Flowcharts in RPGs

So, in my planning for the last D&D session, I ended up making a flowchart. It was a very, very simple one, now, with two decision boxes and a total of two possible outcomes. But still, it was something I haven't done for game writing in a long time.

I used to use flowcharts a lot, and relationship diagrams too. My notes for the Fate games - which started out as medium-sized essays - now condense down to about 1 page per 3 hours of play, and it's all short prose, almost half of which ends up being proper nouns - character names, organisation and place names, and dates. If you reckon aspects are proper nouns, there's not much left at all. There's certainly almost no "if... then" reasoning, or "in case of," which used to appear a lot.

In thinking about this, I was wondering if I was denying the Fate players choices and decisions that they should be making. I'm not, or at least I don't think so, but it seems that the choices they make don't usually have consequences in the current session, but in the next or even subsequent games. In contrast, the D&D game has choices that affect the current session only, pretty much, and all the choices for the next game come from me.

It wasn't until today that I realised I do effectively have flow-charts for the Fate game, but they're drawn at the campaign level, not the session level, and I don't seem to actually put them on paper - they're all in my head. Part of this is because I don't want to plan material that's not going to be used at that level, and part is because I don't have to - it's almost never going to be the case that a decision is being made mid-game that I need to have multiple outcomes worked out for; the decision is made and then the consequences appear in the next session - by which time I've had time to write up the outcome, and only that outcome; I never have to bother with the rest.

So for the Fate games, the flowchart would consist of a lot of decision boxes marked with "didn't go this way" for all but one of the possibilities. In fact, though, I'd need multiple flowcharts, simply because I have multiple plots running at the same time, some of which connect, and some of which don't.

Maybe I should try drawing one anyway; it might be a useful way to visualise the campaign structure.

Posted by Drew Shiel on September 1, 2010 at 12:50

RPG Supplements

I was catching up on The Adventuring Party, our local gaming podcast, on the way to work this morning. The episode for 18th August 2010, to be precise, all about RPG supplements, and how many of them are terrible, but the good ones are really good.

Before I go on to give you my own thoughts on supplements, let me take a moment to say that The Adventuring Party is an excellent podcast. And I'm not just saying that because I've been on it a time or two; they cover interesting material, and seem to be very good at getting at multiple points of view. Other gaming podcasts can verge on the... dogmatic, shall we say.

Continue reading "RPG Supplements"

Posted by Drew Shiel on August 30, 2010 at 10:26

Too Many Games!

I've just been listening to Mssrs. Hemlock & Shute's fine podcast, Episode 116. In it, there's some discussion of Jon's ongoing quixotic quest to buy and play every computer game that comes out. He's saying that it's now getting to the stage where, while he still holds down a job and some relations with other humans, he simply can't play everything.

Continue reading "Too Many Games!"

Posted by Drew Shiel on August 26, 2010 at 13:50

Will There Ever Be Another Planescape CRPG?

Spinks is looking at the number of Diablo-esque games coming out in the near future, and mentions Neverwinter in the same context. However, she's also calling out the fact that Neverwinter is set in, well, Neverwinter, in the rather generic Forgotten Realms. She's asking "Where are my Planescape or Dark Sun games?".

Continue reading "Will There Ever Be Another Planescape CRPG?"

Posted by Drew Shiel on August 25, 2010 at 10:10

Less System, More Work

I've been experimenting with tabletop rules systems. More specifically, I've been experimenting with less and less in the way of rules. Fate 2.0 - which I use, almost unmodified, for most of my games - is already a massive step down in rule density from D&D 3.5, which I was using before.

And the game I play in, as opposed to the many games I run, uses a system I describe as "Amiable GM Fiat". In it, we've a character description, and sometimes we roll Fudge dice. I'm pretty sure higher is better, but I have no idea what the numbers are being compared against. I suspect "higher is better" summarises the numeric rules accurately.

Now, for a sci-fi game I'm running, I'm taking that even further. The characters have three phrases to describe them - "I will always...", "I will never...", and "... drives me mad". They also get to pick two skills, which can be as general as "Fighting" and as precise as "Sniper Shooting with the M1500 Special Edition Laser Rifle". The more precise they are, the better they are, and that gets worked directly into the narrative. There are no dice rolls at all.

The Amiable GM is clearly taking this as a challenge. For his next game, we've been told that our characters will be "a symbol, and up to three memories". I'm looking forward to that.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the 4th Edition D&D game, which has, obviously, one published edition of D&D worth of rules. We're keeping the number of rulebooks low - PHB, PHBII, DMG, MM, and that's it - but it's still a chunk of numbers and crunchery.

It is, however, clear that the amount of work it takes to run the game is inversely proportional to the mass of the rules. Possibly the mass of the rules squared; physics is not my strong point. For the D&D game, I can kick back and relax. Running the other games, I have to be switched on and paying attention, and the sci-fi game, with the least rules, is definitely the most effort. I'm now wondering, though, if the rules allow the workload to be transferred from the GM to the players. Maybe the players in the D&D game are thinking more, putting in more of the effort, than the players in the rules-light games.

