diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream12may03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream12may03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,633 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + #6: Putting Theory to the Test + +*by Hunter Logan* +May 12,2003 + + +It's time to put everything discussed thus far to the test. I've been +describing a hierarchical design process, a process where a designer can +begin with the very general and work to the very specific. This creates +a hierarchy with levels, and the finished play flow looks like an +outline. The top level of the hierarchy provides a broad overview of +game play. Detail is added on lower levels. As detail is added, the +design becomes more specific. In this installment, I will refine my +thoughts about play flow and show how everything I've discussed thus far +can help you produce the functional core of a game system. + +Refining the Universal Play flow +I've been flogging the idea of play flow for a while now. My thinking +about it is becoming more refined from the effort. This is the pattern +I've been following: + + * Build to Event. + o Description. The players discover the current situation. + + Situation is described. This may set an event in motion. + + Situation is clarified. + o Decision. The players decide what to do about the situation. + + If the situation leads to an event, go to /II. Event./ + + If the situation does not lead to an event, return to + /I. Build to Event./ + * Event. Something happens in the game. + o Decision. Players decide how to handle the event. + o Resolution. Players resolve the event. + * Continue Play. Return to /I. Build to Event./ + + +The pattern is useful, but it's not as elegant as it could be. I based +it on the idea that the event is the pivot point. Players build to the +event and then resolve the event with decisions at each step. That isn't +always the case, though. The description given during /I. Build to +Event/ may very well place the characters in the middle of an event. +Then, the event is no longer the pivot point because it already exists. +So, the pivot point becomes event resolution. In response, I devised +this alternative. I think it's more elegant and more accurate. + + * Description. The players discover the current situation. + o Situation is described. + o Situation is clarified. + * Decision Point. The players decide what to do. + o If the situation requires resolution, go to /III. Resolution + Point./ + o If the situation does not require resolution, go to /IV. + Continue Play./ + * Resolution Point. The players resolve the event. + * Continue Play. + o Situation is different as a result of player decisions and + character actions. + o Return to /I. Description./ + +An Actual Design +I want to stop playing with theoretical play flows and show how all this +/stuff/ can help a designer create the core of a game. This design is an +experiment I am developing in my spare time. I want to emphasize that +it's not my intent to turn this column into my game designer's journal. +I just needed an example to help validate my theorizing, and this is +what I've got. + +The Early Decisions +In Installment #1 +, I suggested +a /Play Flow First/ approach to design. I think play flow is the most +important design consideration, but it's not necessarily the first step +in the design process. I am usually methodical in my work, so for me, it +makes sense to start a design by choosing which player goals I want to +support. From my Big List +, I decide to +actively support Conqueror, Creator, Storyteller, and Tactician. I may +support other goals along the way, but these are my primary interests at +the start. + +These goals lead to my desired BoP. I want my game to have a GM, but the +players may have a lot of control over what happens in the game. I think +my play flow will most resemble example VII in my Balance of Power + article. + +I look briefly at Cohesiveness, Complexity and Verisimilitude. If I +follow my own process, Cohesiveness should fall into line - At least, I +think so. For complexity. I want to keep the actual mechanics as simple +as I can, but I want to provide options. That leaves verisimilitude. I +like action, political intrigue, and a swift pace for play; but I also +want believable results. If pressed, I think player satisfaction is more +important than perfect accuracy. I keep these ideas in the back of my +mind while I write. + +The Basic Play Flow +As a result of my early decisions, I rework the play flow as follows: + + * Description. + o Situation is described. The GM describes the situation for + the players. + o Situation is clarified. The players ask questions about + specific details. The GM answers as appropriate with the + intent of causing an event. + * Decision. + o Players reject the situation. + + Players attempt to alter the GM's description