• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The GM's Creed Applied To Games

This topic is 5060 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Who the player is plus the game environment determines what should be. Awesome GM''s are masters of non-linearity. They know their players. They know what they like. If the game''s dragging, they know what to axe and what to toss in. On the fly, they can tailor the gaming experience to the player pefectly. We know computers can''t do this (yet, anyway). But one method that might get close-- and still be non-linear-- are dynamically changing encounter tables . I''m thinking about using something like this: Who The Player Is The player''s strengths and weaknesses (given by skills / equipment / allies / etc.)... Determine conflict types that will be difficult or easy. This gives a weighted encounter table. The Game Environment Humans seem to hate discontinuity and non sequitur. So environment re-weights possible encounters so that you only encounter what should be in the environment. This covers not just the area you''re in, but the situation / mission / events / story so far. This does open up a philosophical question, btw: How much should the player have to do to find action? Is it up to the player to find the conflict (greater weight on the environment) or up to the conflict to find the player (less weight on environment, but more out of place encounters)? What Should Be The notion of *logical spawning* would be the best way of making this work. You spawn in such a way as to make it look like the encounter occurred naturally. If the player can explore freely, then you will want to spawn in areas that he hasn''t been in, and areas where encounters could realistically happen. Example: You''re fighting your way through a closed space station, sealing bulkhead doors behind you all the way. If you reverse direction, you should not encounter anything unless it could have been hiding, stuck past you or have teleported in. But the airlocks-- access points to other parts of the game world, in this case-- would be perfect places for a spawn to happen. Spawn Rate Help Makes The Game Great Controlling the rate and type of spawn will allow you to control the challenge you give the player. Just like real GMs, you can lull them in to a sense of calm with easy encounters backed by a difficult one. You can drive them away from areas you''re not ready for them to enter with extremely difficult encounters. You can lead them as if by breadcrumbs with areas that have encounters happening vs. ones that don''t, or ones that offer greater over lesser rewards. The CPU GMing Since you know what you''ve thrown at the player, you can vary it to stave off boredom. And by monitoring success, failure, and the amount of time the player takes to solve an encounter, you might also determine their frustration level and ease back on the level of challenge (or spawn something that could help) Maybe applying this and a similar approach to AI could make the foundation of an awesome and very replayble game? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
quote:
Original post by Wavinator

The Game Environment
How much should the player have to do to find action? Is it up to the player to find the conflict (greater weight on the environment) or up to the conflict to find the player (less weight on environment, but more out of place encounters)?



If I had my way, it would be up to the player to find conflict most of the time. I am an advocate of player choice, and we all know w/ choice comes responsibility. In this case, it's responsibility to find the adventure.

Very great ideas on how to use AI for our own interests. We'd be working with the computer's short-comings instead of against them.



Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers


Edited by - Nazrix on February 17, 2001 11:43:05 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, it eventually allowed me to reply. Umm, what i going to say hmmm. Oh yeah i copied someones quote, lets see.
quote:
by Wavinator
This does open up a philosophical question, btw: How much should the player have to do to find action? Is it up to the player to find the conflict (greater weight on the environment) or up to the conflict to find the player (less weight on environment, but more out of place encounters)?

Just in case you''ve forgotten the logical perspective on all of this. It would seem that any beast or animal encounter would revolve around environment(incl time of day, month of year, etc). Then you would work out if the animal or monster is likey to be in a teritory a certain times of the year. It''s very easy to chart.



A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love that idea. I think that random encounter tables are still with us primarily because of the limitations with computers in the past. It always takes someone to come along and make use of new capabilities to accomplish something truly innovative. Static encounter tables are just the easiest way to model reality in some situations. But a truly good game designer is not content to simply use the same old solution, simply because it is good enough.

While your idea is a great step in the right direction, I would like to make some suggestions. First, changing the encounters based on character strengths/weaknesses is a great idea. But it is easy to interrupt the "suspension of disbelief" if taken too far. It is important to ensure that even the dynamic tables conform to a strict sense of reality, whatever that reality is.

Also, I would suggest modeling the behavior of entire groups of creatures. In the original Dungeon Masters'' Guide, Gary Gygax gives a good example of how an orc tribe''s behavior should change in relation to attacks on their village.

