Role-Playing Games Club

RPG Club blog suspended

2009-12-20T16:07:00.000Z

Hi all.

Just wanted to let you know that this blog will stop getting updated for a while. The updates will resume at some point in the future, in a few months probably. I wanted to keep a once-per-month (per author) schedule but it seems impossible for the time being. There are two main reasons for this: 1 - I haven't being playing too many RPGs in the recent past. That means I don't have any content to report on and analyse. 2 - I have come to question my authority on the subject, I'd like to become more experienced before restarting to write articles about role-playing games.

That's all. Happy holidays, happy new year and all that.

Do you really know what your character would say?

2009-11-14T15:16:00.000Z

It's a common secret between game masters that there is always a distance between a player and his character and you always want to minimise it. Those two entities have lived different lives from the moment they were born to the moment the character becomes a vessel so that the player can explore the game world. The character is usually the player's own creation, but that doesn't really mean that the player understands him, let alone is able to portray him properly.

It's not a matter of intentions either. The most dedicated player, like any actor, is still prone to letting part of his personality affect his character. It's all understandable and even desirable up to a certain point. Unfortunately, it's not easy in RPGs to not go past that point.

Players almost always view a role-playing game strictly as entertainment. When challenged to play seriously, they sometimes revolt and do everything in their power to make a point out of the freedom from consequence any game provides.

So, what can be done to bring a player closer to his character? The obvious solution is to try to bridge the gap of experience between them. Often, the character is brought up in a different world than the player and their lives are nothing alike. But does it really have to be that way? In Kamikakushi, I decided to eliminate the gap completely: The characters were the same people as the players, more or less, the only difference being that one day they discover a portal to an alternate world.

When a game master creates a whole world for the players to explore, they often seem more like tourists than people who have lived their whole lives there. However, if you equate the players with the characters, it makes sense for them to be oblivious to how the new world they find themselves in functions.

Obviously, this solution, although effective, is a very big constraint, so it's impossible to use it all the time. If all your stories as a game master start with people from the real world discovering a portal that leads them to an unknown world, it's going to get old fast. So, what we really need is a more subtle solution to be more broadly applied.

A second suggestion would be to let the player see what the character's childhood and formative years were before the main story begins. This can be achieved either by playing it out before the main story starts or with flashbacks.

Regardless of implementation, there are some unavoidable problems. One is that you can't really replace a lifetime of experience with bite-sized scenes. Sometimes the things that define the personality of a person are not big events but everyday things that keep happening.

The other problem is that you have to make a compromise between interactivity and drama. If you're trying to keep the player from abusing his freedom when the character is an adult, how can you make him react properly to the events that shaped his personality? On the other hand, if you remove the interactivity and make it play out like a cutscene, then it's not a game any more, is it?

There is yet another, more technical problem: Each player has a different character and unless they were all brought up together, visiting the childhood of each is going to be a nightmare for the rest.

The third solution, although it seemed promising in the beginning, didn't exactly work as planned when I experimented with it. What if the game master prepared some of the characters' lines in advance and had the players deliver them during the game? Then the players would surely understand their characters more? While we're at it, let's not stop there: What if all the players were given a dialogue between their characters without knowing which character says what? Then, they would be forced to really think about who their character is and what he would say.

However, this all is backwards: The player is not trying to express his character's personality through language. He is trying to do the opposite. It's exceedingly difficult to make lines that both serve the plot and are so defining of the characters that the player can quickly assess if he has to deliver them or not. So, the dialogues become a slow and frustrating experience to the players.

It now seems to me that in order to get a player closer to his character, no amount of little tricks will do. Instead, a complete overhaul of the role and responsibilities that the players have towards the game is necessary. Until then, I suppose all a game master can do is just deal with it and try not to take the game too seriously.

The Ultimate RPG Guide to Time Management: How to get over procrastination in 20 simple levels

2009-10-01T17:04:00.009+01:00

As a chronic procrastinator, I know full well that dealing with such a problem is almost always a very frustrating experience. You feel that you want to do something, but then end up not doing it. It's almost paradoxical and it shows a division of the mind that people usually don't even want to admit it exists. It feels demeaning to know that a person is not one indivisible entity, but it is impossible to deny it when it is so clearly demonstrated at a practical level.

Over the years, I've tried who-knows-how-many approaches to waste less time. I developed countless theories to explain procrastination and came up with even more methods to take it out of my life. These methods ranged from the completely straightforward to the downright bizarre. Now, if you've been wondering what does anything of this has to do with RPGs, I will give you a hint: One of those methods is the topic for this post.

Leveling up is one of the most staple features of RPGs. So, what if you used the incentive it provides to motivate you to do something useful? The comic above humorously suggests it's possible to pull it off for exercise, but why not try it for studying or work?

Starting from this simple thought, I created what I call "a time management RPG". Gradually, with time, it evolved to monstrous proportions, but I regret nothing. In fact, this game is my favourite part of everything I do to fight procrastination. Of course, I don't expect that this alone can save anyone from the horrors of going to bed each night terrified by the knowledge of how much precious time of his life was lost. But it's a fun thing to try and will probably help somewhat.

To make a leveling system for time management (or for anything at all for that matter), you have to answer a few questions: What do the levels represent? How do you go up a level?

Levels in my system represent steps. Small steps towards the nirvana of being completely in control of your time. In most RPGs, going up a level does not represent your skill at certain tasks. It only represents the accumulation of enough experience to unlock the next set of abilities. Of course, that doesn't really work if the character and the player are one and the same, so I rejected that notion. Of course, you can always say "I will only allow myself the privilege of watching that film when I reach level X" but in my personal experience this stick & carrot approach doesn't help in the long run. Instead, I went for a system of levels that feel more like a series of progressing game achievements than traditional RPG levels. In that sense, each level is a set of challenges that you have to overcome in order to claim that your skill is at that point. There's 20 levels, starting from the completely trivial to absolute mastery.

To go up a level, you have to complete a series of challenges. A challenge represents an experience points and has to remain constant for each level. But to adequately describe a challenge that is meaningful in this context, you'd have to define what you want to do first. Long story short, I keep two list of tasks I have to do; one with "active tasks" and one with the rest of them. So, all challenges are based on my active tasks. Now, stay with me. You need two challenges for each level. One high-value and one low-value. Completing the high-value challenge allows you to progress towards the next level. Completing the low-value challenge allows you to not lose experience and slide backwards.

Confused yet? It will all be clear after you see exactly what I mean. Here's a table that shows the high-value challenges for each level. Remember: Each time you complete one challenge of your level, you get closer to the next level, kind of like getting experience points.

One 5-minute session working on an active task.
Two 5-minute sessions working on an active task within 30 minutes.
Three 5-minute sessions working on an active task within 30 minutes.
One 10-minute session working on an active task.
Two 10-minute sessions working on an active task within 60 minutes.
Three 10-minute sessions working on an active task within 60 minutes.
Five 5-minute sessions working on an active task within 60 minutes.
Five 10-minute sessions working on an active task within 90 minutes.
One 15-minute session working on an active task.
One 30-minute session working on an active task.
Three 15-minute sessions working on an active task within 60 minutes.
Two 20-minute sessions working on an active task within 60 minutes.
Three 20-minute sessions working on an active task within 90 minutes.
Two 30-minute sessions working on an active task within 90 minutes.
One 60-minute session working on an active task.
Three 60-minute sessions working on an active task within 1 day.
Four 60-minute sessions working on an active task within 1 day.
Five 60-minute sessions working on an active task within 1 day.
Six 60-minute sessions working on an active task within 1 day.
Seven 60-minute sessions working on an active task within 1 day.

You can see how there are 3 distinct difficulty phases. The first one is levels 1 through 10. They all are very easy tasks designed to reinforce a minor sense of achievement rather than getting any actual work done. After acquiring this all-important positive attitude, phase two covers levels 11 through 15. It's designed to bridge the gap between working just to show you can and working towards actually getting things done. Levels 16 through 20 are the ones that allow you to really learn to manage your time.

