|
And
finally, set up content to take advantage of those mechanics. The published 4E
monsters seem to do a good job of this -- there are a range of basic abilities,
and a range of exceptions built around the framework of these base mechanics.
And the one published adventure does a decent job of mixing things up at the
encounter level.
The Dungeon
Master's Guide has a section on "Actions the Rules Don't Cover". One
example there is a player who wants to swing from a chandelier to push an ogre
into a fire. It's a fitting and interesting idea, perfect for the cinematic
action style of most D&D games. But there are no core rules for it.
The
book encourages the DM to improvise, giving a skill check (Acrobatics against
the standard Easy Difficulty Check, provided in a chart) for grabbing on and
swinging, and an attack (Strength versus Fortitude) to knock him back. The
systems that are already set up make it easy to see what numbers to use for
each of these.
Let's
transpose this example into a game space. Let's say you're working on an action
game and you're about halfway done. You've already got a location built, and
someone on the team notices the chandelier and asks if the player can swing
from it.
Can the game adapt easily to this idea? How difficult would it be to
throw together a rough implementation of chandelier-swinging? If the character
already has a diverse suite of abilities that include a jump and an action
button (which works mid-air), it might be feasible.
But
behind the scenes, you also need to know how generous that window of activation
would be, how much effect a push has on different enemies (hopefully the "Giant
Rock Monster" doesn't get pushed as much as the "Wimpy Spell Caster"),
how that chandelier moves through the air, and many other things.
If these
systems are set up ahead of time, you're poised for success. If you're really
good, you might even be able to standardize this, so other chandeliers and even
other swinging things can be used for similar dramatic effect. Flexible systems
give game developers the hooks needed to add fun even in the middle of development.
This is where the real polish happens.
Keep on Borrowing
Being inspired by concepts is not just a good idea. When your skill reaches a high enough level, it
becomes a state of mind. Start by analyzing games in similar genres for good
ideas. Dissect those ideas and learn from them. Then jump to similar games in
different genres. Pen and paper role playing games and board games are a great
next step.
 A true
epic-level master of concept-yoinking like Shigeru Miyamoto can take gameplay features
from abstract activities like gardening. Pay attention to everything you see,
from movies to conversations with friends to patterns in the ceiling tiles.
Where do designers get the inspiration for new games? It's all thievery.
To level
up in thievery, dig a little deeper. This article just scratches the surface of
4E D&D. The books have just come out. As players spend more time with the
rules, they are bound to notice more interesting things. And the D&D
designers aren't going to stop -- everything is set up to be infinitely
expandable, as long as players keep buying new books with new rules.
I'm going
to keep reading and playing to keep the inspiration flowing. I hope to see you
out there slaying dragons and stealing their treasures with me.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
For instance earlier when it mentioned about how the system simplified the use of skills. The point here isn't that you're meant to simply any skill system you have. The point is that a heavily abstract list like what they had in 3ed is counter productive to a smooth running game and it made values that were 0s nearly useless to the player. They took a cumbersome system and made it more streamlined and fitting to the feel they wanted. Which has nothing to do with there being "no new ideas".
As to my feelings on this, I love the article, very informative and I have to say some very good points. I have noticed as a designer I have a tendancy to make systems more complex than they really have to be.
I absolutely hated the random and inappropriate shout out to Miyamoto in the end. He abandoned the core audience to cater to casuals, so he definitely does not belong in an article about D&D 4th edition, a game that proves that you don't have to sacrifice the core to reach out to the casuals. You should’ve mentioned Will Wright or at the very least, Blizzard/Harmonix for creating great games that take creativity from everyday people and everyday life but truly translating them into great games, not half-baked attempts. :p
Extra tidbit on Miyamoto: When asked if Mario Galaxy drew any inspirations from Rachet and Clank with the spherical level designs, he said "Rachet and Clank? I've never heard of that game. Is it a PC game?” I’ve never personally played R&C but how can anyone serious about game design and “innovation” not know R&C? Plus, what kind of response was “Is it a pc game?” Any game he never heard of must be on PC?
Shaun, great point about the D&D blogs and podcasts - lots of good design philosophy there. And many of their core design tips apply to video games as well as RPGs. The Magic the Gathering ones are worth checking out, too.
I'm sorry if the Miyamoto thing didn't work for you. I've always drawn inspiration from his talks on how gardening influenced the design of Pikmin, which I consider to be a great example of seeing game design in the world around you. Which is what I was trying to get to, as plucking design secrets from everyday things is the ultimate expression of thievery. But I may have rushed that point a bit.
The DM Guide, among other things, points out that you can create a game with more moral ambiguity rather than being strictly heroic. While we've seen some video games with ambiguity, heroic definitely wins out in most cases. Maybe video games still have a lot to learn from D&D?
"Published modules can define discrete skill challenges as a way to structure to that annoying time between combats." is also an interesting comment. I haven't played D&D for many years, but I remember when the time between combat was meant to be interesting in its own right without being boiled down to discrete skill challenges. Your comment makes it sound like if you aren't rolling dice, then you can't be having fun. (Which seems at times to be a theme behind 4th edition's design as well.)
And while you call "health packs" a stolen version of D&D's "healing potions," to me "healing surges" seem similar to the "quick recovery when resting" trend that blazed across FPS and even some third-person shooters. They certainly seem grounded in the same logic, of only needing a moment to freely get yourself immediately back into the battle rather than having to squander resources spend precious time being cautious while in search of an external means of healing.
But I was also trying to indicate that the time between combats has historically been a difficult time for designers to deal with. Both electronic and role-playing games have their roots in combat-heavy scenarios, so stretching the design outside of combat space has traditionally been an after-thought for the big releases. Of course, there are plenty of other, smaller games (both digital and paper) that explore those spaces in interesting ways, but I'm honestly happy to see the granddaddy of them all - D&D - explore that space a little more than previous editions.
And on the broader issue of D&D and MMORPG similarities, I tried to address that a touch in the text by pointing out how well D&D has managed to take good ideas from other sources without diluting their own feel. I don't think D&D is just mindlessly copying MMOs - I think they're doing a very clever job of stealing the right ideas and applying them well. But it doesn't mean that D&D is no longer D&D, at least to me.