For example, the first time the village is attacked, after a long period of peace, the residents will be wholly unprepared. Few, if any, of the inhabitants are likely to be standing guard. Reaction to the attack will be slow and disorganized. Panic is likely at first.

If the village is attacked the following week, response will be more swift, and resistance is likely to be better organized.

If the village is attacked repeatedly, the village will be increasingly better prepared. Guards will be posted and vigilant. A clear warning system will be devised. Traps are likely to be prepared, and a clear strategy will be followed.

If the attacks stop for a long period of time, vigilance will die down. Some traps will be removed, or fall into disrepair. Yet others, like pit traps, may remain for a long time.

Clearly, modeling such a complex set of reactions is more work, but your posting indicates that you are not the type of game designer to settle for what is easiest, yet inferior. And this system is not necessarily all that difficult. A simple "battle readiness" variable is a simple way to keep track of this. Another small array containing which particular traps or strategies are used is another detail.

Using your space adventure scenario, this could be applied to the behavior of individual ships and crews. Damage sustained, crew type lost (engineering, helm, etc.,) and similar details would have a tremendous impact on the strategy they employ. A heavily damaged ship will flee, if possible, for example.

I don''t know whether this has been helpful, or whether this is something that you have already considered. Certainly you know the value of those late-night gaming sessions with nothing but a few friends, some dice, and a whole lot of imagination flying around!

Good luck with your project. It already sounds like you''ve got the soul of a great designer. I hope you will let us know how it goes.

-Jonathon


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm... This all sounds kind of familiar. A good idea, I might stress, and something, if implemented well, could go a long way.

Now, where did I hear about this idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by bishop_pass
Now, where did I hear about this idea...



Did you come up w/ a similar idea before? Sorry, I honestly don''t remember. Perhaps, you should use the "Wavinator Format" and accent things w/ bold and italics...It seems to get more attention





Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This system can apply to "natural seeming puzzles/obstacles" in other words things and situations which can be encountered in the (game) world, ie. a boulder blocking a cave, a troll with an appetite for goats, {ummm.. invent some good ones...}.

These shouldn''t be "puzzles" as in single-solution encounters.. (ie. find troll to roll boulder from cave), but multiple solution things which keep the world dynamic and fun. Ie. Dynamite the cave? Roll the boulder at an enemy? etc.

Thus the system can help to make the world environment more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Nazrix

Did you come up w/ a similar idea before? Sorry, I honestly don''t remember. Perhaps, you should use the "Wavinator Format" and accent things w/ bold and italics...It seems to get more attention


Yes, Nazrix, I will admit my posts seem to lack the ''style'' and ''presentation like'' feel of Wavinator''s. But we all know he is a hot rodding angel when it comes to stylish and effective discussion here.

Regaarding Dynamic plotting, yes, I did post a similar topic a while back. I even like to fancy that my contributions have had some small influence on Wavinator''s prolific design ideas.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about an "Atmosphere/Mood table" which would determine the "tone" of the game etc.. ie. sad, humorous, gory, disturbing etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE Wavinator "are dynamically changing encounter tables ".

So what would be the feedback mechanisms to control these gameplay / atmosphere etc. tables?

Having the player pray for safe journeys in temples? (Less encounters).

???Game Would need to compensate for experience not earned / money not gained via combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, Ketchaval! I like the idea of a mood table. Would there be an interface for the player to configure this option? Perhaps the mood could be set at the start of any game session. (Hmm, I think I''d like to tear someone''s face off today. Better set that aggression counter to MAX!)

I think some developers have come close to this idea by providing several characters to choose from. Each character follows a slightly different storyline. But I think that your idea would offer a lot more freedom.

Or would this setting be the sole responsibility of the designer? I guess this could enhance a storyline. Harsh encounters at one time, humorous at other times....

~~Jonathon


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Nazrix

If I had my way, it would be up to the player to find conflict most of the time. I am an advocate of player choice, and we all know w/ choice comes responsibility. In this case, it''s responsibility to find the adventure.



quote:
Original post by Paul Cunningham

Just in case you''ve forgotten the logical perspective on all of this. It would seem that any beast or animal encounter would revolve around environment(incl time of day, month of year, etc). Then you would work out if the animal or monster is likey to be in a teritory a certain times of the year. It''s very easy to chart.