Still, I didn't actually mention how many times you have to complete each challenge before moving to the next level. It's pretty simple. For the first 10 levels, you only need to complete the challenge once and then you can move on. For the rest of them, you have to complete it as many times as the number of the level minus 10. More specifically, level 11 requires to do the challenge 1 time, level 12 2 times, level 13 3 times and so on.

Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 1 time to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 2 times to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 3 times to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 4 times to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 5 times to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 6 times to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 7 times to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 8 times to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 9 times to move to the next level.
Complete the challenge 10 times to move to the next level.

You can see how the later levels really need more than the occasional success. This is even more reinforced by low-value challenges. These only begin after level 15 and define a way to lose your progress. You see, the number of times you have to complete the high-value challenges described above are points. In that sense, to get from level 18 to level 19 you need 9 points that each represent the completion of the high-value challenge for level 19 once. f, however, you are unable to complete the low-value challenge for the level you're heading to, you lose one point. For example, let's say you have completed the high-value challenge for level 19 5 times. That means you have 5 points and you need 4 more to get to level 19. However, if you fail the low-value challenge for level 19, you'll lose one point; that means you have to complete the high-value challenge 5 times instead of 4 to reach level 19.

You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
You cannot lose your progress for this level.
One 60-minute session working on an active task.
Two 60-minute session working on an active task within 1 day.
Two 60-minute sessions working on an active task within 1 day.
Three 60-minute sessions working on an active task within 1 day.
Three 60-minute sessions working on an active task within 1 day.

That's about it. I'm currently at level 16. I managed to get a few points towards level 17 a few times but then lost my pace and eventually lost all of them. I'm also using this achievement generator to create banners to show my progress. For example, my current state would look like this:

Anyway, feel free to ask questions, if you have any. Also, feel free to laugh at my geekery, I won't mind.

A Diablo Experience

2009-09-12T22:19:00.028+01:00

Around the end of 2008, we had been talking (some people from the Steam group and me) about starting playing Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction again. We used to play when we were younger and for some reason we felt like starting again. And so, when Christmas vacation arrived I got a new copy of the game and we started playing.

Diablo 2 is an action role playing game, developed by Blizzard. At the beginning of the game you are given a choice between various classes. From then on the game is pretty straightforward. You need to kill monsters and compete quests in order to gain experience and items, to make your character better. The game also has a storyline about your character saving the world from archdemons, but to be honest, you can finish the game without having a clue about it, exactly because the story is not the point of the game. The game is all about making your character stronger.

I could talk about the specifics of the game mechanics, but it's a fairly old game and that's not the point of this article. Suffice to say, it's like most action RPGs. You enhance your abilities as you advance levels and gain better items. And as any Blizzard game it's technically an extremely well made game.

But what I really want to say is my little story about this game:

The first character I created was a druid. And we were playing really casually. We shared items between each other and I wasn't really interested in making my character very powerful. We finished the basic storyline at all difficulties and we stopped playing.

Some weeks later, I decided to start playing again on my own. The reason was because I had found some nice javelins with the druid and I wanted to make an amazon. Again I was playing pretty casually, though not as rarely as we were playing with the previous characters. After some time, I finished the game in all the difficulties and started doing some final boss runs, to gain levels.

Soon, I started searching for guides to optimize my character. I was looking for builds that maximized my character's abilities. I found out I had wasted around five skill points, so I started the character from scratch. From then on I never actually played the game. With the aid of my friends' characters I quickly passed through all the quests just to gain access to higher levels and get experience through boss runs. But I didn't care about skipping most of the game, I cared about getting my character to the point at which she was, only without wasting those skill points. After I achieved that, having read about all those builds I decided that I wanted better equipment for my characters. So I started killing random bosses and monsters in order to get them.

I figured out that my amazon wasn't fast enough. I needed a character to get me items faster, so I created a sorceress (who can teleport) and equipped her with items that increase the chance of getting magical items (yes, there is such an attribute in the game). Again with the aid of other characters I reached a level at which I could beat the bosses easily and started making “runs”. At this point I was wasting all of my free time in Diablo 2. I didn't even know what I was looking for anymore. The only thing I knew was that there were ways to get better items and I was doing the best I could to acquire them. I was acting like an addict.

Now, before anyone calls me overly dramatic, let me get to the point of this story. The gameplay of Diablo 2 sure is fun at the beginning. You grow your character from a weakling to a killing machine by destroying monsters in all sorts of ways. But after a while that was far from what I was doing. Killing monsters stopped being interesting after a while, and gaining more levels hardly made anydifference after I reached level 85, at least to me. So why was I playing? I had pretty good items. I wasn't really interested in getting the best. My getting better items was a vicious circle. Whenever I got something, I traded usually for runes or other items and so on and so on.

What happened is that whenever a good item was dropped, I was getting excited. So, even though I found the gameplay boring (killing monsters), I wanted to keep playing in order to get excited again.I wasn't having fun anymore, but I was wasting all of my time doing something I found uninteresting. In desperation, I decided to gift everything that I had gathered until then to random strangers .

Thankfully, that took away my unhealthy desire to play and I haven't done so since. Still, I never found the courage to throw away the equipment of the last character I created (another amazon), so, one day, I may start again. In conclusion, is Diablo 2 a good game? I'm not sure. The game quickly became tiresome to me. One thing I know for sure, though: it sure is addictive.

Planescape: Torment - A gate game

2009-09-06T11:55:00.002+01:00

Everything balances out in the Outlands - as it should be, for the plane sits at the centre of the Outer Planes. Powers' realms are scattered about here, and there are handfuls of 'gate towns' that open into the rest of the Outer Planes. The gate towns usually mirror the philosophy of the plane their gates open on to - and if the balance of belief isn't kept in the town, the town slips into the nearby plane.

I recently finished Planescape: Torment, for the first time (late to the party, I know). It got me thinking: What is the nature of this game? What exactly is it trying to be? It certainly was a strange one, nothing like I had seen before.

On one hand, you have a typical cRPG, much like Baldur's Gate: You have a main quest, dialogue trees, levels, stats, an inventory, menial side-quests, the ever-so-clumsy real-time-with-pause combat. But that is not all. Planescape is much more than that. One could say that this is just the platform, a medium; much like a book is a collection of words or a film is a collection of pictures (and sound), Torment tried to define itself within the boundaries of cRPG conventions and the capabilities of the Infinity Engine.

On the other hand, if all the above were just a means to an end, what was the end? What was Torment trying to be? One of Torment's main attractions is the writing, which is truly splendid and supports a really good story. But if that was all, good writing and story plus the elements of a typical cRPG, then surely we must conclude that Planescape: Torment would be better off in a one-way communication medium, like a film or a book, without all the hurdles of interactivity. Right?

But it's just wrong. Try as I might, I couldn't imagine Torment being a book. Was it the visuals? Nope, I couldn't imagine it as a graphic novel or a film or a TV show. Interactivity makes it but I can't quite place in what way. Torment's story, being one that deals with the protagonist's past, is not much affected by the player's actions. No matter how you play the game, you'll end up discovering the same things about your past. There's still lots of choices & consequences but nothing that seemed integral to the game's core, as far as I could tell. No matter, there's something about you being the one who clicks on those many one-option dialogue "trees" which makes everything terribly personal. It's not just the character which is forced to deal with the consequences of his past incarnations, it's you. And that somehow makes it a whole lot different: At one point a choice in the game made me freeze; the characters became as real people whose feelings you don't want to hurt while at the same time you want to be honest with them. And there was this horrible truth in your mind and they're asking you to tell them.

