The Campaign Builder's Guild

This discussion has gotten big enough that I'll make a thread.

Quote from: SteerpikeI really enjoyed this video - it's about the old Thief games (1-2) and the importance of player character vulnerability for ludic pleasure and storytelling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPqwDGXxLhU

Quote from: sparkletwist
Personally, I dislike the direction modern AAA gaming is going, but I'm also glad the direction the guy in the video advocates isn't the direction the industry is going.

Also, we should probably make a thread if we're going to go into more detail about this. :grin:

Quote from: SteerpikeI might make a thread when I have the time to set my thoughts down properly... being a big advocate for PC vulnerability as both a player and a DM I think it'd be interesting to explore. You and I are probably going to disagree :)

Quote from: sparkletwistYeah, that's the other thing, he was talking about video games, so if you're going to try to adapt that to tabletop games, I'd have a whole bunch more to complain about.

Quote from: SteerpikeThere are obviously major differences, but there are significant parallels in different gaming styles between video games and tabletop games. I'll try not to conflate the two, though, if I do make a thread...

Quote from: GhostmanIMO it's not the medium that matters, but the genre and the intended feel of the game.

I've got more to say, of course, so I'll put that in the next post...

Quote from: SteerpikeThere are obviously major differences, but there are significant parallels in different gaming styles between video games and tabletop games.

Quote from: GhostmanIMO it's not the medium that matters, but the genre and the intended feel of the game.

There are big differences in play style between a live group with a live DM and an expressly single-player experience that has been pre-programmed. So I both agree and disagree with Ghostman because this is rooted in the medium, but it eventually affects the intended feel of the game.

The big issue for me when it comes to player character vulnerability is (most) video games allow saving, reloading, and retrying. Even hardcore games with permadeath let you retry from the beginning as many times as you want. Tabletop games have a much more linear (in this sense) narrative-- what happens happens, and then the group moves on. If you failed, you failed. If you died, you died. As a result, I feel like failure conditions need to be rarer and softer than you could get away with in a video game or the game would devolve into a very frustrating, boring affair very quickly.

Moving away from the videogame/tabletop game distinction for a moment - I'd like to come back to it, but just to start things off - I'm curious what your objection to the original video's analysis is, sparkletwist.

I'm a very big fan of some recent survival horror/stealth games, such as Amnesia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo3XB1Lrd4Q), Outlast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F80Wv66GYSs), and Soma (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFouLy2CWY4) - tellingly, none are exactly "AAA" games but are made by relatively small, independent game companies. In these games you're intensely vulnerable: you have no weapons, you have to run and hide from monsters, and your sense of fragility is exploited for exquisite tension and moments of horror. I'm an enormous fan of the Thief games the video references, and I think the video's creator is spot on as to why they're so effective. They don't hold the player's hand, they avoid excessively "gamey" elements like powerups, quest-markers, or minimaps, they tell a story mostly through organic gameplay, and they reward exploration, patience, and thinking things through (in fact, they reward these things far more than traditional "player skills" like aiming, jumping, or button combinations). All of these qualities, I think, relate closely to the feeling of immersion and verisimilitude games can foster, a feeling especially important for horror and stealth games but also for many (video/computer) RPGs.

I think Ghostman's point is interesting: to a certain extent this is a genre question. Some genres do require more powerful protagonists. I still think some of the video's points hold, with regards to things like quest markers, power-ups, level design, and the "kitchen-sink" feel some modern games have. At the same time for something like a sandbox RPG I think arguments can be made that you do need to be able to "do everything." Part of the joy of something like Skyrim is in discovering stuff like the alchemy, crafting, and enchanting subsystems, of being able to pick up anything, go anywhere, and talk to anyone. At the same time that game gives you quite little in the way of information to begin with - few markers on the map, no formal guides for making things, but lots of in-game literature and lore - and most of its storytelling is of the organic, gameplay-derived sort rather than the cinematic, cut-scene-driven sort.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'm curious what your objection to the original video's analysis is, sparkletwist.

First of all, I should say, I have no problem with video games going in new directions, to embrace horror and organic gameplay, and whatever. As I said before, I'm not really big on the direction AAA games these days are going, either, and I certainly see quite a few of his points when it comes to dumbed-down gameplay. Like, if the game tells you exactly how to get somewhere, the fun of exploration can be lost, so I can see why a game wouldn't want to include a big stupid minimap and big glowing quest markers.

