Game Mastering Recap

So I've been toying around a lot in City of Villains (not Heroes, same universe though) with the new Mission Architect. For those of you that haven't heard, it's basically the coolest thing that a game designer has ever added to a game since the introduction of a gui interface. I've been spending a lot of time messing with it, which means, yeah, I haven't updated very much, lol.

This is not just a normal patch we're talking about, here. This update allows players to create their own user-created missions and stories and upload them directly to the CoX game servers. Other people can search for and play your content, and give feedback and ratings. You're even rewarded a little if people like your stories.

This content is also full-blown content. You enter into a number of instanced areas, each with customized spawns, dialogue, objectives, and everything else.

As we all might imagine, there is a ton of bad content, some content that exploits the system to get better experience and loot, and a small number of actually interesting and fun stories to play. That's just the nature of the beast, really. Most people have no idea what to write and Mary Sue the hell out of most of their stories.

So, in true Redefining Nerds fashion, I've decided to do a slight recap on some of the things essential to good story writing and moreover good game mastering.

Many ages ago I wrote an article about pacing. Pacing is really important. You should, in general, slowly curve up your difficulty. You should also not do a large string of 'cool' things with no breaks or buildup. Use smaller events to build tension for larger ones, and use larger events as "oh crap!" climaxes. Don't try to include super climax battles at every turn. At the same time, pace your stories so that people don't get bored with your plot (or encounters).

The characters you create should be memorable. Try to give them a little flavor, and a little feeling. You should also give them easily identifiable character traits, so that they stand out. Don't dump readers/players in the middle of your story - introduce the characters you've spent your time making slowly, so that people can learn to like them and understand them. The characters should have real feelings and motivations, and real flaws and failings. They should be human, because we remember those people better. Don't make characters that are larger than life and fantastic. Make them smaller and more readable. (If you're making them ridiculous for humor or shock value, by all means, go for it.)

As I mentioned earlier, you can't dump people in the middle of a story. Lead them into it, have them discover things, and slowly work your way towards the big moments. When you tell a story, it's a learning process. You can't throw big events with no context at people because they get confused or bored. Stick to small things to tell bigger things. Little details and clues along the path get people running like rabbits after them, wanting to know more. Slowly guide them to bigger and bigger carrots, give them a few teases here and there and you'll have some loyal readers.

Plot twists are essential to good writing. Never have a story go perfectly according to plan. Always make something go wrong and more importantly, make it go wrong in a way that makes the reader/listener/player understand what might be done to change it. Sometimes a windfall should occur too, to give the player some unexpected boons. Never make the story be too predictable. Luke got his hand cut off in Episode 5 for a reason - because having the good guys win all the time is too easy and predictable.

With regards to game design specifically, don't make enemies that are overly challenging. Playtest your stuff thoroughly and guess and check at how much damage the enemies and players might deal. This is more difficult in MA but in pen and paper it's really easy if you know your players well. Slowly scale up the challenges, but don't make things too hard that people can't finish your story. If your team spends too much time on a boss fight or worse yet, wipes, you've failed to do your job as a writer. Putting in a 'double elite boss' spawn in MA is really bad. Don't do it. If you absolutely have to make super hard fights in your story, spread them out so that they're beatable. Don't make enemies that absolutely force the players to fight a particular way - unless you're very good at establishing precedents about how the players should think in a fight.

That pretty much means don't do it except in a pnp game, by the way.

Anyway, that's all for now. Good luck, and happy writing!

(Also, for any non-CoX players reading this, my global handle is predictably @auspice if you should like to contact me)

Playing in Character

So, before I begin, I need to pose a more gameplay oriented reader question: Is it more fun to play a character with a "class" or "job" where you have a pre-defined role you're supposed to play like a mage or warrior? Or is it more fun to play a character who is only limited by 'skill points' and doesn't fall into a specific 'role' unless you build them to be?

My observations are that people in classless systems tend to create 'classes' within the game. Paladins tend to be created in classless games almost as a given. People like the idea of archetypes, of 'healers' and 'warriors' and 'mages.' I've also noticed that people in classless systems tend to play more balanced characters that tend to have wide skill spreads and aren't as good at any one thing. I've also noticed that in classed games people tend to band together by class, and label other classes in a particular way, "all rogues are like that" and so on. My thoughts are that only hardcore nerds (this is not an insult, I'm one of you) like classless systems more than systems with clearly defined roles.

I have no way of knowing all of this for sure, and as of the moment I can't find any studies on it. So I am polling my readership, which is somewhat unscientific, but I figure it's as good a place as any to start.

