Vent

I am mostly fully agree with this article up to any of its comma.

 

That wrote, I felt it was sometimes a bit because we share same tastes. And also, there's the "mostly".

 

Few remarks, quickly done because I don't have much time (could come tomorrow for more).

 

1 - The very good advice about giving a "story" justification about the presence of a puzzle goes a bit further than the subject of the article.

 

I point that because I think that a very similar advice could be made for all the fights and in fact for all "gaming" elements.

 

I have played very few scenario where all the fights had a strong story justification and had a little story build arround them. But since I did, I wish that all scenario make this effort.

 

2 - About giving sense to a locked door, a secret passage, ...

 

I'm not sure of its meaning, I see two:

- This will give them a logic and that's the minimal hint they require.

- This will give them a "story" logic/background and this will improve their quality.

 

I agree on both but I think secrets is something very special. I don't mean required secrets to find. A crazy secret with just a tiny hint that most players won't see is a nice reward for the pure hardcore players. What's great about secrets is that they will hardly frustrate the player if it's not mandatory to find them.

 

But even for the secrets to "not find", if you add in it a bit of story background instead of just a little bonus, this will strongly improve its fun.

 

3 - About keys and closed doors

 

I think they should relate to only three categories otherwise I think that there's no need to keep them:

- Puzzles and then they fit to advices you made about puzzles.

- Part of story, then they need to have a very strong logic in the story.

- Flow management, they could be pratical for that but if they are used only for this reason, you should anyway give them a bit of story logic.

 

Obviously those three categories could be mixed.

 

4 - About puzzles

 

I understand why you advice that none of them should be too difficult and I agree in general.

 

But I don't think it's that bad to have very few puzzles that are tougher as soon as they aren't mandatory. Unlike very tough secrets, the player will see the puzzle and will see he can't solve it. This involves a bit of frustration.

 

I saw in few scenario those sort of puzzles and a hint enough clear that there's no need to solve it and that it is very tough. Then frustration is lower a lot and challenge for hardcore players could be a nice reward to them. But having more than one or two of these puzzle in a scenario could irritate.

 

5 - About the fights again I strongly agree.

 

But I think that sometimes a difficult fight could be repeat just once. This could be fun particularly when some of its difficulty is based on suprise as you suggest.

 

The trick is that many players will be surprised and will fail the first fight at least once. The second time, the chalenge is that they detect the repetition and then take care of the possible surprises and take care to apply what they just learned.

 

That works much better for action games but I think it's perhaps a good idea for BoA.

 

6 - Tricky fights and learning curve

 

As you suggest, fights in BoA will need scripts to get a better fun. Then they could imply very special tactics to apply and this could stuck for too long some players.

 

So instead of lower the challenge of this fight, if it's possible you could make before a fight where you learn more easily some tricks that will be usefull in a next fight more challenging (from tactic point of view).

 

7 - About designing fights

 

I'm a bit worry that despite the power of scripts, the BoA engine is a bit too much limited. For example in order to have a unit that resists much more to long range weapons (bows, throwing) than to other sort of weapons.

 

Perhaps I don't see some possibilities.

About changes to the article, cool.

 

About reward, even when you can't use them it's better to get one. But I agree that to give some rewards at the end of the scenario to a pre-made party could irritate a bit a player who didn't enjoyed to be forced to use it. It could be nice anyway, because you could want use the pre-made party in another scenario that doesn't need one.

 

About pre-made party, I have a suggestion that could be added in the article (or could be another?):

 

EDIT : Part about roughly pre-made party removed. Just read in next post the Kelandon "translation".

 

Thanks to him, even for me, his version is better to read!

 

One thing, he censored a smiley, So I'd like mention that the newbie comment is a sort of joke.

Well, sorry my post was a bit short. So about the PARTY part:

 

1 - You advise a Party maker or a pre-made party (party the player should use). I don't like the idea of plenty authors doing the choice of pre-made party. The character editor could perhaps do the job but ok for your advice of a clean party maker.

 

2 - You quote plenty problems about the usage of a high level party but few solutions appart to provide a pre-made party.

 

It's ok that some authors use that but that would be frustrating for me if I cannot use another high-level party in mostly all high-level scenario.

Ok, well I had no doubt about it.

 

At least it will save me time and I'll stick to savage posting with some effort.