However, I feel like a lot of what he's complaining about are simply interface enhancements. Wandering around aimlessly is no fun, either, especially since most game mechanics don't include an ability to mark the walls or drop bread crumbs or whatever, and that would be pretty tedious even if you could do it. I rather like how Dragon's Dogma handled it, where you got an automatic map that was only revealed as you explored, and quest markers (that appeared only on the map, there were no glowing targets in-game) only showed the general area you needed to go, necessitating poking around when you got there. I also feel like items that can be picked up should be marked clearly, because not everything can be picked up; I'm not sure if this counts as "powerups" but it's something I feel is an improvement over old games that usually didn't do it this way. The most transparent case where he apparently just likes awkward UIs is when he complained that you can only shoot rope arrows at specific places in the new game, and then explained how it works basically the same in the old games, but there just isn't a UI overlay telling you that you can. So uh... ok then.

Anyway, I think the contrast is a lot less defined than he made it out to be. I mean, the old Thief game looked pretty damn video gamey to me. The optimum way to move around seemed to be to bunny-hop and circle-strafe, just like every FPS game ever, and your weapons included things that are useful in a video game but make no sense in real life, like "moss arrows."

Quote from: sparkeltwistAnyway, I think the contrast is a lot less defined than he made it out to be. I mean, the old Thief game looked pretty damn video gamey to me.

I mean, like he said in the video, the old Thief games weren't perfect. A lot of the movement methods are more something you can do rather than something the game stipulates - but I take your point about the bunny hop still being noticeable. Mostly, though, the game really resists and subverts a lot of standard game mechanics. He lists a bunch but to describe them at greater length:

- Your health is miserable. 2 good sword-swipes will generally kill you.
- Your attacks are generally weak unless well timed or set up from a position of stealth. Combat is intentionally difficult; blows are difficult to land. You are not supposed to fight. It's not a typical FPS by any stretch of the imagination.
- Your ammunition is very limited and there isn't much to be found in the levels. Compared to almost any FPS there is very little ammo.
- Health replenishing items are few and far between. Food heals you minimally and there is no easy way to recharge health. If you get seriously hurt the rest of the level is going to feel that much more tense.
- Most of your weapons aren't really weapons at all, they're thieves' tools that use in-universe magic (moss arrows, fire arrows, etc) to assist your stealth - this isn't game-logic so much as the logic of the world. Or, to put it a different way, these "gamey" elements are integrated so well into the lore of the world so that they don't feel nearly so gamey. It's hard to tell this from the videos but there's a lot of worldbuilding around the elemental arrows that makes them feel less jarring than they might seem at a glance.
- The sketchy, incomplete maps do not detail all areas, but level design is such that you are rarely wandering aimlessly. You get lost, but this is part of the experience: it's a feature, not a bug. The game is full of secret paths and areas and shortcuts that are far more than mere side-areas. There is no "beaten path" to wander off, the whole game is navigating your way through structures without set routes.
- New items generally only show up in places they make sense. It's unusual to find items that seem out of place or contrived. In general non-wealth items are scarce.

Critically, one of the things Thief requires is that you find a certain amount of gold/wealth for every level. This means that you need to explore the nooks and crannies of the levels instead of just heading to objective points.

Quote from: sparkletwistI also feel like items that can be picked up should be marked clearly, because not everything can be picked up; I'm not sure if this counts as "powerups" but it's something I feel is an improvement over old games that usually didn't do it this way.

This is one of the few things I liked more about Thief III (not the 2014 version he references) - items that can be picked up glimmer subtly but distinctly as a kind of "thieves' vision." It worked well without taking the form of an obtrusive and immersion-breaking HUD/interface/minimap. So I agree with you here, but I like the markers to be subtle.

Quote from: sparkletwistThe most transparent case where he apparently just likes awkward UIs is when he complained that you can only shoot rope arrows at specific places in the new game, and then explained how it works basically the same in the old games, but there just isn't a UI overlay telling you that you can. So uh... ok then.

