Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Future of Gaming!!"

Revision as of 02:41, 15 January 2010

--Dieter the Bold 19:01, 13 January 2010 (MST) PA is obviously a great setting for this. Fallout is a really fun world and it's already familiar. (Everyone embraces nuclear technology, it advances to where it's running cars and cola machines. The US & China kick-off WWIII and it's all a radioactive wasteland with ruins, deadly mutants (animal & human), slavers and religious zealots. Culture ended in a stable 1950s form.) The only serious modifications I see this one needing are the NPCs. They're a huge part of Fallout, but sandbox gaming requires minimal NPC existence and interaction.
Scifi would be a really fun one, except some kind of arrangement would have to be made in terms of transportation.

--Gdaze 22:09, 13 January 2010 (MST) I figured you could set up the PA game like the West Marches. That is, the characters are in a stable town, and they set out in a certain direction(s) from there. Biggest thing here is human enemies. The orgianl game had zero of them besides undead, here you wouldn't have that. Although bandits are pretty much monsters in Fallout. The only problem I see in Fallout is that everyone would know how the world ended, for the most part. Of course there are tons of interesting things to uncover (just like in the video game). I thought it might be neat if the characters were working for, or are part of, The Brotherhood of Steel. With their objective of fidning lost technology, it could really work. However I think in the end the characters need to be motivated by the loot THEY find. But bringing stuff back to help the Brotherhood makes sense too.

Sci-Fi I thought a lot about. Biggest problems I see are transportation, and sattalite mapping.

--Matts 22:15, 13 January 2010 (MST)Ok, I really hate to be this irresponsible, but for some reason recently I've needed an outlet, and I cooked up PAPunk. I was hoping to call in a few buddies who aren't regulars into a group for this, in addition to our steady Corps. I apologize, because I'm really not a great voice of stability or reliability. But on the other hand, I don't apologize, because I shouldn't apologize about something I do for fun.

JASON: I think you might be jumping behind this idea a bit quickly. Without lots of NPCs to interact with and some kind of good plot, you are basically playing a board game with silly rules and no winner. But it does have an excellent message I think you should embrace, and it makes a lot of sense for you guys.

The key to serial gaming is making sure that all of the characters are always around. The obvious ones are 'lost in space' (BSG, Voyager etc), 'isolated outpost' (DS9, or even an island somewhere in a fantasy setting) or even a CSI/Law and Order type serial (characters are agents in an organization, whoever shows up is assigned to the current case).

Sci-Fi works great for those, but its not the only choice. How about 20's FBI gangbusters? Dr Who type time police? Low fantasy church enforcers (Name of the Rose...a really cool idea and rarely explored)? Or even supernatural investigators, which can be done in ANY genre.

Dont throw out all of the cool stuff to embrace serialization. Things might need to be simplified, but if the GM is resourceful he could plan scenarios that could work for whatever characters show up.

BEN: I haven't weighed in on this issue. There are a number of reasons for this, but since it's clear that this is a Significant Issue of Substance and Meaning, I'll put in my two cents:
1.) Most of what was said in that article (although I only skimmed the beginning, in the interest of full disclosure) are things that have been said at least 3 times by Jason, Matt, and Myself. "sandbox style gaming, where you explore a world, and the players control the plot?" See Gemini, the PA game, my suggestion for a Ship game, and Matt's 2nd WFRP game. "open ended schedule, with flexibility about meeting times, attendance, etc?" I wrote about this months ago, and we've been discussing it recently for our own group. In short, I was glad to see these ideas in pring, but I don't see them as novel, especially as they were interpreted by Penny Arcade's Gabe (aka Mike Krahulik?). Furthermore, most of these ideas have been strongly rejected by our group: Gemini, the most sandbox of the sandbox, and Matt's 2nd WFRP, also very much in that vein, did not take long to get the thumbs down from the players. Secondly, per my maniphilosophesto, I like long form gaming. I'm invested in OAAAA and in Kingmakers. I've been invested in every game we play. I understand games end, but it is often a bitter disappointment to me when we prematurely axe a game, just as I'm really getting into it. I loved the 2nd WFRP game, where I had real "sand-boxy" things going on with Ignotus: that character was built to take advantage of a world sandbox, and I don't think anyone but me really enjoyed that fact. We just started a new game like 2 months ago, and another new one 2 months before that, and now we're going to start another new one? This segues into my last point, which is that Gabe has said that he really likes rapid turnover of games, especially when he GMs. A sandbox game probably takes 4-6 sessions just to develop any plot at all, for a heavy frontloading of GM work. I'm excited to see Dieter GM, and I love "sandbox" games: I will definitely make a character, but I can't make a strong commitment to such a game.

