[gamist RPGs] Player Driven Games and
Callan S.:
Nate (just as a side question, is that your actual name?) I'm looking back at your first post
Quote
Some of my favorite computer games are [Day of the Tentacle], [World of Warcraft], [Warcraft 3], [Diablo/Torchlight], [Killing Floor], [Half Life 1 and Minerva for HL2], [Left 4 Dead], [DooM original], and obviously [Deathspank].
I know a few of those and they all, upfront, give some overall objective (well, perhaps not world of warcraft...). Does your campaign share that quality that all those games you like had in common, as in some overall objective that's stated at the start? Or did you already say your campaigns overall objective somewhere?
Devon Oratz:
Actually, Nate, Callan makes a good point.
Let me riff on it. The difference between, for instance, Half Life 2 and, say, the single player campaign of any of the last three Call of Duty games isn't actually one of linearity. Both games are linear. The difference is that HL2 has a SLOWER PACE that allows for MORE EXPLORATION.
Better examples of actually, truly non-linear video games are Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, and Grand Theft Auto.
Callan S.:
My point was about the presence or absence of some overall objective - in diablo and torchlight there's a big badguy at the end who needs splatting. In warcraft RTS there's beat the other army. In half life there's an alien invasion to fend off. Doom, a demonic invasion to fend off. Left for dead, gotta survive man (I haven't played it, just guessing), etc. In other words, they are pretty much like the player of Thunder says - they hand you a goal to complete. Perhaps you try for a bunch of sub goals, but your handed the main goal - if you don't like the main goal, don't play the game at all.
Nate, you said you liked these games, but does your sandbox campaign share what they all pretty much have in common - a main goal that is set by the game itself, not the players?
Natespank:
Quote
Nate (just as a side question, is that your actual name?) I'm looking back at your first post
My real name is Spank, but my friends call me Nate.
Quote
I know a few of those and they all, upfront, give some overall objective (well, perhaps not world of warcraft...). Does your campaign share that quality that all those games you like had in common, as in some overall objective that's stated at the start?
No.
Before I state a campaign goal I like to introduce the setting and such; I imagine a 5 act structure where the first act is only supposed to put everything in place and introduce everything/everybody. In "Act 2" -about level 3- I'll transition to a campaign goal. I want to play it by ear a little bit to make sure it will fit the player group and the setting, make sure they'll hook or at least run with it.
Honestly, I've thought about it and I think the DM has to provide macro-level goals for the players, and some subquests too; he just has to ensure that the players can depart from his path as much as they want to... I need to think about this a bit more.
My next session I'm going to add a DM assigned goal of sorts (some larger goal for act 1 of the campaign besides "gain enough fame to go treasure hunting with the dwarf") and use it as a campaign skeleton. I want to encourage maximum player-direction, but I think that in some ways the DM's role may be to help set goals and to reward/congratulate them for their victories. I think the DM has to provide some of the significance of the character and setting's actions rather than relying on the players to create and assign significance.
Before I ramble a lot let me think about it a few days so I can write something coherent.
I <3 NES Zelda...
Natespank:
I think it's partially a matter of the game requiring
1) Unity
2) Direction
3) Because we're social animals, I think external goals and approval is important. I can't fully explain why in only a few words though- maybe later!
Gnight!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page