With the rope arrows, it really becomes pretty obvious through use that you can use rope arrows on any wooden surface and not on any others. It's more like the different surfaces you can use a portal gun on in Portal. His point was that you don't need a UI overlay to tell players when they can use rope arrows, it's something they can learn very quickly in-game.

Quote from: SteerpikeHealth replenishing items are few and far between. Food heals you minimally and there is no easy way to recharge health.

This is standard for 1998, actually; the whole idea of automatically recharging health didn't become mainstream until later on. Anyway, I'm still going to file this one away as "really video gamey" because eating food to heal a sword wound is just as video gamey as magically automatically recovering from it.

Quote from: SteerpikeIt's hard to tell this from the videos but there's a lot of worldbuilding around the elemental arrows that makes them feel less jarring than they might seem at a glance.

So what? Most video games include explanations for how their goofy video gamey mechanics are part of the world. I mean, maybe the worldbuilding is more interesting, but I don't really think this counts as subverting standard game mechanics because most games at least try to do this.

Quote from: SteerpikeYou get lost, but this is part of the experience: it's a feature, not a bug. The game is full of secret paths and areas and shortcuts that are far more than mere side-areas. There is no "beaten path" to wander off, the whole game is navigating your way through structures without set routes.

I like the idea that there are multiple routes through a structure, and linear level design is something about a lot of modern games I'd be happy to see go. However, I stand by my opinion that the lack of a minimap that just shows you places you've already been is an omission; I think most modern games reveal too much too soon, but I wouldn't want to go back to the days when games didn't see fit to give you any sort of map at all. It may be "part of the experience," it's an experience I am (and a lot of other modern gamers are) not interested in, and I take issue with the video completely ignoring the other side of the issue.

Quote from: SteerpikeIt's more like the different surfaces you can use a portal gun on in Portal. His point was that you don't need a UI overlay to tell players when they can use rope arrows, it's something they can learn very quickly in-game.

Yeah, except the crosshair in Portal actually does light up when you're pointed at a valid surface, probably because Valve didn't see the point in needlessly obfuscating their UI.

This is a great thread.

There also seems to be a push against easy, hand-holding AAA titles - especially, as Steerpike mentioned - from independent developers. This push, however, isn't to make games more "balanced" in terms of gameplay, immersion, story, etc., but tend to take the exact opposite route by presenting games that are punishingly, excruciatingly and border-line impossibly difficult. These games are good, don't get me wrong. I love FTL, Darkest Dungeon, Dungeons of the Endless, and Banished, but they often seemed designed specifically to make you lose, which I believe is missing the point - a video game should be Fun, it is a game, games should be fun, if they're not, it's called work. I can only play those games for so long before I get bored because there is either no final goal (Banished) or that I keep repetitively losing the game on lower difficulties (Darkest Dungeon, FTL).

I also don't inherently see a problem with gamey-ness as long as it's well executed - the most fundamental example of that would be Super Mario Bros. As far as story, setting, and immersion go it makes no sense whatsoever no matter, but darn it, it's still a fun game decades later.

As a final diatribe, there is, without a doubt, an supersaturation of in-game cut-scenes, cinematics, and expositions. I've never played it, but I recall reading that The Order 1886 was about 50/50 game/really poor movie. A little movie every now and then is fine yes, but I want to play a game, not watch a sub-SyFy-quality story.

Quote from: sparkletwistAnyway, I'm still going to file this one away as "really video gamey" because eating food to heal a sword wound is just as video gamey as magically automatically recovering from it.

I agree, but there really is very little food, and it barely heals you. So it's video gamey but barely present.

I agree that by the standards of '98 the whole health-regeneration thing was less common than it is now, so I'll grant this isn't a "subversion" per se, but it still stands in contrast to the more gamey approach to health adopted by later titles. It's this gamey-ness that I don't like, at least in games where a sense of vulnerability is impotant.

Quote from: sparkletwistSo what? Most video games include explanations for how their goofy video gamey mechanics are part of the world. I mean, maybe the worldbuilding is more interesting, but I don't really think this counts as subverting standard game mechanics because most games at least try to do this.

