[MAY] Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narrative by Jeff Howard
Liz England
This unique take on quests, incorporating literary and digital theory, provides an excellent resource for game developers. Focused on both the theory and practice of the four main aspects of quests (spaces, objects, actors, and challenges) each theoretical section is followed by a practical section that contains exercises using the Neverwinter Nights Aurora Toolset.
Liz England
JJ Bakken
These are all my exact thoughts. I'm glad that others are feeling them. I just finished this today. I don't have a lot to add to Liz's comments since they just about perfectly sum up my experience as well but I have a few things.
I've heard of a couple of the academia people and concepts he spends so much time on and even then I was fairly lost when he got into it. If someone didn't even have that cursory knowledge of Game Design Academia they certainly would not understand what the heck this guy is talking about.
Catalin Zima-Zegreanu
And a great part of it is indeed applicable to game design. Looking at the folktales through his lens, you can easily see how you could use his structure for potentially creating dynamic narratives in games. More easily for smaller stories, but with interesting potential for complex ones. Once he gets to combining more moves into the same story (two or more stories following the same general structure, merged into a singe story) in Chapter 9, you really get to see a lot of potential there. I'm trying to apply his structure for a procedural narrative game, and it looks decently promising so far.
Anyway, it's a great read especially if you're into narrative design.
Christoffer Lundberg
I'm like really late with this months reading, like stuck in last months book(tbh not in the book, but between the book and my thoughts on it), but I am not really sure how we handle “when a topic gets old” in this book club, so I ”take the risk” to discuss the book without much knowledge of it, when the discussion is new, instead of reading, waiting and post when the discussion is ”to old”.
Sad to hear that the book didn't meet the expectations. So if we would make a follow up book, “Quest design 2.0”, what would it contain?
Quest design for different game genres and themes.
Example from different kinds of games.
Identifying different mechanics and how they can fit in different quests.
And?
Liz: Why are the discussion on narratology and ludology outdated? I have a basic understanding of the conflict: Should games focus on game play, like mario, or on heavy narrative, like rpgs, balders gate. I know that some games manage to have a narrative told through game play, but its really hard to pull off, and theres still a lot of games that focus only on the game play or games that have a narrative totally disconnected from the game play components.
Vladimir Propp's book: Sounds interesting :) I don't really grasp it so far, but its sounds like a useful approach to split a story into smaller parts, to easily fit the story into mechanics of a engine or just for the users understanding of the concepts.
Liz England
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:29:50 PM UTC-4, Liz England wrote:
Reign Naw
Nick Lalone
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Game Design Book Club" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to game-design-book...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to game-desig...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/game-design-book-club/06fec58e-e018-4825-b220-d0fda879fef8%40googlegroups.com.
Liz England
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:29:50 PM UTC-4, Liz England wrote:
JJ Bakken
Game Feel (both book and concept) is so good, such an important topic. I tell the students about it even though it's confusing for a 101 level class. Just hearing the term and getting a seed out there is enough, even if they don't apply it immediately. I'd like to think at some later point down the line it'll come up again and they can think "ah yea i've heard that phrase before".
Jon Y
Personally, I didn't mind the age of the book, I think there is a lot to learn from old RPGs.
Here is a controversial question - has there really been that much innovation in RPG quest mechanics since the good old days of, say, Ultima VII?
Isn't Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, pretty much the same as Skyrim? (other than more polygons)
(Yes, other genres have adapted elements of RPG quests into them, but what about innovation within RPGs themselves?)
The main items I can think of where there has been interesting innovation are:
- moral dilemma quests where your opinion is pushed one way and then another as you progress through the quest (a certain kind of pacing), and the end of the quest is capped off with a 'decision' (like the first Mage quest in Dragon Age Origins)
- deeper NPC companion quests that try to elicit empathy from the player (Planescape)
- multiple quest solutions that support different mechanics / play styles (Deus Ex), and not just click A to use Strength or click B to use Charisma
Christoffer Lundberg
I have read the introduction now and yes I get the same impression as all of you got. One thing I noticed is that, I expected the book to be about the game term “a quest”. Like, heres the reason you do something, now go and do it and later come back for your reward. Instead Howard gives quest a more literature like meaning; like “this epic quest the hero are chosen to complete”. I think this is the reason Howard thinks that diablo(2?) has a “bad quest design”. Its not the specific missions/quest, “go to den of evil”, but the overarching plot/meaning, Howard dislikes. And I have to agree, its pretty unclear why you are killing all of the monsters. It has something to do with a caped man, and the return of diablo. But you are just one of many different, faceless, heroes, without any connection to the narrative. Anyway, its a problem when the reader expect the book to be about one thing and later realize the book to be about something else.