So on to the actual topic for today - character design. The question at the beginning had a little bit of bearing on this, because it's my firm belief that people like easily defined traits in their character. Edward the paladin is heroic and honorable and honest. Emma the sorceress is shady, but seductive and powerful (or maybe she's introverted, nerdy, and has a brother complex).

When we create a character either for a story or a game, we create them with a bunch of goals and ideals in mind. The desire to do something is a great way to make a character immediately interesting. If we know that a character's main goal in life is to lose his virginity, we already know a lot about him. We know he's probably kind of shallow and immature, and probably young too (older guys who haven't lost their virginity probably don't care that much about it). We also have a lot of room to develop him into a much better character - he has a lot of areas he can probably grow in, such as his respect for women or his self-confidence.

Actually, since I was referencing a specific character (Jim, from American Pie) why don't we take a look at his design? He's kind of introverted and shallow, and also pretty gullible. But after the climax (heh) of the movie, Jim has matured into a more interesting and respectful guy. Sadly, the movie injects a lot of slapstick that gets in the way of his development. The sequel is probably a lot better about developing him as a character when he turns down Nadia to chase after Michelle, realizing that there's more to a girl than just her looks and how 'easy' she is.

Interesting characters, by and large, are made interesting due to quirks. They don't even really have to be flaws per se, but little things that you remember. One of the major criticisms of Twilight (more the movie than the books) is that the main character has so few personality quirks. In a story where most of the characters have few quirks, the characters that do have them tend to stand out more. Still, memorable characters tend to be the ones with odd habits, or have unusual motivations for doing things.

Real character depth can't come from quirks though. Although we may remember a character who smokes a lot, talks with a lisp, or is oversexed, the characters we latch on to are the ones with goals and motivations. One of the things I use in writing to flesh out characters is to establish the character's belief system. This lets me better say things like "oh she wouldn't do this," or whatever. It's important that we define these beliefs beforehand, though. A selfish character who does something unusually self-sacrificing is really alarming unless we've established some belief he has that causes him to do this self-sacrificing act.

One of the big things I tell players of role-playing games is to make sure they feel comfortable playing the role of the character they are in. I had a player who had an 'evil self' that started off in his backstory as purely evil, and then slowly changed to 'end justifies the means' evil. And when he couldn't really act the part very well even then, I told him in future games that he should play things more comfortable to him.

Similarly, writers need to avoid writing in characters they don't understand. If you create a character in a story, you should be able to put yourself in that character's mind, and understand the beliefs and values that they have. Make sure you do this when you write in a character! Villains in particular often seem shallow and boring in fanfics, and often are evil 'just because'. Even worse are heroes without any clear motivation, who oppose the bad guys 'because they're bad.'

I'm definitely not saying that there can't be heroes and villains in a story. Pen and paper games tend to be better with less moral dilemmas (not none, less) because real people want to be doing the 'right' thing, and feeling like you did something 'bad' is not very fun. Some players like exploring the depths of human morality and emotion and don't mind being confronted with serious moral issues. These players are very rare and are most likely not playing in your campaign. As for fanfics, morally grey is certainly fashionable, but a good guy who does bad things walks a fine line between being interesting and irritating.

The trick then is to create good guys who are lovable and who we can relate to, and whose thoughts and moral dilemmas match those we might have, if we were in their shoes. Our heroes need to be a little larger than life of course, but if they're too big they look fake. When people feel like they have walked a day in the life of the heroes and understand their internal trials and troubles, that's when you know you've really created a memorable character.

In the same vein, villains need to be realistic too. We might like them or we might hate them, depending on what you (the author) intend them to be. But when they think out loud and when they speak with the heroes, they should feel genuine, like they truly believe the cause behind their actions. A villain's motivations should make sense, too. The evil mastermind bad guy shouldn't just be bad because that's what bad guys do. Even the 'chaotic evil' type guy can have complex motivations for things (I wouldn't make these guys the 'end boss' though).

For really good examples of chaotic evil bad guys that are actually sort of interesting, I recommend the Seven Swordsmen (the chinese TV series, not movie) as the villains there are fairly well done. It also shows some really nice morally grey stuff and shows long-term character development over the course of a lot of episodes. It does kind of move slowly, but IMHO it's worth it as the heroes in that show really are human, with human failings while the villains are for the most part complex and interesting characters with real goals.

Other great morally grey things to look for is anything by Alan Moore (Watchmen, V for Vendetta) as he is really big on asking the reader what is right or wrong. His stories are really thought-provoking and give you a lot of thought about who is really right.

