[Game Design] Will Wright on Story and Game

[Celebrim]

However, D&D doesn't do this by the book and if I sign on to a D&D game and find it's a complete sandbox in which I'm supposed to user-create my content, I'll walk away and GM a game of my own. If I'm going to sandbox, I may as well create a sand castle others can play with.

Well said.

All the 'you DM's are egomaniacal power trippers' comments I get from the other side of this debate, misses that really big point. I run the sort of campaigns that I wish people would run for me when I'm a player. I run the sort of campaigns that I enjoyed when I was a player. I don't enjoy DMing to the exclusion of being a player. But, if no body else is going to make a great 'sand castle' (in the clouds!) for me, then I might as well make one myself and share it.

 

[Blackwind]

Yeah. As a player, I have to admit that I appreciate at least relative freedom to have my character do as he or she wishes. I dislike extensive railroading and "epic plots" that my character is not really invested in. I do like there to be plot hooks, especially if they are custom tailored to my character. And I also like there to be an established setting that I can use as a jumping-off point for character creation.

As a DM, my favorite aspect of the game is world-building. I'm not quite as good at writing plots; what I like to do is watch the PCs explore and interact with the world I have created.

So really, I would be the perfect DM for myself. I've played in some decent campaigns over the years, but never found a DM who runs games the way I would like them to be run. And that's why I end up DMing most of the time -- sometimes I just wish I could play in my own campaign.

Oh well.

 

[DonTadow]

I think its very possible and done. I get what Will is saying and its one of the main reason why I loss interest in never winters night and other computer/videogame rpgs. The set linear story is nigh unavoidable.

But any DM can do it. But there has t obe some order. Every player can't make the world and with six people around you got to pick and choose. There's nothing wrong with a dm having events happen in his world, and the pcs wanting to do other things. Knowing a pcs background, a dm can develop a loose outline outlines for that background, while making sure hte pcs know that the main events are still happening.

 

[RFisher]

3) Will Wrights games are great object lessons in why the approach he's always advocated doesn't really work in general. First of all, most of his games are pretty dreadfully dull once you get beyond the 'Gosh, look at the thing grow' stage.

I entirely agree with your points about his games...except for one little detail: I don't find them dreadfully dull after a time. They are some of the few games that I consistently come back to.

On the (possibly) other hand, I have a friend who is still baffled that I actually own Final Fantasy X & have not finished it.

 

[D.Shaffer]

3) Will Wrights games are great object lessons in why the approach he's always advocated doesn't really work in general. First of all, most of his games are pretty dreadfully dull once you get beyond the 'Gosh, look at the thing grow' stage. Will makes interesting toys that approximate something organic and alive.

Just quibbling on this one here, but he's doing SOMETHING right. The Sims (and its various expansions) is one of the best selling games of all time and pulled in a lot of people who would not describe themselves as 'gamers'. It's not my cup of tea, but there's a definite draw there for many people and I cant help but think the creative aspects are part of the reason. On a related note, I look forward to Spore and what it might mean for the industry.

While I dont think a game should be completely player controlled, I dont see why some DM's are adamantly against ANY sort of PC input into the game world or flow of the game. You cant detail every single little bit of your world, so why not let the players help out? If the players arent having fun with your plot, why not change it?

 

[The_Gneech]

Yes, it is possible. Although, IMHO, it is ideally a balance. But exploring ground closer to the extremes--whether DM-active/PCs-reactive or PCs-active/DM-reactive--can be fun too. It helps, though, to talk about this before you start. When a DM expecting to be reactive meets players expecting to be reactive, you've got a recipe for frustration.

"What do you do?"
"I dunno. What needs to be done? Where's our quest?"​

Likewise with active DM & active PCs.

"You've each received a summons from the king. He explains how the kingdom needs your unique talents to retrieve the McGuffin of Destiny & save the realm."
"We say 'No, thanks. You're the king. Saving the kingdom is your duty.' Let's steal a ship, & go pirating!"​

You have just described the disconnect between me and the rest of my group perfectly. As GM I keep wanting them to have goals -- they keep wanting me to give them assignments. As a player, I keep wanting to follow my goals -- they keep wanting me to go on their assignments.

It can be extremely frustrating.

-The Gneech

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I've learned: Is it possible to have a DM so good at doing this that he only responds to what the PC party asks of him? In other words, the DM doesn't create a world and allow the players to play in it: the players give the DM instructions on how to create the world, the DM runs them through his own ringer, and out pops the entirety of a D&D campaign.

Bleh.

What about when he says "If you took control away from the DM, the world would become quite narrow, and would lack a true sense of independent existence."?

The best DMs I have ever played under have allowed their players a sense of discovery as they explored the world the DM created, while at the same time making room in that world for the backstories of PCs that actually fit into that world.

I am a big fan of letting PCs choose the stories that they get involved in. I am also a big fan of stories happening whether the PCs get involved or not. Doesn't matter what side of the screen I am on, either. The idea that the world is just sort of scrolling out around me based upon what I want makes the whole thing seem sort of cheap and hollow.

YMMV, and probably does.


RC

 

[DonTadow]

You have just perfectly described the disconnect between me and the rest of my group perfectly. As GM I keep wanting them to have goals -- they keep wanting me to give them assignments. As a player, I keep wanting to follow my goals -- they keep wanting me to go on their assignments.

It can be extremely frustrating.

-The Gneech

This is what my old group would do . There would be downtimes in sevreal overall plots where things just festered and I'd look to the pcs for plots but sometimes come back with nothing.

 

[Celebrim]

The Sims (and its various expansions) is one of the best selling games of all time and pulled in a lot of people who would not describe themselves as 'gamers'.

I think you may have made my point for me.

While I dont think a game should be completely player controlled, I dont see why some DM's are adamantly against ANY sort of PC input into the game world or flow of the game.

If I was against PC's taking control of the flow of the story, I'd not bother playing a RPG. I'd write the stories by myself.

 

[GreatLemur]

Will Wright's comments about electronic games pretty much drive them in exactly the opposite direction of where I like them; for my part, I'd call his best and most famous "game," SimCity, far, far less of a game than those of his story-focused competitors, precisely because it's open-ended and unwinnable. It's more of an 'activity' or 'passtime' or even 'hobby.'

I've been using the word "toy", myself. The Sims is like a rubber ball: You can play with it however you like. You can play games with it--and make up your own games, for that matter--or you can just screw around with it. That open-endedness is its greatest strength.

Certainly, there's a place in the world for both games and toys. But as I've got little to no interest in hearing the kinds of stories games generally want to tell me, my own preferences fall on the more open-ended side of the spectrum. Around where pen-and-paper RPGs are, I guess.

Just as an aside, Spore looks to be an interesting toy-game hybrid: It's a tremendiously open-ended sandbox of a thing, but you do actually have to work (well, play) to get access to new stuff to play with. I think I'd call it a series of toys arranged into a game. You can treat it as a straight-up game and work your way up that ladder to the "end", or you can hang around and just play with the toys you've got access to.