Video Games are Bad GM's! We should learn from them.

[KA.]

Okay, I have been playing Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II for the last day or so, and I have noticed something.

 

Video Games are lousy GM's!

 

I know this is hardly a revelation.

Many people here probably never play video games, because of their weaknesses.

But certain things about this game in particular have made me think about GM'ing in general.

 

By the way, if you are a video gamer, there may be some spoilers here as far as B.G.D.A.II, so read at your own risk.

 

Now to the problems:

 

1) On a Rail.

Due to the very nature of a Video Game, the plot can only branch so many ways. Major events take a lot of programming, and they are pretty much going to happen no matter what choices you make.

 

BUT! How many of us GM in a similar fashion?

We take a lot of time planning out "bits" that are going to come up in the game, and they come up in the game.

No matter what the players do.

Example: A certain NPC is going to 'betray' the players at some point. Giving Viper, (or whatever the main enemy is) a chance to ambush them.

Maybe it is the stoolie they rely on for information, maybe a local cop took a bribe, whatever . . .

Obviously the PC's have to interact with this NPC quite a bit for them to be in a position to 'betray'.

But, what if, in the course of these interactions, the PC's go out of their way to help this NPC. They discover that the stoolie has a sister that is on drugs (that is why he sold them out, to get money to pay off her pimp), and they rescue her and place her in rehab! Would the stoolie still sell them out?

What if they saved the Cop's infant son from drowning?

Would he still turn on them?

 

In a video game, the answer is, of course, 'Yes'.

But shouldn't we be able to rise above this and alter our plots?

At the very least, couldn't the betrayer have a "change of heart", and arrive with a warning "just a few seconds too late", so that even if the plot goes on, the PC's don't feel like they got burned for trying to help someone?

 

And, if the heroes did something really extraordinary, couldn't the whole 'betrayal' be avoided?

 

If not, then something is wrong.

 

2) "I'm a Doctor, not a Mechanic!"

Another thing that bothered me in Baldur's Gate, were some of the little things. There are certain areas that you reach by shoving around boxes, jumping on top of them, and then jumping on top of a previously unreachable wall.

This process is fine if you are a Barbarian Fighter, I suppose, but when I was playing through as a Necromancer, it really irritated me.

Here I am, a Master of the Dark Arts, and I have to shove around boxes like a longshoreman.

Why can't I just have a spell that let's me levitate?

Why can't the Monk (Martial Artist) just flip over the boxes?

The things that you have to move around are right there, it is not like some major obstacle in the game, so why not let the characters have a way to do it that is appropriate to their type?

 

Again, this comes back to GM'ing.

 

Have you ever designed a scenario where the only way to advance the plot was to interrogate a certain Viper agent, or find a certain book in a library?

 

Even if your players don't really work that way?

 

I am not saying that the "Computer Hacker" should be able to find any piece of information he needs by "hacking" for five minutes.

 

But on the other hand, wouldn't it make more sense for him to roleplay talking to other hackers, to help him find what he needs, than beating up a Viper agent?

Isn't the point of the exercise to make it somewhat difficult, but not impossible, to obtain the information; rather than doing that in one prescribed manner?

 

Players should be able to play their character in a way that is true to the concept, and still make it through the plot the GM has created.

 

3) The Big Brawl

This topic somewhat intersects the last one, but here it can be much more exasperating for players.

 

The End. The Final Showdown. The Grand Finale'.

 

One of the most frustrating things for me in B.G.D.A.II was the ending.

Without giving the entire plot away, evil people are trying to assemble a big Evil Artifact.

If it gets assembled, the world ends.

At the end, Big Bad Guy is trying to complete things, you fight Big Bad Guy. You Win. The End.

 

Now I know this sounds like nearly every video game of this type, but here is the problem:

This game gives the illusion of having different types of characters.

 

Which means there should be different ways to resolve the ending!

 

Instead, it is just: "Beat on the bad guy until he drops."

 

This is a perfectly valid solution if you are playing a Fighter (or a Brick).

 

But, if you are a Thief, you should be able to sneak past people and steal a vital component, rendering the Evil Artifact useless.

If you are a Gadgeteer, you should be able to sabotage the Evil Artifact!

