The Creator

A lot of emphasis is placed on the role of story in scenario design these days. But for a story to be good, it has to make sense. For a story to make sense, every event needs to have a clear cause. If Character A goes and kills Character B, he needs to have some reason to do it. And since the vast majority of story beats come from the decisions and actions of characters, that's what I'm going to focus on. It is vitally important to carefully think through the actions of every character in your story. every action they make should not just be motivated - it should be the best reaction to that motivation for that character. So, if Character B robs Character A's home, Character A now has a reason to kill Character B. But is that the best reaction to his motive? Why doesn't he call the guards or something instead? He's going to get in a bunch of trouble when a corpse is found in his home. Well, maybe he's got a terrible temper, and doesn't think about that until too late. Maybe he's always hated Character B and now sees an opportunity to gat him with a clear conscience. That's all good. But these simple questions MUST be answered for every action of every character for the scenario to make sense. It's truly amazing how many don't, even among the better works out there. It's basic stuff, but I really feel the need to hammer this in. 1. Every action is a reaction to some event or situation. Every action needs a cause. 2. Every cause should naturally lead to it's effect, and that effect should be the cause of the next effect. A story is a domino stack. When one action happens, that causes another, which causes another, and on and on it goes until the end of the scenario. Let's try these principles out in practice. Let's apply them to, say, Echoes: Assault. Cause: The Illithids attack your Fort. Effect: You defend it. Cause: You defend your Fort. Effect: The Illithids send in bigger guns. Cause: The Illithids send in bigger guns. Effect: Your Fort is overrun. Cause: Your Fort is overrun. Effect: You retreat. See? So far everything's going great. The dominos are toppling. And they continue to do so, until... Cause: You escape the Illithids and reach Fort Sparrowshaft... and they won't let you in. Effect: You blast the gates in, slaughter everyone in the fort, and set BOTH sides of the war against you. Now, what we have here is a domino falling against a stone wall and knocking it over. The effect is far too big for the cause. It's pretty obvious that this isn't the most natural reaction to that cause. Trying to convince them to let you in or trying to find a place that would makes a lot more sense. I HIGHLY recommend going through your story in the shoes of each character. Each time something happens to that character or each time his situation changes, think how that makes him feel, and think how he would react - keeping in mind that he doesn't know everything. If the answer isn't the same as what happens in your scenario, you have a problem. -------------------- I feel like there's something left to be said on the subject, but I'm not sure what.

There is one town in Deadly Goblins. It does more than just house the local "Bob" (Dasen) and provide shops - there is an attack on it by the goblins that does (to my mind) an excellent job of introducing them as villains. All the NPCs add atmosphere and provide info about the threat they're facing. Well, most of them. Some of the guards are just there for laughs.

It is possible to count the number of PCs. I did it in BoE years ago. It should be even more possible in BoA.

See my 'Bob' article. You can do just about anything with an NPC. It's up to you to decide what.

Eh... not really. You travel back in time and prevent the event that made him become a bad guy. Like I said, change of heart in a villain is really tough to do right. You need your bad guy to not only be convincing as a bad guy, but to have a convincing 'conversion'. I wish you luck. To beta test, basically you post here, get people to volunteer and email it to them individually. They (hopefully) email you bug reports and artistic comments, which you fix. You can then get them to go through it again or release as is. Keep in mind that it's not unusual to have dodgy beta-testers. I recommend not sending it out for beta until you think it's good enough to release to the public.

I've hardly ever seen it used. Probably because it's very, very hard to do it well.