or set + some other event in motion. + + The GM evaluates the effect of the players' efforts. + + Continue play. Go to /B. Players accept the situation./ + o Players accept the situation. + + If the situation requires resolution, go to /III. + Resolution./ + + If the situation does not require resolution, proceed + to /IV. Continue Play./ + * Resolution. Players resolve the event. + o Players declare actions. + o GM and players determine an outcome. + o Players may use resources to change the outcome + o GM evaluates the effect of the players' efforts. + + If the event is not resolved, return to /A. Players + declare actions./ + + If the event is resolved, go to /IV. Continue Play./ + * Continue Play. + o Players evaluate current status. + o Return to /I. Description./ + + +Resolution Mechanics +Now, I want to add resolution mechanics. I like to think play flow and +resolution mechanics work together in support of my design goals, but in +many ways, the two are quite independent. A designer can easily devise +and insert any of a thousand different mechanical arrangements into a +given play flow, and each arrangement would change the game play. So, I +think about the problem in terms of my preferences. I like simple +mechanics and the feel of a die roll, but I have a bias toward Ability. +I don't want the encumbrance of heavy math, and I like unified +processes. Exceptions are a hassle, so I want to make sure the method of +rolling dice and evaluating the outcome is fairly constant. After +considerable fiddling, I work out a solution for event resolution: + +I begin with */Die Result vs. Challenge/* +where */Die Result = Die Roll + Attribute + Position Modifier/* + +*The Die Roll* +I choose 2d6 for the /Die Roll/ because it generates a bell curve. A +player has a 44% chance of getting a result from 6 to 8. I prefer a +narrower, more reliable range of results; but other people prefer to +gamble. They want a wilder ride, so I decide to manipulate the result +curve two different ways: /Lucky/ and /Skilled/. The /Lucky/ roll will +have a much wider range of results and provide risk with reward for the +gambler. The /Skilled/ roll will provide a limited range of results, +allowing player skill and character expertise to carry the day. I plan +to let the player decide at character generation whether he wants a +character that is /Skilled/ or /Lucky/. Here are the die roll +manipulations: + +*Skilled Die Roll* Die Roll Result Percentage (%) +2 -3 3 +3 -2 6 +4-5 -1 19 +6-8 0 44 +9-10 +1 19 +11 +2 6 +12 +3 3 + + + +*Lucky Die Roll* Die Roll Result Percentage (%) +2 F* 3 +3 -3 6 +4 -2 8 +5 -1 11 +6-8 0 44 +9 +1 11 +10 +2 8 +11 +3 6 +12 S** 3 + + +*Automatic Failure. Die Result is 0. Make Penalty Roll curved as shown +and subtract the result. +**Automatic Success. Die Result is 8. Make Bonus Roll curved as shown +and add the result. + +*Bonus/Penalty Roll* Die Roll Result +1-3 0 +4 1 +5 2 +6 3 + + + +*The Attribute Range* +Now that the die roll is sorted out, I look at the Attribute. What I +really want to do is establish an attribute range. I think 0 to 8 is a +good range for my purposes. The rating for a competent, trained +character is 4. + +*The Position Modifier* +If the character has a significant advantage or disadvantage in the +situation, the GM may supply a Position modifier. + +*Position Modifier* Position Modifier +Terrible -3 to -5 +Bad -1 to -2 +Neutral 0 +Good +1 to +2 +Excellent +3 to +5 + + + +*Unopposed Outcome* +The Variable Scale is my primary tool for evaluating the outcome of +unopposed character actions. The GM assigns a Challenge rating to any +action the player declares for his character. If the Die Result equals +or exceeds the Challenge, the character is successful. I added an +Absolute Evaluation, the Quality column, to point out the strength, +efficiency, or outward impression of the character's effort. + +*The Variable Scale* Die Result Quality Challenge +<0 Disaster No Roll +0 Pathetic No Problem +2 Weak Easy +4 Average Average +6 Strong Hard +8 Heroic Unlikely +>8 Special Impossible + + +*Quality Notes* + + * Disaster. The character did something very wrong. The worse the + result, the worse the disaster. + * Pathetic. Below lowest acceptable standards. The character failed. + * Weak. The character does very little, and may look clumsy doing it. + * Average. The character made a competent effort. For many jobs, + this is the minimum threshold for success. + * Strong. The character did well. + * Heroic. The character did exceptionally well and looked good doing it. + * Special. The character did something in a way that is truly + unbelievable. Even people who saw it happen may have a hard time + believing that it happened. The player describes the outcome. + + +*Difficulty Notes* + + * No Roll: The GM decides that the player need not roll the dice. + * No Problem: There is no real reason a competent character