Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9318784" data-attributes="member: 7040941">Oh for sure. Thats something that I think is actually very important for the kinds of story telling that you still want to have, even in a fully gameplay driven experience.To use a video game, the environmental storytelling we see in the original Halo (in particular the Library) wouldn't work without being informed by traditional narrative structures. Its easy to just scatter bodies and viscera and random scary things on a map, but to do it with intentionality so that the tension rises as the Player traverses the level takes more a lot more deliberate thought. And over in tabletop land when we're approaching the question of ludonarrative harmony vs dissonance, we need to consider how the games ludic elements are utilized in tandem with the expected narrative. If we flop too much the either side, there's going to be dissonance. While a game devoid of any intended narrative isn't strictly a problem for story making (afterall, Baseball makes stories), in RPGs there's always going to be an intended narrative to every mechanic, and thats pretty inescapable. To take the easy excuse to talk about my own game design, lets talk about something I've recently finished up an initial draft on, which is my take on Race mechanics. While I can explain in the aggregate of how I approached the design, I think it'll be better, and less of a novel, to give an example and point to what its doing. So here is the full entry for Goblins in my game, which I'll do my best at keeping the formatting straight:So, what we can see in how I structured this is two fold:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Deep integration of Lore</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A Strong Ludonarrative Harmony between the Lore and the Mechanics</li> </ul>The entry overall introduces a player to my take on Goblins, and dives deep into their history and place within the setting while, seamlessly, covering the actual mechanics that each People and Culture within that People grants the player, including the variable ones that are based on their chosen Class(s). The purpose of this is to help enhance the ludonarrative immersion (meaning, to me, thinking and acting as their character) a player could feel by connecting the setting directly to their characters capabilities in a way that, while it does nudge Players towards certain kinds of narrative threads, is still open enough to allow for agency. And meanwhile, these entries aren't just making reference to various bits of Lore, but also to a lot of actual, gameplay relevant things. Ebonwood Armpit Perfume? Its a real thing, and it has distinct uses particularly in the making of healing potions. Clothing that will change colors with the Goblins physiology? All made out of real in-game Materials any player can craft a number of things out of. And so on. A new player who becomes enthralled by the game will have plenty to work with to ease in to this new world they'll be immersed in, and more experienced players will have no shortage of material to lean on and off of to twist towards whatever kinds of narratives they'd like to explore as they play. To contrast this take with say Dungeon World and 5e, obviously theres some stark differences. For one, I took DWs idea of Racial Abilities and full sent it, so comparing, my game goes to a much deeper level with the same general approach, lending depth and more compelling character development not just from the sheer breadth of options, but also from the careful integration across most if not all 7 Pillars of the game. While DW has more going on under the hood compared to the usual, I can say with all objectivity it can't compare with the vast interwoven gameplay loops my game has. Whether it will prove good or bad, my game just has more depth than DW is capable of, and if its good, which it so far has been, then I think we have an example of a third way. Now, looking at 5e, while the Races do often have some substantial lore to go look at, little to none of it is really connected in anyway to whatever sparse mechanics are granted to the option, many of which turn, I might add, are just copy and pasted ad infinitum. (Frickin Darkvision man <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😒" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f612.png" title="Unamused face    :unamused:" data-shortname=":unamused:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />)Here, every single ability is bespoke and tailored to the People, and will only share minor similarities to other People's abilities, (Which I hope with revision I can eliminate entirely where it happened) and the same integration between my games various gameplay loops plays a part in paying off the players choices in a way that 5e can't really compete with. When you say your character is an Oakwood Goblin Martial, those choices are going to still be relevant hundreds of hours later when your Goblin has had 3 descendents and they're now fighting to honor your original legacy as a steadfast warrior. So long story short, I think my overall point is that while cutting out depth and gameplay and adding more narrative elements can often fix problems with games like DND, it doesn't mean you couldn't have also fixed the gameplay and depth, and added narrative elements. Now, obviously, my game isn't a generic universal system. But, in one of the few things I really do agree with the PBTA style on, I don't think universal systems are really all that good outside some notable examples, and especially not if the fundamental issue we're having is how the games play from a ludonarrative perspective. Like your average PBTA style game, Labyrinthian is designed with a very clear vision of the experience players will have. If you see that Dragon over there, you can suplex that Dragon. If I want to play a game like Fellowship, I'm not particularly concerned about the game selling the narrative I've concocted, because thats not what kind of game it is.</blockquote>

Verification