Okay, so you're going to make a scenario. Presumably you're going to have a villian. This guy will be one of the most important characters in your scenario - after all, it's usually the villian who sets the action going in the first place. The function of the villain is generally two-fold. First, he gives the scenario focus. "The bad guys" is a pretty vague entity. Usually there's hundreds of them, and you couldn't care less about them either way even when you're fighting them. Having a central villain gives the player someone to hate and someone to chase. Second, he provides the party with a "silver bullet". Usually, once the villain is dead, that's the end of the road. His underlings can't do anything without him. This of course means that the biggest fight is the last, and your scenario finishes with a nice bang. If you think you can fill these dramatic needs without a villain character, you're welcome to try. For the rest of us, here's what it takes to make a villain good. First off, you have to see him. It's very easy to have a villain who sits off in his tower and who you never see until it's time to kill him. However, the best you can hope for with a villain like this is that he'll be okay. He can never be great. This presents a bit of a problem for scenario designers. After all, if the villain gets close enough to talk to the party or be seen by them, why can't they just kill him there and then? Unfortunately, it's up to you to answer that question. There is no fix-all solution. In my scenario Revenge, you can kill the Nightmare Guardian as many times as you like - it just comes back. In Tomorrow, the Wickerman pops in and out at will, throwing obstacles in your way and taunting you as he does so. In Spears, Nath flees the battle if it looks like he's going to lose. Perhaps you could make a scenario where the villain is some kind of psychic - telepathically watching your progress and speaking to you as you go. However you solve this problem, solve it you must or your villain will be given no opportunity to be anything more than a bunch of statistics and an evil laugh. Once you've found a way to get the villain close enough to talk, you then have to decide what they say. Some hardly say a thing at all - their actions speak loud enough (Cornell, for example). Others are very chatty - the Wickerman loves to taunt and sing. But whatever you do, please, please avoid Shakespearean Monologue Syndrome. Any point where a villain says more than a couple of lines at a go is usually bad (though there are exceptions). First, because it's just plain stupid. Say you're fighting someone - you aren't going to stop and wait for him to finish speaking, you're going to keep fighting him! He should keep any comments short and sweet so he can focus on the important things, like not dying. Secondly, when players see a big lot of text, their eyes kind of glaze over. They have to get their minds into reading mode and digest all the stuff in front of them. It breaks the flow. If you keep it very short, that text has gone through their eyes straight to their brain before they've even thought about it. Instant impact. Of course, maybe you think your scenario doesn't need an excellent villain. After all, Selene in Falling Stars was nothing special, but that scenario did fine. The Leaving has no villain at all, and it's still a good scenario. And maybe you're right. It does depend on your scenario. But if you're going to put a lot of focus on one bad guy, make sure he's a good one. -------- Ball's in your court, Drake.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/b/x/bxb11/boa/louvre/ The Louvre.

Exactly how important is race, sex and name, given that nearly every player will have played many, many different combinations? If I have a male slith called Joe (why not?) in one scenario and a female Nephil called Frank in another (my choice, remember?), is it really going hurt my playing experience that much if I get asked to play a young human male apprentice mage called Jonah? I really don't think so. In Blades, there are so many scenarios and opportunities to create your own characters that one or two scenarios that ask the player to step inside a pre-established one really don't hurt. I find it very telling that not one person who has actually played BoE has raised the complaints you have. Besides, in Quintessence, the plot simply would not have worked if the genders of the two principals were switched. To allow for choice in PC gender would require essentially two different scenarios. If you want to be a slith, the love story would be truly bizarre unless everyone else were sliths as well. Another scenario, with no real difference. And another one for Nephilim. Name? Well, I suppose you could have called him whatever you wanted, but it would mean that your beloved would never be able to call you by name. Is all of this worth it, just so you can choose name, race and gender yourself? Also, I cannot think of a single scenario in BoE that uses a pre-made party that would be better without it - but I can think of two that don't and would be better with it (Redemption and Brotherhood of the Hand).

Quote: Originally written by spyderbytes: So flip the gender of the party member's romantic interest--what have you really lost? I realize JV hasn't given us tools to determine gender of any of the PCs, but you could always just pop up a dialog asking the player if they want a male or female love interest. Much more work for the designer, but you broaden your (potential, anyway) playerbase. Having a woman save a man from being raped just isn't the same.

There is another solution, and it's one that gets quite a bit of use in BoE. Premade party. See Election, Emulations, Quintessence, Echoes: Assault, Zankozzie's Big Mistake, and Chains. They only use one-PC parties, but there's no reason you couldn't get them to have more than that.

Well, Quintessence is essentially Bob-less. It gives you one clear goal at the start and the rest of the scenario is spent achieving that goal. Same with Za-Khazi Run. Echoes: Assault does fine without Bob (for the first half, at any rate). Your goal is pretty obvious - to survive. When the text box comes saying that the fort has fallen, it also says that your only option now is retreat. So basically the answer is making it so that the next thing the player has to do is perfectly clear without Bob to tell them. But if it's a bit complex - find the Black Amythests before the baddie does so he can't complete the spell to kill you, for example - you really need Bob. You can go for a while in a scenario without direction, of course. Just make sure that wandering about and exploring will naturally lead the player into the next stage of the scenario. Morgan - Agreed, but how much better would it have been if Anthalon was a great character?