It was then that it struck me: Planescape: Torment exists in the Outlands of gaming, a gate town to the plane of clichéd cRPGs: Not quite there yet, but in alignment with the plane its gate opens on to. Torment manages to be both a piece of interactive storytelling art in the guise of a typical cRPG and a cookie-cutter cRPG with a coating of good writing at the same time. Like a real gate town, it sometimes slips into the nearby plane and becomes a mess of bothersome quests and repetitive combat. The question of what Torment is trying to be remains unanswered: Perhaps its creators just chose a good setting and managed to be consistent with their writing while making a cRPG like the ones they were used to. Maybe they were trying to go for this novel medium of interactive art but they were bound by technical and creative limitations. At the end of the day, one thing is what really matters: Planescape: Torment is unique. Planescape: Torment is good. It's an experience that no one should miss.

World War I

2009-03-17T17:59:00.006Z

While this isn't strictly an RPG, or really an RPG at all - it has been too long since we had something posted on here, and I had this laying around.

World War I is a 2D RTS with some unique features.

It features historical campaigns from the three main factions in the Great War; The Entente, Germany, and Russia. Throughout these campaigns you play through all four years of the war in various high priority battles to get a very good story of the events throughout the war.

The gameplay is not the traditional 'build, mass, conquer' style of gameplay, instead you are given generally a limited amount of units and have to work strategically with those. However, they are a varied amount of units; ranging from artillery, cavalry, troops, and even limited amounts of air and sea support. Each unit has various modes and abilities that will help turn the tides of battle.

The graphics and sound effects are fitting for the period, and the game itself. Especially fitting is the various voice overs of the units, British units speak English, French units speak French, Russian units speak Russian, etc. There are a wide range of units from different nations that you have the ability to command throughout the game, and it is refreshing to hear many differing voices than just a few repeated.

However there are issues with the game, while released in 2006, I have been unable to load it on Windows XP, however Windows Vista works fine with it. As well, once the campaigns are complete, there is not much more replayablity within the game - there is no skirmish options, no map editor, and no multiplayer. These issues leave a lot to be desired within the game, because with those this would be an amazing game.

Overall however, I have found it to be an extremely enjoyable game, refreshing in the ways it tries to be slightly different from others RTSes, with both gameplay and period choices. All together, its a really good package and I thoroughly am glad that I bought it, and supported the Russian developer Dark-Fox, hopefully we may find more wonderful products from them in the future.

In the end, I would say if you enjoy the period, want a different type of game and don't mind there being a somewhat limited amount of features, and perhaps a slight incompatibility with some system, go for it - I enjoyed it greatly.

8.5/10

It can be purchased at GamersGate 9.99$

January RPG News

2009-02-02T11:35:00.002Z

Here's what we've got for January:

December RPG News

2009-01-01T11:41:00.008Z

First of all, I'd like to wish you all a happy new year. Let's hope that 2009 will bring many good role playing games to us.

Now, although we had some setbacks, we are back on track and hopefully we will continue with the monthly news post on a regular basis. Unfortunately, not a lot happened in December, but here's what we've gathered:

Kamikakushi

2008-09-08T12:46:00.012+01:00

This is the first article of a series to discuss various home-brew pen and paper campaigns. This article is split in three parts. In the first part I will discuss my motivation to create this campaign and its setting and present the high-level goals I set out to accomplish. In the second part, I will write about the solutions I came up with to combat the problems I came across while designing. I will also present details about the campaign. In the last part, I will try to decipher the feedback I got from the players and discuss what went right and what went wrong.

Motivation:
Kamikakushi was my first serious attempt as a Game Master to create something memorable and unique for my players. My actual motivation was to use a role-playing game as a medium to discuss philosophical issues. In that sense, I needed a story and setting that would practically portray the philosophical concept in question. I also needed a way to put the players in a position relevant to the problem. They needed to have a personal interest in the matter, not just be observers. It is evident that there were two problems to solve: First find an interesting philosophical concept and apply it on a story. Second, make the players feel as close to their characters as possible, so that they take a personal interest in the concept and in the end understand how the game is relevant to their real lives.

These two spawn more specific problems. For instance, in order to make a dramatic story, especially one with such a purpose, you need to make it linear, which creates problems because the players' freedom is reduced. How do you combat their frustration over that? In addition, how do you enhance the players' immersion to the game world when their characters past experiences are mostly unknown to the players? How do you give the players a power progression without making the story dragging on for years and years of game time? The answers to these created even more questions and by the time all of them were answered, a clear path for the campaign was already emerging.

Implementation:
Kamikushi is a Japanese word that means to disappear mysteriously. The story in the campaign revolves around four young adults that live in the "real world" and disappear. But let's take things from a design perspective. I needed to choose an interesting piece of philosophy to base the campaign on. I made my choice in such a way as to solve another design issue. I decided to address the issue of the creator's rights on his creations and explore the question of free will in a deterministic system. Thus, forcing a linear narrative on the players was part of the narrative, which I thought would justify it. Allow me to describe how the story worked, at least the parts relevant to the campaign.

Eons before the players' characters arrived on the world, on the very island where at the dawn of time the Sun and the Earth had mated, there was much debate among the sages about the balance of nature. Things were changing and it was deemed obvious that it was humanity's fault, although the mechanisms of the change were not understood. Then, humanity changed too. A rebellion was started, led by a young man, known only as the Third Guardian. Humans on the island forced themselves to abandon all their grandeur and splendor and live a simplistic life in small villages. The old knowledge was mostly abandoned apart of a group of people, the guardians, elected to conserve this new-found balance, three of them for each of the handful of villages.

For, you see, on this world, if someone imagined something, then it was created. The more people did so and the more focused, the more powerful and self-conscious the resulting being would be. This is how humanity was created on that world and that is why the balance was so hard to keep. So, humanity's decision echoes their inability to assume responsibility for the hard task of keeping this balance, all the while trying to refuse their power.

However, not everyone was happy with this arrangement. The most ancient and powerful creature that was created through this mechanism was most displeased. She was Athena, a spirit forged through the collective human race thinking of their own consciousness. Her power was however limited, or rather hidden away, because of humanity's decision. So, she planned and planned patiently until she devised a plan to revert the state of the world to what it was before. She created a world within the world. She created a world which would develop its own human race and that human race would think as well. If focused, that collective power of that world would be the most powerful one could have at his disposal. Doing so, she had cracked the very system that created her.

But she needed to tame that power. So, she got a handful of people, five of them, from that world she created and they were chosen to embody it. The world she created was transformed from its ethereal form into the tangible form of humans that would still carry its power in their memories; that was all that was needed. Four of these individuals were the player's characters. From their perspective, they entered a well to explore it but ended up coming out from a well in a completely different world, not having the slightest idea where they were, let alone that there was a hierarchy between the two worlds.

The Fox, as they came to know her needed to tame her "tools". She put them through adventures, promising them a return to their world. They followed her instructions and lived through the experiences she had planned for them, their minds forged in the way she wanted them to. Her final act was to let them know the truth and command them to accept their fate as tools.

The point was, that the players living the experience through their characters' eyes would understand how experience forges character which would lead them to thinking twice when creating something: "What if it had consciousness? What would it think of my plans to use it like this?". Likewise, when making a decision they would question it thinking "What if my experiences in life that led me here were someone else's design? What if I'm acting like a pawn, programmed by everything I have lived?".

To enhance the feeling of immersion that would lead to the players thinking seriously about their characters' situation, I made two simple decisions: First, the characters wouldn't have lived a life different from theirs. They would know nothing about this magical world they had to explore, much like themselves. This is why the game starts in the real world and the characters originate from there. The other thing I did was to hide the game mechanics from the players' eyes. So, they didn't get to choose a class and get abilities based on that. Instead, they were trained and explained to how their abilities worked in the game world. I created a whole magic system for that as well. I needed the system to stay somehow familiar with regular D&D but still be more flexible and different. I tried to give everything a less strict form, allowing more fluidity in decisions. It wasn't just picking option A, B or C to attack but forging his options, be it a spell or a sword attack from how they knew the world worked.

