The game of everything

Over on the Flat Earths blog, I’ve been caught up in an interesting discussion this week with one or more anonymous game developers. Our conversation has been about the challenges of creating a kind of grand strategy game (and/or world history sim) that would cover the evolution of societies across centuries -- something like the original Civilization boardgame (or its PC version, Incunabula) but with nothing left out. You could tweak a coastline or the climate and see the effects butterfly out into the course of history. I’m mentioning it here because the Fabled Lands blog has a much wider reach, so if this sounds like something you’d be interested to weigh in on, head over to see the full discussion.

In summary: traditional strategy and tactics games often present a simplified view of control, where a single player assumes absolute command over a nation or army. In reality, historical empires were shaped by complex layers of authority and influence, with different factions vying for power. We talk about the potential for a game that reflects this complexity, eg a massively multiplayer and multi-layer World War II game where players assume various roles from platoon commanders to high-ranking generals and politicians. Such a game could offer a more authentic experience by simulating the intricacies of real-world military and political manoeuvring.

We all vary in how they approach games: some players want fast-paced action while others prefer strategic deliberation over days or weeks, and so on. Designing a game that appeals to all the player types is no small feat. We’d need to ensure that the game remains enjoyable and challenging for everyone involved. The idea is to allow players to engage at their own level, whether they are lean-back dilettantes or deeply invested aficionados.

New technology offers possibilities for expanding the scope of strategy games. Imagine a game that integrates different platforms, from PCs to smartphones, to create a rich, interconnected experience. For instance, a farming app linked to the game could engage casual players, who would contribute to the in-game economy and benefit more dedicated players. Such integration could foster a sense of community and interdependence, where players protect and support one another in pursuit of shared goals.

The conversation on Flat Earths also touches on the potential for diverse player roles. Not everyone wants to lead armies into battle or even to take part in the action. Some might prefer to act as chroniclers, documenting the unfolding events and strategies of the players. This mirrors real-world dynamics, where some individuals are active participants in events, while others observe and report. And others watch those reports and are just spectators -- also a valid way to consume the game. Recognizing and facilitating these different roles could enrich the gaming experience, allowing players to engage in ways that suit their interests and skills.

But we mustn't play down the technical challenges of merging different game elements such as abstract military units and individual soldier-based tactics. While current advances make some aspects feasible, ensuring cohesion across multiple layers of gameplay pushes the boundaries of what is currently achievable.

We also discuss the importance of a village or town system as the backbone of the game. Such a system would define troop numbers, trade, cultural values, and achievements. To accommodate a massive multiplayer environment, the game needs to move away from the exponential growth model typical of 4X games, where mismatched opponents often lead to frustration. Instead, my anonymous friend proposes a homeostatic environment reminiscent of the Dark Ages, where cooperation and cultural exchanges are vital. This shift in focus from conquest to cultural and economic development could redefine players’ goals, emphasizing collaboration over domination.

And, of course, commercial viability is a critical consideration in game development. Past failures underscore the importance of minimizing reliance on external investment and (much as I hate to say it) the potential benefits of aligning the game with a popular intellectual property, such as Lord of the Rings or (better) as the veritable psychohistory engine of Foundation.

Anyway, the bottom line is that by blending historical realism with diverse multiplayer roles and leveraging modern technology, it’s becoming possible to envisage a game of a scope far beyond the simple abstractions of the past. Whether you could sell it to players is another question, though maybe government ministers and civil servants would appreciate a way to run simulations before trying out their plans on the only reality we've got.

How stories emerge

Good stories arise out of what the characters do. Bad stories result when you decide on a plot outcome first and then manipulate the characters’ behaviour to reach that goal.

Showrunner Peter Gould explains how it works on Better Call Saul. And that’s the writers’ room on a TV show, where you might think they can just make the characters do whatever the plot demands. Not on a good TV show, they don't. So if you’re running a roleplaying game and you’re defining a story goal and only then going through the motions to get there, you’re not roleplaying, you’re writing – and you’re not even getting writing right.