The better seems to find a good and short explanation and write it in the log each time the potion is used (or the item if the effect is for the party). Like you become invisible but you quote you become temporary visible when you pick up an object.

 

Then crime will have a meaning.

 

Do you manage all talk??? Or many NPC don't care if you talk them when you are invisible?

Thanks, it really helps. I think I understand what you mean.

 

I have some questions but before I'd like more explanation about "story". I don't see what you mean. For me only the sequence itself is a story. Why it isn't for you?

 

At the oposite a pure fight or a pure puzzle and even a pure exploration of an area aren't really story but are gaming elements.

 

Could you explain more what you mean with story?

I strongly agree about the PLOT part. In fact I saw too many modules for level 1 parties that was not realistic at all about that.

 

About the PARTY part, I understand the problem but I don't like the advice.

 

For COMBAT part I easily believe you.

, ok but beside this highly interesting problem, any comment on "Word" english style? Did it really worth it?

 

EDIT : "Word" hates my frequent and cute "really" I put everwhere, is it just a snob or this really doesn't mean anything?

Well I tried to follow your advices to use a tool for spell and grammar checking. In fact yes there wasn't that much spelling error. About grammar, I used word and well it didn't detect a lot of stuff. At least it forces me to rewrite some sentences but my goal was just to cheat it not to write right sentences, something it didn't learned me.

 

So did it really worth the sweat? I don't believe in it because those sort of tools are far to be very efficient.

 

I didn't resist to add some more into this already long post, oops.

That would be great. Some remarks about this article but this time before you write it.

EDIT: Deleted in to put it in a different topic.

Main story certainly, but story?

Well I tried to understand what you wrote. The example description you made is a bit short, perhaps you can explain more deeply with more details?

Ok that Jeff scenario could not apply, then why not use other RPG game as an example? That will be as good than BoE examples if not better. I don't have BoE and it's not a BoE forum but BoA. So for example, Neverwinter modules or even the original game and its extensions, or baldur gate series.

No you aren't pedantic, don't hurt yourself.

I agree that how guide the steps of the player throughout an area is a part of an article about how to manage "what to do next".

 

But I'd say that I whish that this article don't forget to also cover how not be too direct about "what to do next".

 

About that point and "Yellow Brick Road" I'd like to add that:

* There are some very good small puzzles arround having not fully clear path explained to the player.

* Managing well a not fully clear path could be a great way to make a player explore an area. It could become the "Yellow Brick Area delimitation".

 

Also about to help the player, for me, a map (just a graphic picture as in VoDT) is a great helper, particularely when this is mixed to an exploration puzzle or/and to an area exploration.

 

Perhaps a full sub article could be written only about the usage of that sort of maps.

Well firstly, quote that I made a clear and strong distinction between game design (so engine) and interface design.

 

Also ok, perhaps I write an opinion before to have used enough BoE. That is important for an interface design point of view by a "hardcore" player (you need to be a bit hardcore to play user made scenario). When I'll have finish the demo, I'll come back in this thread or will create another one for more details about that.

Nobody seems to like comment articles, that's not cool. Why put them in a forum if it's not to discuss about them?

 

Ok a little comment.

 

This block point of view is very interesting but perhaps it is missing a post modern style.

 

One point isn't clear for me, it's the contents of old style dungeons. I feel it is like if there is only a row of puzzles and fights. If it's only that, I think there's something wrong because, where is the story?

 

In general in this article I don't see clearly the story point of view. And that worry me because "Sequences" clearly bring story stuff, but "Dungeons" don't seem to bring any story stuff.

 

For any RPG game I saw, you could throw a series of :

* fights,

* puzzles,

* secrets (that's different than puzzles),

* exploration (that's not mentionned in the article but I think it's a delicate but important point),

* sometimes other action types (probably not in BoA) like higher strategy action than just a puzzle or a fight, reflex, or even arcade action.

 

Ok but in all cases, in any rpg games, if you have strong story elements to give more flesh to that stuff, it's ALWAYS much better.

 

That's where I'm a bit mixed by this oposition of block types. When you do sequences you are doing story, it's less clear for dungeons.

 

In fact, I think BoA scenario "Diplomacy With the Dead" shows (not fully well implemented in my opinion) a typical example that's there's no oposition between sequences and dungeons (and not only that you put them both in a scenario).