Feedback:
My first major mistake was to think that using the philosophical concept of free will (or lack thereof) completely justified their lack of choices. Of course, it wasn't that they didn't have any choice in the matter, it was that it was always better for them to follow the proper narrative. I never gave them any real incentive to try to deviate from Athena's plans although I pretended I did. Still, they followed the plot religiously, be it meta-gaming or my own success in manipulating them to follow the right track. However, that didn't make them any less frustrated about their lack of real choices at all. I doubt that in the end, when the truth was revealed to them they thought "Oh, now the lack of choices makes sense". I now think that it would be a lot better if I gave them more hints throughout the game; hints suggesting that they were trapped like this because of the story, not because of me.

The second problem was the whole business of obscuring the way the game mechanics worked. Not only did I discover that the players perceived that playing with the rules and such was a huge part of the game for them, but in addition they tried to decipher how the rules I was hiding from them worked. In practice, they would stick to whatever they recognised from D&D and try little else, unless they were explicitly expected to. So, the first problem was that by basing the system partly on what they were familiar with, they had no incentive to learn the rest of it. Besides that, they did little experimentation with their abilities, rarely trying to configure them to their needs. Their predisposition about how the game was supposed to be played prevented them from using anything but the default flavour of their powers. When they couldn't pinpoint that based on their D&D knowledge, they would develop themselves a simple vanilla use of their powers and stick to that. It ended up so that some players used one action for almost all of their turns during the whole campaign. Maybe it could be avoided by spending more time forcing the players to train and experiment with their abilities, who knows.

In conclusion, I hope to get better with my next campaign, which is called Prodigy (and I will describe it some other time). Until then, I hope that the players who participated in the campaign will comment on pieces of feedback I missed. Finally, I'm thinking of doing one final Kamikakushi adventure as an epilogue to the story, to close all the things that were left open and to put a definite end to the story after the player characters make their choice about what to do with the dillema presented to them by Athena.

PS: The pictures from top to bottom: 1 - a well, supposedly the one the player characters descended to reach out of the world Athena had created, 2 - a character from the animé KakuRenbo, which acted as inspiration for Athena's in-game appearance, 3 - a mountain that plays an important role in many parts of the story.

Ultima VIII: PAGAN Review

2008-08-31T20:09:00.012+01:00

A few notes about this review:

- For all of you from the past who believe that Ultima VIII is not an RPG, your opinion does not change the fact that it is in that genre, therefore counts!

- The bases of such parts as graphics and sound, will be in comparison with what would be expected at the time of its release, in 1994. The storyline, and overall feel of the game, is reviewed as modern standards, within limits.

- The game is fully patched and the sound pack is installed.

Overview:

Ultima VIII is the long awaited sequel to Richard Garriott's Ultima VII: The Black Gate, it picks up at the end of the Serpent Isle expansion, where in it the Guardian captures the Avatar and sends him, you guessed it - To the World of Pagan (No one there, knows of the Avatar!).

It took a bit of a drastic change from the previous games in the series, especially in comparison to Ultima VII. These changes came about because of Origins key goal of expanding and changing each game, with every Ultima game they wanted to bring more to the plate. Ultima VII was a 'living breathing world' and Ultima VIII is a more detailed world, a more fluid, immersive one where the Avatar is expanded considerably.

It was also released early.

Story/Lore/Immersion: 9.3/10

Pagan's story is in concept, simple - Escape from Pagan and return to Britannia. That being said, it's far from it. Once you get into it, you can see that there is indeed a deep world that is truly what it is described to be, and the many factions within it are filled out and interesting.

As your quest to escape Pagan progresses, you become intertwined into the politics of the world and its many factions. From its Corrupt Leaders, to Mystic Mages - You will befriend, and follow their leads, in your single minded need to escape.

What's interesting about how the story progresses, is that the game does something that has been central to the Ultima saga since Ultima IV. It gives you choices, that sometimes you must choose that make you feel, good or bad about the world, its characters and what you're doing to them.

Graphics/Sound: 8.6/10

At its release, Ultima VIII was one of the best looking games on the market, it had fluid animations, un-pixelated graphics, lots of depth, and lots of stuff to look at! There is many

different types of architecture, various plants, original creatures and lots of NPCs. The spell effects are quite nice and everything fits together into a wonderful graphical atmosphere. However there is issues with getting lost in some areas that have limited unique identifying features.

Sound, on the other hand - Is a mixed bag, the soundtrack is really nice and has a very unique and fitting theme to it, but it can get quite annoying quickly because it repeats often. The sound effects are nice, but there's nothing special about it. The saving grace is of course, the voice overs, the main characters are voice over-ed as the Guardian returns once again to give breathtaking little lines every little while, it makes it worth it indeed.

Gameplay: 7.2/10

Ultima VII has some varying game-play elements, most of these were unique to the series when it came out. This includes such aspects as real time 'right click' combat, no party members, jumping and some interesting puzzles that take that into account. A lot of these changes were not positively praised by the community at large, however for the world, and the lore, and what was attempted within the game they are fitting. However a lot of the puzzles and the combat system can be extremely annoying, jumping and the death in waters can make it extremely frustrating to get through the game.

Overall: 25.1/30

It is a deep game with a unique story, it takes off from the previous games, this creates some positive changes, but a lot of negative ones as well. If you can get past some game-play issues, mainly the jumping puzzles and frustrating combat, there is a wonderful experience waiting to be played.

August RPG News

2008-08-31T18:43:00.007+01:00

Since the blog was started, we have been thinking whether we should be posting news about role playing games. The decision that was reached is that we will gather news, interviews or whatever else interesting we find in the vastness of the internet and once per month post them all together.

So, I have the honour to write the first of our monthly newsposts, the one for August. Here goes:

The Witcher Review

2008-08-31T13:39:00.030+01:00

I do know that this seems to be a bad time for such a review, since the enhanced edition is close to release. But I have decided that I will not talk about the performance and the badly written English dialogues (apart from here I guess). What I will try to do is view the gameplay and story of the game, things that I think matter the most and try to point out pros and cons, at least as I see them. Anyway, without further ado, here it goes.

So, The Witcher is an action role playing game developed by CD Projekt (or rather a subsidiary of it) using Bioware's Aurora Engine. It takes place in a dark, low magic, fantasy themed world, created by a Polish writer named Andrzej Sapkowski (who has written various books that as well take place in this world). And it's the story of a Witcher (Geralt), who is -in short- a professional monster slayer, with various special abilities such as great reflexes, immunities to diseases, use of magic etc. (which were caused by some sort of mutation ritual). The game is mostly advertised for its mature and complex setting, ambiguous morals and choices and consequences.

If I tried to describe the game with one word, that word would be "boring". I do understand that saying that I found a game boring is no argument for a review but I state it before anything else because all my thoughts about this game derived from my need to understand why this game made me feel that way. I had great expectaions, since the formula seemed right for me: I really like dark fantasy, I like choices and consequences and I don't mind questionable morals. So what did I find so wrong with this game in the end?

First of all, it's true that visually the game is stunning, deeply atmospheric, with excellent area design that makes everything feel real. The music is also beautiful. Thanks to the NPC behaviours and their chatter, the player is immersed into the game world.

Let's begin with the story. It is not very original, it uses rather common themes (as far as stories that lack an evil adversary go, at any rate) and its presentation isn't fresh at all. Still, that doesn't make the story bad. It is average for a video game, with some nice parts here and there, nothing really memorable but nothing atrocious either. You begin as an amnesiac, at a base of witchers, which is suddenly attacked by a band of thugs led by two men, one called the Professor the other one an unnamed mage of great power. Soon, you learn that the reason behind the assault is to steal some of the witchers' secrets that had to do with the aforementioned rituals. So, the player, as Geralt of Rivia (a famous witcher), embarks on a journey to avenge his fallen comrades and take back the stolen goods.

