|
Post by Draxas on Apr 24, 2008 23:24:01 GMT -5
Anyone interested in seeing this start up again? My recent (over)dose of Smash Bros. has rekindled my desire to run the game again, and I'm wondering if anyone else would want to join in.
|
|
|
Post by Razor on May 12, 2008 23:18:34 GMT -5
Aye. Always.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on May 13, 2008 0:10:27 GMT -5
While I'm glad someone finally did respond, the problem is that it took an awfully long time for someone to respond... Anyone else? It's not much of a game with only one player.
|
|
|
Post by Razor on May 14, 2008 1:23:12 GMT -5
This involves scrolling down now with the new site skin...
|
|
|
Post by kidgame2001 on May 27, 2008 17:24:13 GMT -5
I'd love to keep playing if the game started back up again. Whether the prologue topic was continued, or a new game was started it doesn't matter to me. Clash of Realities is (was?) a great, fun topic. Of course I too agree with you Draxas, it wouldn't be much fun with only 1 or 2 people.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 21, 2009 8:45:28 GMT -5
My apologies to all players. Between things picking up at work, the wedding only a bit over a month away, and the rest of life in general, Clash got pushed a bit to the wyside for a bit. I promise I'll get back to updating soon.
|
|
felix9
Regular
"Aura guide me."
Posts: 292
|
Post by felix9 on Sept 21, 2009 8:54:23 GMT -5
Wedding? You're getting married? Nice! I'm sure I'm not the only one that was wondering where you had disappeared to but I'm glad to hear you're doing ok. I was getting a little worried this version would fall apart, which I seriously hope it doesn't, but take your time Draxas. I can only imagine the craziness in your life with all that. ^^
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 21, 2009 9:02:11 GMT -5
I promise to keep this version running as long as there are people willing to participate. I just can't guarantee how timely my updates are going to be, at least for a while.
|
|
|
Post by sinim on Sept 21, 2009 14:10:08 GMT -5
What you need is an assistant.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 21, 2009 15:58:18 GMT -5
Hah! So true, and yet...
The biggest problem is that, while I am winging and ad-libbing a major portion of the story, dialog, etc. for each iteration of this game, I do have a general framework in mind for where things are going. Unfortunately, telling an assistant who the Big Bad is, what the Hub for this iteration is going to be, and telling them to go nuts might take this game in all kinds of directions I probably wouldn't like much. For example, I had (as already mentioned in the guessing game thread) a few destinations in mind for Bumblebee when he shifted, the frontrunners of which were DAH2 and Vice City. I chose those because it would allow good RP opportunities (blending in, interaction with the natives, avoiding causing a panic, etc.) while allowing Bumblebee to use his natural abilites. I eventually settled on DAH2 because of the similar themes (stealth, hiding in plain sight) with Transformers. Would someone else have gone through the same thought process if they were in charge? I doubt it.
I've seen enough of these crossover RPs done poorly to know that most folks seem to see any given character as equivalent to any other. So Bumblebee might have ended up in the middle of a Dragon Quest game, and nobody who inhabited that world would bat an eye at a giant robot that turned into a strange metal coach. Is that functional and easy? Sure is. Is it immersive, and does it reflect the way I would expect the people of that universe to react? Absolutely not.
I think my reluctance to hand off the reins to someone else has a lot to do with the way I envision this RP going. A lot of people seem to think RP is all about building stats and levels, killing monsters, and playing the numbers game. Some of the old hands here may remember my exasperation with some of the players who tried to apply that model to Iteration 1. Personally, I don't see much point to the grind if there isn't a story to tell, which is why I try to put character interaction as paramount as often as I can. The exact same principles apply to running the game as playing it. Everyone here knows well that I'm not in the business of killing off characters willy-nilly; in fact, I generally try to avoid it entirely. Other GMs are not so magnanimous, and many seem to percieve their players as an enemy to be conquered (possibly because their players are only interested in min/maxing or being munchkins; that's a vicious cycle of one-upmanship that can only end poorly). I wouldn't want my game in the hands of someone who GMs that way, but that's practically impossible to ascertain about someone until you see them in action.
