My Message close
GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
May 22, 2013
 
2K Games
Graphics Programmer - 2K Games
 
2K Games
Engine Programmer - 2K Games
 
2K Games
Tools Programmer - 2K Games
 
GREE International
Senior Product Manager, Growth and Revenue
 
GREE International
Business Intelligence Data Analyst
 
Synergy Blue
3D Artist / Animator
spacer
Blogs

  Gameplay Rules Must Feed Plot Devices
by Ron Newcomb on 10/25/09 08:34:00 pm   Featured Blogs
6 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

Shortly after the release of the second edition of Dungeons & Dragons, its company T.S.R. released a supplement introducing psionics.  Like yoga instructors writ large, a psi possessed "introverted" abilities such as levitation, teleportation, shape-shifting, and mind reading, and served as a contrast to the sound and fury of clerics and wizards.  However, the supplement was not well received among players, who deemed the role unbalanced and at odds with Tolkien's milieu.  Later supplements unsuccessfully attempted to correct the deficiencies.  After that, some acquaintances and myself began our own public attempt with The Skills & Powers Psionics Netbook.

We re-examined the abilities that effortlessly allowed invading castles, escaping imprisonment, and dominating antagonists, yet wizards and thieves could do these things regularly.  We considered the problem may lie with the abilities remaining unseen as they were in use, but adding fireworks or requiring tools turned the psi into just another wizard.  In the end, we offered up all manner of rule changes, ultimately letting the individual gamemaster decide.  We had failed to discover the real problem, and chose a buffet approach by default.  

Then, over the course of the following months, I began to receive long and joyous emails from gamemasters who had completely turned their feelings around on including psionics in their campaigns.  But none of this was due to the mass of proposed rule changes.  Rather, during its creation, I had adorned the netbook with a variety of new items, new abilities, and new monsters. One purely decorative power that had spontaneously popped into my head during writing was Animate Tattoo.  I had had good experience giving a player of mine a magical item for pure decoration, a magical cloak that could at will ripple as if in a wind.  So I added Animate Tattoo and promptly forgot about it.

It was this inconsequential little power that caught the gamemasters' eyes.  They would write to me of entire cultures and rulesets they had created pertaining to tattoos and psionic abilities:  how tattoos affected psionics, how psionics depended on tattoos and tattooing, how various attitudes, reactions, and occupations grew around tattoos as a result.  I heard just about every imaginable way of negating psionic abilities by scratching, damaging, burning, or touching all manner of energies, fluids, and materials to a tattoo.  Finally, antagonists could identify and neutralize a psi on the street, could throw him into a cell, and could keep him there.  

That was how psis disrupted the game despite average battlefield performance.  A psi that can never be identified, captured, and immobilized is largely immune to common plot devices.  Just as rules define and circulate the various resources of gameplay, plot requires certain resources to function.  The unassuming and variable appearance of the psi excoriated those resources, so the plot starved.  We were looking for a numeric rule to trim, but we needed to add a fictional rule.

If the distinction isn't clear, imagine if the cast of Harry Potter did not need wands to cast spells.  They only point a finger and bark a word.  Now remember the numerous times that disarming, losing, or capturing a wand occured in the books.  It allowed one to capture a wizard without physically beating him or her senseless, to blackmail a wizard so their wand would be returned, to reduce or enhance one's abilities, and even to characterize the owner, as with Ron Weasley's taped-together hand-me-down.  Removing the rule of "wizards require wands" from the fiction may not affect the power balance between the various characters, but it certainly impedes plotting.  And a gamemaster frequently must create plot events on the spot. 

While a gamemaster typically customizes his world with some new cultures or house rules or such, it is practically universal that wizards wear robes and need spellbooks, that clerics wear holy symbols and vestments.  By contrast, the psi's only pre-packaged characteristic was they didn't need to point or speak to use their abilities, and to change that makes them wizards again. The gamemasters who had written me seized upon the idea of tattoos as the defining and necessary characteristic of psionics.  It allowed plot hooks to function again -- it was a plot device itself -- but it also preserved the distinctness between the psi and wizard without disturbing the already-balanced numeric rules.  And as a bonus, by way of tribalism it grounded the psi in the pseudo-medieval milieu.  Those gamemasters found nirvana in adjusting fiction's ruleset.  They attained interactive narrative.