 

There's a chase throughout a castle but it is mixed with some fights and a bit of exploration that are part of the chase. If I understood well the artcicle it's a typical sequence mixed with dungeon design.

 

Ok that's not so well done in this scenario but I feel it's the way to go.

 

It's a bit like:

* Having only pure gaming elements (dungeons), it's always less good than if they are mixed with some story construction, eventually sequences.

* Having only pure story elements (sequences?), it's always less good than if they are mixed with pure gaming elements like mentionned above (fights, ...).

 

That's the post modern style, do as much fusions or mixes than you can, put story in every gaming elements, don't write a novel but always think of the gaming aspect, mix as much than possible sequences with dungeon elements.

 

That said, as mentionned in the article, do what you want, you could always do a great scenario without any fights or another with mostly no story.

 

But don't be wrong this scenario with more mixed stuff would be even much better.

Ok, my first try of BoE demo fully disgusted me because of many problems in interface design. So there was no chance I play any BoE scenario.

 

But recently, I succeed to play further the demo, nothing decided but there's now some chance.

 

I hate support a so out dated game particularely because this means to weaken BoA support.

 

But I must also admit that some game design features are better than in BoA or at least have adventdages that doesn't have BoA. Don't be wrong, BoA has many game design features that are better to BoE, not to mention the BoA interface which is a lot better.

 

Anyway, ok BoE scenario and if I ever buy BoE I'll play them, but any that are run scenario?

, sorry, well I'll see another day if I could write my previous post better.

 

I fully agree that this scenario can be improved about it's time limit pressure on the player. But in fact I think it also needs some other improvements.

 

I also agree that your suggestions (most but not all) will improve this time pressure :

* To use a NPC as a reminder about the time. But add a bit more popup that remind the time running would be cheaper and efficient anyway.

* To tune better the real time limit. But I think that it's even more important to also tune up better the time spend in each part of the scenario.

* To remember in more dialogs that a choice involves lost of time. But not in mostly all dialogs in order to keep it realistic.

* That adding a subpart that involves to get back the wands stoled by the NPC, would be a great addition. But the scenario can be ok without it too.

 

I disagree that it hasn't alrady some of these features :

* It asks choices to the player where time is a part of the problem.

* It has some reminders about the time that is running.

* The time limit length isn't that bad if you play logicaly without cheating and knowing it.

 

I also disagree that this scenario really fit the article subject "Don't draw the focus" because it's not about removing stuff that draw the focus but mainly about polish it in order to put better the focus on time limit, that's quite a difference for me.

 

Finally I disagree that a pure run only scenario would be more fun in comparison with a "Za-Khazi Run" just improved, better tuned and polished. Those improvements should be also done on other points that don't relate directly to the run/time feature.

 

That mentionned again, I don't think we have more to debate. I need to see your run only scenario to understand fully what you mean and perhaps change my point of view.

 

And all of that said, that doesn't change that your article is cool anyway.

Ok we disagree, point.

 

About BoA Za-Khazi Run, at my first play the time stress worked well for me. So I think it's useless to continue to debate directly about this scenario.

 

About how to make a run only scenario, we also disagree and it's certainly useless to continue about that. I won't try to develop but I'd like to draw your attention on two points :

- Running doesn't need to be straigth forward. Let forget sport, instead just a stupid example, I throw you in a labyrinth and starts the counter.

- This game isn't only dialogs even if it's its core. If you do something with dialog, it's ok. If you do the same thing with something else and dialogs, it's much better.

 

I'll let you meditate about that.

 

To finish, a point of detail. About a run scenario, in fact you suggest a run AND save the fort.

 

Quote that save the fort, from a whole enemy army is a complex subject if you want make it a bit realistic. You'll hardly manage that as a subject number 2 once arrived in the fort. I mean it's not 4 more adventurers arrived in the fort that could solve that problem. Anyway, they can't stay forever in the fort.

 

So in fact you'll get 2 successive scenario with this point of view. So I don't think that run AND save the fort is a right choice. Ok it's a detail.

 

Thanks for all your articles.

Ok, I deleted the second post to avoid double posting. And I try to do a more direct answer with a better grammar.

 

I have a problem with this article when it quotes The Za-Khazi Run. You want to demonstrate that this scenario "Draw the focus" by giving to the player missions and area to explore that "Draw the focus". I think it's wrong, they don't "Draw the focus". Most often they fit the scenario original design choice.