Anyway, I've rambled on for far too long, but hopefully you have some idea why I'm leery about hiring on an assistant. That being said, I probably shouldn't be trying to run the entire game solo because of long stretches like this where I can't keep things moving. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Sept 26, 2009 4:45:09 GMT -5
While we're on the subject:
I've been feeling like I don't have very much creative freedom within the game. It seems too structured, to the point where I feel as though I'm just pressing the buttons to do what you tell me or want me to do. It's like very basic Text-Based Adventures: I may as well be writing
: Go North : Look around [You see X, Y, Z, and a door to the South] : Use X : Look at Y : Go South
The same principle as there applies here; if you try to do something that hasn't already been pre-programmed, the effect is negated or otherwise returns to the status quo. Most of the time I find myself trying to figure out what the pre-programmed outcome or expectation is, instead of just exploring and interacting with things.
The "dialogue" in most sections (posts between you and me, alternating the input and output) don't really promote or allow for me to "get into character." How much is there to actually narrate when all I'm doing is looking at a book, of which no details were given and which I can only indicate that I want to be given more information on it?
As such, the progression and dialogue begins to slow down and feel shallow, especially with having to wait for feedback in order to do anything (I'm speaking in general terms, unrelated to your current situation). In most situations I'm given a prompt which requires me to ask for more information before I can even proceed -- it's difficult in these situations to do anything at all because it feels restrictive.
One great thing about the PDBA, for example, was that it was entirely player-run. You truly had the freedom to get creative and come up with your solutions and devices, which inspired interesting dialogue between characters. Even in CISODs, things were largely player-run. At the start, someone had to come up with a very general Briefing Statement which provided the context and mission objectives, but after that people had free reign to invent the specifics of the situations.
So what I would like to see, and what I would suggest to alleviate some responsibility on your part, is to create broad objectives for players to concentrate on, perhaps sequentially, and allow them to create their own devices to get them done. You can put various restrictions on the objectives based on establishing the context, but otherwise let players have more input on how your story unfolds.
For example, I have absolutely no idea what I'm supposed to be doing right now, and have no idea where this is going. You might say that I'm rather alone in the dark, at the moment. Maybe that's the idea, but without knowing anything I'm losing interest to participate, since I'm not accomplishing anything or striving for anything.
You've said time and again that you plan a lot of the progression out far advance, and while it's admirable that you put as much thought into it as you do, I feel like I'm not getting to put hardly any thought at all into my own role. When I have, it's been at zero consequence to the plot or development. It mostly feels like you do the thinking while I press the buttons to get things done. Like a lab monkey or something.
The combat also bogs down the pacing when the player has perhaps the epitome of a lack of creative input. Is there any incentive to write out detailed narratives when it relies entirely on dice rolls and math? Besides that, posting "Attack" and then waiting for a few hours or a day or two completely detaches the player from the action. I especially lose interest here, because it might as well just be assumed that I will always pick "Attack" and then play out all of the dice rolls in advance until either the fight is over or until a critical condition is reached.
In short, the medium comes off as too restricted and doesn't utilize the medium of an interactive forum very well. Perhaps it would be better if some sort of program could be written to play out the combat in a quick, engaging, or interactive process, or to add extra variables to the dice rolling based on a player's input to make it truly a part of the experience. Other than that, try to formulate more non-linear situations and provide as much of the information right at the start (to prevent the player from having to "fish" for the cues).
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 26, 2009 22:16:25 GMT -5
I'm hard pressed to satisfactorily respond to a lot of your remarks, but I'll do my best.
A lot of what you're criticizing here is the way the game is structured at its core, which is unfortunate. I would hate to think that the way I've built and run the game is stifling creativity, because that's not my intention at all. The idea that's at the center of this game is supposed to be interesting and creative interpretations of characters and game scenarios that we've either seen a million times, or that the games themselves don't do justice to by glossing over them. If the structure of the game is repressing that, then it's failing in its mission.
Part of the problem with your current scenario in particular is that it's based on a game I haven't actually played. That means I only have a small amount of information to go on, and hence, everything is more rigidly structured than I would normally like. It doesn't help that AitD is a rather linear game, and also contains a lot of "instant death" scenarios that I would lie to avoid, from what I've read (those Nightgaunts by the stairs would have killed you in the actual game for daring to get too close, I think, and I'm not sure you would have been able to actually fight off the monster from the window either). I can't really take things outside the box too far because I don't really know how they would behave in those situations. I've done my best to ad-lib that, but I'm stuck for a little while until I can transfer you into a more familiar (to me) scenario.
Combat, unfortunately, is a necessity of the game. The system feels excessively restrictive to you especially, mainly because of your character choice. That's part of the reason why I don't like designing characters with few or no skills; it sucks the variety and most of the strategy out of combat. Feel free to suggest an alternative combat system; I would like to know your take on that. However, know that I simply can't run with something too freeform. If I let the players write the battles, PDBA style, then it sucks any element of danger straight out of the game. That is to say nothing of the fact that "running out of ideas" is ostensibly what killed the PDBA; all the "cool stuff" had already been done.