When I talked about the story I was referring to the main plot points, the basic concepts and ideas, freed of the actual concrete specifics that flesh it out. But now, that I'll start dealing with those bits, the first problems appear. Let's start with the mature setting and complex themes. The racism in the game is handled quite superficially. Not that the message the game emits about racism is wrong, but it's just unimportant when it comes to the real problem of the issue. The whys and hows are never answered in the game, the reason why greater fights erupt between the oppressed non-humans (elves and dwarves) and the humans usually are but simple misunderstandings at best and "they started killing women and children" at worst. The rest of the maturity, consists mostly of sex, cursing every other word and countless murders. Now for the first two, it is obvious why they are annoying, but the last one needs an explanation. Death is a serious issue in real life. Some games prefer to not tackle it too much for whatever reasons, but from the time you start dealing with it you must be careful. Because killing too many characters for trivial or silly reasons makes death seem unimportant. When (that happens during the first hours of the game for those afraid of heavy spoilers) every person in a village is willing to give up his life to kill a witch while they know that she isn't responsible for the problems, then I believe that any sense of the importance of death is diminished. In conclusion, I think that the general problem that hurts the complex issues is the inconsistency created in the game world by the main character. NPCs seem like characters from past ages, with myopic (for today's standards) moral views while Geralt deals with those issue's from a modern man's perspective. An argument between Geralt and a NPC leads to an obvious superiority of Geralt's point, thus making any complexity disappear. But still, these things are not bad (if somewhat annoying), they are just not complex and I'm stating this because they are advertised as such.

A serious issue that creates problems in the story is the books by Sapkowski. Geralt already knows most of the important NPCs from the past. Maybe these characters seem interesting to those that have read the books, because the are developed in Geralt's previous adventures or simply due to familiarity, but to a person that hasn't heard anything of them they appear flat and boring, with little to no complexity, usually defined by one or two very basic characteristics. The fact that most of their conversations with the player character are about the past makes the situation even worse. Since I've started discussing characters, it is a good time to mention those who I suspect are not from books too. Most of them are pretty dull and look more like caricatures than real people. Unfortunately, all of the main antagonists in the game have lousy characterisation. They have trouble explaining their reasons and how their acts are relevant to their goals. Even though I personally find it interesting to have characters making mistakes and having questionable logic (since it makes them seem more human), in The Witcher the mistakes are so great and obvious that the plot gets inconsistent at crucial plot points, including the end of the game.

Moving to the more technical parts of the story, it is extremely simple for a 70 hours long game. By simple, I mean that not a lot of things happen. Actually, about 60 hours your main quest consist of hunting down the group of bandits without learning almost anything of importance about them or their goal (somewhere around 45 hours in you learn that they deal with "Evolution, destiny..." and that's it). Sooner or later, without any major plot revelations every now and then to keep the player's interest alive, most of the motivation to learn what is going on is lost. Another problem with the structure of the story is that there is not a causal approach to the events happening. I heard once, that a good, interesting story that achieves the suspension of disbelief must have as few coincidences as possible (ideally one) and everything else that happens should be a natural consequence of that coincidence. In the Witcher, most of the things that happen in the story seem random and irrelevant to the things that have happened before. But since this is a videogame and the plot evolves because of the player's actions (the quests) that problem extends to how the main quests are structured, not only breaking the suspension of disbelief but also taking away the sense of achievement. Since the result of Geralt's actions when dealing with a main quest do not play an important role in what will happen next, the player loses interest in what is happening and feels unable to affect the world around him, which I believe is a basic part of a role playing game. Examples are, after trying to gain a pass to enter the city, when you reach the city gates you get arrested (so all that work was for naught). Another one is how trying to find trails of the bandit group leads to having to find some items to open a tower, a meeting is interrupted and you forcefully end up in a village far away from the city. Then, after dealing with the village, a fight erupts there. Though there are "excuses" in-game for some of those they are lacking and usually have to do with coincidences (like an alchemist searching for the tower at the same time).

Leaving the story behind (at least to an extend), I'll continue with the gameplay. A crucial part of the gameplay is the character the player is playing. Instead of following common role-playing game conventions, the player does not choose the kind of "avatar" he will have. He is forced to play the Geralt of Rivia. There is obviously nothing wrong with something like that. It has been done before and led to great results (like in Torment). But unlike Planescape: Torment, in The Witcher, apart from some exceptions, Geralt of Rivia has formed ideas and beliefs. In a lot of conversations the player is simply watching his character talk about what he believes. I don't think that there is a problem with that as well, though it could put in question how much of a role playing game the Witcher is. However, this is a good technique to provide an emotional ending, which the game achieves to some extend, even though it lacks interesting and reasonable explanations. Still, when the time arrives for a choice to be made, the game presents the player with some options that may or may not agree with what Geralt has said before but this is covered by the fact that the hero suffers from amnesia. What was problematic with Geralt stating his opinions was that on a lot of quests and plot points (secondary or not) he would state his discontent for the task and how trivial or unimportant he found it. That happens more often in the part of the game where Geralt deals with political machinations. A book character that despises politics but is forced to deal with political problems can be interesting since the reader can be interested in the political intrigue and find the hero's superiority novel. However, in a game where you are given the role of that character, it can make these quests unbearable. Most of them are simply trips between specific individuals where you carry the words of one to the other, and even though a quest like this presented in an interesting way can be entertaining, having a character that finds it boring generally doesn't lead to that sort of presentation.

Now, the choices and consequences. I would be a fool to actually try and criticize this part of the game, because it is actually the only part of the game that I liked. There were a lot of times where the player had to made a choice and there were -most of the time- small or large consequences emerging of the player's choice. Quests would become unable to complete, encounters would change and from time to time some easier way to solve a quest would appear. The game sometimes makes it really obvious that there will be consequences in the way you are playing (like NPCs telling you to choose wisely about what you will do) and sometimes they pass unnoticed. But since I'm here, I'd like to point out a problem with some of the choices and consequences. This gameplay mechanic, serves a certain purpose in a game. It helps to make the player feel that his character is making a difference in the world, his actions matter and help make the world feel more realistic. Now sometimes you act in a certain manner and the consequences are exceptionally unrealistic and unpredictable. For example, there is a time where vampires own a brothel. You can either kill the vampires or not, but if you do so the game assumes that you agree with a knight whose sister stays and works there (though the player may want to kill the vampires without agreeing with the knight). These kinds of things happen from time to time and can be frustrating, but still, C&C is the best part of the Witcher.

Choices and consequences are nice, but how are choices themselves? Are there morally ambiguous choices, are good or evil absent? Well, there definitely are no good choices. To be honest, it's not that they would be impossible to exist. In a lot of cases, the player can see that there are good ways to solve a quest. Ways to help everyone, try to explain to people that what happened was a misunderstanding. But the game doesn't give the player such choices. The choices presented are not really ambiguous or neutral. They are mostly evil. As a game master, I have tried a lot of times to create one of those "lesser than two evils" choice. It's a choice (in theory) where whatever the player does would be considered an evil act, though he wouldn't have the ability to act otherwise, because of the situation he is in. The problem is that these situations are very hard to create. especially since players can be resourceful. The Witcher, doesn't even try to persuade the player that there is no escape from the evil act. It just gives the player two unreasonably evil choices. Most of the time one can easily see a definitely better, more neutral or even good solution to the problem but he is unable to act so and that hurts the moral ambiguity, since choices seem forced.

The quest design of the game is pretty simple. There are not any speech skills, thieving abilities or any similar non-combat abilities. Thus, most of the quests are simple fedex stuff, favour-doing and gathering x things. When a quest gets more complex than the aforementioned, it's quite obvious that the resolution is going to require battle. There are not many ways and means of dealing with a problem; only the straightforward battle approach. That harms the game by making quest-dealing tedious. Most of the side quests are about killing monsters. which I consider quite boring. Still, the game doesn't try to provide reason to deal with that kind of quests. For example, when dealing with a more important quest in a crypt, instead of finding monsters the player is supposed to kill (and therefore promote exploration and provide a second reason to fight) the developers inhabit these crypts with monsters irrelevant to those quests, which makes the battles even more boring. Generally, I don't think there is any other incentive why the player should do these quests other than experience and gold, which for me is bad design. All in all, there are very few quests the design of which is interesting. Thankfully, there are side quests that are saved by good back-story, appealing enough to make up for what the player is supposed to do.