If you are playing a Mystic, there should be some way for you to either Turn the Bad Guy to the Good Side, or Turn the Bad Guy's supernatural allies against him.

 

Beating up the Bad Guy should not be the One and Only solution to the Main Problem.

 

If players choose to fight it out, that's different, but if the Ninja wants to use Stealth to solve the conflict, there should be a way for them to do it.

 

Okay, there's my rant.

What does everyone else think?

Are some human GM's no better than a video game?

Are there "warning signs" we should watch for when GM'ing to help avoid this?

Am I just cranky because I can't sleep and it's 4:00 A.M.?

 

KA.

[Allandrel]

Video games are very different from RPG because, while you interact with them, they are more like movies: you don't control the plot. You might be in the story, but you don't control it.

 

This was one of the reasons why I decided not to run a Champions game in a setting I had developed - I realized that there was a particular story I wanted to tell, and the PCs would essentially be spectators to it. It would make for a really good comic book, but a bad RPG campaign.

 

Regarding Baldur's Gate: DA II; I've heard that it is essentially just like the first game, only more so. This true? If so, I'll definitely pick it up, the first DA game was about the most fun I've ever had hitting things and making them die for eight hours.

 

Patrick J McGraw

[KA.]

Allandrel,

Two Things:

1) I would never expect a video game to be as Interactive as playing face to face.

I guess the point I was trying to make is, that we as GM's should make sure that playing face to face with us is always more interactive than a video game.

 

2) Yep!

If you like the first one, you will like the second one.

I rented it, and I am glad I did. As much as I enjoyed the first one, this really is very similar, and you can play through it in a day or so.

Unless you have unlimited spending money, rent it, enjoy it, and buy it when it comes out as a "Greatest Hit" for $20.

 

There are also some minor video problems that may be corrected by that time, so you would end up with a better copy than you would by buying it right now.

 

KA.

[TheEmerged]

Actually, most C-RPG's (Computer RPG's) are so far removed from the RPG experience they really should be considered a different classification of game. I happen to enjoy many C-RPG's (in fact, I'm having a blast with NeverWinter Night's last expansion) but they simply don't pass most of the definitions I have for RPG's.

 

And the railroading thing is a key one. In most games (the original Baldur's Gate for the computer being a particularly annoying example) the only difference between the good guy and bad guy story is how mean your dialog sounds and occassionally which side ends up dead. There's no substantiative difference between how you go about it. Morrowind, whatever else I liked about it, was pretty much the same way -- you could chose your methods but what you "did" really didn't vary that much -- you might have killed or pickpocketed NPC #1443 instead of talking him out of the letter but the fact remains that was the only way to advance Quet #54412...

 

Which is why I started looking for ways to allow my players to be more proactive. The "opportunity sheets" work well for a villainous or mercenary campaign but just don't quite work for heroic ones. Allowing the PC's to go about their work in sometimes tangental fashion means more work for me but more enjoyment for me AND the players come gametime.

[Redmenace]

I'm wondering, has anyone here played Freedom Force, and how well, or not, does it relate to a Champs session?

[Blue]

I had hoped that when Everquest came out that this would be the true benefit of it, that you'd have new things to do all the time. What you had instead was something new, then you did it over and over again until you wanted to scream, then you'd have experience enough to do something else new. Of course that was only new for the first couple of times out of the hundreds of times you had to do it in order to progress.

 

The only real fun I had in EQ was with my guild (who were about the least serious "gamers" but the best "roleplayers" you'll come across), and even they began to outpace me in experience and leave me behind.

 

But back to Videogame GMing...

 

I dropped EQ after over a year in the beta test + a year of play. Next great game was going to be Neverwinter Nights because it had GM tools. Then I heard from anyone who downloaded the tools that you had to practically be a programmer to operate them. I don't want to work that hard to have fun!

 

Huddled around a table with a bag full of dice, a half dozen sharpened pencils, and a group of friends... that's the only way to play a game.

[BlackSword]

Originally posted by Redmenace

I'm wondering, has anyone here played Freedom Force, and how well, or not, does it relate to a Champs session?