Liz: you're definitely welcome to discuss a book from a previous month in an older thread. I leave all the threads open just for this. I know I still haven't finished An Architectural Approach to Level Design and will probably post my thoughts once I fiiiinally get to it. Even if you don't get a response, trust that people are still reading :)
Good :) I also have some notes left from finite and infinite game ;)
Liz: The ludology vs. narratology debate is one that my academic friends have attempted to explain to me, since it's a bit of a muddled mess. It's not about whether you should make games that are systems-heavy or narrative-heavy, but rather if we should study games as unique systems or study games as narratives in the vein of film and literature. In the end it was really "why not both?" so the "vs" part in "ludology vs. narratology" is outdated and sets them falsely against one another. No one really needs to defend analyzing games as narratives or analyzing games as ludic systems. Game studies is much more interdisciplinary than that.
Ok, I get it. Tbh it feels like a typical interdisciplinary problem, where both sides get extremely specialized tools that aren't compatible with one another. Its strange because I gave the terms a lot more (and different) meaning then what they originally meant. Thats the problem about using big words, and the pros of making your own temporary definitions :)
Regina, Nick, About the timelessness of books and niche books: I think books with a broad/general theme is the problem(and An Architectural Approach to Level Design really made me think about this). If you write a book about “economy in games”, as time passes what people think about game and economy will change. But if the book have a very specific topic, like “secrets in mario”, the book will stay relevant as long as mario are relevant (which happens to be relevant 30 years later). But if mario would get old the book would at least still fulfill its purpose because the book are so focused, and all of the information is in the book, which isn't the case with general books. I don't know if its really true, but I have read a lot of general game related books and are ready to read like; 500 pages on secrets and “unraveling the metaphysics in mario” (thats a joke, I want books on design, that example sounds more like literature studies on games. But I would love that book if it was about game design ;) ).
Nick Lalone: I think a lot about Thomas Malone. His work was so fascinating and it's so neat to see stuff about "what makes video games great?" when it was just the Atari and super early computers and military simulators and Arcades.
Fascinating, I will take a look that the text. I guess I can imagine how todays books are like “before the matrix” (realizing the VR dream) in the future, like, year 2045.
JJ Baken About Tabletop RPG: Tell me if the Butterfield book was good, when you have gotten some time with it.
Yes, it feels a lot like game mastering and game design have a lot in common. One pro for GM is that you get direct response from the players, GM leave a lot of room for improvisation and that most GMs plan the story one meeting at a time. It feels like a lot of game designers could benefit from trying to run the game as a rpg with a group, just to get a first impression, before writing everything in gold, I mean: in code :)
I have played mostly indie RPGs/ story now/ one shots, like Fiasco, in a wicked age and zombie cinema. But its on my “bucket list” to have game mastered a smaller campaign. I actually just read a Swedish book about the biggest swedish rpg company “äventyrs spel” (translate: adventure games), which made a localization of dnd called “darkar och demoner” (translate: dragons and demons)(which was sold in toy stores in the 80's - 90's which boosted the rpg hobby in Sweden), and made kult (which made the media panic about rps and kind of killed it (along with computer games)) and the rpg for mutant chronicles. Most of these games are to rule heavy for my taste, but I got kind of inspired to run something like a 3-4 meetings Apocalypse World campaign.
Jon Y: Here is a controversial question - has there really been that much innovation in RPG quest mechanics since the good old days of, say, Ultima VII?
Disclaimer: I'm not much of a RPG player, so I can't really answer that question. I know about most of the games you mentions but I haven't spent more then 3 hours playing any single one of them. And thats kind of a problem with RPGs, you can't just dive in and get the the taste of the game, it takes many hours before the magic starts to shine.