He's the man of a thousand faces. He has appeared in hundreds of scenarios, wearing many different guises, but underneath, always the same unmistakeable character. He plays the role of Mayor Crouch from Valley of Dying Things. He masquerades as the Prime Director in At the Gallows. He wears the face of Gwennyth in Shadow of the Stranger. He appears dozens of times in Falling Stars. Who is this man of mystery? He's the guy who sends you on missions. Let's call him Bob. Bob's a busy guy. While he isn't in every scenario ever made, if you pick one at random, chances are he's there. Often he puts in multiple appearances in a scenario. Why? Because, as smart as they are, scenario designers can't do everything on their own. Sometimes, they need Bob's help. Bob's bread and butter is providing direction for poor, confused players. Often, it can be hard for players to know what to do next, so they get confused. Confused players are unhappy players, and (most) scenario designers don't want their players to be unhappy. So they want to help the players, but it looks kinda sloppy to have a big booming voice out of the sky announce "Try going to Centrevilleburgtown!", so they get Bob to do it. Stuff happens, players come and tell Bob about it, and he tells them what to do next. Bob is so busy that he has his own little helpers. They're called Boblings. There's hundreds of them, and they take all the little jobs. They handle side quests, occasional courier missions, and other incidental stuff like that. It helps ease the load on Bob. But if a job's important, Bob comes in and does it himself. When you come back to him time and again, and when the jobs he sends you on changes the state of the story, that's Bob. A funny thing about Bob is that he only seems to be able to play three basic roles: 1) A mayor or some other kind of government official. 2) A military leader. 3) A powerful spellcaster. No one really knows why, least of all Bob himself. Also, despite the fact that Bob is almost always more important than the party - after all, he's telling them what to do! - he's far too busy to do it himself. So designers need to come up with an excuse why Bob doesn't go save the world instead of getting other people to do it. Often it's that he's too busy organising everyone, or something boring like that. It can be more interesting, though it doesn't really matter if it is. But there's a problem. You see, Bob feels a little unappreciated. He's a very nice guy and isn't about to go on strike or anything, but he does feel that he doesn't get the credit he deserves. After all, he usually plays the most important NPC in the scenario! The player spends far more time talking to Bob than anyone else. So Bob has a few requests. He's very understanding and will help you out even if you don't do them, but it'll make him feel better about himself. First off, Bob hates being given stupid exposition all the time. When a scenario has a complicated backstory to explain or someone needs to figure out the bad guy's plan and tell the player, it's always Bob. He's getting sick of it, because it makes him feel like he's nothing but a Fact Vendor - insert completed quest, collect new info. No actor likes being given exposition, and neither does Bob. Because, you see, Bob is an actor. He can act any role you give him, good or bad. And he really likes to have good roles. He feels so frustrated when the party keeps coming to talk with him, and all he can do is play a bureaucratic paper-pusher. He really feels that he should have the best role in the scenario, considering how much time the player spends with him. He liked his role as Gwennyth in Shadow of the Stranger and would like to do more like that. Also, since all of Bob's scenes are with the party and since there's so many of them, he loves his character to have a really interesting relationship with the party. The Boss-Subordinate relationship is pretty well explored by now and pretty boring. Bob loves to try something new. He'd be thrilled if he got to play someone like SHODAN from System Shock 2 (not a Blades scenario!). The bad guy who forces the player to work for him because they both know the party has no other option - he loves that idea. He'd also love to play a rich, beautiful, picky young woman giving her suitors tasks to determine who is worthy to be her husband. Make Bob happy. -------------- Discuss.

One topic is plenty for you.

I'd disagree re: Groul. I very much doubt he gets a thrill out of being naughty, he just takes the most logical path to get what he wants, unfettered by normal moral standards. But I DO agree there's more to him than just the desire for control. How to repeatedly reproduce that sort of depth other characters? No idea, but this method at least puts me in striking distance.

Hmm. I do think that every character in a scenario should have one central goal. I don't believe that makes them one-dimensional. The Wickerman has one goal, and I'd hardly call him a weak character. Simplest character: "I sell weapons." Next stage up: Much the same, but with some added "characteristics" - sneaky grin, glass eye, bad temper, whatever. Next stage up: Character actively pursuing something. He's not just sitting there waiting for you to talk to him - he's living his own life. Might be a small thing, might be a big thing. Next stage up: Fantastic, memorable character. Has X factor. I have no idea how to produce X factor. Let me know if you do.

*sigh* I was never arguing that "plot is god", spyderbytes - I was arguing that the "plot is god" point of view is at least at prevalent as the "outdoors is bad" point of view, regardless of whether or not I actually agree with either. You can't disallow the "pushing" of one such opinion in an article without disallowing the other. You make a lot of points for and against various opinions, most of which are very good, but all of which are completely irrelevant to what the discussion is (or rather, was) actually about. But since this seems to have turned into a debate about plot, I'll point out to Thuryl that a pile of text boxes does not equal plot - it's the exact opposite. Story = stuff happening. How much actually happens while you're reading those text boxes? Nothing, most the time. They're usually filled with backstory & exposition - something it is VERY easy to have too much of.

Read the forum header again.

I've been looking forward to my first topic-locking.

