We're too late for Web 2.0? Hardly!

I've been plugging the site away on various forums and one individual responded to my post about how our site is Web 2.0 by saying, "....you're six or seven years late to the punch, methinks."

Because I make it a habit to try to better explain myself to people who I feel don't understand my actions, I wrote a long reply back to him and after doing so realized that what I wrote really summarizes the thought process behind the website. So I'm reposting it here for more people to see,

Late to the punch?

More like way ahead of the curve

Let me compare with an analogy.

Let's say that Youtube is a funnel. When you submit a video, you basically dump it into the funnel along with millions of other people dumping into the funnel at the same time. That results in stuff pouring out of the top that is overflowing, because only so much can get out the bottom-- the intended destination. Do you know what I'm describing? Youtube's display algorithms for relevancy. Compared to the total number of submissions, only a small number of videos are actually benefited by these algorithms and it is primarily people who already have large subscriber bases and can make videos go viral in a few hours after uploading. That's why you see the same people on the front pages all the time. Everyone else is lost in the ocean of Youtube.

For smaller people if they want their stuff seen they need to embed their videos OUTSIDE Youtube. And there is only a finite number of places you can do that and hope your videos actually get seen. As an example, this forum. People's own submissions sit here at the very bottom of the forum, which no one has any other reason to go look at. Consequently few things are seen. Spoony's forum isn't alone in this; nearly every website works that way, including Blistered Thumbs, TGWTG, Kotaku and ScrewAttack. All the featured contributors-- the people who work on the site-- they get front page exposure and everyone else is basically pushed into the back alleys of the website.

And that's fine--there is nothing wrong with them focusing on their own people,  but that's not what true Web 2.0 design is about.

Now take a look at www.rpgfanatic.net

We have a featured contributor box. That represents roughly 1% of the website. The overwhelming majority of space is devoted to allowing user submissions to be found, and we have several different ways to do that; directly from a game's page, or using the navigation menu at the left hand side of the screen. We have a small leaderboard on the front page below our image slider. And we will eventually have more ways, too, and put a great deal of emphasis on search functions and a few other ideas I've personally came up with that nobody else has done (near as I can tell, anyway).

Also, unlike GameFAQs and GiantBomb, we won't ban people for submitting monetized videos. GameFAQs and Giant Bomb will do that. It's my belief that Whiskey Media was only running sites like Giant Bomb in order to advertise their website development platform and had little actual interest in building communities beyond that; thus why they sold their company at the first chance they got, even going as far as selling Giant Bomb to CNET -- cause the company who let GameFAQs go to hell are going to manage Giant Bomb so much better, right?

The way we handle walkthroughs is also better. GameFAQs is still primarily notepad txt files. We allow easy embedding of images and videos to compliment your walkthroughs, and you can even embed monetized videos if you have a monetized Youtube account. You'll never be able to do that on GameFAQs, it's against their terms of service.

You can also submit Let's Plays / Commentaries. We have a specific feed just for them so they don't get mixed in with news or review submissions. I don't know of any other site that handles different types of user submitted game content the way we do. Everything usually just gets dumped into one big feed (like on ScrewAttack) and consequently much of it is lost in the sea of submissions. We've put a lot of effort into minimizing that from happening. It's way harder for things to be lost on our site.

You should give my site a shot. We will never sell out to anybody. We're in this for the long haul and for the right reasons.

I Criticize Because I Care; A Game Critic Speaks Up

I Criticize Because I Care

 By Carey Martell

Originally written: 3/25/2012

Erik Kain, a long time contributor to Forbes.com concerning videogames, recently had a spat with Destructoid’s Jim Sterling over Twitter. The argument stemmed from an assertion Kain made in ‘Do Positive Mass Effect 3 Reviews Reveal a Conflict of Interest in Gaming Journalism’? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/23/do-positive-mass-effect-3-reviews-reveal-a-conflict-of-interest-in-gaming-journalism/ ).

                The subject of the discourse aside, I want to focus on a sub-argument that emerged in their debate. Jim Sterling attempted to defend game critics everywhere by explaining that whenever he points out any flaws in a game, regardless of how mild the criticism may be, there is a vocal part of his audience who issue slurs at him because he dared to say anything but praise, and this is common for all videogame journalists and unique to the field. By highlighting this, Sterling attempted to divert part of the responsibility away from reviewers and make his readership share blame for the way reviews are written, pointing out that while he does not tip-toe around his reader’s fanboyism he understands why many reviewers do.