--Gdaze 01:57, 14 January 2010 (MST) Ben, moved your comment here!

--Gdaze 02:08, 14 January 2010 (MST) Um, I don't think the problem with Gemini was that it was sandbox, it was that the characters had no reason to work together. Also in Gemini the characters were constantly being over-shadowed by NPCs. In this game like he said, there are NO major NPCs, only the PCs. And the world is tough, you don't work together, you die. This means the GM never is allowed to save anyone. And it isn't entirly sandbox. True sandbox is horrible for RP. It means the players have to make up something to do, this game DOES have an overall goal, explore, map, and loot. Just do so how you see fit, no NPC saying "Take X to Y or else I'll off C!" I dunno if I like rapid turn-over of games, but I tend to not like games that run too long. I had to end Mass Effect because well, getting dumped and ending a 3 year relantionship is pretty tough.

And Jason, there is a plot, the characters discover what happened to the region. There are all kinds of RP style games out there, this is just one. I would say interactions with NPCs in town is pretty important, and would add a bit. But quite frankly, NPC mangement can be pretty tough. And you really don't want them stealing the show. Just because you RP an exploration game without people around, doesn't make it a "board game with silly rules". It just changes the game focus. In a space game where you explored anicent alien worlds, you aren't going to be talking to a bunch of people in that.

And in the end, this forces players to have to solve things. They can not just find a contact who knows it, or track down someone who is better then them to do it. This kind of game really puts everything on the players. I mean no offense, but every time in an RP where the players have to go find someone else who knows more then them... and it happens pretty often, its lame. It is just lame. What did the characters learn? Go find someone else who knows more? Beat up everything else? I dunno, I think this game has a lot of possibility.

--Dieter the Bold 13:30, 14 January 2010 (MST) Glad to see some discussions. I'll dive right in to some directed responses:
Jason: quite right that dropping plot and NPCs takes a lot out of the game. Serial adventures can certainly work and be fun. It's just not as interesting to me personally due to: time/effort strategies & gaming preferences.
.............Serial adventures would require prep work for each adventure and more hands on involvement due to a plot (PCs + plot = kaboom!). I'd prefer to spend a couple weeks coming up with a whole area for players to explore and then just turn them loose on it and keep track of progress, changing things as cool ideas or interactions are had at the sessions.
.............I'm the simulationst kind of gamer, so while "board-game with silly rules and no winner" does make a point, seeing players wander around my little creation and interacting with everything appeals to me. Plus, if everyone is truly on board with the concept of sandbox-gaming, entertaining and engaging RP opportunities can be created between the characters themselves.
Ben: At the risk of igniting controversy, I'm going to blame Gemini on the players. We fucked that one hard and bad. You are correct that it was designed as a sandbox, and we fucked it up. More could be said on the subject, but I don't want to and don't see any advantage in it.
As for the 2nd WHFRP, I think that was a sorta' NPC sandbox, in that the wilderness expanse was more the populace of the town than geography. And I would have preferred to keep playing along in it.
I would argue that we're evolving as a gaming group, by which I mean options earlier appear in a different light now (at least for me), and that after having read the West Marches articles, I can say I didn't honestly understand the earlier attempts being made for this kind of gaming. Now I do, and I think we're all being much more explicit in our discussions, wants and intentions, which I think provides better ground for a successful game.
Matt: fun looking little set-up. Just make sure you don't forget our invites. I still prefer playing over gaming.
In General: The point of the sandbox is to allow gaming without set commitment. "Got 2 friends who want to (and can) game at the same time & place? Call up the GM and get going." It also allows a larger group to be active without all crowding the table at the same time. Matt can invite some friends, Gabe & I can invite friends, but we'll only run groups of a small size. Everyone (including GMs) can get their gaming fixes as much as they want on their own terms. And you can select your own gaming partners.
As a potential GM, I'm attracted to the ability to frontload all the work into creating the world and then just sit back and let things occur once the group shows up with minimal per-session prep. Plus see simulationist leanings in my response to Jason.
What I'd prefer is the group we have continue with awesome & regularly scheduled OAAAA and WHFRP games. That not possible, I'd like to maximize my chances to game without having to go out and join other groups. I also have a hard time jumping back into large plots after extended absences, but if the group really wanted to, I could just get my regular gaming fixes with other groups and then get in the occasional OAAAA and WHFRP sessions when the stars align.