 
 
Comments

Kale Menges
profile image
Interestingly enough, this is an old, and integral concept to good game design. Look at Chess. Once one is aware of the rules and has a grasp of the win/lose/draw conditions, one can predict the possible outcomes of the game play experience, and emotions are triggered by the anxiety and uncertainty that can occur because of the interesting and meaningful decisions made during the game by those who know the rules. The problem is that most games don't demonstrate or teach their rules openly or transparently enough. In truth, perhaps this should be calculated from the other direction, at least when one is referring specifically to "plot devices". Personally, I feel that "story" is a dirty word in game design. The story of a video game should be somewhat of an emergent result of the player's actual game play experience and the context that is aesthetically established by the game's art direction and brief narrative. People often overlook the fact that the more "story" you try to tell in an interactive experience, the more you have to "hold the player's hand" and reduce or seriously limit the number of interesting decisions the player actually gets to make. Chess is a remarkable abstraction of war and each "war story" is different because of the game's design limits, not because of any forced narrative.



Bringing this topic back to video games, The Legend of Zelda series has always done a fantastic job of demonstrating this idea of driving plot via game rules. Super Metroid is also an excellent bar to use. Basically, explore an area, discover barrier, find item, use item to defeat boss, get new item, use new item to defeat barrier, open new area to explore. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's a simple pattern and it works with excellent modularity and versatility. It's linear, true, but successful "story telling" in a video game requires linearity, but the trick is to fool the player that that linearity isn't necessarily a straight line. The line might change based on the specific decisions that a player makes, but from one plot point to the next, it's a straight line if not simply in a different or unexpected direction. Well-designed gameplay rules allow players to learn the pattern of these shifts in the story line and the rules that determine where they can potentially lead should always be demonstrated by the abilities or tools given them during the game play experience. In the end, it's all about constraints. This is the same reason why even though Superman and Batman are both "super heroes" and both have interesting stories behind them, Superman is a lousy character for a video game (being all invincible and infinitely strong) but yet Batman, being merely human, is great for a video game.

Andrew Hopper
profile image
@Tim



That's the point: put psionic powers in a context that fits with the fantasy setting (such as the tatooist variant in an Asian setting or what have you), and suddenly it makes more sense and becomes. Psionics didn't work because of the disjunction: psionics CAN works when the disjunction is removed through the setting (giving psionics a new name and new basis for how the powers work can also help).





A good read, I've always disliked the psionics ruleset but this article gives good context on how to avoid psionics' unpopularity.

Andrew Hopper
profile image
Er... missing words and bad grammar noted =P

Thomas Whitfield
profile image
Psionics never hooked well with my players back in the day. A few tried to play them as time went on, but mainly we never got the hang of them, in the player perspective, or in the world (GM integration into the fictional societies of the world. Which was my fault).



Eventually they drifted out of my campaign world, and nobody even noticed that they went away (not as you would notice all the NPC clerics disappearing).



Thinking back, I'm not sure that the tatoo thing would have been a big enough "reality hook." I will admit that my Game world had existed already, and shoehorning them in was a lot harder than introducing the new Alien Species in Star Frontier's Zebulon's Guide to Frontier Space (1). o a lot of the integration problems were from my end as a GM, not just the players.

Christopher Wragg
profile image
My play group has rejected Psionics for a long time, mainly for the above reasons, everyone likes the concept well enough. You can't really capture a psion who can simply escape bonds at will. Unlike a wizard who requires hands or mouth or talents to escape such scenario's. Players also got annoyed with the ordinary looking opponent who all of a sudden is mind controlling/killing them without any visual tell tales. For this reason it even annoyed players who were psions, as I (the DM) had to conjure devices to defeat them, this made them feel targeted, but without that there would have been no challenge in the game. They would merely bypass the obstacles that ordinary classes would falter at with ease.



One thing we considered was an entirely psionic game, working on the concept that if everyone is special, no one is, but this never sat well with the entire group. Perhaps next time I introduce a campaign I will allow psionics with a small piece of law that makes them at well known and defeat-able threat.

Guy Matte
profile image
This idea of tattoo brings me back to the "Death Gate books". In this world, there are 2 species that use powerful magic. One of them use full body gesture and chants. The other uses tattoo to activate their magic. Thus, they were recognisable.



I feel that tattoos are an elegant way to bring psionic in a game as they are recognisable and people can be wary of them while at the same time forcing evil psionics to find creative way to hide themselves from enemy eyes. My players might like this "new rull2 to give a new chance to psionics.



This is a good example of an elegant solution that makes everyone happy. We designers sometime forget that simple is often the best.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech