Codex Interview RPG Codex Interview: Colin McComb on Writing for Torment: Tides of Numenera

[80Maxwell08]

We're not talking about a timer. A timer on certain quests might be appropriate (with some great examples above), but right now our thought is that using that as our primary pressure for the overall game is a bad idea.

Which is to say: though the word "time" does appear in that answer, we're looking at a broader implementation with a variety of mechanics, and using a timer is just way one to do it. A timed main quest seems like exactly the kind of thing that would get us into the frustrating, over-tense experience I said we were looking to avoid.

Rather than risk a polite email, let me just say that our direction points toward primary use of other tools.

(if I sound cryptic, it's because I'm exhausted and I'm trying not to give anything away)

How about telling us some exclusive info to relieve some stress?

 

[Adam Heine]

How about telling us some exclusive info to relieve some stress?

We're going to ship Kiefer Sutherland clones with the game. As you play, he'll stand behind you shouting, "WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS THE ANGEL?!!!"

Don't tell anyone.

 

[80Maxwell08]

How about telling us some exclusive info to relieve some stress?

We're going to ship Kiefer Sutherland clones with the game. As you play, he'll stand behind you shouting, "WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS THE ANGEL?!!!"

Don't tell anyone.

Glad to see inXile is sparing no expense for their consumers.

 

[Zed]

What they could do is restrict progression in certain areas until something-something is completed. That's how many games use chapters for instance: you must unlock the next part of the main quest and get to Chapter 3 in order to actually have a reason to travel to Big City 2, and until then you won't be able to travel there. That, combined with a smart narrative, could easily create a sense of "eh I better get moving" (don't want to use 'urgency' because that sounds stressful).

The risk is creating a sense of linearity. But honestly, PST was very linear ouside of Sigil.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

*posted 11 minutes after GoT episode 8 began*

 

[MicoSelva]

What they could do is restrict progression in certain areas until something-something is completed. That's how many games use chapters for instance: you must unlock the next part of the main quest and get to Chapter 3 in order to actually have a reason to travel to Big City 2, and until then you won't be able to travel there.

Well, if they do that I hope it is done in a smart way (like in Baldur's Gate 1, where access to the eponymous Baldur's Gate city was restricted for a plot reason), not in a dumb way (like in Baldur's Gate 1, where You could not enter the Cloakwood Forest because... it did not appear on the map).

 

[Zeriel]

What they could do is restrict progression in certain areas until something-something is completed. That's how many games use chapters for instance: you must unlock the next part of the main quest and get to Chapter 3 in order to actually have a reason to travel to Big City 2, and until then you won't be able to travel there. That, combined with a smart narrative, could easily create a sense of "eh I better get moving" (don't want to use 'urgency' because that sounds stressful).

The risk is creating a sense of linearity. But honestly, PST was very linear ouside of Sigil.

It was very linear inside of Sigil, too. The game is consistently cut up into segments of 1-3 inter-conected areas that are gatekeepered by the main storyline.

I think a large part of Baldur's Gate's cachet among grognards is that while they are also fairly linear games, they open up nicely in the early to mid game, only shutting down into really linear corridorfests once you approach the end.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Set time limit:
On [x]
Off [ ]

There, now everyone can be happy! Never cared for time limits nor felt like they added any extra tension, but that's just me. Obviously others like this option so I think everyone should get what they want. Personally I didn't think that the Fallout implemention of it was particularly interesting. MotB made it a lot more interesting and tied it in with the gameplay rather than just being an arbitrary time limit. I won't shit myself in anger if they'd add a similar time limit as in Fallout, but that will never happen in this day and age; would be considered way too hardcore. The only instance where I can think of the time limit being a massive fucking failure is in Dragon Quarter.

 

[Roguey]

Colin's elaboration convinces me they're going with an arbitrary limit on how many non-essential quests you can do in any given hub which is more disappointing than a timer.

I've been thinking about why people hate time limits so much in games, because honestly my most enjoyable and exciting game of Fallout was the first time around when I actually thought I was in a hurry. Instead of slavishly doing everything at every location, I skipped over a hell of a lot of content (including almost all of Junktown) and actually felt a bit out of my depth once I got into Necropolis. It was almost like *gasp* playing a game!

That's LARPing because reading through the manual (or just paying attention) will tell you that game-time goes by in real-time in Fallout. There's no way you'll spend more than 24 hours doing content in the hubs.

 

[Infinitron]

Colin's elaboration convinces me they're going with an arbitrary limit on how many non-essential quests you can do in any given hub which is more disappointing than a timer.

Although maybe the game would allow you to return later on.