Still, I would appreciate any alternatives to the things you don't like (this goes for anyone out there in internet land, not just N3B or even the current players). If I can do something or incorporate some element into that game that would draw people in more, or convince them to keep playing instead of abandoning the game, I want to know about it.
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Sept 28, 2009 7:31:19 GMT -5
Consider that neither of us has actually played Alone in the Dark. I wanted to base myself on the 2008 version, and instead wound up in the 1992 version. I didn't object because I figured that meant there would be a lot of improvisation, and since neither of us knows what we're doing beyond basic concepts, it wouldn't really matter.
Am I to gather that you're following the linear progression of AITD by recreating scenarios straight out of walkthroughs? If that's the case, is it really necessary? I thought a large part of the idea of COR was to do things that are explicitly not in the games, or things loosely based on the games. Can we just take "artistic licensing" and do whatever we want with the setting?
It seems like you have the specific outcomes of each situation in mind already, and at this point I may as well just let you do all of the narration for my character until we get to more "open" territory, since either what I'm doing isn't having any effect, or all I'm doing is asking for more information in order to get to your specific outcomes.
Basically, I feel like the medium of a forum should allow for the player to be much more involved in how the story shapes up. What I meant by providing the player with broader goals and more description in my last post was to help alleviate some of the restrictions that I'm feeling held back by. For example, my current objective might be "Get to the basement" and then I can wander about on my own and make up the layout of the mansion as I go, and you can throw combat situations and puzzles at me at various points.
More description also helps, if we're not to have completely free reign over getting from point A to point B. If I walk into a room and am told that there's a wardrobe, a chest, and a stray book, the pacing might be helped if, right at the start, you tell me what's in the wardrobe, the chest, and the book (by narrating it) so that I don't have to sit around probing for information. I feel like that's all I've been doing since I left the attic, perhaps even after the fight with the ghoul.
Alt was telling me a while ago that he had no idea what to do with his character intro because all he knew was that they were in a break room, that the door was locked, and that there was a couch. "What am I supposed to do with that," he asked rhetorically. His options at that point are either to make something up (which might be rejected or negated) or to post "Josh looks around the room, investigating for something useful." Even then, he got a baseball bat and he's wondering "are there any windows to break?" But to find out he has to fish for the information.
Regarding combat: how much danger is there actually, if as you say, you don't kill players without good reason? If a player is trying to play wisely but finds they're either outmatched or already made a critical mistake, then aren't you obligated to give them second chances, if you want people actually playing? For example, in the first version, Raven (as Sheik) fought a guay and two leevers, and after he got close to death, one leever left the match, the second started hitting for extremely low values, and then you prompted him to the Fairy Spring where he healed up to full.
A large part of the reason I picked Mr Carnby is because of how fun the combat in AITD08 was (well, sometimes). It was creative; I had to do all sorts of things depending on what I had available to me. It meant that I had to explore the environment to find those rare stashes of gasoline canisters, liquor bottles, oil bottles, insect sprays, and other explosive or flammable items. And then, in each combat situation, I had to figure out how best to use the items without wasting them, since I could only carry so much at a time. It sometimes meant avoiding combat if the enemies weren't directly in the way -- other times it meant luring them to a car and then shooting the gas tank. One time I had about 2% of a healing spray as my only combustible, which I used in conjunction with the lighter to set a branch on fire, and then I carried that around for a minute until it got full ablaze and then turned and beat the enemies down.
It's beginning to look as though the entire improvisational aspect won't be implemented because of the structure of the combat -- that is, I can't just go off and find things or make things up, you'd have to say "this, this, and this is available within the immediate vicinity" to which I simply say "well alright I'll use that," which itself isn't very creative.
A lot of the other creative ideas I had going into this simply wouldn't play out in the combat system -- such as blinding enemies with high beams and then beating them to death, or forcing a trash can over an enemy's torso to disable it for a few seconds, or blowing up the root of a tree and knocking it down to either crush enemies or block the path. Most of this can't be quantified.
What I mean by "adding extra variables to dice rolling" would work in conjunction with narration. One idea which comes to mind is to allow players to narrate things beyond a simple "attack" command and then you (the GM) roll dice to determine whether it's effective or not. This can have varying success rates depending on the level of what is done (5/6 for throwing dirt in an enemy's eyes to reduce accuracy, 3/6 for stunning them for a few seconds, 1/6 for an instant kill, for example).