What do you guys think about the case where the adventure comes and finds the player? For instance, he''s ticked off the smuggler''s guild and they''ve sent people after him. Or he''s altered some balance of power or nature.

I think a combination of both would be cool if the player were given safe areas. So anywhere he travels might be fair game for an assassin encounter, let''s say, because he''s angered the wrong people-- but there could be strongholds or safehouses where he''d be relatively secure (he hopes )

This might open up wider uses for other types of gameplay, like bribery, disguise, or secret movement.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Jonathon

I love that idea. I think that random encounter tables are still with us primarily because of the limitations with computers in the past. It always takes someone to come along and make use of new capabilities to accomplish something truly innovative. Static encounter tables are just the easiest way to model reality in some situations. But a truly good game designer is not content to simply use the same old solution, simply because it is good enough.



Hey, thanks!

quote:

While your idea is a great step in the right direction, I would like to make some suggestions. First, changing the encounters based on character strengths/weaknesses is a great idea. But it is easy to interrupt the "suspension of disbelief" if taken too far. It is important to ensure that even the dynamic tables conform to a strict sense of reality, whatever that reality is.



Right, this is a tricky one. Do you ease up on the player (or increase difficulty if things are too easy) just because the situation is difficult (or easy)? Or do you leave things as they are in the name of suspension of disbelief.

If it''s possible to detect frustration and boredom, I''d lean toward altering the environment even if it''s a bit of a non sequitur. It would be useful to have a handy, world-appropriate excuse to do so, though. Maybe travelling companion that randomly shows up, or free roaming enemies that pop up like in serial comics.

quote:

Also, I would suggest modeling the behavior of entire groups of creatures. In the original Dungeon Masters'' Guide, Gary Gygax gives a good example of how an orc tribe''s behavior should change in relation to attacks on their village.

For example, the first time the village is attacked, after a long period of peace, the residents will be wholly unprepared. Few, if any, of the inhabitants are likely to be standing guard. Reaction to the attack will be slow and disorganized. Panic is likely at first.

If the village is attacked the following week, response will be more swift, and resistance is likely to be better organized.

If the village is attacked repeatedly, the village will be increasingly better prepared. Guards will be posted and vigilant. A clear warning system will be devised. Traps are likely to be prepared, and a clear strategy will be followed.

If the attacks stop for a long period of time, vigilance will die down. Some traps will be removed, or fall into disrepair. Yet others, like pit traps, may remain for a long time.



I like this. This shows a history in response to past events. It also makes the world less player centric, which in the name of immersiveness could be very powerful if used correctly.

quote:

I don''t know whether this has been helpful, or whether this is something that you have already considered. Certainly you know the value of those late-night gaming sessions with nothing but a few friends, some dice, and a whole lot of imagination flying around!

Good luck with your project. It already sounds like you''ve got the soul of a great designer. I hope you will let us know how it goes.



Whoa, thanks!!!! Now all I need is for you to whisper into the ears of some megapublishers!!!

Seriously, thanks for the vote of confidence. I''m actually thinking a lot about the historical aspect of encounters. The great thing about this is that it fleshes out the world, and creates something the player can make sense of.

One possibility that REALLY intrigues me is that you could weight actions both with history and an AI GM in mind, and theoretically cut down on the use of large scale AI. For complex games (like what I''ve been trying to puzzle out, an RPG + Empire game), this would be a bonanza!!!

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by bishop_pass

Hmmm... This all sounds kind of familiar. A good idea, I might stress, and something, if implemented well, could go a long way.

Now, where did I hear about this idea...




Um, uh, *ahem* (uh oh...)



Sorry, bishop, didn''t mean to step on your toes. I actually missed your original post-- which ticks me off, as I could have been on about implementing this months ago!!!!

Must''ve been all those inspiring e-mails percolating in the ol'' hindbrain!