I'll continue to experiment with both, although I do reckon that I've a personal preference somewhere around the Fate 2.0 level - less than that requires almost too much thinking.

Posted by Drew Shiel on August 24, 2010 at 16:02

Neverwinter

So, I was noting earlier that I'm very positive about Neverwinter. I was talking about this on Of Course I'll Play It, and I'd like to expand a bit on that, and in particular, why I'm happier that it's not a full-on MMO.

Neverwinter is going to be using the 4th Edition D&D ruleset. I'm happy with that; 4E is structured and built in such a way that it'll make a very good computer game. Indeed, when it was first released, it was accused of being influenced more by MMOs than previous editions of the tabletop game.

It's going to be a co-op game. That means small groups - I'm guessing up to 8 players, at most - rather than the open worlds of the MMO environment. This is, of course, how D&D is supposed to work. The notion of a 25-man raid in D&D is... well, it's wrong. D&D is a small group game.

Further, in any D&D setting, even in the Forgotten Realms, which are crawling with adventurers, planar travellers, and so forth, the player party should stand out from the peasants. It's nigh-on impossible to get that feeling in a game where everything else that moves is also a maxed-out geared-up adventurer.

And then there's this Forge thing they're talking about, which allows people to write their own content. That notion of rolling your own is an essential part of D&D, and has also been a tradition of the Neverwinter Nights games - to which this is clearly related. All the best D&D campaigns are written not by the professional writers in Wizards of the Coast, but by the individual DMs who are running them.

To be honest, the only thing that really concerns me about Neverwinter is Cryptic; they don't have a good reputation for producing games that start out well. Star Trek Online, for instance, was not really a finished game at launch. However, given this quote from the Gamespot interview with Jack Emmert, Cryptic's COO, I think they know they've done things wrong in the past, and that's the first step toward getting it right this time:

It's not a standard, hundreds-of-hours-grinding MMORPG. Mind you, we've done those in the past. This represents a huge departure from our previous efforts; we're focusing a lot on the quality of each thing we do. We've got constant playtests as well as outside, independent mock reviews. We know that Atari gave us a terrific intellectual property, and we want to do it justice.

Posted by Drew Shiel on August 23, 2010 at 21:28

Dungeons & Dragons: Neverwinter

So Syp alerted me to the forthcoming Neverwinter. It's not quite an MMO, and not quite a single player CRPG - more of a co-op game. There's an interview on Gamespot, which is pretty informative.

It's set in the Forgotten Realms, of course, and it uses the 4E ruleset.

In terms of Neverwinter itself, players will find it's a brand-new Forgotten Realms. Years and years have passed, and Neverwinter has fallen into ruins. A brave few are trying to eke out their lives and to rebuild the once great metropolis, but many threats stand in the way. And this is where the players come in…

The most interesting bit, for me, is this:

Forge (tentative name) will enable players to write adventures, to create maps, and to attach their quests to in-game entrances and NPCs. Our key philosophy is that Forge needs to be accessible (i.e. usable to many people) and that user-generated content is an optional form of content. In other words, a player knows that he's playing UGC and not the game.

That, to me, sounds awesome. Of course, from where I'm standing, the 4E ruleset might well have been made for such a game. The old Neverwinter Nights games (well, the medium old ones, not the old old online one) were great in concept, but fell down a little in implementation, and of course, the older rulesets really didn't translate so well to computer play, let alone online. Sure, 3E has more or less been implemented in DDO, but a close examination will reveal it's a pretty different beast.

I'm interested in this one, and will be watching it closely.

Posted by Drew Shiel on August 23, 2010 at 15:56

The Virtue of the Dungeon

I've been running a 4th Edition D&D game for a couple of sessions now. It's a very lightly plotted (from my point of view, anyway), drop-in, drop-out sort of game. The characters are directed by a Duke, who sends them on particular missions. The missions have thus far been combat-heavy, medium rare on the roleplay, nearly decision-free, and have only just started to experiment with the other forms of encounter in 4E - skill challenges.

Continue reading "The Virtue of the Dungeon"

Posted by Drew Shiel on August 23, 2010 at 14:01

Planning for Cataclysm

At present, I am not playing any MMOs. This is partly because I want to concentrate on other things over the summer months, and partly because, well, right now, none of them are grabbing me. I will, however, be going back to World of Warcraft a bit before Cataclysm is released.

Continue reading "Planning for Cataclysm"

Posted by Drew Shiel on August 23, 2010 at 13:43

Smallville & The Retelling of Mythology

I don't watch much TV, Doctor Who being the obvious exception. However, I've been doing some long-term research into modern retellings of mythologies. There are not as many as you might expect - sure, there are all kinds of sf interpretations of the Odyssey, and you can see the threads of many legends in modern stories. I've been unable to find anything, though, in television that seriously goes about taking an old mythology and setting it in the modern era.

