23 October 2009

Pervasive Games

Reposted on new blog at http://dynamitochondria.blogspot.com/2009/10/pervasive-games.html.

The topic of pervasive games caught my attention a few months ago when I picked up a copy of Pervasive Games: Theory and Design from the bookstore. I wasn't two chapters into the book before I had a bunch of game ideas, including one with a game design document that's practically writing itself. Needless to say, I recommend this book.

The authors have a blog called, logically enough, Pervasive Games: Theory and Design. Like many blogs, it's got a lot of "Real Life" mixed in with the topical posts, but I've really enjoyed reading it. While you're out, check this one. The "LA" in "PLAY" is more about play than games, but it's about getting out and playing in public, and there's plenty of gaming material in their archive. Fun with thought provoking moments.

I never really got into LARPing; my tabletop pen & paper gaming experiences are immersive enough for me, thanks. But I had a lot of fun playing Killer in college, especially in "covert" games where part of the goal is to remain unnoticed by anyone not playing the game. Today's ubiquitously connected mobile devices let us take that idea to whole new levels. Want to play a Western-themed game with shootouts and barroom brawls, except that you and your opponents are scattered through the restaurant quietly choosing your targets and blazing away via your smart phones? Me too. I successfully resisted buying an expensive mobile phone for years, contented with whatever came free with my contract, but now I've got my eye on a G1 and the Android SDK. Pray for my soul.

12 October 2009

MMO Design: Rich Faction


Reposted on new blog at http://dynamitochondria.blogspot.com/2009/10/mmo-design-rich-faction.html

Faction is a widely used concept in persistent-world games, especially in the MMO space. Blizzard's World of Warcraft is the best known example, using Faction in two related contexts. When you are first creating your character, you choose Horde or Alliance, and that's your Faction. It simply specifies your "side" in the ongoing conflict featured in the setting. However, Alliance and Horde are also examples of a somewhat more complex mechanic. Each of them has a numerical value representing how well you are "liked" by that side.

In addition to these big two, there are any number of smaller factions, ranging from small towns to large organizations neutral in the Horde/Alliance conflict. You increase your score with a given faction by doing quests assigned by that faction's quest-givers. The Faction award for a given quest is orthogonal to the XP awarded, so it's possible to earn Faction score for a mission so far below your character's level that it awards no XP. I've frequently heard this described as "Grinding Faction".
So what good is it? As you increase a Faction score, the NPCs associated with that Faction will change their behavior toward you, maybe giving you a quest that was previous locked, maybe giving to access to some unique resource such as special mounts.

That's interesting enough, but it could be so much more. For not much more complexity, and a trivial increase in the data storage requirements per character, Faction could be strongly enriched.
In the real world, one person's opinion of another person can't be summarized in a single integer score. Think about it. You have a friend you like tremendously but wouldn't trust to borrow the car or feed the cat during a vacation. You don't necessarily like them any less, but you have a low estimation of their competence.

Think Gilligan here. Gilligan has a high "like" score with the Castaways Faction but a low "estimation" score. They all know he'd go through hell to help them, and they'd do the same for him, but they're not fooling themselves about his competence, to the point that he gets underestimated now and then.

How can we apply this idea to a persistent-world game? Ordinarily, when completing a quest for a Faction, your single-value score goes up by a fixed amount. What if the Faction logic kept track of your defeats while attempting the quest? If you die three times in the quest instance but eventually get it done, you get the expected award to your Like value, but your Estimation value drops somewhat. In the future, the Faction's quest-givers assign you slightly less challenging quests that grant a little less XP. As your character becomes more powerful and your skill as a player increases, you find yourself getting defeated less, and your Estimation score goes up. You get harder missions with better XP. By adding one integer value per Faction per character, you create an automated adjustment to difficulty progression.

It makes a certain sense to track this data per Faction, since the types of enemies you face for different factions are often very different, and in-story different groups may not share information. But what if they do? How about a tiered Faction system that tracked the relationships between different Factions. The Blue Wizards and the Red Knights are both allied with the Purple Kingdom. If you do very well on quests for the Blue Wizards, your Estimation score goes up with the Purple Kingdom and the Red Knights as well. Maybe your Like scores go up as well, or maybe down. It makes sense to adjust just about any Faction value based on Faction changes with an associated Faction. The Blue Wizards are closely allied with the Purple Kingdom, but are in bitter rivalry with the Red Knights, who are also closely allied with the Purple Kingdom. You successfully complete a grand quest for the Blue Wizards and are awarded Like bonus with the Blue Wizards, a lesser Like bonus with the Purple Kingdom, and a Like penalty with the Red Knights. You can try to maximize your Like score with one Faction over the other or try to play both sides for some optimum aggregate Like score.

By placing Factions into a hierarchy with defined relationships, you've added interesting choices for the player. Faction is currently oversimplified and underutilized. Making only these two changes adds two very interesting dynamics to a persistent-world game. Enriching this simple attribute further could add unguessed possibilities.

04 October 2009

Oh Joy Another Blogger XP

Reposted on new blog at http://dynamitochondria.blogspot.com/2009/10/oh-joy-another-blogger-xp.html

You know, I've tried this blogging thing before, so you'd think I'd know better. I sit down to make a blog entry, and my mind goes blank. No ideas, no inspiration, no words. I type in something retarded and hit submit. Maybe I do this a couple more times before giving up. But then while reading another blog or article or whatever, I hit the comments section and leave 4-5 paragraphs of relevant commentary. Or perhaps I skip it because I'm reading a piece from 2-3 weeks ago and no one is reading that post anymore. Plus, while reading various books I find I have plenty of things to say on the topic, but no appropriate forum for it. OK, maybe I do have a blog in me somewhere.

So here's the plan: Continue to read widely online and offline, but instead of posting directly on the other page, post it here with a link back to the original discussion. I'll need a theme, but that's easy. I read mostly about game design, game programming, game development, and game studies. Anyone else see a theme emerging? Not that I think I'll stay completely on topic, but it makes a good starting framework. The important point is to NOT sit down and try to force out a blog post. Down that road lies ennui and writer's block. The goal is to post as inspiration strikes, not to hope that inspiration strikes while posting.

So here goes my latest attempt to join the blogosphere. I'd ask you to wish me luck, but there's already an overabundance of wannabe bloggers, so that might not be in your best interest.