One of the biggest changes in quest design I can think of are a streamlined quest process. I'm not sure if it should be seen as a progression in quest design, but I would at least say that one major change is in what kind of games that use quests. There where a period where like every shooter should have rpg elements. It might not be a step up in complex quest design, but it opens up design space for a lot of different ways that the player can interact with/in the quest. And its a big step up for these games to use quest design. One example I played not to long ago are Red dead redemption.
Jon Y: “- multiple quest solutions that support different mechanics / play styles (Deus Ex), and not just click A to use Strength or click B to use Charisma”
I really like multiple solutions, especially when the player can wander fluently between the different paths. When I played Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I planned to go the sneaky way, but usually had a lack of sniper ammo and didn't mange to sneak around the enemies so I “temporarily switched” for the violent approach.
Kevin Day
Christoffer Lundberg
So I finished the book, and I agree on most parts already mentioned, I just want to add one thing about the last chapter.
To summarize the cons with the book: I contains little quest design, theres a lot about literature, some parts discuss narratology vs ludology and theres a lot of reference to other authors. I was nice to read the book after all of theres parts was pointed out, I didn't get so annoyed about these things when I already know about them. I also generally like reference in text, mostly because they hint to other texts, for more reading in the subject, if it sounds interesting. “An architectural approach to level design” actually referenced to “Quests” which was the main reason I got interested in it.
Anyway the last chapter (6. Quest and Pedagogy) felt like the key to understand the book. Its only eight pages long (139-146) and explains how the content in the book can be used to apply quest design as a assignments in literature classes by using old rich texts as a staring point. As a way to analyze the text and get a deeper understanding of it by imagining how the text could transform into gameplay. And its sounds like a interesting way to learn literature history. It feels like the author wanted to publish his work in the subject but instead of packaging it for literature students it was made wider, for anyone, and I think thats the biggest problem with the whole book. The book should instead be named “Quests: How to apply classic literature in quest design”. The new title would probably not sell as well as the old one, but it would easier find its intended readers.
So what do I think about using literature to enrich quest design? It sounds interesting, but also complicated. One of the benefits of using classic literature, like the example from the book, the green knight, is that the original texts contains a lot of symbols which could be transfered into the games quest. One problem I see is that a lot of meaning could get “lost in translation”, neither don't make any sense or required the player to have studied literature or read the original text. On the other hand maybe its enough if the quests are interesting and different, as a kind of idea generation. (we made a game project based on the mayan civilization last year. It ended up way to vague. Thats probably why I start to think of that problem. Take away: make sure that the player absolutly get the basic information in the game, like where you should go, what to do and why. The rest can be super cryptic, ex dark souls.)
The other problem I see (which I also think the author mentioned) is that a lot of texts are hard to translate into quests. The writer of a novel have total control over the actions in the narrative, where the game designer only layout the framework of where the player can interact. Therefore actions from a text will not transfer directly into the quest because the player actually needs to do them, and there needs to be other things to do as well, to not break the illusion of a explorable world. This is the “normal” problem movies made into games have, and I have heard that a lot of writers from script or novel writing have problem making that transition into game writing. Anyway, I think that the translation of the text into quests rather should focus on broader strokes, like the theme of the text, and on specific anecdotes, instead of trying to transfer the original story action by action into quests.
Kevin Day Difference between Mission and quest: I think Howard mentions in the introduction that he sees it only as a matter of genre difference. A fantasy game have “quest” while modern games have “missions”. I don't think that theres a defined difference, but when I was about to read the book, I was thinking about quest as a very specific thing, design vice. A quest is something the player should accomplish, but compared to the mission, in a quest the player can do other things other then the specific quest. Example, diablo 2 has quests, time splitters 2 have missions. You cannot say “I don't what to do the mission” and run away into the forest and go on a adventure in time splitter 2. The missions is all there is. The mission still has a defined goal but its the immediate things you do in order to progress in the game (you can sit in a corner and play multilayer snake, which actually was pretty fun, but thats just a side note). According to my definition, in a way a quest require a semi open world. And I also think that it has something to do with a time aspect. You usually get quests and it takes some time before you are actually able to complete them. In a mission you have to do it right away, other vice you have failed to accomplish the mission and have to restart the game.