I have to disagree here. Most videogames I've played make little to no effort to justify frequent and non-sensical powerups, floating arrows over people's heads, obtrusive UIs, map-markers and perfect mini-maps, or magical regeneration from being hit by bullets. Even fairly gritty games and otherwise praise-worthy games like, say, Spec Ops: The Line are guilty of this stuff all the time. I'm not saying all games are equally guilty but it feels like AAA games are especially ham-fisted when it comes to this stuff.

Quote from: sparkletwistHowever, I stand by my opinion that the lack of a minimap that just shows you places you've already been is an omission; I think most modern games reveal too much too soon, but I wouldn't want to go back to the days when games didn't see fit to give you any sort of map at all. It may be "part of the experience," it's an experience I am (and a lot of other modern gamers are) not interested in, and I take issue with the video completely ignoring the other side of the issue.

I can understand the preference for a gradually-revealed minimap in some types of games. I think it's a bad fit for most stealth or horror but it works well in, say, Zelda.

Notably, Outlast and Amnesia have no maps and Soma has maps you have to find at consoles inside the game-world. This works really well for these particular games. I think the "map or not to map" thing needs to be considered carefully, is all: it shouldn't just be a feature because progress. Sometimes detailed maps are good, sometimes vague maps are good, sometimes no maps are good.

I have a particular fondness for games where finding a map is part of the game.

Quote from: sparkletwistYeah, except the crosshair in Portal actually does light up when you're pointed at a valid surface, probably because Valve didn't see the point in needlessly obfuscating their UI.

That's fine though - at least I think it is, maybe the video maker would disagree. I'd be cool with the crosshair shifting a bit when you're aiming at wood. That's not what Thief 2014 does, though, and it's subtler than a lot of games.

Quote from: O Senhor LeetzThis push, however, isn't to make games more "balanced" in terms of gameplay, immersion, story, etc., but tend to take the exact opposite route by presenting games that are punishingly, excruciatingly and border-line impossibly difficult.

Interestingly I think Dark Souls does both - immersion and excruciating difficulty.

Quote from: SteerpikeMost videogames I've played make little to no effort to justify frequent and non-sensical powerups, floating arrows over people's heads, obtrusive UIs, map-markers and perfect mini-maps, or magical regeneration from being hit by bullets.

Yeah, some don't. But plenty do, too! Portal gives you special boots to explain your video gamey ability to fall unlimited distances. Bioshock has booths you can step out of to explain your ability to save and restore, and plasmids to explain your ability to hot-swap your magical powers. Dragon's Dogma has magical teleportation stones to explain your ability to fast travel. And so on!

I also think that UI stuff doesn't quite fit into the same category as in-game contrivances like "moss arrows" because you need a way to convey that information, but, now that I think about it, Assassin's Creed even justifies that stuff, by you not actually being the assassin but actually running a computer simulation of being that person, or whatever. So it's out there, too.

Quote from: Steerpikeotherwise praise-worthy games like, say, Spec Ops: The Line

Not to derail things too much, but what exactly is praise-worthy about a second-rate Gears of War knockoff whose big supposed innovation is that it tries to make you feel bad for playing it as intended?

Quote from: SteerpikeI think the "map or not to map" thing needs to be considered carefully, is all: it shouldn't just be a feature because progress. Sometimes detailed maps are good, sometimes vague maps are good, sometimes no maps are good.

I agree with this when it comes to how much of the map to reveal ahead of time. I agree with your point about finding the map being part of the game; I like the way the first Thief made that information fit into the game's story, and I like how in Super Metroid you can find the map room. However, I think that a map of where you've already been is just a UI convenience and I'm glad it has become entrenched in modern game design, because otherwise you'd just have to map on paper or something and that is rather annoying. There is no reason to leave it out unless a dealing with a broken and cumbersome UI is intended to be part of the game's challenge.

Quote from: SteerpikeThat's fine though - at least I think it is, maybe the video maker would disagree. I'd be cool with the crosshair shifting a bit when you're aiming at wood. That's not what Thief 2014 does, though, and it's subtler than a lot of games.

I honestly don't even understand what your point is supposed to be, anymore. Is your issue seriously just that the "you can aim at this surface and do your special thing" UI icon is a little bit more prominent in Thief 2014 than it is in Portal? My point, for what it's worth, was that I don't see it as a bad thing when the game's UI highlights information that would be evident to the character in the game. Again, it's just UI convenience, which feels like is a lot of what the maker of the video was complaining about.