 

A first point is that you change the scenario subject. This scenario is about:

- Travel through a wild area.

- Need to find a way through a wild area.

- Time limit to reach a fort in order to bring them powerful tools that will allow them to protect it.

 

The scenario you suggest instead is about:

- Run

- Time limit to reach a fort in order to save it.

- You seem suggest to save the fort.

 

So the original scenario needs to put the focus on, travel through a wild area, need to find a way through a wild area, take care of time running. The scenario you suggest needs to put focus on time running.

 

That's not only an improvement but also a strong change. I don't see well how you implement the run and do without

- The fun of travel (no exploration?).

- The need to find a way (linear and no exploration?).

 

Two examples you suggest to implement are already in the scenario :

- You suggest giants, in the scenario it's a little army of sliths or another path that take more time. But instead of a dialog choice that you suggest, you have to find the path yourself and for me it's a better solution.

- You suggest save time or rescue a life, in the scenario it's save time or rescue a dead. Read better the unicorns part. It's not only a horn object to get from the giants, it's really a rescue.

 

All of your other suggestions of change doens't show how parts of this scenario "Draw the attention" and then should be replaced or changed in order to avoid that. They just show how to polish better the scenario in order to increase the focus of the player on the main purpose. Not which part "Draw the attention". That makes quite a difference for me.

 

The NPC addition you suggest is very interesting and could have improved the scenario as it is. Also making shorter the time could have been done too.

 

Quote that the current version take some care about about these two points:

* In comparison with BoE version, the time has been reduced to 14 days (from 30 I think). I agree it could be even shorter but I think more that it should be organized differently. For example if you do all greedy/curiosity quests you shouldn't be able to succeed the run, even after 20 replays.

* About the time limit reminders, the scenario isn't that bad :

- The beginning of the mission is really clear about that. And for any very average role player, it's hard to forget that the time is the core of the mission. So each time you have a choice to run or do something else (explore, make a rescue, satisfy your greed or your curiosity, accept a quest, search through an area) you ask yourself the dilema : Don't lost time or do it?

- There are time reminders, ok, not as many than you suggest and not through a tool as good than a NPC in the party as you suggest.

- At end of 7 days, a popup remind that the time is running and there are few other pannels like that until the end of the time limit.

- There are some dialogs and events where the time limit dilema is mentionned through a dialog.

- As the scenario doesn't focus only on time limit but also how to find a way through the wild area. That's even much more dialogs that focus the player attention on its main plot.

 

I don't mean that this scenario can't be improved or even that it doesn't need to be improved but I don't think that it's will be done by removing parts you suggest to remove.

 

That said, that would be great to see your run scenario.

DELETED

I don't know if 15 days is too much or not. I'm sure that after to have played it once even without to have explore all and understand all options, that 9 days is too much.

 

If you really explore all corners it's because you started with in mind the time limit allows you that. Otherwise you can't guess it so you don't lost time exploring.

 

Also if you really explore all corners then you'll lost plenty time through small events that make you lost 8 hours sometimes more. I'm not sure the result but I'd be curious to know. If you just explore all "right" corners, well .

 

If you start with the point of view that you must take care to not do quests and explorations for nothing then you'll have to make some backward run, you'll not do the best choices (as keep dragon scroll but not mushroom protection) and you'll lost time searching some stuff. And then I'm not sure that 15 days is such a large limit particularely if a party without path finder skill is allowed and if you get few bad luck events that make you lost some 8 hours, plus that you'll did few wrong choice.

 

I see various problems :

* A player that really explore all good stuff (eventually for a replay) should not be able succeed the quest in time. That's not the case in fact you'll even win time.

* There are many little things that have too much time effect that the player can't predict and evaluate.

* There are too many choices for which the player has mostly no hint about the effect on time spend.

* It also not a good choice that a skill (path finder) could make a so big difference in time. What this coud mean that a party with mostly no path finder skill can't do the scenario or a party with this skill has too much time?

* As pointed by the article, a problem that in a way or another the author should have attract attention on time limit more often. It's done through panels that popup to remember how time there is. But in general that's not enough.