 

[undecaf]

Maybe they could try something more of a passive timelimit (triggered by a specific actions in a given location) where the goal - what ever it is at any given time - becomes progressively harder to reach in waves. If it is an "angel" hunting for the protagonist, the gameworld around the player could become progressively more chaotic and volatile place with strange things happening. Something the player might want to see (and possibly even benefit from experiencing depending on his approach to the storyline) but the cost may also be much (what will the legacy be); this need not (but could, too) concern so much the protagonist physically (before time's really up and the angel reaches him), but the world and NPC's (companions included) around him/her. Something ominous is approaching and it casts a shadow over the land and you are responsible for it, you are at the spotlight - keep moving, and you're harder to be tracked down. Maybe once the shadows start to eat people or people lose their minds mid-sentence, swallow their tongues or fart their lungs out of their asses, you realize it's time to hurry away before you cause anything you will regret later.

Or something like that. Something that doesn't pose a continuous threat of life until the very end of the cycle but makes things harder to approach and cuts some paths (and sidequests) off while in certain cases opens up new ones, and is clear when shit starts happening. Something that doesn't necessarily thrust a spear at the players back while still being clear that staying still has its consequences. Reactivity - wanted and/or unwanted - more than pushing.

 

[Elhoim]

Maybe they could try something more of a passive timelimit (triggered by a specific actions in a given location) where the goal - what ever it is at any given time - becomes progressively harder to reach in waves. If it is an "angel" hunting for the protagonist, the gameworld around the player could become progressively more chaotic and volatile place with strange things happening. Something the player might want to see (and possibly even benefit from experiencing depending on his approach to the storyline) but the cost may also be much (what will the legacy be); this need not (but could, too) concern so much the protagonist physically (before time's really up and the angel reaches him), but the world and NPC's (companions included) around him/her. Something ominous is approaching and it casts a shadow over the land and you are responsible for it, you are at the spotlight - keep moving, and you're harder to be tracked down. Maybe once the shadows start to eat people or people lose their minds mid-sentence, swallow their tongues or fart their lungs out of their asses, you realize it's time to hurry away before you cause anything you will regret later.

Or something like that. Something that doesn't pose a continuous threat of life until the very end of the cycle but makes things harder to approach and cuts some paths (and sidequests) off while in certain cases opens up new ones, and is clear when shit starts happening. Something that doesn't necessarily thrust a spear at the players back while still being clear that staying still has its consequences. Reactivity - wanted and/or unwanted - more than pushing.

That's actually quite interesting, and can even be used to open up new solutions to quests, like the need to enter a secured place like a fortress, and taking advantage of the resulting chaos to go unnoticed or meeting less resistance, while of course having a consequence of having a chance to meet your pursuers.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fallout's time limits were too forgiving. I never actually hit any of the time limits and I literally farmed the game out of quests.

 

[Minttunator]

Good stuff! I agree with what some have already mentioned above - I'd very much enjoy reading more articles/interviews by Grotsnik.

 

[Karellen]

I've been thinking about why people hate time limits so much in games, because honestly my most enjoyable and exciting game of Fallout was the first time around when I actually thought I was in a hurry. Instead of slavishly doing everything at every location, I skipped over a hell of a lot of content (including almost all of Junktown) and actually felt a bit out of my depth once I got into Necropolis. It was almost like *gasp* playing a game!

That's LARPing because reading through the manual (or just paying attention) will tell you that game-time goes by in real-time in Fallout. There's no way you'll spend more than 24 hours doing content in the hubs.

Well, that's not 100% true, since there are some quests related to the time of day in Fallout, so doing all the quests in Junktown for instance might take a few days. Also, at least the quest in the Hub from which you get the .223 pistol involves a 20 day travel time, not that my character level was high enough to take the quest when I got there the first time. But yeah, in retrospect there's really no reason not to do all quests - really the only thing that the game discourages is stopping to grind on random encounters (why anyone would want to do that in Fallout is a mystery anyway) and wandering aimlessly for long periods of time. I still enjoyed the vague sense of urgency though, even if it was illusory and pretty haphazardly implemented in the overall design of teh game.

In any case, if the Torment team comes up with a pacing mechanism that provides some non-LARPy incentives for the player to keep moving ahead in the game and not always do everything, I'll be impressed. I'm honestly kind of tired of the typical quest hub town which encourages the players to see towns and their citizens as EXP repositories to be meticulously emptied. I'd sooner be forced to make decisions about which quests I should take, what rewards I really need and what sort of risks and drawbacks I want to accept getting them.

 

[lophiaspis]

Brilliant article. Codex IS games journalism.

While I'm very impressed with how the game has been presented so far (and of course with the fact that it's being made at all!), I do have some issues. For such a story and immersion-driven game there's been a lot of focus on appropriate gameplay challenge, balance, combat. The list of NPCs has extended descriptions of their kewl powers for eliminating foes, but not so much of their personalities and their possible interactions with the PC and the world beyond gamified, generic violence. I may very well be overreacting but frankly I'm a little worried that T:ToN may end up a bit too "gamey" and not live up to its full narrative potential. Let me explain.

As of late I've come to the conclusion that the essence of videogames as a narrative medium is not gameplay (and obviously not cutscenes, i.e., movies) but non-gameplay interaction - interacting with the world, manipulating systems and being manipulated by them, not according to game logic but according to the world's own natural logic - without any arbitrarily imposed winstates or failstates, rewards and punishments.

As far as I can see, all the most powerful narrative sequences in videogames arise from non-gameplay interaction. The most common way designers drain the narrative power from a sequence is by presenting it as either a cutscene, or gameplay. We can all laugh with relief at how much worse Torment would be if Ravel's famous question and TNO's answer were presented in a cutscene. But imagine if Ravel's question was gamified. What can change the nature of a man? Faith? Congrats, you get +5 morality points! Power? Good guess, your Strength has increased by 2 levels! Wealth? And behind door #3 we find... 1000 gold coins, redeemable for weapons, health potions and other tools for removing generic obstacles. Regret? BZZT! Wrong answer, game over! Reload the last save and learn your lesson!

We all know that's not how it goes. There is no wrong answer. There is no right answer. This is not a game. It's just something you do. It's non-gameplay interaction.

And it's probably the most outstanding narrative moment in the history of videogames.

Unlike a cutscene, the player is not focused on watching the characters say and do stuff, and unlike a gameplay sequence, he's not focused on the banal task of winning, of gaming the arbitrary system to get the best result. His focus is squarely on the world, the fiction, the narrative, and as we all know, a videogame narrative makes such an unbeatable impression because the work is not telling or showing him something but letting him do it.

But if the interaction is gamified then you lose that narrative focus. It becomes a matter of trying to win the game instead of immersing yourself in the world - a sad design mistake which we see repeated again and again in all too many flawed works. In the real world, and in fiction, only a small number of systems work on game logic - notably, games themselves, and sports. But in current videogames almost everything works on game logic. Be that death, or killing, or food, or money, or stories, or relationships - it's all gamified to the point of absurdity. If you're lucky enough to be allowed to interact with a videogame's world, then most of the time you're still forced to interact with it through gameplay - an arbitrary system that challenges you to reach a winstate and avoid a failstate, something which is not at all conducive to truly exploring the nature of a world or a character, or, in general, of utilizing the narrative power of interactivity. This omnipresent gamification is not at all essential to videogames. It's a relic of arcade games and of the tabletop wargames that gave rise to RPGs. In immersive, narrative videogames, it's an anachronism. It gets in the way of the immersion. To achieve the most immersive world, systems should only work on game logic when it makes sense for them to do so. I'm not saying all systems should be realistic, but they should follow the natural laws of the world, not arbitrary game rules.

This leads me to suspect that the way to really knock T:ToN out of the park is to extend the philosophy behind the interaction of answering Ravel's last question to the whole work. That is, focus on non-gameplay interaction over gameplay or cutscenes or any other form of narration. I'm not suggesting Torment shouldn't have gameplay. What I am suggesting is this: don't ask yourself what kind of gameplay you need, ask yourself what kind of interaction you need. If the most appropriate kind of interaction is some kind of gameplay, then great, go with that. If not, use your imagination. Ask yourself: What do we want the player to think and feel here? Is gameplay the best way to achieve that? Or would non-gameplay interaction be more immersive, more powerful? In general, go through the whole system and degamify as many interactions as seems appropriate for the narrative.

PS:T took RPGs to the next level by discarding tired tropes. In my opinion, generalized non-gameplay interaction - if you will, degamification - is currently the next level not just for RPGs but for narrative videogames in general. The main reason PS:T is so outstanding is because it's already packed with meaningful non-gameplay interaction, the most powerful narrative tool yet known to man. If you just follow its formula you will surely make one of the best RPGs of all time. But if you generalize its lessons, and give a huge boost to the proportion of non-gameplay interaction over gameplay, then you could make something even more groundbreaking than PS:T itself. Good luck!

Aaaand let the flames begin. :p

 

[Monty]

Depends if you want to play a game or experience an interactive novel.

PS:T was already closer to the interactive novel side of the spectrum, your suggestion of moving even further in that direction will please storyfags but annoy others (remember all the 'pity Torment combat sucks' complaints?). I'm sure they've been considering the balance they want to go for, and given all the emphasis on the writers working on the project it's pretty obvious which direction they're going in.

