Design

You are currently browsing articles tagged Design.

RPG Review: The Kobold Guide to Game Design – Volume III: Tools & Techniques by Wolfgang Baur, Monte Cook, Ed Greenwood, Rob Heinsoo, and Colin McComb

July 5, 2010 in Resources, Reviews by Fitz | 1 comment

kobold_guide_3_cover

Welcome back!

Hi there!

The kobolds are back with another amazing collection of twelve thought-provoking and informative essays from some of the best designers and writers creating roleplaying game material today. The essays cover everything from the simple question of “What is Design?” and work through contentious topics of creativity, craft, and how to recover when things don’t go well. Anyone who’s tried to write professionally understands the power of the blank page, rejection, and the unforgiving and untapped potential of any great idea you can’t quite find the words to express, but it’s a rare treat to get advice from some of the stars of the roleplaying game industry to address those problems. It’s nice to know the kobolds care.

As someone who aspires to be a game designer and writer, I find that rules are hard for me and settings are relatively easy. So as I perused the pages of the guide, I found myself trolling for tips and tricks to simplify my rules process and make finishing projects more of a reality than a wish. With that in mind, I will avoid talking about each essay in depth and instead focus on a couple that I found particularly helpful.

Wolfgang Baur has worked on some of my favorite gaming projects over the years, from the original Planescape line at TSR to adventures for Alternity, Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder, and a whole lot of D&D. He’s edited the Kobold Quarterly, Dragon, and Dungeon magazines and is the publisher and founder of Open Design – a collaborative game design company. Oh, and in his spare time he publishes the Kobold Guide to Game Design series.

Baur’s essay “What is Design?” tries to define a term that doesn’t lend itself well to a definition unless you have context on your side. In this context, he defines it as “its own discipline, but it always borrows and builds on other modes of creative work.” What does that mean in terms of roleplaying games (RPGs)? It means there has to be a balance between rules and setting. When they are out of balance, you can end up with a less than fun experience for your gamemaster (GM) and his or her players, which may cost you fans or customers. Rules must be focused on the setting and the setting must keep the rules in mind at all times. It’s a balance I know I’ve not yet achieved in my own games.

The other essays build on Baur’s beginning, covering the similarities between designing RPGs for the computer and for the tabletop; the basics of combat systems; the power of a good design, hook and dastardly plot; and the fun and heartbreak inherent in collaboration and any creative enterprise. Each essay is lovingly crafted by a master in RPGs today who knows what they’re talking about.

The other essay that really got my attention was “Basic Combat Systems for Tabletop Games” by Colin McComb. As I said earlier, system design is my Achilles’ heel. McComb manages to explain, in a Q&A-type of format, what you need to know about attack systems, who attacks and when, how things like area of effect attacks affect a group of targets, how to measure the consequences of combat through permanent or temporary damage, and so on. He then lays out a sample system using his own rules (minus stringent playtesting) to show how the questions can help you come up with a working system. The practical aspect of the article provides a ton of hints and help to avoid the common problems that plague beginning system designers (like myself).

Colin McComb was involved in 2nd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, but helped create one of my favorite settings for that edition – Planescape – and even helped with two of my favorite computer games of all time – Planescape: Torment and Fallout 2.

Rob Heinsoo has been involved with the 4th Edition of D&D and seems to have written half the sourcebooks that have been published so far. He’s the force behind the D&D Miniatures game and its first nine expansion sets. And if that’s not enough, he’s worked at Daedalus Entertainment, Chaosium, and A-Sharp in the 1990s.

Ed Greenwood is simply a legend in the gaming industry. Not only is he the author behind the Elminster Series, including Elminster: The Making of a Mage and Elminster’s Daughter, but he’s written hundreds of articles about gaming and continues to GM his own campaign. Where does he find the time when he’s typically writing three novels at a time?

And Monte Cook… What can I say about Monte? When 3rd Edition D&D and the d20 system came out, he was one of the three principle designers behind the efforts. And since then, with his own design studio Malhavoc Press, he’s managed to create several award-winning products such as Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved, Ptolus, and the Books of Eldrich Might. In my opinion, he has one of the most unique voices among the game designers of today.

If you’re a GM, a game designer, or a RPG player interested in getting into the design side of how to create your own games – you can’t find a better introduction than The Kobold Guide to Game Design – Volume III: Tools & Techniques. These 96 pages will provide infinite food for thought and hopefully save you some pain and suffering along the way. I certainly have a lot to think about now…

As a final note, I think that kobold on the inside cover is up to something… don’t you?

Article first published as here on Blogcritics.org.

–Fitz

p.s. Be sure to pick up all the Kobold Guides at RPGNow:

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What do you look for in a game setting?

April 20, 2010 in Seeking Feedback by Fitz | 5 comments

Hi all…

I’ve been pondering putting aside my dreams of an independent roleplaying game in favor of doing what I love to do most, which is world and adventure design. So as I ponder such thoughts, I wonder…

  1. Role Playing | Technology
    Image by Daniele Muscetta via Flickr

    What are the top three things you look for in a setting?

  2. What types of settings do you tend to look at or read most often?
  3. What are the best setting books currently out there and why?

From my perspective, I look for (1) interesting locations, historical significance, and crunchy problems like the world ending. For (2), I am a fantasy guy first and foremost, so I tend towards traditional fantasy (swords & sorcery) more often than not, but I also like urban fantasy and space cowboys (like Firefly). And as for (3) the best settings, I love the Palladium Fantasy world books. Those guys not only provide amazing backgrounds and locations, but the artwork is typically phenomenal.

I have two nearly complete fantasy worlds (one more traditional and the other not) and some ideas for an urban fantasy setting and even a Steampunk concept I want to explore… So I have many areas to dive into. Is there room for more setting/adventure materials in the already crowded market?

Curious minds want to know. :)

Thanks in advance for any feedback…

–Fitz

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , ,

How do you perfect the craft of GMing or adventure writing?

December 17, 2009 in Design, GMing, Seeking Feedback by Fitz | 2 comments

For me, “perfect” is an unreachable ideal. There is no perfect game, but we can work and strive for as close as possible. If everyone a) stays engaged, b) challenges each other and the GM, and c) has fun – it was a success. Without the interplay between players and between players and GMs, there is no game.

Writer Sitting B&WSo I’m always looking for other perspectives on how to create good adventures. Recently I saw an article in Entertainment Weekly about John Lasseter of Pixar fame. In the article, he stated his team’s formula for making great Pixar movies:

1) Toil to perfect the story.
2) Tackle technical innovation.
3) Take creative leaps of faith.

Why couldn’t we take that approach and apply it to… roleplaying games? If you think of an adventure as an episode or a campaign as a movie series, why not see how they work with RPGs?

1) Toil to perfect the story.

This one for sure applies. Story is the backbone for getting and keeping player interest. Yes, I’ve played games where all you do is clean out dungeon after dungeon. But without a reason for doing that – a reason for taking that path – all you’re doing then is stumbling through the dark killing things that move and taking any loot you find.

Occasionally, sure. I like a good dungeon crawl as much as anybody. But without having a story to explain WHY your PCs should care about these little podunk towns, why they should rescue the damsels or find the lost treasure of Whosit… they’re just going through the motions. As GMs or designers, we need to keep story in mind from the very beginning.

So before designing dungeons or monsters or setting up encounters… Make sure you have a story first.

2) Tackle technical innovation.

Now this one I’m not too sure about. As a software engineer, I have to admit I’m always looking for the next great gadget or piece of software to make my life easier (99% fail in this regard, yet companies like Microsoft are still in business – go figure). But I tend to go old school with my gaming and leave the toys off the game table.

I’ve seen many interesting and detailed discussions about using new technologies like Netbooks or Google Wave, touch-sensitive displays, projectors, and so on. However, I’m most comfortable gaming with a few books, paper, pens/pencils, and real dice.

Some of you may like to go techie when gaming – but so far I’m not one of them.

So maybe this one doesn’t apply in all cases.

3) Take creative leaps of faith.

This one I can definitely get behind. With story, you have the beginnings of a latticework you can add plot, setting, and characters to. But without being creative in how you create and present the end result, even the best stories can fall flat.

One huge creative leap for me is trusting in your players to fill in the gaps. Without the PCs, there is no game. GMs are there to set the stage and the PCs have to give it life in my opinion. So involve them from the beginning – let them fill in the backstories for their characters, let them describe parts of the world their characters would know intimately – get them involved in the creative process.

Another huge creative leap of faith can simply be presenting a heck of an idea in the story. Mix and match things in new ways. Take the Chinese Menu approach – a few things from column A, a few from columns B and C, mix, smooth over the seams, and voila…

Will the Pixar/Lasseter three-rule approach help? It certainly can’t hurt by offering another perspective.

So what are the cardinal rules for you GMs or game designers out there?

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Design Question of the Week…

November 2, 2009 in Design, Rules, Seeking Feedback by Fitz | 8 comments

Hi all…

So after last week’s playtest, I decided to go back to the drawing board a bit to see how I could revamp the Moebius Adventures system mechanics to make them a) simpler and b) more consistent. I think I’ve hit upon a solution, but it seems to run counter-intuitive to how most other mechanics go (besides GURPS anyway).

BlueprintsTo make a long story short, part of the issues stemmed from having too many details and part came from a lack of clear explanation on my part. So I’ve stripped the system down to its core three statistics – Mind, Body, and Soul. Mind would wrap anything remotely mentally-challenging – so tasks like reading, arithmetic, arcane magic, and so on. Body is pretty self explanatory – but would enc0mpass strength, endurance, dexterity, and so on. And Soul represents wisdom, faith, life force, etc.

I need some help to see if I’m totally nuts or not. I spoke with a good friend of mine whose concern is that this system focuses on having a low number whereas most focus on having a higher one. I think this is an artificial difference, but that’s just me…

So rather than splitting those three into 12 different characteristics (plus the 4 for Random characteristics like Luck, Beauty, Wealth, and Family for a grand total of 16) I’ve boiled everything back to basics. At most, this means a skill would have one main characteristic. For example – Literacy would be Mind-based. Swordsmanship would be Body-based. Prayer would be Soul-based, and so on… (There are some skills like Healing, which the player would have to choose either Mind – for first-aid type healing using your brain – or Soul – for laying on hands kind of healing. Same for Writing, and several others.)

So a character would be very simply the core stats of Mind, Body, and Soul, some derivative/secondary stats like hit points, reality check, etc., and a list of skills – some from childhood, the rest from backgrounds.

(The design question is all the way at the end of this bloody long post, so my apologies. But I work through the basics, define some mechanics, provide an example, and THEN ask for input at the end. Please bear with me.)

So a fighter character that used 20 points to split among Mind, Body, and Soul might look something like this:

——————————————————————————————

Mind: 5
Body: 10
Soul: 5

HP 40
Skills:
Swords (Body): 3 ranks
Shield (Body): 2 ranks
Combat Sense (Mind): 2 ranks
Running (Body): 2 ranks
Horsemanship (Soul): 1 ranks

——————————————————————————————

A thief character might look like this:

——————————————————————————————

Mind: 6
Body: 8
Soul: 6

HP 32
Skills:
Swords (Body): 4 ranks
Acrobatics (Body): 3 ranks
Archery (Body): 2 ranks
Combat Sense (Mind): 3 ranks

——————————————————————————————

Pretty straightforward.

So let’s take the new mechanic for a spin…

To determine the base target for a skill, take the characteristic and add the # of ranks. You want to roll below that on 1d20 or 2d10. (1d20 is more “random” but 2d10 has a better bell curve for results.)

Everything revolves around the Quality of a roll.
If you roll under the target, you determine the Quality of Success (QoS) by taking the target # minus the the die roll.
If you roll over the target, you determine the Quality of Failure (QoF) by taking the die roll minus  the target #.
The GM can always modify the target # by other conditions. For example, snow would make tracking easier. Crossing a stream would make it more difficult.
If uncontested, a QoS of 1 or higher means success.