 

I think the subject of this scenario is very very hard to implement. And how I played it I got the luck that it worked really well. It's still not my prefered of the bundled scenario but it is in third place. Because of other reason that a run that doesn't work, and also because the run feeling worked for me and gave me less fun to not be able enjoy get my time and explore deeply.

I have read the two articles about dungeons, interesting. They aren't technical at all and could apply to BoA. But ok they quote BoE examples.

 

About one advice I read, "Make sure there are at least two interesting events or encounters per level...". Well after to have play few Reamlz, Neverwinter and even Warcraft 3 RPG user made scenario, I'd say that the best is that everything should relate to story (not necesseraly the main plot of central subject ). Any fights, any action, any puzzle, any places, any quest should have a story or have a bit of story wich is a part of a story.

 

In short put scenary and sense everywhere and avoid throw in your scenario anything without scenarized it and gives it sense.

Article : Tricks to develop a strong main plot from a story plan/base idea.

 

Better title required!

Yes and what? Your article isn't about quest goal that should be related to the plot or central concept, isn't it? It's about events that occurs, ok during a mandatory quest. You advice to always linked them all to the plot or central concept. For example, the mage quest you quote shows that. It has a goal linked to main plot but it's a filler because its events/details aren't related to main plot.

I answered about that. I don't think it's always the best goal that every events/details (even during a mandatory part) should be related to the main plot or central concept.

To get your examples, the other example you quote is also something for which I disagree about a general advice. The werewolves events could make the forest live through a sort of random event. Having a forest with only spirits stuff could result in a sort of unrealistic feeling.

Ok for this scenario as it is done, it could be a problem, but this could be not because of this choice itself. This could be because the forest doesn't live anyway, because it's a "no story" fight/event, because the scenario is too small or empty or its main plot itself too small.

That mentionned, I'd like that it will be clear that I understand that your article focus the attention on an important aspect that many author could not see easily. It made me think and realize some scenario aspects more clearly.

In fact your other article recently post "Don't Draw focus" also results in a general advice to make links/details that relate (all or mostly all) to main plot and central concept. But in this one for another reason (Don't Draw focus).

Again it's a good thinking which is great to read. For both I have the feeling that the advice rules that result from these articles (links/details should relate to main plot and central concept) is very interesting, often a great point to think and advice to follow. But not necesseraly good for all scenario. Plus making also oposite choices could be important, usefull, in worse cases better than nothing.

For mention, about mandatory parts, there are many way to make them mandatory. You have to go in a town or place for its shops. Because to go from point a to c you should pass through b. Because a NPC ask you a service totally unrelated to main plot. And so on.

Still about mandatory parts, it's a very important aspect in a scenario because they are the only parts that you are sure that all players will have play (appart choices variations). And you'll find some that will play only them and he could get their feeling about the scenario from this experience. That's why organize the scenario in order to force the player discover a world diversity so better realism, could be an interesting choice despite it's not linked to main plot and central concept.

Cool reading, there are plenty good idea. Thanks for this article (and the numerous other you write). But I'm not sure I fully agree about the central subject.

 

Avoid a filler without to link it to the central concept and to the main plot, is a bit extreme. I agree that your advice is the more safe. But I don't agree it always apply. Ok, a filler isn't ok but I don't think that everything which isn't linked to the central concept and to the main plot is then a filler. I feel you wrote that through this article.

 

There are two points :

1 - Multiply links you'll multiply the fun, I agree but it's not mandatory to have only links to the central concept and to the main plot.

 

2 - Something not linked to the central concept and to the main plot could have a utility for the scenario and then isn't a filler.

 

So overall I think that put links is the really general advice that always apply. I mean by links every sort of links. For example :

 

a - Links to past events. That's for links to player actions, it's even better when it's player choices and that the player can realize that. Those are typical dialogs reflecting something happened during the play. They are also more general effects that result from an event. For example an area that change after a major event in the scenario. That's also just story links and not necesseraly to main plot.

 

b - Links to future events. A typical example is a use of a fortune teller. But quests could be that in part too (and not only a goal for the player). Another example could be the build of a suspens through a future event anticipated by partial informations. Another example is through a NPC that you'll met and the player have links put to this future meeting. For example met more than one other NPC mentionning the future (mysterious) meeting at different time and degree.

