Shallow Depths

I have often pondered the character dilemma in computer RPGs.  Either you are given a fixed character to play, with a relevant story but less personal input.  Or, you create your own character but the story needs to be generic enough that their personality doesn't matter all that much.  Basically, Planescape: Torment versus Baldur's Gate.

Sure, the moral choice systems and character development have improved over the years, but personality and story options remain fairly limited.  That doesn't make these games terrible, and it's something I would generally accept.  If I want a more customisable experience I probably won't look to computer games for that.  But can that flexible story actually be achieved in video gaming?

April 16th is the release date for Sleep is Death, a new independent game by Jason Rohrer.  It's a storytelling game, or perhaps more accurately a set of tools for collaborative storytelling.  The two-player experience involves one controller who sets up the game world and scenes, and one player who chooses the actions of their avatar.

I'm a pencil-and-paper roleplayer, and already quite comfortable with a GM (or controller, if you like) generating a game world and narrative, as well as my potential role as a player in shaping that story.  I have to wonder how SiD differs from what people like me are already doing.  Is there something more to this than simply adding some basic graphical tools for a process that is already occurring in many homes and online communities?  And do those graphics really add something valuable to the storytelling experience, beyond the pictures and sensations we can already create in our imaginations (with effectively zero limitations, I might add)?

There is an attempt at answering the question of "How does this differ from playing a game like Dungeons & Dragons?" in this article.  It seems pretty inadequate to me, so if anyone can link to better discussion I'd love to to read it.

(1)  Turns have a time limit, making the game less about planning ahead or goal setting, and more about on-the-spot improvisation.

Okay, I will admit this is different (although I have played in games where we sometimes introduced a time limit for player turns).  I don't necessarily agree that it serves the experience, though.  I'm just not the sort of person who can easily think fast.  I find that even in a more relaxed pencil-and-paper roleplaying environment I feel under pressure to make decisions and can't always keep up.  If I am limited to 30 seconds my character is probably just going to stand there gaping at the world.  "Cha is paralysed with indecision" doesn't create a particularly compelling story.

I will admit that a common issue when roleplaying is staying focused, and keeping the story moving.  A time limit on your turn is one potential way to deal with this.  But I really hope that 30 second time limit can be changed, because otherwise you are limited to fairly frantic storytelling experiences.

Also, that thing about planning ahead and goal setting?  My best roleplaying experiences have been when I had a good sense of the character I was playing, both in terms of personality and their goals.  Without that sense I may be able to fly by the seat of my pants and create something, but I find it a huge barrier to immersion.  I have more satisfying storytelling experiences when I have time to create deeper underlying motivations, and follow their development.

(2)  It removes the awkwardness and embarrassment of face-to-face roleplaying.

Wow.  All I can really say here is that someone has clearly had some very different experiences to me.  The social aspect of roleplaying seems to be one of the most important parts for many of my friends.  While it can sometimes be a struggle to get people to focus and take something seriously, I don't think embarrassment has much to do with that.  In my experience it's more likely to be that some people are easily side-tracked into gossip and anecdotes.

This also ignores the large number of online text-based roleplaying communities that currently exist, and might solve this problem just as well.

---

The other glaring difference between SiD and most roleplaying is the number of players.  As I mentioned before, I don't always think fast.  And in a multiplayer roleplaying group I usually have someone else to pick up the slack if I am unsure of how to proceed.  There is also a lot more scope for interesting interactions with all those personalities bouncing off each other.  One player and one controller is far more limited.

Now, I'm not saying that Sleep is Death should necessarily conform to my personal preferences when it comes to collaborative storytelling.  It likely has different goals.  But, having established some of what it isn't likely to do for me, I have to wonder what it is... and whether I'm can find anything valuable here for me personally.

If the tools are good enough, I imagine this might really assist beginner GMs.  I might snobbily consider it a training ground for my concept of "real" collaborative storytelling.  I could potentially use it to improve my quick decision making.

The idea of graphical tools as aids to collaborative storytelling is an interesting one.  I potentially think of SiD being for text-based online roleplaying what a battle map with miniatures are for pencil-and-paper gaming.  Some of us are a bit resistant to the battle map.  It harks back to a wargaming heritage, and "playing by the numbers", which makes the whole situation seem very artificial.  That said, it can be valuable for giving people some sense of their environment.  So, I can appreciate that having some simple graphics could really help some people to properly imagine a scene.

That sort of idea has a lot of potential.  But I suppose I'm concerned about something that may appear to facilitate creativity while also placing limits around it.  I have this unfortunate habit of wanting to push against those limits.  It's also very difficult to find the people who would make really good controllers.  The popular reviewers have been lucky enough to experience SiD with Rohrer as controller, and I'm sure he knows how to spin a decent tale.

Overall I'm pretty sceptical about the whole thing, and wonder if my roleplaying goggles are causing me to miss something.  If anyone does try out this game I would really love to hear about your experiences.

Fragile Dreams: Farewell Ruins of the Moon is a new post-apocalyptic RPG for Wii.  The impression I've gathered is that it's very different, is hauntingly beautiful, and that the story is very engaging.  That is enough to make me prick up my ears, though there is also part of me wondering why I keep torturing myself with JRPGs recently.

I don't normally pay a lot of attention to game reviews.  They rarely match up well with my tastes, and the ones claiming to be objective in particular make me laugh.  Reviews are always subjective and individual.  I prefer it when writers make use of their personal perspective rather than trying to hide it behind rigid journalistic style, and that's rarer than I'd like.

But in this case I've found the reviews oddly fascinating.  Some reviewers seem amazingly conflicted, e.g., this review at Destructoid.  It comes across as a wonderful concept dragged down by some absolutely hideous gameplay decisions.  It reminds me how possible it is to both love and hate a game at the some time.

The potential trade-off between story and gameplay is a common enough issue for gaming.  I think it is definitely possible to do both well, but sadly it often doesn't turn out that way.  I tend to seek out different experiences, and this seems like something I'll have to play for myself.  I am well forewarned, though, and expect to find it just as beautiful as the reviewers... and just as frustrating.

I do feel like a bit of a sap for wanting to play this game in spite of full knowledge of its (rather serious) flaws.  Sometimes gameplay decisions are different and not for everyone (such as Heavy Rain's approach), and sometimes they are just plain terrible.

Games don't normally produce such a conflicted response.  For me, the other major example is probably World of Warcraft.  Azeroth had plenty to keep me occupied during the two-years-or-so I spent there.  It has a fascinating lore and exploration.  It was a useful space for social interactions (yes really, it's a big place and you just have to find the friendlier and more mature elements).  There was a strong sense of teamwork and shared achievement.

But there was also plenty to hate.  The people too lazy to construct proper sentences.  The nagging feeling like being a lab rat offered food pellets.  Loot-obsession and learning just how much of a sense of entitlement some people have.  And ongoing commitments that could become like having a second job.

I think it's probably much cooler to act the critic and focus on the negative elements of a game.  Yahtzee certainly seems to do pretty well out of it.  My weakness is probably to go in the other direction, and make excuses for games in defence of the things I love about them.  I'd like to be able to talk about where gaming fascinates and inspires, far more than where it disappoints.