Eventually, I decided to broaden the terms a little, and looked at the world of comics for the basic mythology. Some comics have been around for several generations now, and none have more of a mythos than Superman. Superman was invented in 1932, first published in a comic form in 1938, and has been around ever since. People know who he is - they know he's Clark Kent, they know he can fly, is incredibly strong and nigh-on indestructible, shoots heat from his eyes, breathes frost, can see through things, and is vulnerable to Kryptonite. They know he was raised in Kansas by adoptive parents, and they know he's the definitive Good Guy. They know about Lois Lane and Lex Luthor.

The most recent - and perhaps the most widely seen - re-telling of this mythology is Smallville. But whereas the majority of re-tellings start when Clark Kent arrives in Metropolis, Smallville starts when he's in high school. I'm now about 1.5 seasons in, and some things are becoming clear.

First and foremost is that even through Superman's powers are well known, they still need to be introduced. At the beginning of the series, Clark has his strength, invulnerability, and speed. In the first season, he works out the x-ray vision thing. In the second, he gets the heat vision. He doesn't quite work out the flight thing, and even without going digging into the details of show as it currently is, I suspect he won't for some to come, if at all in this series. The iconic costume, of course, is also not appearing.

This does three useful things. First, it allows more identification with the lead character. Second, it introduces the powers, one at a time, to those few people unfamiliar with the mythology. Third, it provides a sort of ongoing in-joke with the audience, where people ask "Can you fly?" - and there are dozens of visual references to the better-known adult character.

There have to be new characters, of course. Lex is there. Lex is, as an aside, the best bit of the show. Jonathan and Martha Kent appear. And thereafter, we're into new characters, mostly Clark's sidekick and the two girls he can't make up his mind between. It's worth noting at this stage that Smallville fails the Bechdel test, 98% of the time. Lana and Chloe do speak to each other, but it's almost always about men, and usually about Clark.

Another core part of the basic mythology is that there are few credible threats to Superman himself. Sure, you can wallop him with the various colours of Kryptonite, but that gets old quickly. Instead, the thing that most writers over the past seven decades have opted for is to threaten his family and friends. And that's one area where the show shines; it strikes a balance between internal threats - simple relationship stuff - and external threats, which can be as simple as a character's business running low, or as bizarre as a Kryptonite-fuelled bee-controlling high school drama queen.

Obviously, this is a show about high school. As such, relationships and friendships occupy the bulk of the characters' thinking. These are, for the most part, well handled, although the habit of using a soft-focus view for Lana is slowly driving me nuts, and really, whoever writes her lines needs to get out more.

But there are good points: the characters don't constantly circle around Clark. Lana and Chloe have their own connections. Pete and Chloe, likewise. Pete and Lana don't seem to connect much, and that's kept consistent. Lex has some connections with Lana, and some with Chloe, but none at all with Pete, who dislikes him and his family, and again, this is consistent.

And more to the point, all of this is shown, not told. Clark arrives in to various usual haunts to find the connected characters there together, or it's noted in conversation that they met the previous day, or the like. Likewise, there are very smooth renditions of small-town America; the vehicles, the environments, the people you see in the background. I have issues with some of the racial stereotyping (mystic native Americans and an Oriental gambling den), but overall, it's handled fairly well.

So what am I taking from this for the re-telling of mythologies in a modern setting?

Well, the first thing is to identify the key elements - the McGuffins, the characters, the characteristics. The lead characters may need to be supported by a new cast, particularly if you're looking at a before-the-main-story or after-the-main-story setting.

You can't pull in the visuals directly from other settings; they need to be more subtle for a modern setting. Clark has no cape, no shield on his chest, and indeed, no glasses. But he has a lot of primary colours - red and blue - and there are evocations of the cape whenever it fits well. Lex is, of course, already bald.

You can't plunge full-blown into the mythology; you need to introduce it gradually. Each difference between the mythos and the workaday normal world needs its own chance to settle in.

And finally, you can't depend on the mythology; your work has to stand on its own merits as well. It's because of this that I'm definitely going to be watching more of Smallville, and I do anticipate eventually seeing the whole thing.

Posted by Drew Shiel on July 28, 2010 at 16:24

Doctor Who: The Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone

I'm treating these two episodes as one; it seems fair. Spoilers follow

Continue reading "Doctor Who: The Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone"

Posted by Drew Shiel on May 3, 2010 at 19:56

Doctor Who: Victory of the Daleks

I have to say, I'm not keen on the Daleks. I know they're the traditional enemy of the Doctor, and I know they've been responsible for thousands of children hiding behind sofas, etc, but really, if you come to them as an adult, they're dustbins on wheels who talk like clockwork toys. Spoilers follow, in neat bulleted format.

Continue reading "Doctor Who: Victory of the Daleks"

Posted by Drew Shiel on May 1, 2010 at 23:54

Doctor Who: The Beast Below

Spoilers follow for Episode 2 of Series 5 of Doctor Who: The Beast Below.

Continue reading "Doctor Who: The Beast Below"

Posted by Drew Shiel on May 1, 2010 at 21:13

Doctor Who: The Eleventh Hour

I am aware that I'm way behind in actually writing up my impressions of Series 5 of Doctor Who. But let's have a go at catching up, then! Spoilers follow.

Continue reading "Doctor Who: The Eleventh Hour"

Posted by Drew Shiel on May 1, 2010 at 20:43