Monday, July 19 2010

Mouse Guard - First Contact

jasper-the-friendly-mouse.jpgLearning to play Mouse Guard has me figuratively standing on my head, my feet helplessly flailing in the air in desperate attempts of achieving that sacrosanct performance level I always strive for.

Truth be told, from my understanding, Mouse Guard plays in the exact opposite way I have ever played RPGs.

MG is not exactly about you playing a character that reacts to its environment - its about you and your buddies working together to build a story.

This should - and could - be my holy grail for sharing narrative control.

But it seems that it also wants to be some sort of torture device aiming to make me feel inadequate at something I used to feel I was good at.

Kind of like high school.

I Like The Game - Really!

So far, all of the game's concepts are fabulous. My inner artist is in awe of the wonderful stories we can weave. My inner game designer is in awe of the elegance of the rules.

I am in awe of how it fuels what I now perceive to be the main goal of the game : building a story together.

Its not about leveling up your character. Not about solving puzzles and riddles. Not about finding the best tactical strategy to defeat wave after wave of enemies.

Its not even about finding the best action for the situation.

[Mostly] Pure storytelling.

Top-Down Though Process

top-down-thinking-mouse.jpgAs a software engineer, I am quite fond of the "top down" process. It consists of starting with the goal and fragmenting it in smaller problems. You solve these problems by fragmenting them in even smaller problems.... until you get to a series of problems simple enough to solve with code.

(Yes, I made a programming analogy! I'm sure it made everything clear! I'm delusional!)

Well, I don't normally play RPGs this way.

In my traditional RPGs, I expect the DM to give me an environment with which I will interact to get to point B, which is usually more-or-less implied by the DM.

I look for solutions in the environment provided by the DM.

In Mouse Guard, not so much.

I first need to decide what I want to happen - Not what I want to do, but the outcome of what I will do.

The actions of my character are "merely" the justification of this outcome.

The description of my character's actions, along with their results, might be tasked by a skill challenge; the outcome of which would decide if what I want is actually what happens, or if an unexpected twist comes up instead.

How alien[ating]!

So, your arrive in front of this river, you see, hot on the tracks of the lost patrol, when suddenly, the tracks disappear.

What do you do?

I look for tracks, or traces that would hint me whether they tried to cross the river

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

That's not how it goes: I must tell what I do, based on what will happen. Let's try again.

Looking for tracks, I find evidence that the patrol tried to build a raft to go across the river. However, the current was too strong and they were carried further down the river where their raft crashed on a bit of land, smack in the middle of the river, where the patrol is stranded.

Ah! A skill challenge ensues - which I nearly succeed. The failure means I get a part of my goal, but an unexpected twist happens.

Alright, so you find that evidence and the destroyed raft... as well as the patrol's lifeless bodies, maimed and partially eaten.

In the corner of your eye, you see movement - a fox is near, and he still is hungry for more.

(Did I mention we play mice?)

This was one of the easy situations to deal with - and it ran much less smoothly than that...

There is no correct answer

Striving for performance, striving for the correct answer is not what this game is about - not only can it hamper creativity but, truth be told, failure often yields more interesting results.

(I'll repeat it later on, you'll see)

After all, do we really like adventure stories with no twists?

This is a story about Mario Cheese, who went into the first castle he came upon, beat all the guards senseless, rescued the princess, and came back home.

The End

In storytelling, failure often yields more interesting results.

Mouse Guard actually has mechanics that reward failure!

Check this out: you gain skill levels by successfully using your skill, but to gain a level, you need to fail at least once.

A rule that allows you to - *gasp* - learn from your mistakes!

Even better - you actually get bonus actions for the "player round" (more on this in a future post) by actually using your character's traits against yourself during a challenge!

The character I play has a well-developed trait making him very compassionate. This is a trait I can easily play against my own character in negotiations, for example.

We rarely speak about it, but people can do pretty stupid things out of compassion!

So?

yellow-dice.jpgI really like the game, but its original mechanics seem to be throwing me off and are making me struggle to a near-personal level.

The game is not just challenging - its challenging me. It is making me face perceived inadequacies. It is shaking part of the foundations of my social equilibrium. (Is it a game or is it therapy?)