I’ve talked before about stories as a cascade of events, the same way a series of gravitational tweaks to a ball’s velocity leads to a parabola. This was what I was trying to do with Dreams at Elixir Studios. Designing from the top down is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

(Incidentally, designing a game like that using grown-up characters in a modern town was also the wrong way to do it. The player's expectations of how human-like characters ought to behave are too high. If you want a story-creating game, start with simple animal characters and stories like you’d find in Farthing Wood. That’s my Figments concept, but let’s talk about that some other time.)

How do you encourage that cascade of events? I think the best stories arise when the rules themselves don’t address story as a goal. Take care of the details and the story will take care of itself. A good simulation system is the best narrative game.

The proof? Look around you. It’s all just physics. Real life has no story-creator processes going on at the level of the engine. Yet here’s the universe doing drama very well indeed – sometimes a little too well, as when a preening bully whips up a riot because he can’t accept he lost a fair election – and all of that is just because everyone’s acting in the moment.

I grumble about GURPS. It’s even a tag on these posts. But it’s like finding fault with an old friend. Many of our best games have sprung spontaneously out of those mechanics, which might look dry on the page but are fertile soil for stories. Like nuclear fission, GURPS if used responsibly will do whatever you need.

Maybe you’ve been put off trying GURPS because it has the reputation of being complicated? (It’s easier than physics, believe me.) The books cover everything, but you’re meant to pick the parts you need for your campaign. Admittedly I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve said to players, “We are using just the basic books, no mental disadvantages, no quirks or perks,” only to have them come back with some skill they found in a supplement. Be firm and it’ll work. Start off with GURPS Lite (which is free) and take advice from The Path of Cunning, a fine fanzine (also free) published by Roger Bell-West and John Dallman.

That and imagination are all you need, and the stories will take care of themselves.

Butt me no butts

My gaming group recently got a rules mailout from our current referee:

“If you have Brawling, it includes punching, kicking and headbutt, but as with kick, there is a minus for this last. As with grappling rules, we apply half the penalty on specific hit location, the skull, -7. So rounding down -3 and you need to be in the same hex. Both skulls get DR2 as in the rules. Headbutt damage is like Punch Thrust -2 crushing. Critical Head Blow Table applies (p 556).”

This is the kind of special case rule that makes me want to rip off my clothes and run gibbering into the sea. But I’m not about to launch into another of my Gripes About GURPS TM. It’s just that it highlights the two approaches to handling combat in roleplaying games.

In highly simulationist games, you decide precisely what manoeuvre you’re trying to implement. In the case of GURPS, you then refer to the two core books (a total of 570 pages), the ridiculous Martial Arts supplement (another 250 pages), and possibly the Power-Ups books too (a mere 72 pages there). You’ll spend a few minutes adding up a stack of modifiers that you’ll find scattered in multiple different sections (be sure to get PDFs of all the books so you can search them) so that finally you can make what purports to be an accurate assessment of the chance to hit and do damage. That's for one round.

And as we know with systems like that, ten minutes after the fight somebody will say, “We forgot to allow for rough terrain modifiers,” with the result that the whole outcome of the fight should really be retconned, but as nobody wants to do that you just let it go.

The other approach, which you may very well sense I am slightly biased towards, is to abstractify the brawling rules, make the roll, and then let the player interpret the result. Something along the lines of:

Referee: “You made your Brawling skill. Roll hit location.”

Player: “The head, and I do 4 damage.”

Referee: “He fails his knockdown roll. He’s stunned.”

Player: "What happened there is I nutted him."

That’s the approach I advocate in the Tirikelu RPG. It’s also how all the best games of GURPS I’ve played in have actually run it. I’m not convinced that it’s good game design to have 900 pages of rules that you mostly disregard in play – that’s almost as arbitrary as having no rules whatsoever. But I said I wasn’t going to turn this into a GURPS gripe, and in any case I’ve lately been more interested in Powered by the Apocalypse. More on that in tomorrow’s post.