Depends on your Champs sessions. Its probably better described as a tactical game then an RPG. Basically you are given a mission, you choose a team and go out on the town and beat up things between you and your objective. Between scenarios you characters get XP when the character makes a 'level' you can assign Character Points to different powers.. There are large arrows pointing to the next objective (yellow for secondary, red for primary), so its not a matter of questioning townspeople to find out where you need to go.

 

That said, its a very fun game. It has great interaction with the environment. Bricks can pick up cars and hurl them. You can bring down entire buildings. You can use lamp posts as baseball bats and knock a villain (or an on-looker) down the street.

[Blue]

Freedom Force was pretty darn fun as solo games go.

 

There was also a game out around the same time called Hero-X. It was not nearly as good. But you can probably find it in the markdown bin at your software retailer.

 

I look forward to the FF2 mentioned in a couple other threads. When it eventually comes out, it'll be the first PC computer game I've bought in about three years.

[ChocolateMousje]

Most CRPG's are comparable to a pre-made scenario... the author usually has only a limited area to plot out all the possibilities. Especially when character choices are open-ended... most likely the game won't be written with each class getting it's own set of choices.

 

Video games aren't inherently bad GMs, a GM who exactly follows a pregenerated scenario is almost as bad. Also, there are video games (NWN for instance) that can allow for human GM intervention.

 

Once in a while there are some pretty good CRPG's as well... Planescape: Torment, where depending on what you did in the game, you had a couple ways of talking your way to "winning" the game, or several ways of getting/boosting your companions for the last fight. Then again, you and your possible companions were pretty preset...

[Jhamin]

Freedom Force wasn't really a RPG at all. You had missions to beat, but the way to win was set and nothing you did would alter the course of the game.

 

That being said, it was one of the best games I've played in the last several years. While the missions were set in stone, they were creative, balanced, and an absolute blast. Once you got into the silver age mindset the path to victory always felt correct. Robots trying to destroy the city, Mutant Ants stealing whole buildings, A radioactive communist freezing the city and holding it ransom with an atomic bomb! Never have I seen an origional set of characters and scenarios that so perfectly embodied the Early Silver age spirit.

 

The characters were all archtypial without being total ripoffs and the cutscenes and in battle banter was priceless.

[Tom Carman]

I'm currently playing (when I can find the time!) a game called Arcanum. There is a definite plot railroad in effect. However the hint book in the box implies that you have real options with respect to the climax event. In fact you can swing to the Dark Side and help it happen.

[Redmenace]

I haven't played it yet but my girlfriend tells me that Star Wars, Knights of the Old Republic achieves the goal of giving players significant lee way in a rpg, largely in how one's approach to the game. Malicious intent vs plays well with others, affects not just npc reactions but the flow of the story and how events unfold.

 

Again, this is second hand but she seems to feel that while not as free form as a live session of a game, KotOR is something of a step forword in better simulating the freedom.

 

it might be worth checking out.

[Captain Super]

Brief thoughts:

 

Freedom Force - No plot derivations but what a game! Wow!

Making my own PC's to replace the well designed pat characters made it even better. Man-Bot rocks!

 

GM's generally cannot be in love with a particular result because PC's will always find a novel way to screw up your plans. Isn't that the fun of the hobby?

 

Other CRPGs

 

Arcanum is open ended as plot threads depend upon alignment (good/evil) and affiliation (magic/tech).

 

They say Temple of Elemental Evil is wide open. We'll see.

 

Best CRPG ever - PLANESCAPE TORMENT. Really was alternate ways to complete depending on alignment and class. If a thief you could sneak, if high CHA could be diplomatic, if Fighter could bash or threaten, and GREAT NPC's. Might still be out there in discount bins-well worth it if you like AD&D in an interesting setting.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Jhamin

Freedom Force wasn't really a RPG at all. You had missions to beat, but the way to win was set and nothing you did would alter the course of the game.

 

I'll see your "wasn't really" and raise it a "wasn't anything really resembling". If Freedom Force was an RPG, so is Civilization 3.

 

That being said, it was one of the best games I've played in the last several years.

 

Agreed! What's interesting is that it was released in a year that should have had some really heavy hitters -- like Dungeon Siege, Morrowind, and Civ 3 -- and was more fun than all of them COMBINED in my opinion.