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Ketchaval

This system can apply to "natural seeming puzzles/obstacles" in other words things and situations which can be encountered in the (game) world, ie. a boulder blocking a cave, a troll with an appetite for goats, {ummm.. invent some good ones...}.

These shouldn''t be "puzzles" as in single-solution encounters.. (ie. find troll to roll boulder from cave), but multiple solution things which keep the world dynamic and fun. Ie. Dynamite the cave? Roll the boulder at an enemy? etc.

Thus the system can help to make the world environment more interesting.


Exactly what I was thinking. The system drops in an obstacle that it knows the player can possibly solve, and the player figures out what he wants to do. He could actually choose not to solve it; or he could approach it from many different directions if the game supported it.

This does raise the interesting question of persistence, though.

Should a challenge stick around forever once the player has encountered it (obviously not if it''s mobile, alive, or whatever).

I''d think that the obstacle would be seperate from this system if you want it to be permanent, but the tools for solving it could be generated on the fly (like the troll, for example, or some dynamite on a dead soldier''s body, etc.)



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Ketchaval

What about an "Atmosphere/Mood table" which would determine the "tone" of the game etc.. ie. sad, humorous, gory, disturbing etc.




This would get into an asset / art issue, but if a game has the resources then I say go for it. I think it would work. Especially if you played tricks with lighting in a 3D environment, altered music, and had a cache of SFX at will.

If you make a game with zombies, though, you might run into a problem with representation, no matter how funny you tried to set the mode. (Heh, although you could make things MACABRE by playing happy music and having bright, cheery lighting in the middle of a zombie murder fest! )


quote:
Original post by Jonathon

I like the idea of a mood table. Would there be an interface for the player to configure this option? Perhaps the mood could be set at the start of any game session.



I remember the old System Shock let you determine something of a mood when you first started the game: I believe you could tell the game to favor combat, puzzles, and some other thing that determined overall gameplay.

I would like it if the designer had more input on this, though. Ultimately we pay them to entertain us. I remember being put off by the SS selection screen somewhat because I had no basis for making a judgement. I''m not saying explicit setting is wrong, but maybe it would work better if it were more "in game?"


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Ketchaval

QUOTE Wavinator "are dynamically changing encounter tables ".

So what would be the feedback mechanisms to control these gameplay / atmosphere etc. tables?

Having the player pray for safe journeys in temples? (Less encounters).

???Game Would need to compensate for experience not earned / money not gained via combat.


It all depends on what''s fun to do. Is missing the encounters fun? Unless there''s something else compelling to do, I wouldn''t think so. Rather, it''s missing either certain types of encounters (as too difficult or easy) or uninteresting encounters.

I like the "in game" suggestion of praying at the temple, though. It would work with the world fiction and help immersion (your god not only heard you, but DID something about it! :D)

I''m exploring other, more direct control variables as well: Friends allowing for or dimenishing certain encounters; the ability to get enough info to predict some encounters (so you can seek or avoid at will); and the change and growth of your own stats (wealth, or appearance, for instance) affecting them as well.

Wow! Lots of layers to something like this. I like it!!!


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hrm, nice topic. One that tickles my implementation-geared mind

I''m going to look at it from a statistical-table point of view, i.e. the game actually works with an encounter table. I''m going to analyse it in sequence of play.

1. The game starts. Depending on the style of the game, there may actually be some dynamics to the encounter table before play even starts. The player goes through a character creation process, some of which may influence the encounter table. Two examples:
a) in an ADnD style game you''ve rolled or picked stats and a class. The system picks up on your class, creating more physical encounters for a warrior, and more magical encounters for a wizard.
b) in a more role-play oriented game, you choose a "personality" for your character. If you choose a "care-giver" personality, encounters will be weighed towards protecting/rescuing people. If you choose a more "flamboyant" personality, you''ll be faced with things that could make or break your reputation.

2. You''ve started play. Though you may not have specifically met any of the encounters yet, your actions may be pushing towards a particular direction in the table. The table could be multi-dimensional, for instance more or less physical risk, more or less reputation risk, more or less diplomatic challenge, actual physical location of the encounter,etc.
Conversation responses could be an influence, for instance, if you keep telling villagers that you''re a very powerful wizard, your chances of having to prove it will increase.