                Kain countered Sterling’s argument with, “A critic writes to express *themselves*, not to help their subject or please their audience.”

                Dwelling on this, I have to say I completely disagree with Sterling and half-agree with Kain. I believe authentic criticism is not sugar-coated-- if a critic’s disappointment led to feelings of anger then those feelings should be transmitted in the criticism delivered-- but I do not believe it is impossible to both express oneself AND want to help both the subject and audience. Indeed, I believe that the intent for one’s criticism to supply meaningful information to both the audience and developer determines what kind of critic you are.

                 One of my favorite quotes comes from President Theodore Roosevelt, delivered as part of a speech he gave after his term as President ended,

            "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

                But Roosevelt never talked about what happens when it is the critic who finds himself in the arena, with his own face marred by dust and sweat and blood. This essay serves to explain my thoughts on how that plays out for the video game critic today.

               It is my belief that the role of the critic is to provide feedback. It is this educated feedback that distinguishes our modern day art from that of prior generations, and allows creators to make leaps and bounds in their fields. The desire to “prove” the critic “wrong” by improving one’s work can be a powerful motivator, and the musings of the critic can often provide insight for the aspiring artists that will set the pace for future generations of that industry.

                However, there exists a type of critic whose judgments are not motivated by a desire to see the field of their criticism improve, but instead colored by personal demons. This class of critic is not angry at “men in the arena” because of anything the men have done, but because the critic believes he ought to be “in the arena” performing as they are, and he is angry that he is not. He believes with absolute sincerity that it is he that should be in the spotlight and because his ego will not allow him to acknowledge the inadequacies that keep him in the shadows, he takes his frustration out on successful efforts of better men. This is the jealous critic, he is a sad beast, and too often I see this cowardly type gain prominence in the world of game criticism because he is able to skillfully conceive his contempt with humor and wit.

                I am not a jealous critic. I am more than capable of working in the development side of the videogame industry and I have already dabbled in it. I have made a conscious decision to focus on videogame journalism because I believe the field desperately needs people who understand the science of games in order for it to mature. It is true that in my heart of hearts I will always be a designer but aside from a few self-published endeavors I have little interest in working in the mainstream world of videogame development.

                This decision was not made lightly. I have not chosen to become a journalist so I can score free videogames and press passes to events. I do not spend any of my convention hours flirting with booth babes. My goal as a journalist is to improve the field of videogame journalism so that the medium that is the videogame can one day be viewed with the same respect that other established arts like film, music and literature are awarded. To achieve this goal I must criticize games because there can be no constructive discussion about art without informed criticism to guide that discussion.

                As many review shows are today, The RPG Fanatic Show is a pundit type show. I stand before the world on my soap box and share my opinions about a game-- and oh how opinionated I am! Woe to the poor designer who manages to trip over the things that set me off, such as obvious grammar and spelling mistakes in dialogue boxes, plot holes, unnecessarily long loading times and unfriendly user interfaces. I am harsh, I am brutal and ideally I am also entertaining, but most importantly of all I am honest.

                It is this brutally honest feedback that is my valuable contribution to the field, for without criticism from individuals such as myself the medium will never be recognized with the respect it so rightly deserves.

                As it is the job of the videogame developers to make games and the job of the sales team to sell them, the burden of proving to the world that a game is high art or low art falls upon the shoulders of the game critics. None other can do this task, for it is the job of the salesman to sell a game at any cost regardless of the game’s quality, and the development team-- the artists-- are too emotionally involved in their work to fully see all its obvious imperfections and hidden strengths.

                Unfortunately, because the medium of game criticism is so young, there is no straight-forward route to becoming an educated game critic. You cannot yet attend a college and study videogame theory as you can “film theory”, as attempting to enter most any college program for “game design” will force you to choose whether to become a 3D graphics designer or a game programmer; and neither field is wholly appropriate for a game critic’s education.  I shall explain why.

                For graphics design, while understanding how digital textures are built can be useful, the step-by-step process on how to build the visuals of a game are as necessary to know as the step-by-step methods carpenters use to construct film sets. Carpentry knowledge is not used when judging the aesthetic style of a film. Instead, as it is with games, it is vastly more important to have a firm grasp of visual story-telling languages. Studying film cinematography and sequential storytelling (comic books) will better arm the game critic for dissecting the visual aesthetics of games than learning how to use Maya and 3D Studio Max ever will.