should fail. + * Easy: The job is easy for a competent character. + * Average: This is common job for a competent character. + * Hard: This is a tough job, even for a competent character. + * Unlikely: This is a tough job even for an expert. + * Impossible: There is no obvious way a character could do this, but + the player may still want to try. The GM sets the Challenge >8; + usually 11 with 9 to 15 as a possible range. If the character + fails, he either has no idea what to do, no idea how to do it, or + no way to do it. + +*Relative Outcome* +Now, I extend my mechanics to include relative outcomes. These are most +useful for opposed resolution, but they're also good for situations +where the GM wants to determine degrees of success or failure. For +opposed actions, the opponents both generate die results and the GM +compares the results using the Relative Scale as an additional tool for +evaluating the outcome of actions. For unopposed actions, the player +rolls against the Challenge and the GM determines the outcome based on +the Relative Scale. + +*Relative Scale* Difference Result +-5/worse Disaster +-4 Defeat +-1 to -3 Losing +0 Push ++1 to +3 Winning ++4 Victory ++5/better Special + + + * The Difference becomes the Position Modifier if the player wants + to take additional action or try a different method for resolving + the event. + * Disaster. The character has lost and something especially bad has + happened. + * Defeat. The character has lost. + * Losing. The character is getting the worst of it. + * Push. Opponents are fairly equal in their efforts. The Unopposed + Scale determines the outcome. Weak die results mean both + characters failed. Average or better die results mean both + characters achieve some measure of success. + * Winning. The character has gained the upper hand. + * Victory. The character has won. + * Special. The character has won and something especially good has + happened. The player describes the outcome. + + +The Play Flow with Resolution Mechanics +This play flow is rather complicated. I devised five different methods +of resolving events. These are the methods I actually use when running a +game. These methods are /Unopposed/, /Opposed/, /Played/, /Combat/, and +/Chaos/. + + * */Unopposed resolution/* uses the Unopposed Scale for resolution. + This is my most common method of resolution. + * */Opposed resolution/* uses a comparison of die results between a + character and his opponents. This is used for negotiations or + combat between the PCs and their opponents. + * */Played resolution/* is based on player intent and character + ability with only minimal use of die rolls or resources. This is + both the most demanding and perhaps the most rewarding method of + resolution. + * */Combat resolution/* is based on opposed resolution, but it + includes a countdown for multiple characters where the order of + events is important. This is strictly for combat. I don't use it + unless the order of events is crucial, such as in a duel or a + climactic battle. + * */Chaos resolution/* is freeform. It includes a countdown, but it + allows the GM to handle many different, simultaneous actions using + /Unopposed/, /Opposed/, or /Played/ resolution as needed. This is + how I prefer to handle situations where players are headed off in + several directions at once. + + + * Description. + o Situation is described. The GM describes the situation for + the players. + o Situation is clarified. The players ask questions about + specific details. The GM answers as appropriate with the + intent of causing an event. + * Decision. + o Players reject the situation. + + Players attempt to alter the GM's description or set + some other event in motion. + # Players declare desired changes. + # GM declares the modifiers. + # Players roll the dice. + # The GM determines the initial outcome. + # Players may spend resources to change the outcome. + # Once resources are spent, the GM and players + determine the final outcome. + # Continue play. Go to /B. Players accept the + situation./ + + Players accept the situation. + # If situation requires resolution, go to /III. + Resolution./ + # If situation does not require resolution, + proceed to /IV. Continue Play./ + * Resolution. Players resolve the event. + o The GM decides how he wants to resolve the event based on + the situation. He may choose /Unopposed/, /Opposed/, + /Played/, /Combat/, or /Chaos/. + + */Unopposed Resolution/* + # Declare and Evaluate Intent + * The player declares a course of action for + his character. + * The GM qualifies the action and provides + modifiers. + # Determine Initial Outcome + * The player rolls the dice. + * The GM and player evaluate the die result + using the Unopposed Scale and determine + what happened. + # Determine Final Outcome + * The player may spend resources to change + the outcome. + * The GM and the player evaluate the new + result