Since this game is a RPG, there is level advancement. The leveling system is quite simple. When you gain a level you are given some points which can be bronze, silver or gold. In the beginning of the game you only gain bronze ones but as the character advances he gains silver and gold ones as well. The player can distribute these points on the character's abilities. There are general abilities (like strength and intelligence), specific magic abilities and swordplay abilities. These generally improve Geralt's fighting (and some allow the player to create potions or bombs and gather herbs). There aren't a lot of choices in customization which means that the player will end up having a specific array skills every time.

The combat of the game is action oriented. The character has two swords, a steel one (for killing humans) and a silver one (for killing monsters). Each sword has three styles of fighting: strong, fast and group. Every opponent is vulnerable to a specific sword and one of the first two styles. The group style is for fighting multiple opponents. You attack by clicking on an enemy. Then at a specific moment, the mouse cursor turns yellow and if the player clicks during that time window on the enemy, Geralt continues attacking with stronger blows. The more points you have spent on specific types of fighting (when you level up) the more consecutive attacks you can make. Then, there is a small number of spells with various abilities. They have both defensive and offensive uses and are needed mostly in combat. The player can use various items than make his weapons deal temporarily more damage to certain types of monsters and can use potions than can have a lot of uses. Generally the combat becomes boring and repetitive really fast and unfortunately most of the game consists of it.

The alchemy system is nice. Its principles are simple yet fun. Geralt gathers herbs or parts of monsters that contain various chemical elements, and then using alcohol or powders as a base, creates potions, oils and bombs. The player finds a wide array of recipes but can also experiment as he wants. There are a few types of elements, which I find good, because it makes the system easy to use.

So that is all. In conclusion, all I have to say is that it seems to me that the developers tried to gather things that make a good RPG without questioning why these make an RPG good. That lead to a game that lacks consistency and connections between its various elements. The Witcher was not an enjoyable game for me. But all the above criticism does not mean that the game is bad. It's a game that can be boring and annoying to many people but enjoying and interesting to others and that is because the themes it uses are not common in videogames nowadays, so it can be a break from the usual. So would I recommend this game? If you are a type of person that isn't annoyed too much by the problems I mentioned in my review and you are searching for a game a bit different from what's generally out there then yes. Otherwise probably no.

Happy First Anniversary to the RPG Club!

2008-08-07T18:18:00.007+01:00

It's been exactly one year since our humble RPG Club came to be, in the depths of the Steam Community. To commemorate the event, we "officially" launch this blog as a companion to the group. My brother and I each wrote a little something for today to celebrate. There are also a few articles from before, since this has been planned for quite a while now. Thanks to everyone who's been keeping track of the club, especially to those who drop by the chat once in a while. Cheers!

Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Review

2008-08-07T17:32:00.010+01:00

So, lately I've been playing this game and since I finished it some days ago, I decided it'd be best if I review it now (while the memories of it are still vivid). I'll try to have some format when reviewing a game though I can't promise that in the end any sort of format would be visible. So I'll start by introducing the game to those of you that don't really know it.

Bloodlines is a computer role-playing game, developed by the (late) Troika Games. It's a game set in White Wolf's "Vampire: The Masquerade" universe (with which I am little to no adept) using Valve's Source Engine. You play the role of a newly created vampire entering the world hidden from the mortal eyes, that is the world where vampires and werewolfs are as real as it can get. You begin the game by creating your character either by answering some questions (for those afraid to deal with the system used) or by directly deciding the clan to which you belong and distributing various points to various stats (such as abilities and skills). As you solve quests throughout the game you gain points that you can distribute to the aforementioned stats (or you can have the autoleveling system do this work for you). These stats vary from persuasive skills to gun using skills (the game takes place in modern day Los Angeles) and to other vampiric specialties. Anyway, I'm not specialized in judging game systems nor am I aware of the system used in the pnp version of the game so that I can make comparisons but I can assure you that it's a really simple and intuitive. You are given a home in the beginning of the game. From there on you can travel to various hubs of the city and to other specific areas dealing with what is asked to be dealt.

Now about the story. You as a newborn vampire get caught into a power struggle between various sects of vampires and an event that many vampires fear will be some sort of apocalypse. You begin by given a mission from some Vampire Prince, for whom you continue to work for some time. As the story unfolds your character learns more about the events in the city and slowly begins to make choices on the side he will work for. To be honest, the main story of the game isn't very original or extremely interesting but along with the rest of the game's elements ends up being quite enjoyable.

What is really great about this game is how well realised the world seems. The characters' emotions are portrayed in a very realistic manner both visually and through some really nice writing (that is dialogues seem natural) and voice acting. The areas are generally well designed, the music and sound is always fitting and the whole goth feel draws the player in the world of the game. Talking about the characters, they are very well defined, interesting, each with their unique personalities and ideas. In few games you can see so well fleshed out characters with such great diversities between them that feel so real. Personally, I think that's one of main reasons why this game grabs the player so quickly.

For about 3/4 of the game the gameplay is great. There are a lot of quests, there are a lot of choices to make for your character, interesting plot hooks, nice combat encounters. That's how the game plays in the hub areas. You are given some main quest by that prince but, as you explore the city, opportunities arise and you can deal with them the way you want. You can be a sneaky Nosferatu hiding in the sewers or a well mannered persuasive vampire, use seduction or brute force to deal with what blocks your path. The game is created so whatever kind of guy (or gal) you wish to play with, most quests will be completed while having fun. Then there is the end game. At some point of the game, after you deal with most of the things comes the final part. It quickly gets very linear and ends up using mostly battle.

Generally, the game is a very interesting experience. There are still some bugs, but there are unofficial patches created by the community to fix various of those left. The graphics are still nice enough. I'd say that it's one of the best Role Playing Games I've played, so, yeah, I'd recommend it.

A Definition Interlude: What is a RPG?

2008-08-07T10:37:00.029+01:00

The definition of a "role-playing game" is a pretty old debate, one whose resolution wouldn't have a tangible benefit. What's the point in saying a game (videogame or otherwise) belongs in a specific genre? Not much, other than that the people who are fans of a specific genre being able to follow games advertised as such. So, if this classification wasn't in place, people would be encouraged to scout more for games that might interest them, at the expense of their time, of course. But still, it's an interesting problem to tackle, as far as I can tell, and I don't see any harm if I try to wrap my head around it.

To begin, let's take a step back. What is a game? I'd say it's an activity which involves a system, i.e. the game world, with which a set of actors, i.e. the players, can interact via a set of actions available to them. Unless we need to be very abstract with the term "role", I think it's safe to assume that it implies some sort of characters, avatars of the players in the game world who carry out these available actions in place of the players. So, what would bridge the gap between being given actions to interact with the game world and having a character act as the actuator for these actions? The point emerges: It's fiction. If this system is enveloped by fiction, then the player's actions inside it can be represented with characters. Most games in existence are accompanied by some sort of fiction: In chess, you play the role of a king, trying to successfully lead his army to victory. In Mario, you play the role of an agile plumber in a quest to save the princess. In cops and robbers, you play the roles of policemen chasing criminals or vice versa. This shouldn't be surprising, if one takes into account the history of games. Games began as a children's activity where they play out situations that can help them develop the skills needed to be adults, in an entertaining way. Part of this must be directly mimicking and role-playing adult activities, which has no doubt affected the development of gaming. Still, there are plenty of games with no real fiction involved: sports and casino games, for instance.