But even less 'gameplay' than PS:T? I doubt it.

 

[Infinitron]

lophiaspis Your definition of "gameplay" is false. All interaction is gameplay.

What you're actually talking about is immersion.

 

[tuluse]

He seems to be combining increasing opacity of game mechanics to increase immersion and moving away from win/loss states.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Hmm... I had hoped they would avoid "game overs" completely. Part of the charm of Planescape: Torment was being able to play beyond any fail-state. At least I don't think there were any game-ending states, though I guess I could be misremembering. Just seems like kind of a waste to design a system that can handle player death, and then still force reloads.

You're kidding right?

Just to list a few:
- taking the place of the silent king and being trapped for eternity;
- pissing off the lady of pain enough times until she comes down and instakills you (and there's multiple ways of doing that too - repeatedly killing dabuses, repeatedly worshiping (or mocking) the lady of pain doll, I think there's some other way that you can get a lady-of-pain induced game over after converting to that rival god that only has one follower - if you get mazed and find your way back out, the next time you piss her off will lead to a game over screen)
- dying to Ignus or Vhalior in the negative plane

I'm sure I've missed a bunch as well.

 

[Gozma]

lophiaspis Your definition of "gameplay" is false. All interaction is gameplay.

What you're actually talking about is immersion.

Nigga don't be ack like gameplay has a settled definition... it is the exemplar definition problem in Wittgenstein for shitdamn fucksakes. This poster has contextually defined a gameplay/non-gameplay dichotomy in his writing let it rock

 

[Johannes]

Hmm... I had hoped they would avoid "game overs" completely. Part of the charm of Planescape: Torment was being able to play beyond any fail-state. At least I don't think there were any game-ending states, though I guess I could be misremembering. Just seems like kind of a waste to design a system that can handle player death, and then still force reloads.

You're kidding right?

Just to list a few:
- taking the place of the silent king and being trapped for eternity;
- pissing off the lady of pain enough times until she comes down and instakills you (and there's multiple ways of doing that too - repeatedly killing dabuses, repeatedly worshiping (or mocking) the lady of pain doll, I think there's some other way that you can get a lady-of-pain induced game over after converting to that rival god that only has one follower - if you get mazed and find your way back out, the next time you piss her off will lead to a game over screen)
- dying to Ignus or Vhalior in the negative plane

I'm sure I've missed a bunch as well.

If I remember right, you can get into a situation where you simply cannot progress when you kill the wrong person too early (Deionarras father, maybe?), and the game recognizes that and gives some kind of game over screen even though you're not dead.

Also using that blade Hoaxmetal gives you, before the final confrontation.

 

[Kalin]

Yep, same happens if you kill Pharod before he talks (Annah is fair game though), or if you try to kill Lothar before he gives you the information you need. I think Ignus can actually destroy you prior to the Fortress fight if you anger him enough, since being burned alive will destroy your shell, but he is generally too weak to ever manage (especially as his gimp wisdom causes slower level progression). Interestingly, one thing that should kill you permanently according to the manual but actually doesn't is being eaten alive; the Gehreleth under Curst clearly states that it is going to eat you, but dying to it counts just like any other combat death. Not sure if any restoration patch fixes that.

 

[Brother None]

Hmm... I had hoped they would avoid "game overs" completely. Part of the charm of Planescape: Torment was being able to play beyond any fail-state. At least I don't think there were any game-ending states, though I guess I could be misremembering. Just seems like kind of a waste to design a system that can handle player death, and then still force reloads.

You're kidding right?

Just to list a few:
- taking the place of the silent king and being trapped for eternity;
- pissing off the lady of pain enough times until she comes down and instakills you (and there's multiple ways of doing that too - repeatedly killing dabuses, repeatedly worshiping (or mocking) the lady of pain doll, I think there's some other way that you can get a lady-of-pain induced game over after converting to that rival god that only has one follower - if you get mazed and find your way back out, the next time you piss her off will lead to a game over screen)
- dying to Ignus or Vhalior in the negative plane

I'm sure I've missed a bunch as well.

If I remember right, you can get into a situation where you simply cannot progress when you kill the wrong person too early (Deionarras father, maybe?), and the game recognizes that and gives some kind of game over screen even though you're not dead.

Also using that blade Hoaxmetal gives you, before the final confrontation.

You can also die to Lothar (not the vital-NPC death way, but he can actually kill you) and be turned to stone by one of the "ladies" in the Brothel of Slating Intellectual Lust.

So yes, PS:T had quite a few game over screens.

 

[Johannes]

How do you trigger Lothar killing you? I remember that when I attack him, he just teleports me to the top level of his house.