 

c - Links between NPC. Their the purpose isn't only a tool to give information (on story, NPC to met for quest or shop,...) but also to build a social density and eventually just for the fun. Typically one NPC will direct the player to another NPC for quest purpose, ok. Then a reverse link from the NPC met to the first NPC is purely useless but could be cool for the fun and to build a social density. Those links are also very fun when build with a NPC in the party. Either the NPC know another NPC and/or the reverse.

 

d - Links with NPC. NPC joining the party is the best tool for that. A typical example is for some reason a NPC join, then after an event he have to leave the party. Ok but he could be a bit mysterious about the reason, he could mention that perhaps they will met again and so on. Then later the party met again the same NPC that will be a great fun particularely if the player get attached to this NPC and even if this NPC doesn't join the party again. But you can do that also through a travelling NPC that the party will met at different places and/or events. Evil NPC are also a good reason to do Links with NPC and not only though informations. Another example is classicaly through the master/mission provider/bob.

 

e - Links to places. Typically a quest goal, a treasure map, a place description. Those are similar to the links to events but the event is in this case the place.

 

f - Many other categories of links. Those categories of links mentionned above aren't fully distinct and you can find plenty other. Items links (sets), links to history or background information, and so on.

 

In fact all those links are both care of details and more depth. But I think that thinking in term of links help to see many possible polishing. Some are easy to manage when other as the travelling NPC could need too much investment.

 

That said why not use only links to the central concept and to the main plot?

* Because this goal could prove to be really difficult to always apply. And some more links (details) not linked to main plot will improve the fun when trying links them all to the main plot could be a too difficult challenge.

* Because your central concept could not allow that. For example in case of secret missions.

* Because having everything linked to the central concept and to the main plot could result in a feeling of lack of realism of your world. Like having every merchant, every inn keeper, and so on related to your plot could be strange for many plots.

* Because having sort of random stuff help build realism. I don't mean trully random but stuff that looks random because it has not obvious links and is unexpected. It's like an unexpected encounter in a forest.

 

Appart for a very small scenario and even if you don't want build a world simulation this word realism has some meaning. The 4 bundled scenario are enough big to relate to this category. And for me, DwtD strongly fail in this part, strongly because too many things are linked only to central plot and the realisation doesn't make it realistic. Plus there are missing more links to other things than to a the central concept. Well, also the links to central plot are too often too weak.

 

Another thing that I feel linked to all of this, is fights or more generally dungeons. Put story, links , logic, everything in all dungeons and fights. The best is that all fights have a reason, when possible a mini-story, a logic, links. Avoid as much than possible to throw fights in the steps of the player. But that doesn't mean that the links, story, logic, always need to be related to main plot and central concept.

 

All of that said, as you mentionned in your article, it must be fun. Not all links will be of any use so keep your sweat for those that add some fun. Avoid harass the player but try to be short and efficient to make links only a plus not too much required reading that will bore most players. And the more difficult, you need surprise at least a bit the player.

Ok you was refering to NPC number NOT in party I hadn't saw this point sorry.

 

That compatibility can't be keep, I disagree (ok I could be wrong, only the author can really say).

 

Ok, changing this value through a call could break all scripts in the scenario. Plus this has an influence on the editor.

 

I see a solution anyway :

1 - There is a default value of 2 for the max number of chars. This will preserve compatibility for older scenario and scenario that just keep the default.

 

2 - When you create a new scenario you have a new option to change the max number of npc that could join the party. The editor could know this value and compute npc numbers by using this value. The engine could also know this value and will use the default if none is set.

 

3 - There will be scenario file with this value set and other without this value set (at least older scenario. The editor itself could fix that by detecting this in a scenario it open. This will allow to fix users scenario and it could be used to fix bundled scenario. Another possibility is that the engine will be able to load a scenario file with this value set and scenario file without this value set then default value 2 is used.

 

4 - Finally when you cast, change the logging in order to remember to the player each couple key number/NPC name in the party.

 

Ok this means more change than I first thought. But everything seems doable. Yes, seems.

 

There's the creation dialog, check through engine and editor if this constant is hard coded (6 as first free npc number). Then change to use a value set in a variable. Then manage loading a scenario with this additional setting and keep ability to load scenario without it. Finally changing a logging.

 

Really too bad. I strongly think that it's a real potential to be able to add more than 2 npc in the party. For what I had in mind, perhaps "follow" will allow me do it anyway.