I attended a panel at my local gaming convention earlier this year and
attended a couple of panels on RPG design. I’m also a big fan of podcasts, one
of which is the Co-optional Podcast put on by the Polaris Network on Youtube. Both
are about gaming (tabletop and video respectively), but I didn’t expect to
encounter thoughts on the same style of design in both.
In both instances, panelists brought up a style of plot Alex Flagg referred
to as the hourglass model. He used it to describe a method of adventure design,
so that’s the way I’ll describe it, as it fits better with the general theme of
this blog. You start with a base point, the hook that introduces characters to
the plot, or the introduction to the campaign. From there, you move out into a
sandbox style of play in which you defeat challenges that lead you closer to a
major event. This major event acts as a bottleneck between the sandbox style of
play and the rest of the adventure. Completing the bottleneck event leads the
players to a new hook and into a second sandbox.
On the Co-optional Podcast, this was an example of a problem with Mass
Effect. It always funnels you towards a particular set piece, despite having a
free roam style of play, typically. I can’t say for sure how true this is,
having only really played the first game. This was a problem with the design and
took away from their enjoyment of the game. Now, when I was at the panel, I
thought that this model was an improvement on the usual sandbox style of design
because it gave forward momentum and a chance to create impressive set pieces.
One of the biggest issues, I think, with sandbox games in tabletop
gaming is prep time. A linear story requires the least amount of preparation but
grants the least player agency. A branching story has a balance between prep time
and player agency. Sandbox style play has an immense amount of prep time but
grants the most agency to players, often to the point of overwhelming them. To
me, the hourglass style is a mix of the branching story and the sandbox.
Players are moving towards the bottleneck but can plan how to do so. Having a
bottleneck means that you can spend the time making an impressive set piece
with complex mechanics or narrative impact without worrying that your players
will miss it entirely. Your sandbox play can be looser, evolving organically in
play because these important moments have more impact on the players.
Now, I’m a designer and GM first and a player second so my views on
adventure/ campaign design are skewed towards set up and structure more than
they are playability. When I heard the panelists on the Co-optional podcast
cite this design philosophy as a problem I had a few issues. Notably, these
people are players, not designers. I saw three possibilities:
1) This style of game only works in
tabletop
2) This style of game is more appealing
to designers than players
3) This style of play is not for
everyone
I don’t have an answer. The reason for this post is to explain the
problem. I may post later explaining the options in detail. Also, I may look at
player agency and how it relates to design choices. Also, listed below are some
links to the podcasts and panels I referred to today as well as Alex Flagg’s
company. At time of posting, the recording of the Co-optional Podcast episode I
mentioned isn’t up.
Relevant
Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment