I didn''t want to mention it here because I''d be saying like, "Hey, look how much better I can do it than these fools who rely on cliches!" But it''s too damn tempting. I have to say it:

When asked to design a game plot in a fantasy world, I made the main character a whiny, aristocratic brat who could never agree with the other members of the party. Why? ROOM FOR DEVELOPMENT! You watch this punk take a beating from some real badass in the game (the best badass is the one who you CAN''T play!) and actually EVOLVE into becoming kind of cool, so that when he needs to grow up and solve a real problem, you''re really proud of him.

"But how could anybody enjoy playing a character like that?"

Easy. He wasn''t annoying, just selfish. He enjoyed using his title to kick people around (like Ray Fines'' character in Schindler''s List). He wasn''t bad in combat, either, actually he was quite strong. But his ego lead him into situations beyond his power, where he gets his ass kicked.

A common mistake amongst RPG developers is the very idea that we are supposed to "Play the Role" of the character. Screw that. If the characters are deep enough, it doesn''t matter if they''re assholes. Take Richard III! Yes, Shakespeare applies to games, just like it applies to everything else that has a story.

Hubris. In all good stories throughout history, the hero has had some kind of weakness (yes, even Beowulf and Superman). Start writing them in games, people. Forget "Role-Playing"... it doesn''t happen in games. They should be called "Advanced problem solving and management in order to bring a story to it''s ideal conclusion." But I guess "APSMIOBSTIC" I a little long for an acronym, right?



This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"

HA HA!

That article was the Ballz! Go read it! All of you! The address is in Morbo''s post eight steps back! Go now! Quick, like a bunny!



This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"

I read the ''letter from a dungeon'' as soon as available.
It makes me lol.

However I had to say that the character background is really a problem.
If you''re playing a character you must now yourself and remember important events of your life.
But cause you''re beginning a while after your birth when action is beginning, you don''t really know who you are.

The question is how do I do who I am and having fun with the game.

I personnaly have found three answers, but others are welcome

-Simply tell the story of the character to the player.

-Make the player play the important events that have build up the character and use the way he solve the problems and get ride of the problem to define his character abilities/traits and proficiencies/class/carrier.
(This is the technic I''ll use in ''Fedia : Legend.'' or the next.)

-Instead of building the character at the beginning of the game, make it tell the other members of his party the important events of his life, and let him play them.
[Like in Final Fantasy VII when Cloud his back in his memory.]

I want to point out a fact that I find very important :
Movies rely mainly on the discovering of a new world and of character in depth/dark sides, so a game will try to follow that idea, even if it''s not quite good.


Notice that I did use an amnesia similar trick in ''Fedia: Legend.'' for one of the six playable characters.
But you didn''t discover that you''re the son of your worst ennemy.
I also use the classical ''save the world'' story near the end of the game. Could it be otherwise ?
The next opus (Stroy already partially written) will not rely on the save the world story. (You already saved the world, you don''t want to do the same job twice?)


-* Sounds, music and story makes the difference between good and great games *-

FISHY! HA HA (urp) ha... ummm...

Well, I think the amnesia thing stems entirely from a BIG misconception about Role Playing Games. Warning: I may be repeating myself.

In Tabletop roleplaying games, you have the benefit of creating your own character, character background, and you certainly have the power to guide the course of his/her story. It''ll be a long time before computers catch up to this, and I don''t think it would be very fun, either (DMBot! Run us a game with Zombies!)

Computer RPGs really arent trying to be like tabletop. In fact thay aren''t really trying to be "Role Playing" games at all, and if they are, they''re doing a horrendously shitty job. Why can''t we just admit that these things are linear or semi-linear stories? What is so wrong about that?

Player begins game by being given a bit of the story. Story reaches obstacle. Player must perfor management/puzzle-solving/button smashing to over come obstacle. Player is rewarder with more story. Repeat process.

Why does everyone think this is bad? We all seem to enjoy it, because there''s no such thing as a truly interactive narrative... every game you''ve EVER played has been a linear or semi-linear plot. If it''s completely interactive, it ceases to be narrative!

So write your game without a damn about your player not knowing the details of the character''s past. As in a movie, play, or novel, give them only what they NEED to know, when they need to know it. This isn''t hard, people.

Oh. This could be a good arguement in another post. IF YOU DISAGREE, POST IN "LINEAR VS. INTERACTIVE"! AND BE ORNERY!



This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"