From the previous, we must conclude that the most basic classifier to tell role-playing games from everything else is some sort of fiction and characters. It is obvious, however, that this is not nearly enough. To go on, we must disassemble role-playing and try to see which of its characteristics are correlated with actual examples of RPGs. Previously, I mentioned "actions", as a means to describe the interaction that takes place between the game world and the players. This goes both ways, so there is feedback the player gets back from the game. So, what is the nature of these actions and in what ways do they change the game world? I believe that the answers to these questions can lay the foundations for our definition. First of all, there is action abstraction. For example, in a first-person shooter, like Half-Life, the character's actions include moving around and using the guns. These actions are concrete. On the other hand, in a Bioware-style RPG, you come across towns where you can either be friendly or hostile to the locals. In this case, the action is more abstract. Secondly, there is depth of consequences. To reuse the previous example, the way you move and kill your opponents in Half-Life has local consequence, that is, it won't have any impact outside that battle. However, the way you treat the inhabitants of a town in Baldur's Gate will impact how they will treat you back, perhaps for the rest of the game. Third, there is character involvement. For example, in a strategy game, like chess, the actions and the consequences don't change how the king feels. On the other hand, in a game like Planescape: Torment, the character's involvement in the story is personal and his actions and their consequences affect him on a personal level.

So, the definition should be: A role-playing game is a game where the player assumes the role of a character in a world. Typically, the character's actions should be abstract, said actions should have lasting and important consequences and the player character should be involved in these on a personal level.

This definition is still not complete, because it lacks limits. It is hard to quantify these qualities and rule that X amount of choices of Y abstractness is enough for the game to qualify for the genre.

There is one last thing. During all the years since RPGs have been evolving, a number of gameplay mechanics, collectively known as "RPG elements", have been developed for the genre. They are associated with RPGs so much because of the frequency in which they appear in such games that they should be taken into account when deciding whether a game is a RPG or not, de facto. A (hopefully not very incomplete) list of those follows:

Turn-based combat
Items and an inventory system
Stats, i.e. numerical representation of character abilities
Levels, or some form of getting more abilities and raising stats as the character progresses
Getting "experience" (which is in turn used to level-up) or other non-ephemeral rewards from challenges,
Dialogue trees, i.e. dialogue being handled like a walk on a directed graph where each piece of dialogue is a vertex and the player chooses which edge will be followed when there are more than one from the current vertex
Open world, i.e. the character having much choice on what places of the game world he can visit at any time
Quests, i.e. abstract-level challenges the player gets and completes, typically from non-player characters
Character appearance and abilities customisation
Party, i.e. a band of PCs/NPCs that adventure together

Finally, in order to classify a game as a RPG it must comform to a degree with the formal definition, optionally supplemented with some of the aforementioned gameplay mechanics. However, RPG elements on their own do not make a RPG, as far as I'm concerned.

The game of Free Will

2008-05-19T19:15:00.017+01:00

Among all the choices a game master (or "dungeon master" or however you wish to call him) makes about an adventure or campaign he designs for a role-playing game, linearity is one of the most important ones. By "linearity" I mean how much of an effect the players' actions have on the narrative.

A narrative is by its nature linear. There can be only one sequence of events (unless the adventure has to do with time travel) the players go through. A player may go through a video-game multiple times, exploring the outcomes of different choices. So, if a game like that is linear or not, it shows. However, pen & paper adventures are almost always played only once. If they're played more than that, it will most probably be by a different group. That begs the question: So, what's the point again? Linearity doesn't make a difference in a pen & paper role-playing game so it's not an important choice, if it is even a choice at all. Indeed, someone may go as far as to say that there's no choice to be made about linearity and there's no need to enforce any kind of consistency with it.

I don't think that is correct. Linearity does make a difference. Actually, there are advantages and disadvantages to both following a linear and an open-ended narrative. Of course, there is middle ground too. In essence, there's no right or wrong answer to the question of linearity. That doesn't mean it should be taken lightly. The point is that the game master must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each approach in order to maximise the effect of his work, with respect to the purpose of the game.

So what are these advantages and disadvantages to each approach? To sum it up, it's drama versus player power. Drama can evoke a multitude of emotions, as other kinds of art show. On the other hand, the feeling that their actions can change something in the game world is pleasing to the players.

Let's start with the absolute linear approach. If the game master makes this choice, his first job is to answer the question "Why am I designing a game with this and not writing a story?" A game is interactive by its nature. So, you must have a good reason for putting the players in a position where their choices never make a (significant) difference. That reason may be because you think that immersing people in the roles of the characters of the story instead of having them read about these characters will produce a different feeling. Or you may think that nobody would read the story while with an RPG you are given a chance of exposing it to others. It doesn't matter what the reason is exactly, it only matters that it exists. Moving forward, the most important thing in linear narrative is drama. The descriptions of scenes and places must be good, the scenes themselves must feel dramatic and powerful. The plot must be very good. Actually, everything must be as polished as possible. If the reason you're using this approach is because you feel ordinary narration wouldn't do the story justice, only putting people in the roles of the characters would (which is more than likely), then the plot's focus is the characters. It's important to portray that in the narration. Now, on to the most important part. You have another choice to make: Conceal or expose? You can either conceal the linearity, giving the players the illusion of choice or expose it and hammer it on their face.

The first one is difficult to set up, it requires some thinking, but if pulled off correctly you may be able to still give players the satisfaction of feeling in control, while not giving up on the opportunities to be dramatic. There's a limit to how far this can take you, unfortunately. The very fact that things are dramatic is an indication that players have no control over what happens. In terms of video-games, this is the Half-Life approach. In that game, even the visual design of each scene is done in such a way as to psychologically push the player to the right direction. Ultimately, polishing things to such an amazing degree requires too much time and... playtesting, which is something that I don't think any game master can afford at all.

If you decide to expose this lack of control the players experience, you must incorporate it into the narrative. Perhaps there's a greater force pulling the strings. Perhaps you need to make a statement about determinism. It's important to remember that under no circumstances should you leave the players without any explanation. No, "You'll see, it will all make sense in the end" doesn't quite cut it. Clues should be plenty around and they shouldn't be too subtle. I think this is the approach the video-game Bioshock follows. In that game, there is a scene where someone instructs you to lower your gun. The character on the screen does exactly that. The player is left to assume that "it's just a game" but in the end it's revealed that you were under his hypnotic control. I personally think that the explanation in this case is wrong, because it promotes meta-gaming, but at least it's something.

Perhaps there's some middle-ground too, in the sense that you can expose the lack of control sometimes and conceal it in other cases. On the other hand, going for a middle ground in one instance, neither completely concealing it nor exposing it could make it seem like a mistake on your part. This is problematic because you can never afford to lose the players' trust on your skills.

Open-ended worlds pose a completely different set of challenges and opportunities. A completely non-linear approach would be to create a living world, with factions, dynamics, important people, opportunities, events. The world is a system that just reacts to players' actions and can work just fine without them. The opportunities for drama here are practically non-existent. How can one make a coherent (let alone dramatic) story where nothing is certain? Important characters may die when they should have lived. Players may learn things they shouldn't until later. If the story was a sequence of choices, then you would have to face a combinatorial explosion. The thing is, what you must face is something much, much worse. Still, you are left with at least two things at your disposal: Cynicism and comedy. You see, these two things are easy to implement and to express without narration. They can rely on the state of the world rather than things happening. I don't think they can be used together, though, so a game master has to choose one of them and paint the world with it. Also, since there's no story, what are the players doing in the world? You need to give them purpose and direction. With that in mind, a good design would be each session to be an episode. You give them a goal and let them do it in their own way. Sure, that immediately cuts much player freedom but the players need something non-trivial to do, so you might as well point it out to them. Besides, you can work this out with them in advance. This design offers two very important advantages. First, it makes it easier for you to prepare. You won't need to create a whole world, only a subset of it which has to do with a single theme. For example, if the players' goal is to rob a bank, you'll only have to research how banks and their security work. You'll only have to create a handful of NPCs, the ones that have to do with the bank and only design a few locations, most notably the bank itself. Second, you manage to put some pacing into the mix. Sure, you'll never get to the level of drama proper narrative allows, but it's still something. In the above example, the players will have to research their target first, formulate a plan, execute it and finally get the rewards. It's not the work of a poet, but it will keep them from being fatigued or bored.