And it is still a blast to play! - truly a testament to the awesomeness of the group I have the privilege of playing with.

I can't wait to gain a better understanding (not an intellectual one, but a visceral one), so I can bring concepts of this game - if not the game itself - to my other gaming groups.

I'll try and share with you my appreciation of the rules as well as my struggles with getting a grip of the game over my next few posts.

If you have not already, be sure to check out Chatty DM's report of these Mouse Guard sessions as well for ever more insight on the game.

 

Sunday, May 30 2010

Vote to help find a good name for GameTable?

I've been planning to come up with my own version of GameTable - now called OSU-gt - for a while.

I've actually ended up joining the dev team, but at this time, our objectives do not seem to be compatible. I planned an architectural redesign the whole thing - mainly to allow third party plugins, update to latest technology and potentially plug in a better graphics engine. They are working on stabilizing what they already have to push out a 2.0 version. They don't seem to have enough time on their hands to really look over what I plan to do.

I'm not "mr. Free Time" either, so I hate spending what time I had spare for this project on waiting to get my ideas approved... so I decided I'll branch my version out and see what happens. More details on my short-term objectives later on.

Right now, I need a name for the project.

Update

I've had an interesting offer from the OSU-gt team. Maybe I won't branch out after all :)

 

Sunday, April 18 2010

Revenge of the dailies

Painting walls, hauling furniture and chatting with ChattyDM for the better part of a day can yield some interesting discussions.

While I've been planting the seeds of a return to DnD within my old gaming group, my DM (let's call him Steve, because that's his name) is considering selling his collection of 4th ed books, having moved over to Pathfinder. Seems like none of his other gaming groups liked 4th ed.

ChattyDM was wondering what his other players didn't like about 4th ed. While I didn't really press the matter with Steve, it got ChattyDM to tell me *gasp* one thing that... let's say itches him from 4th ed.

Daily powers.

  1. Not hitting with a daily power is frustrating.
  2. Using a daily power makes the players want to take an extended rest instead of a short rest. Always.

Not hitting with a daily power is frustrating Alot

frustrated_alot.gif

Yes. While some dailies have a miss effect, some don't and missing becomes an even more frustrating event.

I've play-tested this house rule in the game I played yesterday night in my head and it worked perfectly:

A missed daily that has no "miss" effect is automatically regenerated after a short rest.

Using a daily power makes PCs want to take extended rests.

I know of this - this is why I collect scroll and potions and never use them. In computer RPGs, I hoard them and use them just in the fight with the final boss.

At the end of Dragon Age, my bard chugged down so many potions, it had to ask the dragon to wait while she went peeing.

red-dragon.jpg

Scarcity of resources make them more valuable - I tend not to use them, in case a better opportunity to use them present itself.

I do have a clever house rule here... but first, I need to say that most of the times, players can take an extended rest after a fight. I take an extended rest after every day at work. I don't have a problem with players always taking extended rests.

I love the idea of creating situations where it is not a good idea to take an extended rest - it enhances the stress of using dailies (or of extended resting).

Back to the clever house rule. If you can, remember your first level wizard in 2nd ed, when it missed its only spell and was scared of taking out its sling in case a monster would notice him, spit on his face from a distance, removing the last of his 1d4 worth of HP?

My house rule builds on the same mechanisms we used back then to deal with it:

Suck it up

What are your feelings on 4th ed and dailies?


Original Alot, from Hyperbole and a Half, which you should be reading.
Red Dragon from Dungeon and Dragon's 3rd Edition Player's handbook. Wuss adventurer added on it by an artist I don't know.
 

Saturday, March 27 2010

PSN Store lacking features

I love my PS3. I have nearly more games after a year of PS3 than I had during my PS2's life time... and I loved my PS2.

The PSN - PlayStation Network - is great. I love that it is free. I love that you can buy games online - even though my wallet sometimes do disagree.

One of my good buddies recently got himself an XBox 360 Arcade game system (found a pretty sweet deal too!).

So I went to his place and we browsed the XBLA (XBox Live Arcade) - which is the "equivalent" of the PSN Store.

I use quotes here, because XBLA is actually far superior to the PSN store.