If contested, you compare the two Quality rolls and the highest QoS wins. For example…

  • For a Body (Strength) check, if character A has a QoS of 3 and character B has a QoF of 3, character A wins. But if character A has a QoS of 3 and character B has a QoS of 5, character B wins.
  • For a skill check, you may be comparing two different skills, but the principle still applies. If character A has Tracking (Mind) and a QoS of 4 and character B has Concealment (Mind) and a QoS of 6, character A is unable to find the tracks left behind by character B.
QoF comes more into play where Combat is concerned.

To resolve a combat action, take the offensive skill Quality and compare it to the defensive skill Quality. The difference determines the amount of damage done (up to the maximum of the weapon + any bonus for Body of 7 or better or penalty for Body of 3 or less).

Here’s a sample combat between the Fighter and Thief characters. The Fighter has a long sword, which does 8 points of damage as its potential maximum, but also gains +4 to damage for a Body of 10. The Thief has a short sword, which does 7 points of damage as its potential maximum, but he has a Body of 8, which gives him a +2 to damage as well.

———————————————————————————————-

Initiative:

  • Fighter – d20 (14) – target 7 – QoF = 7
  • Thief – d20 (17) – target 9 – QoF = 8
  • Fighter goes first w/lower QoF
Round 1
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 2 – target 13 – QoS = 11
  • Thief dodges with a roll. Rolls 4 – target 11 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter hits Thief for 4 points (QoS 11 – QoS 7 = difference of 4). Thief down to 28 HP.
  • Thief attacks with sword. Rolls 4 – target 12 – QoS = 8
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 20 – target 12 – QoF = 8 (rolled 1 or 2 is critical success/rolled 19 or 20 are critical failure – so the Fighter may have dropped his shield during this failed attempt)
  • Thief gets solid hit in. Difference between attack & defense is 16. Short sword does 9 max. Thief does 9 damage to Fighter. Fighter down to 31 HP.
Round 2
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 15 – target 13 – QoF = 2
  • Thief dodges with a cartwheel. Rolls 19 – target 11 – QoF = 8 (Critical Failure?)
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks with sword. Rolls 5 – target 12 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 5 – target 12 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter parries (tie goes to parrier).
Round 3
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 15 – target 13 – QoF = 2
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 16 – target 12 – QoF = 4
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 10 – target 12 – QoS = 2
  • Fighter parries.
Round 4
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 16 – target 13 – QoF = 3
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 14 – target 12 – QoF = 2
  • Fighter parries. Rolls 11 – target 12 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries.
Round 5
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 8 – target 13 – QoS = 5
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 20 – target 11 – QoF = 9 (Critical Failure?)
  • Fighter gets solid hit in. Difference is 14. Longsword does 11 max. Fighter does 11 damage to Thief. Thief down to 17 HP.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 18 – target 12 – QoF = 6
  • Fighter parries with shield. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries.
Round 6
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 5 – target 13 – QoS = 8
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 13 – target 11 – QoF = 2.
  • Fighter gets another solid hit in. Difference is 10. Fighter does 11 damage to Thief. Thief down to 6 HP.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 11 – target 12 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries. Rolls 13 – target 11 – QoF = 2
  • Thief hits. Difference is 3. Thief does 3 damage to Fighter. Fighter down to 28.
Round 7
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 8 – target 13 – QoS = 5
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 12 – target 11 – QoF = 1
  • Fighter hits. Difference is 6. Fighter does 6 damage. Thief falls.

———————————————————————————————-

So… Deep breaths. After seeing a couple of sample characters, describing the basic mechanic, and providing a combat example…

Does this make sense? Is it too hard? Is the Quality of Success vs. Quality of Failure thing too difficult a concept?

The potential problems that I’ve come up with are… With a characteristic and skill each maxed at rank 10, you have a target # of 20 before modifiers. If you roll a 20 on a d20 or two 10s on 2d10, it’s a critical failure. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. Even perfect people fail sometimes IMHO.

I’m curious to hear what people think about this.  If I’m barking up the wrong tree, I want to know early so I can change trees. :)

Thanks in advance.

–Fitz

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,