 

But it was NOT an RPG. You can't put dialog in your character's mouths, you can't affect the outcome in ways other than success or failure, and you can't make decisions that have consequences other than your character's power. It literally fails all three of the qualifiers.

 

While the missions were set in stone, they were creative, balanced, and an absolute blast. Once you got into the silver age mindset the path to victory always felt correct. Robots trying to destroy the city, Mutant Ants stealing whole buildings, A radioactive communist freezing the city and holding it ransom with an atomic bomb! Never have I seen an origional set of characters and scenarios that so perfectly embodied the Early Silver age spirit.

 

The characters were all archtypial without being total ripoffs and the cutscenes and in battle banter was priceless.

 

"Who needs a kick in the teeth?!" I am so looking forward to the recently announced sequel taking place in the past, as opposed to a prequel...

 

And BTW, the music for Freedom Force is also a selling point -- this is on the short list of games I'd want a soundtrack for (and Tropico DOES sell the soundtrack seperately).

[Tom McCarthy]

Just a riff on the title

 

The thread title reminded me of Monte Cook's editorial on the Temple of Elemental Evil. He said the PC was a bad GM, but that put it ahead of all the previous games which didn't feel like they had a GM at all.

 

Too powerful NPCs. NPCs who took first choice from the treasure. Forgetting and being stuck in a particular spellcasting mode. Stupid mistakes that can arise from bad GMing or miscommunication with players.

[BishopofB&W]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

"Who needs a kick in the teeth?!" I am so looking forward to the recently announced sequel taking place in the past, as opposed to a prequel...

"Not so fast, my red friend!" "Let's go find us a commie!" "I'm ready to fight the Communist hordes!":D

 

Originally posted by TheEmerged

And BTW, the music for Freedom Force is also a selling point -- this is on the short list of games I'd want a soundtrack for (and Tropico DOES sell the soundtrack seperately).

 

Nuclear Vinter! Nuclear Vinter! OOHHH!

[austenandrews]

Re: Video Games are Bad GM's! We should learn from them.

 

Originally posted by KA.

Okay, there's my rant.

What does everyone else think?

Are some human GM's no better than a video game?

Are there "warning signs" we should watch for when GM'ing to help avoid this?

Am I just cranky because I can't sleep and it's 4:00 A.M.?

 

No, you're absolutely correct. Sometimes it's easy to fall into simplistic patterns when designing a scenario. I've been fighting that battle myself lately. My usual pattern of GMing involves setting up a world and allowing the PCs to run free in it, picking out their own plots. For whatever reason, though, lately that hasn't served me very well. Instead I find myself facing dead spots in the game, where not much seems to be happening. In response I've ratcheted up the tension with an urgent menace to the game world. But I've also been very busy at work, so I don't have time to plan out three or four scenarios to cover the possible directions the PCs might go. Consequently I'm sliding closer to the one-option rut. I can get away with that for a little while, if I keep the action fun and interesting, but I've got to break out of the rut as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

 

I do work hard to include each PCs' personal schtick, and try to encourage them to be creative with their particular abilities. But with limited preparation time I find myself having to choose between avoiding your #1 or your #2 error.

 

I do appreciate your mentioning this in terms of computer games, though. You've given me a nice mnemonic hook to remind me to keep on my guard when I'm rushing out a scenario an hour before the game.

 

-AA

[KA.]

Re: Re: Video Games are Bad GM's! We should learn from them.

 

Originally posted by austenandrews

No, you're absolutely correct. Sometimes it's easy to fall into simplistic patterns when designing a scenario. I've been fighting that battle myself lately. My usual pattern of GMing involves setting up a world and allowing the PCs to run free in it, picking out their own plots. For whatever reason, though, lately that hasn't served me very well. Instead I find myself facing dead spots in the game, where not much seems to be happening. In response I've ratcheted up the tension with an urgent menace to the game world. But I've also been very busy at work, so I don't have time to plan out three or four scenarios to cover the possible directions the PCs might go. Consequently I'm sliding closer to the one-option rut. I can get away with that for a little while, if I keep the action fun and interesting, but I've got to break out of the rut as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

 

I do work hard to include each PCs' personal schtick, and try to encourage them to be creative with their particular abilities. But with limited preparation time I find myself having to choose between avoiding your #1 or your #2 error.