3. You''ve faced one of the actual encounters in the table. There could be more than one possible outcome, but it ranges from complete success to complete failure, and it could vary based on the method you chose to attempt the encounter (did you dynamite the boulder or did you get a troll to do it for you?)
If you''ve successfully completed the challenge, the item in the table is removed (the boulder is no longer there) and replaced by a new one. If you''ve failed, it could be removed (one-shot encounters, can you convince the caravan to take you along?), or it could stay there until you try again (the boulder won''t budge unless you move it). Success or failure may also influence related encounters, as there is no rule to say that two different random encounters need not be linked logically!


So basically, there''s a multidimensional encounter table, with a certain range of possible encounters around the position you are currently in, and the actual entries in it can change because of the actions you have undertaken.

It seems like a very workable idea.

People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote: Wavinator
I''d think that the obstacle would be seperate from this system if you want it to be permanent, but
the tools for solving it could be generated on the fly (like the troll, for example, or some dynamite on
a dead soldier''s body, etc.)

--> I like that, as it would generate more possibilities 4 action, and also make the player think more.. Ie. They find a rock hammer. Now can they use it profitably in the current situation.. To take the fossil out of the cliff, or do they try to chisel it with their sword?


Quote : Wavinator
If you make a game with zombies, though, you might run into a problem with representation, no
matter how funny you tried to set the mode. (Heh, although you could make things MACABRE by
playing happy music and having bright, cheery lighting in the middle of a zombie murder fest! )


--> Well the chance of something funny, or sad etc. would be tailored to the game.. as would the style of "funny" ie. blackly humorous events... like a Zombie stuck in a revolving door (ick!). Thus it would be a mixture of things they encounter & the art/sound/animation for things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing to consider in Games, is why?? is the player having this encounter. Why is the computer generating these creatures?

Is it to advance the game, ie. the player achieves something by overcoming the challenge? maybe learning more info to point him towards the "final goal".

Or is it a way of delaying the player from getting to the goal.. he has to kill 100 rabbits to get across the field.

The third goal is to give the player something to respond to and enjoy doing. (Ie. Gameplay.).

We tend to combine the 2nd and 3rd goals to create long and enjoyable?? games. But would the 1st goal & 3rd would provide more interest, and enjoyment in the player (albeit maybe shortening the game slightly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Wavinator
What do you guys think about the case where the adventure comes and finds the player? For instance, he''s ticked off the smuggler''s guild and they''ve sent people after him. Or he''s altered some balance of power or nature.




I think that would work quite well. The only thing that bothers me is when a game has to hold the player''s hand and walk them from one adventure to another.

Your example would work well because it sounds as though it would be part of a previous action that the player did.





Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of having final enemies (or their 2nd in command) come to find you, ie. whether you have to follow the clues, or whether the conflict comes to you.. I think it would be good to have a balance between the two styles.

1. How about an enemy whose evil isn''t fixed and highly plotted at the start of the game, but instead evolves to be personal to the player & their interests. Ie. If the player is involved in a religious sect, the enemy might start trying to overthrow it.. or you would hear about missionaries being arrested and brought in to questioning.

2. As soon as the player is powerful enough and learnt enough about the game to defend himself.. his reputation / deeds start to gain the attention of the "evil"/"good" guys.. and slowly the interest and obstacles sent at the player increase in frequency / difficulty... and the challenges both fuel the player''s anger & motivate them to defeat the enemy & give them clues to the enemies whereabouts.

3. In RTS games, the enemy come to destroy the players base. So why shouldn''t the enemy in adventure/rpg games come to attack the player.. Is it because they are too weak / unempowered to deal with actively hostile enemies. ie. control of single hero vs. c. of army. (1 life).
Also what resources does the player have to back up his character in a single player adv/rpg game? can he make alliances .. .. ..
Is it the level based nature of rts vs. ongoing nature of most rpgs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some great ideas floating across this forum!

I would like to point out that encounter tables should not be the only source of encounters. Of course, we all know this. But bosses are not the only kind of non-table generated encounters. Sure, there are the encounters which substitute for keys, or are intended solely to advance the plot.