                For game programming, the lack of necessity should be obvious. While it is highly useful to have some knowledge about how programming languages work so one can understand how easy or hard tweaks to the game actually are, it is impossible for a game critic to see the raw code of a game as they play. Though we might make assumptions, we cannot accurately deduce what language a game was coded in based on gameplay alone, or if that code was “sloppy” or “brilliant”. All we can see is the result and it is that result we must form our judgments upon.  

                As of this moment, the proper education for a game critic is constructed in a Frankenstein-like style by learning several distinct disciplines and haphazardly stitching them together; script-writing, art appreciation, musical scoring, film theory and game design theory. The audio-visual fields can be learned from classes available from nearly any community college in the United States, so obtaining a reasonable amount of knowledge about these fields is not difficult to acquire.

                Game design theory is not that accessible. The only way to obtain this knowledge is through self-education; reading books on game design, making your own games, and playing hundreds of games (especially the bad ones, as their mistakes make the truly good games shine ever so much brighter). Direct instruction from an experienced teacher is rare, because experienced teachers still work in the industry, as they are in high demand.

                And even when an individual does obtain knowledge in all these areas they are still missing a vital component that any student of film, art or music theory would obtain by the time they complete their Associate degree; knowledge of their field’s history. A graphic artist might study da Vinci and a musical studies major might study Beethoven. Game design students might study Miyamoto, but alas they do not. There is no such thing as “Videogame Appreciation 101”. Classes about early computer game development simply do not exist, even in the programs offered by those few colleges that offer educations in game development.  Some pretend to by talking briefly about the development of games like Space War and Pong, but there is little discussion about games involving the PLATO or acknowledgment of MUDs, and discussion about the development of the Japanese and South Korean industry are either absent or glossed over. They do not teach the full history because few know it; while there are a handful of books on the topic, they tend to read as brief summaries and center around the plights of particular individuals to the exclusion of other equally important people, and much of the true story behind how and why a game was developed is locked up tightly behind non-disclosure agreements. You hear whispers of it at conventions like GDC, but even at this same convention I can find myself in an auditorium with an employee of a prominent developer who admits she does not know who Nolan Bushnell is, as Nolan Bushnell speaks at his own panel about his projections for the future of the industry. People dare to whisper to one another, “Who is this guy and where does he get off thinking he knows so much?”. Some even smugly snicker while disagreeing with his prophetic vision of the industry’s future, and they do so having no idea Bushnell is largely responsible for them even having an industry to work in, since he envisioned the whole thing and made it happen. Even if they disagree with his assessment they should not be so quickly dismissive and listening closely to every word he says, but they do not because they don’t know him. It is like a software engineer not knowing who Bill Gates is.

                This is tragic. It is as difficult for anyone to completely understand the design of a game like World of Warcraft without knowing where all the mechanics used in World of Warcraft came from and why they were invented, as it is to fully understand the cinematic techniques at work in a Steven Spielberg film without knowing all the pioneer film-makers who influenced Spielberg and what those directors were seeking to do with the techniques they invented. There are many game critics and game developers who are well versed in the language of games, but being well versed in the use of the languages does not necessarily mean they have any understanding of how that language developed and why certain things are done the way they are. This dark area of their knowledge base limits the quality of their criticism and designs.

                This is not to say that I believe the opinions of the uninformed critic are without merit; I absolutely believe that people know what they like and don’t like. The real question is if they fully understand all the reasons for why they like or dislike something, and it is my belief the average gamer is not equipped with the technical knowledge necessary to decipher those reasons. Without this vital education the feedback the average gamer provides to game designers is of little use, because they do not speak the same language the game developers do. It must be translated, which requires interpretation and can result in some important things being lost in the translation.

                On the other hand, the educated game critic not only speaks the language but is so well versed in it they can make their own games. Just as their counterparts in the film, literature, music and art world are capable film-makers, writers, musicians and artists, the game critic is a competent game designer. The game critic knows how to provide useful feedback to the developer, but their only audience is not the developer; the audience of the game critic is also the average gamer. Therefore the commentary must be explained in such a way that both the developer and the average gamer will get something valuable from the criticism. This is where the critic enters the ‘arena’; they are no longer a mere spectator in the crowd. They have switched places with the developer, who now takes the place of the critic who sat on the bench.  It is now the critic who must perform when the spotlight makes all their inadequacies impossible to hide, and they must perform something that is able to please both divisions of the stadium.