JASON: Dieter fucking wikiblocked me! Here is my regularly scheduled comment, unedited, followed by a little about what Dieter wrote in a separate post.

When there are no NPCs to talk to the game is a board game. In a board game, there are rules and you follow them. There is no negotiation with them, no finding a creative solution. There are just rules that you can work however you wish. If there are no NPCs, the only interactions are 'you see this, what do you do', 'make a skill roll' and 'make an attack roll'. Its just like drawing an encounter card in a board game.

Lets take your space game exploration as an example. If you just blindly fly around and see stuff, never researching or talking to other experts, you are RPing fools. If the characters survive long you are RPing fools in a very forgiving and safe universe. Even if your characters are the universes foremost experts on some subject, there are always others who offer differing points of view or have specializations the characters dont have. At the very least they might have some empirical data the characters dont have (Hey Mike, have you ever crossed that river? Yeah, watch out for the minefield by the old building. My little brother got his leg blown off there).

Its not lame when a group of characters needs to ask someone for information they dont have. Its lame when they dont. Think about this for a minute. Do you really think that a group of characters who NEVER need any outside information and can go headlong into anything without research or thought and get out of it week after week is a good story?

NPCs who steal the thunder of a game are a huge problem, but asking someone for a piece of information you need isnt that. When NPCs show up to save the PCs constantly, or when they are better than the PCs at everything, or when they are immune to all of the PCs machinations, or when they are just a vehicle for the GM to tell the players what to do, thats when they are a problem. That is quite possibly the lamest thing in RPGs. PCs should never get NPCs to do their dirty work. Ever.

How is asking someone for information different than finding an ancient stone tablet with information on it? They are functionally equivalent. The environment provides clues (not answers), be it through NPCs, encounters or loot. It is up to the players to utilize these clues to bring the scenario to a conclusion. By limiting the existence of NPCs, all you do is narrow your possibilities, be it for stories or character generation.

JASON: To Dieter, I think sandbox and serial gaming are the same thing. Realistically you cant just create a world, do a bunch of work, and let the players go. Like you said, PCs + plot = kaboom! They will find a way to change the environment in a way you didnt anticipate. An area with just a bunch of stuff and no real hooks leading to something more tangible becomes tiring and tedious quickly, no matter how detailed and interesting the single bits are. I am willing to accept that it might be possible to do this, but in my experience I have never seen it done. If this is your aim, however, I say go for it. Be sure you make something super detailed and at the very least design mini-encounters. In my experience single nights of gaming are fun because of small encounters much more than because of metaplots, and if the focus of the game is going to move away from metaplots, you could conceivably survive on a satisfying string of encounters as long as you are prepared each instance for some very interesting ones.

--Gdaze 14:19, 14 January 2010 (MST) Jason, I never said NO NPCs, I'm saying less. And in a space game I meant like you are on a planet without the ability to contact anyone. Back in the day when people were exploring "new" islands and whatever, they weren't able to ask experts while out on the field. If you read the examples of the West Marches, you will see that the characters did gleem SOME information from NPCs in town. But the real finds should be the players' to find. So it might not be that "you are a fool", but you just can't contact anyone.

Yeah, I guess it isn't too bad if they have to ask for info, but sometimes in our games it feels like we do it a lot. Thus making research skills pointless. And the difference between the tomb and asking is how the characters feel about it once its done.

Again though, you are going really polar with this, when if you look at the example of the game that was ran, it doesn't zero NPC interaction, or zero research in town, it just wasn't the focus.

You say it might be possible, but the proof is right there that someone did it, and enjoyed it.

I agree with Dieter on that I love how it is front loaded.

The reason I'm excited for this too, is that our two current GMs will not be able to have regular attendance. The longer I stay away from a story, the more I loose interest in it.

--Gdaze 14:59, 14 January 2010 (MST) Dieter if we did PA or Sci-Fi, what system would you use? I thought 40k would work well for Fallout, or PA. I was even thinking of making up some classes...

--Dieter the Bold 17:55, 14 January 2010 (MST) Not sure. Fallout already uses some form of percentages, so 40k sounds like a decent match. Cyberpunk is pretty good for quick action & lethality, and Matt's write-up is a good example. I wouldn't mind giving the Fading Suns system a swing to see how that worked out. I'd probably one-shot it first to see what people thought.

BEN: I think dieter's responses overall make good sense and I appreciate what you are trying to do. As I said, I'm happy to make a character and contribute when it all fits together, which I guess is the point. Just keep me posted.

--Gdaze 01:41, 15 January 2010 (MST) Yeeeeaah boi!