Finally, I'd like to add a few words about the middle ground between absolute linearity and absolute non-linearity. Actually it will only be a few examples to showcase the possibilities. One example would be to have a linear approach with players making choices in pivotal points of the plot. In this case, it would be important to keep the choices to a minimum and make them meaningful. You should avoid planning any specifics about after each choice or you will find yourself either trying to nudge the players to make a choice or have your hard work wasted. A different example would be to have an episodic open-world campaign (like the one I described above) with an over-arching story. The story could be presented to the players with clues they encounter. You can also insert titbits of information when you set the goal for each episode.

That will be all about linearity. I hope I shed some light on the consequences of each choice and the things a game master must give some thought in order to run his game as smoothly as possible.

Zu Online Review

2008-04-13T15:54:00.022+01:00

Re-Re-Re-Revieeeewww! Of a M-M-M-M-M-oOo-RPG! Zuuuuuuu ON!!! LINE!!1!

Well then, I'll start this out with a bang, I suppose. Zu Online is a MMORPG by a Korean based company called IGG or otherwise known as the 'Internet Gaming Gate'. This foreign developer has created numerous MMORPGs, with Zu Online and Voyage Century Online being the most prominent. Their games are free to play, however they feature a 'item mall' which you can use real money to buy items that won't affect regular game-play.
I suppose I should keep this short and sweet, and so will use a section based system, these sections are as follows; graphics, sound, and game-play Each of these sections will have a point based system out of 10, at the end they will be added up to give an overall score. They are not an average.
Here is a little information on Zu Online, it was released in early 2007, it features stylized 3D graphics that are based off ancient Chinese drawings. The entire world is based upon the mythical mountain range in Sichuan China here supernatural beings of legend reside. There is a large back-story which tell of an ancient war and many other aspects of the world. It features unique clans, factions and a lot of interesting features that will be touched below.

Graphics 8/10
Zu Online has stylized 3D graphics that are, as I said above are based off of Chinese drawings. These give a very original approach to the game, as you'll see in the game it just is refreshing to see some of the ways goblins and zombies are shown, they're so different than the usual. But this is not what I like the most about them, its the animations. I'll take zombies for an example, instead of kindof falling forward slowly at you, they hop! Its just the little things that make it a wonderful time to just watch the game.

Sound 9/10
The sound design in this game is wonderful, while you have your usual blasts and fireball sounds, the atmosphere is just amazing. The music gets you so immersed in the world and fits just so wonderful that you don't want to turn it off. Every area has its own unique sound that just goes with its look and style.

Game-Play 7.5/10
Zu is a mix of generic MMORPG grinding that we've all come to love and a mix of mini-games, events and just fun little aspects. There are numerous quests that are quite deep and long, every area has a storyline that you can go through that teaches you about the area and the world around you. But it is also on a level system where you must continue to grind to get your new items and powers.
Now, unlike say, World of WarCraft where you go up in levels to get your talents and new spells, you must actually quest and find the new spells, not go to some guy in a city to get more powerful, which is interesting since you must think of where they would be. The most unique aspect are the non-major gameplay elements in the game, this includes the mini-games, events and pet system. All of these are not needed to play the game, but gives it flavor.

Score: 24.5/30

Overall, Zu Online while it has some of the same problems of many MMORPGs has some really unique and interesting aspects on it, its free, its a pretty small download. Why not try it out? Theres nothing to stop you from doing it! http://www.zu.igg.com/

Till next time, top hats off to you!

To Spend the Big Buck?

2008-04-05T16:23:00.005+01:00

Role-playing games in this day in age come truly in two types, especially on the personal computer; mainstream and independent. It hasn't always been like this, in the beginning it was much different.

Computer role-playing games in the form that we know them now, roughly came into existence with Richard Garriotts creation nineteen seventy-nine with his release of the game 'Akalabeth: World of Doom' for the Apple ][. He wrote it in the span of about two months (Summer of '79), it was crude and limited, but for the time it was one of the most advanced games in existence.

This game pioneered many features that would last into the mid-nineties and even continues today; an over-world, dungeons, statistics and the use of elves and dwarfs such as described in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. From this game the Ultima series, the longest computer role-playing series in existence came to be. Throughout the nineteen-eighties and most of the nineties similar games were produced, made by small teams.

However, in the late nineteen-eighties big corporations began to take control of the market such as Interplay, Electronic Arts and Activision. These companies had the resources and man power to 'mass produce' role-playing games. From the hands of companies such as these we have got titles such as the Baldur's Gate series and Wizardry. Among these early games are some of the most celebrated titles in the genre.

Let us move to the next millennium. Throughout the world the independent, or 'indie' developer is rare, the big developers are everywhere, pushing their products upon the masses, and fans of the genre that have been around for decades are disgruntled and sad.

The entire market has changed over the years, the rise of the console and the slight fade of the personal computer has changed how the gaming industry can and will work. No longer are games in development for years to create deep and lasting features, but instead are developed for this time to improve graphics and make it simple for the consoles. The focus is no longer on creating a game that will please and that one can be proud of, but instead is on the dollar value that one can get from it. And in this day in age of mass marketing and 60$+ a game for a console, they are all the more focused on it.

In comparison, the independent community while it has become increasingly smaller, it has become more artistic, and unique. The unofficial motto of the independent development community is to keep it like it was, high quality, enthralling and enjoyable. On average a independent game takes longer to develop, and will sell for less and usually instead of giving 'breath-taking' realistic graphics will focus on the content of the game to deliver a more enjoyable experience.

So, one may think “why not buy the independent games, they're cheaper and of higher quality. There is no downs for it”, this may be except for one issue: Marketing. Most people just don't know about them, the small companies that create these games may only have a few staff and definitely not the revenue to support the marketing dollars required to compete with the 'big guys'.

I do not wish to push views upon you, the reader. However one last time I will compare the two; the big companies, do as big companies do – They make substandard games, sell them for more, and brain wash their audience into buying them. The independent developer creates unique games of high quality as an act of love, they do it for themselves as well as for the money, because they care! Make your decision, for it is yours. But make it responsibly with knowing all the facts.

My future articles will hopefully feature reviews of independent games, so that you can see and decide and choose for yourself what you would wish to pick. Until then, top hats off to you!

Welcome to the RPG Club blog

2008-04-04T21:52:00.000+01:00

-Life is a game, boy. Life is a game that one plays according to the rules.
-Yes, sir. I know it is. I know it.

I have always wanted to start a blog with an intelligent quotation. I think quotes really inspire humans. Words do have some power over us, for better or for worse. Starting something out with a quote is one thing, but the quote being relevant is a completely different matter. Take the quote above as an example of doing it wrong: Is life a game, really? No, it's not. You do play by a set of rules but it's not rules that define a game; it's the lack of consequences. So, real life is quite the opposite of a game in that respect. What is a game, then? Traditionally, a game is a means of education; a simulation of some piece of reality (or something that resembles reality) commonly reserved for the younger part of the populace so they can learn in a safe environment. With that in mind, can games be used to teach things to people in a more general manner? Is there a need for that in society? Are role-playing games a good candidate to provide such a service? But then again: should any game have any purpose other than entertainment or recreation?

Giving answers to questions such as these is my personal motivation in studying RPGs, playing roles and designing worlds and stories for other people to play roles in. But that's only a fraction of what this blog is about. The RPG Club is a group on the Steam Community, its members filled with views on what RPGs are all about. These views are the essence of this blog. Views on RPGs of any kind: reviews for video-games, opinions on pen & paper books, articles on what makes a good game. In a subject as diverse as RPGs, facts are hard to come by. That is no excuse for sophism, however. Backing up opinions with valid arguments is what makes the difference between contribution and disruption.

But enough of pleasantries and policies. Welcome to the blog. We really do hope you will enjoy the content here!