and determine the final outcome. + # Determine Status + * If the event is not resolved, the player + declares a new course of action. Return to + /B. Resolution./ + * If the event is resolved, Proceed to /III. + Continue Play./ + + */Opposed Resolution/* + # Declare and Evaluate Intent + * The player declares a course of action for + his character. + * The GM qualifies the action and provides + modifiers. + # Determine Initial Outcome + * The player rolls the dice. + * The GM and the player evaluate the die + result use the unopposed and Relative + Scale to determine who has the upper hand. + o All participants have weak die + results: Nothing happens. + o All participants have average die + results: Essentially a draw. + o All participants have strong die + results: All combatants do well. + o A large difference in die results + indicates a clear advantage for some + participants. + # Determine Final Outcome + * The player may spend resources to change + the outcome. + * The GM and the player evaluate the new + result and determine the final outcome. + o All participants have weak die + results: All efforts fail. + o All participants have average die + results: Still a draw. No one has a + clear advantage. + o All participants have strong die + results: All participants do well. + In a duel to the death, the + participants may injure or kill each + other. + o A large difference in die results + indicates victory for some + participants. + # Determine Status + * The event is not resolved. The player + declares a new course of action. Return to + /B. Resolution./ + * The event is resolved. Proceed to /IV. + Continue Play./ + + */Played Resolution/* + # Declare and Evaluate Intent + * The player declares a course of action for + his character. The detail depends on the + situation and the player. + * The GM determines qualifies the action and + provides modifiers. + # Determine Initial Outcome + * The player rolls the dice. + * The GM evaluates the die result using the + Unopposed Scale to determine the strength + of the character's effort. + # Determine Final Outcome + * The GM roleplays the NPCs involved in the + event, describing their actions and + declaring their intentions. The player + roleplays his character. + * The GM and the player evaluate the result + based primarily on declarations and + roleplaying to determine the final + outcome. For the player, effective + roleplaying may seal the deal while poor + roleplaying may kill it. + # Determine Status + * The event is not resolved. The player + declares a new course of action. Return to + /B. Resolution./ + * The event is resolved. Proceed to /IV. + Continue Play./ + + */Combat Resolution/* + # Initialize Countdown + * The players choose combat as their + characters' course of action. + * The GM qualifies the participants, + determines modifiers, and calls for a + combat die roll. + * The players (including GM) roll dice for + combatants. + * The GM qualifies die rolls from highest to + lowest. The countdown is set at the + highest current die result. + # Resolution. The players resolve actions for the + current count. + * If there is a tie, the GM takes steps to + resolve the tie. + * The players resolve the action for the + combatant with the highest die result as + an /Opposed/ action. + * Players then resolve the action for + combatants with the same die result as + /Opposed/ actions. + # Determine Status + * The count decreases by 1. + * While the count is above 0. + o If the combat is not resolved. + Return to /b. Resolution/. + o If the combat is resolved. Proceed + to /IV. Continue Play./ + * When the count reaches 0, the combat + sequence ends. + o If the combat is not resolved, + return to /a. Initialize Countdown/. + o If the combat is resolved, proceed + to /IV. Continue Play/. + + */Chaos Resolution/* + # Initialize Countdown + * The GM determines the order of player + declaration, either around the table (left + to right or right to left) or in groups + based on the situation. + * Resolution. The GM resolves actions in the + determined order. + o The GM qualifies the current + character's action, determines + modifier and method of resolution + (/unopposed/, /opposed/, or /played/). + o The GM and player resolve the + current action by the prescribed method. + * Determine Status. The GM determines + whether or not all actions have been + resolved. + o If actions remain for resolution, + the GM advances to the next + character. Return to /ii. Resolution/. + o If all actions are resolved, proceed + to /IV. Continue Play./ + * Continue Play. + o Players evaluate current status. + o Return to /I. Description./ + + +That's it. There is still a lot of work to do to finish this game, but +the core is firmly in place. Next installment, I will discuss the +ubiquitous and useful Play Sample. Thanks for reading. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. +