 

I do appreciate your mentioning this in terms of computer games, though. You've given me a nice mnemonic hook to remind me to keep on my guard when I'm rushing out a scenario an hour before the game.

 

-AA

 

Thanks for the reply, AA.

 

I think you have helped me narrow the focus on what my original idea was. Many people are either players or GM's, they don't get the chance to do both.

Which means that I, as a GM, can fall into bad habits that I am not even aware of.

The frustration of playing a video game, saying:

"Why can't I play my character according to his concept?"

"Why is there only one way to resolve this?"

can help a GM think about these issues when he is the one controlling everything.

 

I have the utmost respect for the effort it takes to GM a game.

The players just have to show up and play, the GM does all the work.

But if you host a party, and do a lot of work, and everyone hates the dip you made, you wasted your time.

If someone else has a dip recipe that everyone loves, you might want to give it a try.

 

So that is what I am looking for here, an exchange of "recipes" for good GM'ing. The kind that makes players want to join your campaign.

 

KA.

 

P.S.

 

Thanks to everyone for all the replies.

Including the ones discussing the merits of various games.

Not exactly what I was looking for, but welcome information, nevertheless. Since I do GM most of the time, video gaming is one of the chances I get to be a player. So I am always glad to hear an unbiased review.

[rayoman]

Re: Video Games are Bad GM's! We should learn from them.

 

Play Fallout. There was a certain area that you could approach from two different ways. The two ways required two different theories in building your character to that point.

 

My friend, Neal, built his character to fight. That is pretty much how to advance in Fallout, but you don't always have to do it.

 

I built my character to fight, HOWEVER, I made a point to always put a few skill points in Pick Lock (Open Lock) or the Fallout equivalent.

 

Neal had to go a direction where he had to fight his way in to this big psionic brain. While fighting the brain psionically attacked him and he would always die.

 

I never had to fight the psionic brain. I went through a back way that forced me to fight two weaker goons then pick a lock.

 

Fallout didn't exactly do what you are asking the games to do, but it comes closer than most video games.

 

KA, if you want to play let me know and I can loan you my version. If you are the KA that I am thinking about then you don't live very far away from me.

 

Originally posted by KA.

Am I just cranky because I can't sleep and it's 4:00 A.M.?

 

KA.

[Brutal]

DEUS EX 2.

Its a first person shooter, but you should definately download it. It has no set ways of how to solve the problem. If you need to get into a room, you could bash the door in, decode the lock, use the airvent, blow a hole in the wall, get the code to the lock. Take your pick.

[KA.]

Re: Re: Video Games are Bad GM's! We should learn from them.

 

Originally posted by rayoman

Play Fallout. There was a certain area that you could approach from two different ways. The two ways required two different theories in building your character to that point.

 

My friend, Neal, built his character to fight. That is pretty much how to advance in Fallout, but you don't always have to do it.

 

I built my character to fight, HOWEVER, I made a point to always put a few skill points in Pick Lock (Open Lock) or the Fallout equivalent.

 

Neal had to go a direction where he had to fight his way in to this big psionic brain. While fighting the brain psionically attacked him and he would always die.

 

I never had to fight the psionic brain. I went through a back way that forced me to fight two weaker goons then pick a lock.

 

Fallout didn't exactly do what you are asking the games to do, but it comes closer than most video games.

 

KA, if you want to play let me know and I can loan you my version. If you are the KA that I am thinking about then you don't live very far away from me.

 

Hey there Rayoman!

I had forgotten all about Fallout.

I do remember there being more that one way to accomplish your goals, plus a lot of just plain hilarious bit thrown in along the way.

That is a great game.

 

I already have a copy, but thanks so much for the offer.

 

Talk to you later,

 

KA.

[TheEmerged]

RE: Fallout. Fallout, Fallout 2, and Arcanum (effectively the same people with the same system but a different campaign) are among* the best games I've ever seen in terms of having multiple solutions that were actually multiple solutions -- and even then there was a certain degree of railroading. They were really good about multiple solutions in terms of the subquests and the individual aspects of the main plot -- but in all three the main plot was still pretty invoiable.

 

They are still three or four steps ahead of most C-RPG's...

 

*I'd also include an old game called Dragon Wars on the list.