                Furthermore, to enter the arena is to care enough to risk ridicule and embarrassment in your attempt to achieve something meaningful, and this is true regardless of whether your work is wholly original or builds upon the work of other artists. It is also true whether you are prepared to enter that spotlight or not, where your triumphs and follies become the subject of others criticisms. 

        

                So I do not agree with Sterling's excuses for why game journalists should be permitted to tip-toe around. We are in the arena and what we are doing right now will contribute to the future of this artform we all love. We can't be so careless as to sugarcoat our criticism. To cause true change you must be unafraid to invite the wrath of powerful voices who disagree with the change you seek to create.

        

        Every critic has their own agenda and I cannot always be certain what motivation every critic has.

                Speaking for myself, I criticize because I care. 

Responding to the second part of Extra Credits "JRPGs Aren't RPGs" argument

http://extra-credits.net/episodes/western-japanese-rpgs-part-2/

I believe that my original rebuttal still addresses their argument. This is because, as I expected, the Extra Credits folk's argument is based on broad assumptions. Why they believe they know what "emotional reasons" everyone plays a title for is beyond my ability to rationalize as anything but arrogance. In particular, they make the claim that people play Fallout 3 because they like the first person perspective, but I can assure you the first person perspective is the thing I least like about Fallout 3 (hell, even in Elder Scrolls titles I dislike it but it's necessary to play in first person mode in order to effectively target enemies). And in contrast to myself I know there are many people who prefer the first person perspective in games. The argument the Extra Credits guys have made seems to have been formed in a bubble where discussion with hardcore fans of the games was absent.

So if you didn't get it before from my original post, the hard truth is that how players "feel" about a game and the specific reasons "why" they play are very diverse and based on taste which may or may not have any rational basis. When you make any product, you make it with the full knowledge that a significant portion of people are not going to see things your way, thus why you need to make a product for a target audience who will "get it".

I would think the Extra Credits guys would get that since they often take positions others strongly disagree with. It's impossible to even say people watch their show for the same reasons, let alone that people play Fallout 3 for the same reasons.

And oh yeah, also as expected they made the argument that "WRPGs" always give you a blank slate character and "JRPGs" do not. An argument that is factually incorrect by just looking at a recent title like Lord of the Rings: War in the North (as I pointed out in a different post).

But let's talk a little about the argument that "WRPGs" as a genre allow you to "become" the character in the world whereas "JRPGs" simply let you play as a character in that world.

The basis of the argument is that playing a silent protagonist lets you better feel like "you" are the hero, because they don't have any dialogue and characters seemingly talk directly to the player.

To this I say that Chrono Trigger (a JRPG) does the same thing, as do all the games in the Dragon Quest series. They feature a silent protagonist and NPCs address "you" most of the time.

I supposed some might argue that,

"Oh no, it's not the same thing because Chrono has a detailed backstory and a mother and a childhood friend and blah blah blah, he is his own character separate from the identity of the player!"

....and to this I will say,

"True, but so does every Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, Fable and Fallout character you play; they have memories of that world you do not share. They were born in that world and had a life long before you came into it.
                    Therefore, "You" the player do not exist in that world. You simply use that character as an avatar to explore and interact with the world, the same way you use Cloud to explore and interact with the world in Final Fantasy 7."

I know that the goal of using silent protagonists in a game is to better allow immersion than a game where the protagonist has their own highly detailed personality. I don't agree that silent protagonists allow better immersion, because I think there is a specific level of immersion that the silent protagonist strategy attempts to reach but fails to obtain, because the player is awake in the real world and has their needs of food, and tiredness and needing to use the bathroom (have you ever tried to stay immersed when you need to take a leak? It's pretty impossible) that are separate from the character in videogame land. "Full immersion" is not possible, and the same level of "unawareness" of the real world can be reached in games where protagonists have their own personalities and dialogue. And on that note, the same level of immersion can be obtained by watching a movie or reading a book.

Discussions about "immersion" have become rather distorted in recent years; the discussions originally came about from the desire of writers, film-makers and game designers to improve the experience their entertainment provided, with the rational being that anything which broke immersion reduced the enjoyable experience the media was providing. The goal was to reduce the number of things in a design that caused immersion to break (for example, plot elements that make no sense, or frustrating game mechanics) and not to design a product that led to "full immersion", because that was acknowledge as impossible. Unfortunately the understanding of these discussions has been wholly misinterpreted by laymen gamers, including those who became game journalists and the discussion is now muddied into the kind of nonsense Extra Credits is talking about concerning silent protagonists vs "talkie" protagonists. Sadly even a few game designers have bought into the idea, logic be damned.