You can keep the so-called "danger element" present in narrated fights by allowing players to understand that for each hit they get in, you will be rolling an equal number of dice for the opponent's attacks, and that "cheap kills" (head shots) will be penalized. If someone wants to stick to simple "attack" commands, that works too.
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 30, 2009 12:21:05 GMT -5
Am I to gather that you're following the linear progression of AITD by recreating scenarios straight out of walkthroughs? If that's the case, is it really necessary? I thought a large part of the idea of COR was to do things that are explicitly not in the games, or things loosely based on the games. Can we just take "artistic licensing" and do whatever we want with the setting? It seems like you have the specific outcomes of each situation in mind already, and at this point I may as well just let you do all of the narration for my character until we get to more "open" territory, since either what I'm doing isn't having any effect, or all I'm doing is asking for more information in order to get to your specific outcomes. Well, you've called that one correctly. Since I don't know the game at all, I'm basically using the walkthrough and what few decent screenshots I can find. I would like to have things be more freeform for you, but there's a problem: AitD is an incredibly deadly game (just like most survival horror). The game was designed with quicksave/quickload in mind, and the slightest misstep results in death. That's not something I'm really comfortable subjecting my players to. So why didn't I use 2008 as the basis instead? Because, quite frankly, the stroy is mind-crushingly stupid (most of the AitD games seem to have this problem, actually). Also, do you really want to face off against Lucifer somewhere down the road? A little bit of Lovcraftian horror trumps cliched nonsense any day of the week, and it's not like there are any Great Old Ones in AitD (thankfully). I understand your concern. In all honesty, I also feel like I'm writing for a text adventure, and that bothers me. I like having the characters interact with NPCs or go off in weird directions I never anticipated. Unfortunately, the setting of AitD doesn't lend itself to either. I swear that the scenario is almost over, though, and as long as you're willing to see it through, I'll be moving you on to someplace more amenable to both of us. I wish I had heard it from him, but it's good to know. Herein lies the same problem I have with Ed: I don't know the game, and the scenario is pulled from what information I was able to glean from the 'net. Considering that's even less than what I found for AitD, his scenario is going to change very quickly if he ever comes back. In fact, if he's really stuck for what to do (and that would surprise me, considering), I'll move the scenario along without his involvement in order to prod things along. But again, I'd have to hear it from him. It's a balancing act. I want to make sure that combat has a significant role, and that there is danger. I'm not averse to killing people for acting stupid; check out Niff's performance in Iteration 1. I am, however, not too keen on killing them off because the dice hate them. I try to minimize the consequences of losing battles, but that's not to say they don't exist. I don't want people to have the impression that I'm trying to stifle creativity with a rigid, numbers based combat system. Quite the contrary, in fact; if you want to try something crazy in the middle of a fight, then by all means, go right ahead. There are, of course, no guarantees that it'll work, but I will definitely take unusual actions into account even during battle. Of course, it looks like you had a lot planned for setpieces from AitD2008, which probably doesn't help.
|
|
|
Post by Notesurfer on Oct 1, 2009 14:10:56 GMT -5
I have been reading along both in COR and in this topic for a bit, and I would like to interject. Half the problem, it seems, is with the pace of the gameplay - unfortunately, due to the delayed nature of the DM response (not that Draxas is slow, but simply by virtue of COR being message-board based) it's hard to have D&D style instant discourse in terms of environment. The solution seems to be either that Draxas go into intense, grueling detail with every post regarding the immediate location of the character, or to allow the player certain freedoms in terms of what they can fabricate within the presented scenario. The main appeal of this type of game is, of course, the open-ended nature of its gameplay, which brings me to my second point. Draxas: as far as N3B's suggestions for the combat system, could you not choose whether to award combat XP or roleplaying XP? His example of turning on high beams and then bashing on the enemies has the potential for a sort of hybrid of the two (starting battle with a couple turns of advantage i.e. enemy blindness/confusion), but what about purely RP'd battles? If he chooses, for example, to dump a can of gasoline on the floor and light it, consuming his zombie enemies, could you not award him an equivalent amount of XP? This allows for non combat-based characters to actually exist/survive, and adds a layer of creativity that was previously nonexistent. Consider, for example, if he is trapped in a corner when he performs his manuever - you could give him the XP for destroying his enemy, but require him to RP his way out of the subsequent blaze without being immolated himself. I am aware, incidentally, that I am the biggest hypocrite, given that I haven't actually participated in COR since its rebirth.
|
|