Quote: Originally written by spyderbytes: I'm part of the BoA designers community, but not the BoE one (I never even registered BoE--I didn't have the time or interest in designing scenarios when it came out). By 'designing community' I meant people who have actually made scenarios. I'm not trying to discredit you or anything, just making my point. The vast majority of established designers put story as their No. 1 priority. Quote: And I certainly don't hold the view that "plot is god". We just had an entire thread (I suppose I should look it up, but I'm too lazy ) where several people disputed that it was. How many of them were established designers? The reason I bring this up is "players" or new designers often don't really understand what makes a scenario fun. They enjoy finding cool weapons and nice loot, so they assume that's all there is to it. They load their scenarios up with loads of mega-weapons and tons of cash, since more has obviously got to be better, and we get a Monty Haul scenario. Players making the transition to designers make this mistake over and over. Basically, I'm saying that there are more people who know a lot about scenario design that disagree with the "Outdoors is Bad" point of view than there are one who disagree with the "Story as Priority No.1" point of view (or "Story as God" point of view, as you call it). If you're going to discredit the latter, you have to discredit the former. As far as I'm concerned, you can say whatever you like in an article. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not to listen to you. If you feel newbies are being mislead, by all means, write your own article setting them straight.

Creating Compelling Characters In Blades, there tends to be a strong emphasis placed on story. And without strong characters, a story is nothing but a sequence of events. It's the characters that make us care about those events, and that give those events power. So, how do you create a good character? I've previously written an article on giving depth to background figures like shopkeepers and guards, but what about those focal, important characters? How do you make your characters the kind that players will love (or love to hate)? What I advance here is not the only way to develop characters. It may well not be the best way. It's just my way. Whenever I create a character, I start by deciding what the one most important thing in the world is to this person. What is it that he values more than anything? Maybe it's honour? Maybe freedom? Peace? All these are noble motives, though not all your characters need to be noble. Money, power or their own safety could as easily be their greatest desire. Whatever it is, be sure that this is what drives their every action in your scenario. Then, I take that driving a desire and find a situation for that character to be in. Something that brings out the best (or worst) in his particular personality. For example, Stalker (in A Small Rebellion) wants nothing more than freedom from the Empire. It's a noble ideal, but he wants it so much, that he'll do anything to get it - even become a monster himself. Similarily, Commander Groul (in Nephil's Gambit) wants control - so he manufactures a war for himself to win, just so he can be a hero and get more power. It's important to note here that in a good story, plot is inseperable from character. You couldn't replace Commander Groul with any other character - the story wouldn't work. No other character would do what Groul does. In my scenario Revenge, the villain Bur-Denn is motivated by just that - revenge. If he wanted, he could probably escape the island and flee to safety, and the scenario would never happen. But his safety is not the most important thing to him, so he stays. Similarily, if the "hero" Kassand were not also motivated by revenge, he wouldn't be there in the first place. They're almost mirror images of each other, and neither character could be changed without ruining the story. It doesn't really matter whether you come up with a great character and build a story for him to be in, or if you come up with a great story and find the right characters to play the parts, or if you develop both at once. The end result should be that you have a tightly woven, compelling story with characters that intrigue us.

Quote: Originally written by Shyguy: I would say that this type of scenario is definately the hardest type to make, and many people DON'T have the time to play through such a game. But there are also plenty of those that DO have the time and like their games "the bigger, the better." So don't put down this type of design just because YOU don't like it. Yes, you DID state in the beginning of the paragraph that this was "your opinion", and that's about the only thing I agree with. When I talk about "jumping down throats", that's what I mean. Spy's Quest, At the Gallows, and Spears have loads of outdoors and loads of combat. AC1 and AC3 are similar. So presumably Shyguy and Stareye disagree with a couple of TM's opinions there. As far as I can tell, the "Plot is god" view is at least as prevalent in the designing community as the "outdoors is bad" view.

If you're going to write an article, how the heck are you supposed to do it without expressing an opinion? Geez. There's article by TM that expresses a bunch of personal opinions - that lots of combat is bad, that lots of outdoors is bad, and that endings are good. Talk about pushing your own point of view. Why isn't anyone jumping down his throat? If you're going to can something on the basis of personal opinion, you have to can every personal opinion. That, of course, is just my personal opinion.

a) Too late, it's up on the website. If we never allowed ourselves to express our opinions about what makes a scenario good or bad, where would we be? c) While those who enjoy a large world to explore do comprise a larger portion of the Blades demographic than Drakey implies, I really don't think he deserved to be jumped on like that. So basically, I'm on Drake's side here. There's no reason you can't write an article about how to make a vast, involving world.

Hey, there's a bandwagon! Jump on it! Seriously, great article. A must-read for newbies.