And I'm not talking about the quantity of games (even though, IHMO, it beats PSN's offering), their price (PSN seems overpriced to me) or even the quality of the games offered (won't play them all :P)

I'm talking about the store itself - the way it is browsed, the way the games are presented.

See, every game we saw on XBLA had a demo, some screen shots and a short description - just about everything you need to make a basic educated decision on your purchase.

The games were also neatly displayed and easy to navigate.

When I came home to my PS3 and was treated to the grid layout (yes, I know I can change it to a less horrible layout), lack of any relevant information on games and prices that always seem to be 5$ too expensive, I've started to get XBLA envy.

See, I think the PSN store has the capacity to be a very (and I do mean //very// profitable venture for Sony and game developers, but - as I seem to notice in a lot of Sony products - it lacks some vision.

PSN does a very poor job of selling the wares it show - they are (outside of the main page), badly showcased, provide very little information and really do nothing to stimulate the potential customer from parting with his hard-earned money (or too-easily acquired credit).

When I go to a game store, I can pick up a box and look at the description at its back. Look at the screen shot. I can talk with the guys at the counter. I have just about every resource at my fingertips to decide whether the game is of interest short of actually trying it out.

On the PSN, I am nearly forced to whip up a laptop and ask the Internet what it thinks of the game I'm looking for.

PSN is basically forcing me out of the store, away from the "purchase" button.

That, as far as marketing goes, is usually a no-no.

In the no-brainer category.

What do I need from the PSN?

A decent description

All games should have a decent description. What game type is it? What age is it for? What is it about? Why would I want to play this game? Why is its existence relevant to the rest of the world?

What we currently have is always nearly useless, informationless blabber.

Screenshots

What does this game actually look like? PSN can do this, it just never actually bothers to do so. You have to buy to see.

Gameplay Videos

Like the screenshots, PSN can actually do this, but few developers really bother to provide. Again, I ask, what is it that I am purchasing? What do you have to hide?

Demos

Yikes. XBLA has a demo for every game out there. On PSN , if you're lucky, you get the demo a few week after the game comes out. The main game and its demo are not even linked together. If you stumble on the full game and are interested, there's nothing to get you to the demo, if it exists. There's nothing to tell you whether the demo exists or not.

It is my belief that demos should be mandatory for every PSN game. I know it taxes the developers but really, in the end, it will only stimulate sales. Except, of course, if the game is bad. In which case it will hurt the sales.

Do you think Sony wants to sell PSN games? No - they'll want games that are good enough to get friends of customers to purchase as well.

Ratings

Community ratings would also help towards closing sales. I'd love to see community reviews, but I would expect that moderation of such things would be way to bothersome.

Platform Clarification

PSN can sell games for PSP or PS3. What tells you this is a little logo under the game's icon. That's it.

psp-small.gif - ps3-small.gif

How cool is it to download a PSP game or demo when you don't own the device? Not much.

Games should be either categorized by platform, or you should be allowed to filter them out.

Conclusion

I think Sony should invest and push the store forward - it can be improved to deliver even greater content and boost its rentability through simple, basic selling techniques - its not even marketing efforts yet (almost), its just the equivalent of having a competent salesperson in the shop.

Did you know you can propose and vote on ideas and features related to the PSN?

Check these out: All Games Should Have Screen Shots All Games Should Have Demos Community Reviews Clarification on Platform

 

Saturday, March 6 2010

StartCraft - The Board Game

Starcraft : Board gameI've had the pleasure of sitting with my friend, co-worker and business associate Alain and his brother for a night of StartCraft : The Board Game.

Lets skip analyzing the packaging (pretty & impractical) or the material (very nice - lots of figures, good quality).

We jumped right ahead at going through the rules book - it took us roughly 30-40 minutes for us to be able to start wrapping our heads around the concept.

Its not that the rules are overly complex, but there are many of them and the rules are not organized in a way that seemed to work the same way our brains does - and we're used to sifting through technical data.

In fact, I couldn't help referring to the rules book as the "specs book", as I felt like I was sitting in front of a client who was trying his best to tell me what he wanted his software to do!

When we got the gist of the basics, we dug in head first: we each chose a faction out of the six available factions, drew planets, prepared our starting units, built the space map and were on our way.