In the end though, I think that almost any bestselling fantasy novel (yeah, including Harry Potter) is good for showing us what our 'heroes' should look like and how believable our villains need to be. I'd give some examples but sadly, most of the stuff I read ends up sort of morally ambiguous and not really good at showing how to portray 'good guys' and 'bad guys.'

A word of warning, for those of you who think I am totally lying about all this. There are characters that break the rules. Solid Snake in particular is practically a character without flaws and he is one of the most beloved characters ever to grace a video game console. This does not mean you can create a Solid Snake-like character (or any of the Devil May Cry male leads, etc.) in your story/fanfic/game/whatever and have it succeed. There are a couple reasons for this.

The first is that a badass character tends to get old. There's a reason why Dante and Nero are mocked all over the internet for being ridiculous, and why the 'badass main character' is considered a trope. It's overdone, we've all seen it. Some people get lucky, mostly because they were the first people to get it right. Even if you do it right afterwards, most likely you will just be accused of copying someone else who did.

The second is that they have games and visual action to highlight how awesome they are. When John Matrix (the main character of Commando) is storming onto the screen mowing down bad guys with his M60, he seems pretty awesome. However, without the camera and acting and special effects, your badass guy (or girl) just isn't going to be as badass. Dante is cool because you can play as him and destroy dozens of guys without getting hit while looking totally awesome at the same time. In a fanfic or pen and paper game, an exact copy of him is just not the same thing.

Do not let the success of others lead you to believe that characters without real quirks (eating pizza and being required to show off are not real quirks) can appear in your storyline. If you create characters like these, I recommend only using them in parody or humor stories rather than serious stories.

PS: Despite my criticisms, DMC4 was probably my favorite game of 2008.

Anyway, character design is tricky business, and I don't pretend to be the best at it. Certainly Hideo Kojima knows better than me! In the world of video games and web comics and other visual art media, there is a lot more to know and I know almost zero about it (my visual styles tend to be really boring). However, I do know a fair bit about what makes an interesting character, and I know how to convey a realistic villain or NPC ally to players.

Hopefully you learned a little here, or at least your opinions were reinforced some. If not, there's always the comments section ~

Pacing in Stories and Games

This is an article about a lot of things, but all of them are related to the time in which things happen. In stories or games, it can be really unnerving to have plot points that are timed improperly. It makes no sense when many climactic actions occur one after the other. This is particularly true in games where the final boss is actually not the final boss and it's really the final final boss in charge... who is actually just a minion for the ultra final boss. Plot twists like having the perceived villain be a puppet are interesting if used properly, but all-too-often it is overused in games, especially amateur ones.

This article is a guideline for writers, designers, and GMs alike who want to create more exciting storylines for people to experience. I'm intending to look back on it as I start GMing my own RPG campaign. It's advice that I think is useful no matter what kind of world you are creating. If you paid attention in literature class in college, this may be obvious for you. Most of you probably didn't take literature though (hard, subjective courses with lots of essays - bad!) so hopefully this is new stuff to a majority of readers.

The first step to proper pacing is a plot hook. A story should never, ever, ever start from a dead stop. We should see the main scenario and be interested in the characters we are first introduced to. This is why in Star Wars we see Leia and Darth Vader before we see Luke. Luke's introduction into the story is boring, but we get to see interaction between Vader and a variety of characters. We also get to see Leia and the droids deal with a pressure situation where the Empire has them at the throat.

In Final Fantasy VII, the gameplay starts off with a bang when Cloud and co. raid Mako Reactor 1. The intro scene for FFVII is very high energy and exciting, especially considering it's an RPG and RPG intros tend to be really boring and unfun (see also Eternal Sonata's first 5 hours). Originally I thought FFVIII was going to open similarly with the SeeD raid on Galbadia but it turns out that doesn't happen until an hour in.

All good adventures also start with a good reason to get the players involved in the story. They have to care about what's going on, or it will take more work later to get them excited about the adventure. I am pretty guilty of not hooking my players until later and hooking them in through the rising action and/or lull points. This is a bad habit! Bad! Bored players stop showing up to your games!

After the plot hook, and after every tension peak should have a slight lull where we get to gather our senses and think about things. High energy moments need some space so that we get to absorb the situation. If we have a big string of high energy suspense moments, we get bored and the tension loses its shock value. This is a good time to introduce backstory or paint pictures of things. It's also a good idea in games to allow the player(s) to free roam a bit and do some of their own exploring.