But it is always a good idea to orchestrate encounters, as well. Fighting a generic enemy with generic attacks and generic hit points is never very exciting. No matter how dynamic and responsive the encounter tables, even the best tables will tend to generate commonplace encounters over time.

On the other hand, an encounter orchestrated by the designer is bound to be much more enjoyable. An individual encounter, with customized details, is a memorable encounter. How many of you played Final Fantasy VII? Do you remember which monster you were first attacked by when you first left Midgar? Neither do I. How about the encounter where Sephiroth kills Aeris? See the difference?

Those custom tailored encounters are so much more memorable because they are so much more effective.

Of course, customizing every encounter is ludicrous. There is a limit to the ammount of work a game designer can devote to a project. That''s where the encounter tables come in. But let''s remember that they are not the essence of game encounters. They are a surrogate. They take up the slack for the work that the designer can''t possibly take upon himself.

The fact that we have encounter tables is not that they will do all the work of creating encounters for us. We must do as much of the work as possible ourselves, knowing that we are so much better at it than any computer could ever be.

Let''s create custom encounters as often as we possibly can. Not only when there is a need to advance the plot, or when we want to utilize a key mechanism. The more of these we create in each game, the higher quality the game experience will be for the player.

And if those zombies are stupid enough to get into the revolving door in the first place, they deserve whatever they get!

And by the way, when was the last time you looked over an encounter table and saw the following entry:

Zombies (2): Stuck in revolving door?

That is a perfect example of something that must be custom made by the designer. And if you were playing this game, which would you enjoy more? Fighting that forgettable, generic orc I mentioned earlier, or finding a pair of zombies stuck in a revolving door? No contest.

I think that one of the greatest mistakes made by many big-budget game publishers is to rush their games out. The longer the designers and programmers have to work on a game, the better it will be. And a big part of the reason is that they have time to produce more of these custom encounters (if they''re good, anyway.)

Good to see so many great ideas. I''ll keep track of this thread, for sure.

~~Jonathon


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of stuff could the computer add on the fly to KEEP the player Interested / Entertained.

"Combat"

Obstacles (multiple solution puzzles).

Objects which can be used in several ways depending on the current situation. Bottle of whisky= Bribe, Barter, drink, throw to distract guard?

Special encounters = things like Zombies stuck in revolving doors, jewel-hoarding ogres, robbers etc.

Special items.

Clues to where to go.

Things that deepen the mystery.

Personality / Roleplaying challenges. Moral dilemmas that the player has to take part in.


Edited by - Ketchaval on February 23, 2001 4:02:18 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wavinator posted this in regards to an RPG, if I remember correctly. I think that one of the most important aspects of creating a great RPG is detail.

Obviously, in this genre, we all try to create dynamic, consistent, detailed worlds. But many of the best details are those which are not really important to the mechanics or plot of the game.

It is important to flesh out the main characters and NPCs, and all good designers spend the necessary time and effort on that. But what is too often overlooked are the inconsequential details which are not of critical importance. But there is a tendency to overlook non-central NPCs. Consider this difference. The first tavern has a generic barman and a few shady characters. The second bar has a cheating, odorific ex-sea captain for a barman. Among the regulars is a thief named Dietrich. He did not begin his life as a thief, but alas, he is a cleptomaniac. He never steals anything truly useful, and he is often caught in the act. But he never does any real harm, and he is a welcomed member of the establishment. Which bar is more interesting?

Of course, this much is usually fleshed out by the designer. But so many other details remain. What about the vegetation in a certain region? The annual festivals and customs of a village? That same bit of music that was playing that day, so many years ago? That beggar you met in Stanton, by the bridge there?

This is all part of creating an immersive, rewarding experience for the player. Anonymous Poster asks which details can be implemented using CPU generation. I think that many of these details can be generated that way. Certain personality traits for NPCs, for instance. But as with all computer generation, keep in mind that the CPU can never do the job as well as a good designer. I think it best to flesh out as many of these details as possible on our own, and use the CPU only as an aid. The CPU generation comes in to play when the details are just too tedious, or when deadline pressure becomes undeniable.

~Jonathon


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 5060 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Advertisement