only "activates" in specific situations. Instead of merely being local in space, it is also also local in time. Usually, this is a combat situation: a space marine standing around doesn't have a whole lot of local or global effect, but if an alien crests the hill, he shoots it dead. Another example is a security system which activates on a timer. Or random encounters on a world map.
This isn't a one-time effect like burning down, but something which will happen repeatedly if given the chance.
These kinds of effects are used to crank up the tension level, since they generally come up with very little warning and frequently seem somewhat random.
4) Limits
Limits are simply restricting content's availability. The most obvious example is that in many games, you're "stuck" to your character: you can't wander off and interact with things far away. Character-centric games use limits to make players experience content in a specific order.
But there are a lot of different kinds of limits, many of which are indistinguishable from global effects. Generally, if it costs or provides a resource, it's a global effect rather than a limit. So, for example, it costs a certain amount of money to build a starship. That's a global effect. But if you need to have specific things researched before you can build it, that's a limit.
Limits are generally used to create "gates" and "pathways" which the players have to move through. This allows the designers to expose them to specific content at a specific pace.
Nearly all rules in games can be explained using these four systems, and it's actually a lot of fun to take a game and change the systems around. For example, what about a game where instead of concentrating on soldier's intermittant battle effect, you instead concentrate on their local effect? Mob mentalities, branch rivalries, reacting to command staff...
Anyhow, it's kind of interesting and leads into my essay on game-tools, which I'll write sometime soonish.
A game is, generally speaking, a system for manipulating content on a foundation. For example, Sim City is about placing buildings on terrain. An RPG is actually two or three games, one of which is slotting equipment/skills/spells into "character nodes". An adventure game is about activating content which has been placed on a terrain.
Obviously, games don't let you just go around willy-nilly placing buildings, slotting equipment, and activating content. Instead, they use a variety of rules to limit and direct the ways content acts and reacts. This adds a level of complexity to the game, allowing the content to remain interesting longer. If done right.
There are four kinds of systems used to create these rules. Each kind of system generally requires content to have specific attributes.
1) Global Effects
Global effects are ones which affect the world in some global way. For example, a building which requires 2500 "dollars" to build pulls that money from a global pool. Similarly, in an FPS, getting health adds to your global health pool. Also, a game where a structure can only be placed once, or with a maximum unit cap - these are also global effects.
Generally, content which interacts with rules like this needs to strike a balance between costing and providing global resources. Not that any given piece of content must be balanced, but content in general needs to be balanced. As an example, buildings cost money but provide tax revenue. Monsters cause damage to your global HP supply, but health packs restore it.
This kind of effect is used to unify and centralize content: all content can be related to its global costs and rewards.
2) Local Effects
Local effects are ones which affect the local area only. An example would be if buildings require power to work. It doesn't matter if there's plenty of power on the other side of the map: there needs to be power here. Similarly, if you have four people in your party, equipping one with a better weapon doesn't improve the others. A building might produce traffic locally, and spikes only kill you if you fall on them.
Content with local effects is generally very unbalanced rather than balanced. IE, most content will require specific things, and very few pieces of content will provide them. This unbalance keeps the content somewhat centralized, allowing players to create recognizable and straightforward infrastructures for remarkably large and convoluted systems.
Also, there is generally quite a lot of "enabler" content which allows the infrastructure to be configured more efficiently. An example is highways and power lines in Sim City: they aren't really "buildings", but they allow you to create your infrastructure more efficiently. An interesting thing is that, if given long enough, players will develop their own "enabler" strategies even if you don't include any.
Not all local effects have to be constructive: trampolines, lava, poison, anything with a continuous local effect falls into this category. Things can even move around and have local effects, such as the cats in ChuChu Rocket.
This kind of effect is generally used to create a complex but clear system for challenging players spatially. Some games use "light" local effects to create a kind of "spreadsheet" feel - various locales exist, but don't directly affect each other. This is very common in multi-character RPGs and tactical games.
3) Intermittant Effects
A lot of games use content that only "activates" in specific situations. Instead of merely being local in space, it is also also local in time. Usually, this is a combat situation: a space marine standing around doesn't have a whole lot of local or global effect, but if an alien crests the hill, he shoots it dead. Another example is a security system which activates on a timer. Or random encounters on a world map.
This isn't a one-time effect like burning down, but something which will happen repeatedly if given the chance.
These kinds of effects are used to crank up the tension level, since they generally come up with very little warning and frequently seem somewhat random.
4) Limits
Limits are simply restricting content's availability. The most obvious example is that in many games, you're "stuck" to your character: you can't wander off and interact with things far away. Character-centric games use limits to make players experience content in a specific order.
But there are a lot of different kinds of limits, many of which are indistinguishable from global effects. Generally, if it costs or provides a resource, it's a global effect rather than a limit. So, for example, it costs a certain amount of money to build a starship. That's a global effect. But if you need to have specific things researched before you can build it, that's a limit.
Limits are generally used to create "gates" and "pathways" which the players have to move through. This allows the designers to expose them to specific content at a specific pace.
Nearly all rules in games can be explained using these four systems, and it's actually a lot of fun to take a game and change the systems around. For example, what about a game where instead of concentrating on soldier's intermittant battle effect, you instead concentrate on their local effect? Mob mentalities, branch rivalries, reacting to command staff...
Anyhow, it's kind of interesting and leads into my essay on game-tools, which I'll write sometime soonish.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Gluing Agency to Content
Two posts, one day, you can tell it's the weekend.
Jeff's essay on agency has congealed a few of my own theories into more workable concepts.
One of the things I've been wrestling with is rules. Rules are pretty shabby. Games aren't rules, never have been, and I've been saying it for months. Rules are a kind of stand-in or crutch for another person: good in their place, but certainly not the central "gameness" of a game.
No, as is now very clear, rules are red tape that glues agency to content.
People can also be that glue.
Anyhow, I like that phrase so much, I'm adopting it!
Jeff's essay on agency has congealed a few of my own theories into more workable concepts.
One of the things I've been wrestling with is rules. Rules are pretty shabby. Games aren't rules, never have been, and I've been saying it for months. Rules are a kind of stand-in or crutch for another person: good in their place, but certainly not the central "gameness" of a game.
No, as is now very clear, rules are red tape that glues agency to content.
People can also be that glue.
Anyhow, I like that phrase so much, I'm adopting it!
Friday, October 06, 2006
Easy Game
Testing an easy game to check balancing techniques.
Rules are here. If turned into a full game, templates would be needed to help players get started.
This post is mostly so that I can access these rules from any connected computer. Last time I uploaded something, I forgot where I put it. :P
Rules are here. If turned into a full game, templates would be needed to help players get started.
This post is mostly so that I can access these rules from any connected computer. Last time I uploaded something, I forgot where I put it. :P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)