1) We''ve discussed the difficulties in presenting a true plot in which the player/character (not just the character) plays an important role, an essential component of table-top campaigns, and one quality I''d like to see emulated in a computer game. The main difficulty is that a human GM can react on a higher, subtler level than any game engine in existence. Now, given that hurdle, (one which I, at least, don''t have the talent to overcome[yet
]) what can we do to achieve the appearance of continuity in an intelligence (the computer''s) that is, for all purposes, autistic, deaf, and blind? Wav mentioned a signal going off, alerting the player to his old foe up to trouble again. This highlights a vital difference between games (non-RPG''s in my experience) that make me feel my avatar exists in a living world, and games that feel like movies w/ minigames. (Final Fantasy, for one) Game designers have observed that players like to take part in an ongoing world, so they provide the player w. one in the form of a deep, rich storyline, (ok, deep and rich is the idea, anyway) a save the world type plot, or some cataclysmic encounter in which the world changes forever.
Problem is- the world changes in one way, and one way only, every time you play. That sensation hangs like a residue over every action you take in these games. You as a player, act more like a coach or accountant than a hero, so you lose the empathy w/ the avatar. I get much more involved in SimCity, or Pirates! than these CRPGs, because I can affect the world in a real way. I can bulldoze the park, bring in some heavy industry, and turn my city into Gothom. Then I can reload, bring in an amusement park, dig out a pond and plant a marina, and everyone''s happy. Then I bring in the UFO invasion. . .and so on. My imagination fills in the gaps that this level of abstraction leaves. Now, if we pulled in midway between these two extremes, sacrificed a little less personality/story-arc in favor of a slightly smaller impact on the world, you could strike a nice balance.
Put another way- there is a reason that writers of pen & paper supplement packs do not usually have big "destroy/save the world" type plots, or if they do, the option is usually forced. The players are simply not allowed to ignore the plight and go off in a dungeon somewhere. Supplement packs must account for player actions, and if the world changes in some major way, the next edition of the "official" game world must reflect these changes. If the players did not go along w/ these changes, then the next supplement pack will be useless to them.
CRPG''s are like supplements in that they must be written ahead of time and are thus limited in their accounting for individual player choices. Thus, they are usually limited in scope to a single city, or a set of cities plus an abandoned castle, etc. W/in this limited melieu, (sp?) they can offer the players a wider range of choices, since there are less variables to account for. The grand story arc may continue, giving the players a sense of involvement in a global scene (if their campaign was even related!!!) w/o having to write endless versions of the story arc to account for every individual game''s course of action.
BTW- this only applies to what I would consider "bad" tabletop supplements. I''m a fan of background material type supplements, as the play to tabletop''s freeform strengths. OTH, rigid supplements are very similar to CRPG''s, and we could pick up some tips from them on how to deal w/ giving the player a sense of real involvement in a semi-linear plot.
Oh, and Wav''s other important point:
2) Superhero RPG!!! *droooool* Why is that such a kiss of death in this industry?
(ok, only one
) If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