Quote from: sparkletwistYeah, some don't. But plenty do, too! Portal gives you special boots to explain your video gamey ability to fall unlimited distances. Bioshock has booths you can step out of to explain your ability to save and restore, and plasmids to explain your ability to hot-swap your magical powers. Dragon's Dogma has magical teleportation stones to explain your ability to fast travel. And so on!

You're right, that's true - and those examples are better than most. I really like both Bioshock and Portal. I haven't played Dragon's Dogma but it sounds like I should.

Quote from: sparkletwistNot to derail things too much, but what exactly is praise-worthy about a second-rate Gears of War knockoff whose big supposed innovation is that it tries to make you feel bad for playing it as intended?

I liked the guilt-inducing aspect. I liked the lose-lose moral conundrums it set up. I liked the apocalyptic atmosphere and allusions to Heart of Darkness. I liked that it played with unreliable narration. I liked that it was strongly critical of US military interventionism when most military shooters are chillingly jingoistic. I liked that it was essentially anti-war in spirit. I liked that it depicted suffering rather than sanitizing it. I liked that it actually made you think about violence, which is something very few games attempt. All of these things are what made its repetitive and cliched gameplay elements so disappointing.

Quote from: sparkletwistThere is no reason to leave it out unless a dealing with a broken and cumbersome UI is intended to be part of the game's challenge.

Or if you don't need to backtrack much. In Outlast, for example, there's a pretty linear route forward and backtracking is really only through a single area.

I do think map-reading and navigating can actually be made fun, too. In a sense dealing with Thief's sketchy, incomplete maps is sort of like dealing with an intentionally "broken" UI. The map's gaps and flaws become part of the experience rather than an annoyance.

Here's another (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/retrospective-thief-the-dark-project-article) retrospective about Thief that talks more about how revolutionary it was and to a large extent still is. The article reminds me of one crucial thing I omited in my list of "non-gamey" elements: Thief actively discourages violence in its mission objectives and on the harder difficulty settings prohibits killing altogether.

Quote from: SteerpikeI liked that it actually made you think about violence, which is something very few games attempt. All of these things are what made its repetitive and cliched gameplay elements so disappointing.

Let's suppose there was a video game called "Kick the puppy." There is a cute puppy on the screen and you get a boot that you can maneuver into place and kick the puppy. However, when you do, a message pops up telling you what a horrible person you are for kicking the puppy, even though that is literally the only thing you can do to advance in the game. Maybe that sort of mentally abusive 'gotcha!' crap somehow becomes more palatable to you dressed in a topical story with literary allusions or whatever, but not me. If I want a thoughtful anti-war message, I'll go watch a documentary or Apocalypse Now or something, and probably get a lot more out of it because it's written by actual screenwriters and not video game hacks, and it's also not interspersed with bland shooter mechanics.

Quote from: SteerpikeThe map's gaps and flaws become part of the experience rather than an annoyance.

Well, it'd probably still annoy me.

Quote from: sparkletwistIf I want a thoughtful anti-war message, I'll go watch a documentary or Apocalypse Now or something, and probably get a lot more out of it because it's written by actual screenwriters and not video game hacks, and it's also not interspersed with bland shooter mechanics.

I mean, Spec Ops: The Line is attempting to be Apocalypse Now but as a videogame - they're both adaptations of Heart of Darkness.

I have to say, I think there are just as many hacks working as screenwriters as in video games, and actually I think there's quite a few talented video game writers.  I think games should aspire to good writing and to tell interesting stories, because the medium is totally capable of that. I do think Spec Ops: The Line is deeply flawed, but it has ambition and it's clearly trying to do something interesting with the medium, far more so than virtually any other military shooter I can think of. But I completely agree that it has pretty bland shooter mechanics, and I think that's kind of the most serious, perhaps even fatal flaw of the game; and, of course, I can see why someone might be put off by its thoroughly discomforting aspects.