Playing the game itself is nice - you get an elegant RTS feel: every turn your workers gather resources from the territory you control (either crystals, gas or victory points). With the resources, you can upgrade your buildings, build new units or purchase technology to upgrade your existing units.

Starcraft - Zerg's Hydralisk

Commands

Giving commands to your units is done using a game mechanic that holds some pretty sweet strategic action:

Each player can issue one hidden command (either build, move or research) on a planet. Players can issue commands on the same planet - in which case the commands "stack". When every one issued 4 commands, we start resolving them.

Here's the cute catch : stacked commands are issued in reverse order than they were placed. In other words : last in, first out. (Lets call it a "LIFO Command Stack" and keep the tech-head in me happy)

It gets better : commands are resolved one by one, player by player - meaning that it is possible you don't have a playable command (an opponent's command stacked on yours blocking you) - while the fluff doesn't make any sense, the strategies you can use to delay opponents were quite entertaining and satisfying.

Combat

Combat was interesting - its a mellow deck-building concept. You have a "combat deck" from which you draw cards to build you hand. These cards give stats to your units (simple attack vs defense) and can also contains technologies to boost your units.

I say "mellow", because you can't really choose the cards you use other than by adding technologies. The rules variation are not many and there is no way to thin the deck. Basically, you won't play with deck statistics as you would in Magic The Gathering or Dominion.

I probably should call it "hand building" - you can manage to draw a lot of cards during your turn - always having to drop down to 6 cards at the end of the round. This is how you can plan your attack slowly and build your hand - and not your deck.

While the system is fairly simple and enjoyable, it seems to be biased in favor of the attacker. Since the attacker decide which creatures attack which creatures, he's the only one that has a chance of grouping his units together against his enemy. Combined wit the fact that equals attack and defense scores means the attacker wins - so it ends up being much easier to attack than defend... good for the Zerg's natural strategy and less so for the Protoss...

Starcraft : Terrans

Passage of time

The game time is limited by a "timer" and lasts only up to three "eras". The eras are made out of a stack of cards, all containing joyous events that happen at the end of a round.

During the game, if you cannot do one of your commands because you are blocked, or if you choose to cancel a command, you can draw an "event card" - but you can't look at it! You also get event cards when you do research.

Event cards trigger the change of eras - once you've used all of the first era's cards, you move on to the second era, then third, in which the end of the game can be triggered - one of the ends, that is, as there are multiple victory conditions through which the game can be ended.

Victory conditions

The basic winning condition is the first player that achieves 15 victory points (which you get at the end of a round, depending on the victory point zones you control).

Every faction (2 per race) also has its own "special victory condition" - which is where the whole thing started falling apart for us.

They all seemed benign at first: you win if, at any time during era 3 you have 3 bases. Another wins if he controls 6 resource zones during era 3. Another one, if he controls more zones than any enemy during era 3, etc. etc.

Every faction as a condition to meet during era 3 (except mine - I'll get to that later).

Problem is : all players but one easily realizes his victory conditions within 3-4 turns... way before we get to era 3. So as soon as we turn era 3, we've got a tie.

The end is near

My winning conditions

I like to play play the underdog. I always build a bard or something similar. If someone says a class is unplayable, I'll play it (Bothan Noble? Really?). So, I jumped at the only race that didn't have an "era 3" condition.

My victory condition: every opponents need 20 victory points instead of 15 to win. you win when two "the end is near" cards are played... which, I didn't know at the time, is the condition for the end game.

You see, "End is near" cards are only found during era 3 - at which point all of my opponents have already completed their victory conditions.

And I don't think we ever passed the 10 points mark before 2 players meeting their conditions.

The Verdict

Game time : We played only 2 games so far and the second one took nearly 2 hours.

Learning curve : Steep. The 1st game took roughly 5 hours. If we had a learned player teaching us (or better rules), it could have taken us half that time.

Balancing : Either we missed something important, or the "special victory conditions" should be completely dropped. They killed the game for me.

Enjoyment: The game itself (sans the victory conditions) is very enjoyable.

We'll have to play it a few more times to see if I'd bother shelling the money for it (it nears 100$ around here!).

We'll consider letting the victory conditions go and just use the points system the next time and enjoy the true RTSiness of the game.

 

- page 1 of 18