One of the things to do during plot lulls is to give little information tidbits. These lead to things you've already planned ahead for in your writing elsewhere. The leet writer term for this is foreshadowing. That way, when Padme reveals that she's really Queen Amidala, you can be like "Oh, I totally knew it!" For a bad example of this, Leia being Luke's sister is foreshadowed almost nowhere else in the Star Wars movies (yeah, there's a little dialogue between Vader and the Emperor in Episode V) and when it happens it's actually a pretty big shocker, like wtf was Lucas thinking? But when Padme reveals she's Queen Amidala, it's a bit of a shocker, but there's more precedent and we connect better with the situation.

Before the next tension spike we need to have rising action. Rising action should be a natural transition between the lull after a tension point and the next tension point. Occasionally it's okay to have an occasional 'OMG' moment where stressful moments come out of nowhere. It is not okay to do this constantly over the course of your storyline.

For a good example of how not to do this, play Final Fantasy IX, where every climax seems to come out of nowhere and the rising action leads to almost nothing (really boring plot revelations). At least the ending is sorta done right. Generally the reader/player should make enough discoveries or plot revelations to reveal the next climax, such as the bad guys are moving here and we need to stop them, or Shimamura is (or isn't) sleeping with Komako, oh noes!

Mad props if you get the reference there.

Anyway tension points return somewhat to the area of plot hooks, where we have a moment of high energy. However, a plot hook can be brief and doesn't have to be high energy (it just has to be interesting) but a tension point has to be tense. That's kind of the point. When Sailor Moon faces off with the monster of the day, that's the tension point.

In much the same way, your writing has to come to a head and you're gonna have to involve the reader or player(s) in what's going on. We know the bad guys are probably going to lose, but that doesn't mean we can't present them as being threats. In Episode VI when Luke and Vader fight, it seems plausible, even real, that Luke would be beaten by Vader or perhaps even give in to the Dark Side. While we know deep down that Luke will win, the previous movie even set a precedent by making Luke lose (!) to Vader in a previous duel. This creates a lot of tension for this final climax between good versus evil.

In games it's pretty cool because making a battle hard for this purpose is okay because bosses should feel challenging. If you're a GM or game designer, bosses should never be free walks - consider any free walks you give the player(s) to be a small failure and learn from it. Obviously at the same time though, a battle should never be impossibly challenging (hopefully that's obvious!).

The main point though is that you get an encounter that is tense, interesting, and enjoyable for readers or players. And most importantly, don't overuse. You can't get people excited over and over - you gotta pace yourself.

Some things I should really mention - too much character development is usually boring. I like to have something happening often enough that we get to naturally develop characters instead of having them talk about themselves to each other. Character development in general is very very good (ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL IN WRITING) so it is perfectly okay to have a paragraph or two here and there with people talking about themselves to each other, but you should never lose focus of the goal of moving the story forward.

As a game designer it is especially important - never bore the player with walls of dialogue. Always move the game forward and try to keep the player involved. Obviously you can use dialogue to achieve this but too much is not so good. For a good example of Too Much Dialogue, play a Final Fantasy game. Any one of them will do, even VII (although VII is probably one of the best about moving the story along). Actually, almost any JRPG will do for this purpose. For a great example of pacing in general, play Metal Gear Solid or any of its sequels (except ACID and 4; I've never played those so I can't give my hearfelt reccomendation).

Yeah, I haven't played MGS4.

The flowchart for a good story should have a plot hook at the beginning, then a slow rising action to a tension point, followed by a lull into another rising action into a tension point, and so on. The tension points should vary in magnitude (you can only blow up a city so many times before it gets old) and sometimes you can skip lulls or rising actions. In general though you should not, and there should always be a pacing gap between tension points. Also of equal importance is that lulls should not last too long, or the reader/player gets bored.

Also, if I insulted your favorite game or movie, I should note that pretty much all the references I made here are pretty good games and movies (Yes, even Episode 1). Eternal Sonata is a pretty good game overall, even if some of the plot is really convoluted and it suffers from some pretty bad pacing and poor balancing. Final Fantasy IX is one of my favorites in the series despite its awful use of shock value plot points. Final Fantasy VIII is one of my least favorites in the series (pre-XI) but is still a pretty quality game with a great love story and good character design. I think that both FFIX and ES are really good examples of bad pacing, though, so if you're looking for counter-examples to say FFVII (which has awesome pacing), FFVIII (also great pacing), and the MGS series, those are probably some of the worst examples of pacing I've seen in commercial video games. I've seen far worse in indie games (Sonny comes to mind).