EDIT: I thought I'd add, while I see what you're getting at with the puppy kicking game analogy, I think it's a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Essentially what it boils down to is whether a game should ever make you feel bad - specifically emotions like shame and guilt. It's quite tricky for films to pull this off, really, because we're held at arm's length from characters far more so than in games. If you think that shame is never an appropriate goal for art/entertainment, then I understand but disagree with your position. I do think there's legitimate critique to the way Spec Ops: The Line handles things like the white phosphorous scene - there's not enough player agency in some sections, for example, although part of the point of the game is that sometimes there are no good choices, only equally appalling ones. What I like about the game is that it has what seem to me to be lofty and unusual goals that buck trends, and that it's far, far more self-aware than most FPS games, at least on some narrative level. It fails in small ways and big ways, but I still think it's doing something more admirable and interesting than, say, most of the Call of Duty titles.

Quote from: SteerpikeIt's quite tricky for films to pull this off, really, because we're held at arm's length from characters far more so than in games. If you think that shame is never an appropriate goal for art/entertainment, then I understand but disagree with your position. I do think there's legitimate critique to the way Spec Ops: The Line handles things like the white phosphorous scene - there's not enough player agency in some sections, for example, although part of the point of the game is that sometimes there are no good choices, only equally appalling ones.

Yeah, my point wasn't so much about shame as such, it was shame combined with a lack of player agency. If an environmentalist game makes people who pollute feel ashamed, and this makes them pollute less, that's them being ashamed about something they were doing independent of that game. The thing about Spec Ops is that it makes you feel bad for playing the game as intended, hence my analogy about the "Puppy Kicking Game." There is no way to play Spec Ops that won't provoke the game's biting criticism of your actions, because the game's mechanics don't allow that-- and that, to me, turns it into a hamfisted waste of time.

I'm not sure I fully agree, but I do see what you mean. I would have preferred more agency, certainly. At the same time, in the same way that a horror game is supposed to horrify, and you're not supposed to avoid being horrified, Spec Ops: The Line is supposed to make you feel shame. I think the biggest problem with the emotional dimension of the game is that the lack of agency actually undermines this shame at times, because you can't take full responsability for your actions. What I would have liked are more choices - real choices - where all consequences are awful in different ways. Like, maybe you refuse to use the white phosphorous, and as a result a teammate gets captured by the enemies you refused to eliminate, and you find your teammate later, tortured and maimed. There are some moments that are much more like this in the game, but the central atrocities are a bit too unavoidable.

What I like is that the game was pushing toward something more profound (even if it was falling short) while its competitors were content with the same old crap. Better to try and fail, if you like.

To rope tabletop games back in: I agree with you that of course you need less vulnerability in a tabletop game than a videogame with save-states. However, at the same time, I think that a feeling of vulnerability can be as important as a feeling of empowerment for an enjoyable roleplaying experience. As a player, I like feeling vulnerable but as if I have a lot of agency - which is not precisely the same thing as being empowered as the term is often used. We've talked about some of this stuff before, but I think for me it's related closely to a feeling of tension or suspense that evaporates if I feel invulnerable. This doesn't mean I want save-or-die effects at every turn, though, or that the only negative consequences should be death.

I think I've mentioned that I really enjoy when my characters get mutated, mutilated, diseased, cursed, or otherwise screwed-up, but at the same time I don't want to be actively causing these bad things to befall them (that said, I'm quite fond of Gloom).

Quote from: SteerpikeI think I've mentioned that I really enjoy when my characters get mutated, mutilated, diseased, cursed, or otherwise screwed-up, but at the same time I don't want to be actively causing these bad things to befall them

I'm not so much into mutation, mutilation, disease, or other body-horror-ish bad stuff, but this is actually something we (at least somewhat) have in common, because I like putting my characters in tense and difficult situations and having them subjected to hardship, too. So, on that level, I definitely agree with you that a feeling of vulnerability is important. I could go on but I think we've actually sort of done this one to death.

I've always preferred having fairly vulnerable characters. The danger of something bad happening has to be real, to get investment. Otherwise it just becomes rote and boring. Video game wise, is similar. I like the challenge aspect of it.

Quote from: sparkletwistSo, on that level, I definitely agree with you that a feeling of vulnerability is important. I could go on but I think we've actually sort of done this one to death.

I agree, I think we've been around this particular issue extensively elsewhere (and generally end up seeming more far apart than we are in practice).