Basically, the argument of "silent protagonist" = "better immersion" isn't a rational one, but a subjective one. It seems to be rational rather than actually being so, because it relies on the assumption the player is living in a space that has nothing to keep them from remembering that the game is a separate world. The argument is based on the idea that only the videogame is capable of reminding the player that the real world exists and that just isn't true. The goal of good gameplay is a level of immersion, but it cannot be a deep one because deep immersion is impossible so long as the player remains aware of the "real world"-- and they always will be because we exist in the real world.

The best use of "silent protagonists" and "talkies" doesn't really have anything to do with immersion, it has to do with the kind of message you are intending to send to the player. I mentioned this in my review of Dragon Age: Origins, that the game's "moral system" is capable of delivering a higher message than may be obvious. For some types of messages, it may be best to use a talking character who doesn't have dialogue trees, and for other messages it may be best for dialogue trees. It has to be handled correctly, of course, but that is how the different narrative styles ought to be used. Not for immersion, because that is a pointless pursuit; both types of protagonists are just as good at it.

(EDIT: This article was written 10:03 am PST on 3/7/2012. At 6:40 pm one of my readers let me know that today at GDC Naughty Dog’s Rich Lemarchand also expressed similar sentiments at GDC. )

Also, I respond to the, "WRPGs let you change the look of your character and JRPGs do not because they have different immersion goals" with, "Originally it had to do with file size limitations of the media the games were on; a SNES cartridge has a lot less space than a game like Ultima 7 that could be released on several floppy disks. Images consume a lot of space; it's not always wise to dedicate crucial space to changing costume of the characters. These days it actually depends a lot more on if the game is using a lot of FMV sequences or not. FMV sequences require the characters clothing to be consistent in the movies as in gameplay, as FMVs are not a scripted event (like in Dragon Age) but a rendered movie file so the creators have more cinematic options."

Also some players of Elder Scrolls and Fallout might choose equipment based on how they want the character to look, but many players (such as myself) would wear a clown suit if it had the best stats in the game, and don't care that much about the look of characters- what we care about is efficiency. Whether I build an Elder Scrolls or a SaGa Frontier character, I'm not doing it to express myself as an individual but to play the game in the most optimal way I can think, so that I don't die left and right. Again, the guys at Extra Credits are focusing too much on why THEY play games without regard to the very real possibility that other people may approach the game differently-- I shouldn't say possibility, because people actually DO approach and play the games differently than the Extra Credit people do.

I just don't know why people persist in spreading these fallacies when they are so easily disproven. The whole problem here is that they don't think about how anyone might prove their beliefs incorrect. That is the difference between me and other reviewers; I actually think a great deal about the weaknesses of my arguments; to predict how others might prove them wrong. And that allows me to form strong opinions that can stand up to intelligent scrutiny, because I've already talked myself out of all the stupid stuff before I present my views to the world.

Extra Credits and JRPGs (again)

I happened to come across the Youtube teaser for the Extra Credits episode I responded to in an earlier post. The comment section is, as expected, a cesspool of stupidity.

Here's a few choice comments that may help to illustrate why the average gamer has no business deciding what genre games should be,

"The difference between WRPGs and JRPGs is pretty much the difference between any western product and japanese product. The latter has low production value and setting/lore planning. The japanese like to mix in random elements together without thinking too much about having to make sense within the same game universe (which doesn't mean it needs to be realistc, there's a big difference here). Also, fanservice up the ass on almost every single opportunity. More often than not ruins the experience."

(My response: Every time I hear this kind of argument I'm reminded of that scene in Gremlins where Mr. Futterman rants to Billy about imported products being inferior to American ones http://www.anyclip.com/movies/gremlins/ry7M42nuhtmb/#!quotes/) 


 "Aha! THANK you! With the next two parts of this, I'll finally have an easy way to convince people that Metroid Prime is not an FPS.

You play COD to shoot stuff and make some of it blow up.
You play Super Metroid to explore an alien world.
I think it's clear which one Prime shares more with."

(My response: Metroid Prime is a first person shooter, the same way Mass Effect is a first person shooter. Just because it has an open world doesn't mean it can't be a first person shooter. Many first person shooters focus on multi-player modes these days but there is nothing inherent about the genre that means every level has to be self-contained. And lastly, a game is capable of having elements from more than one game genre; it doesn't need to be forced into just one kind of genre)

" I keep feeling that the main different between JRPGs and WRPGs are the overall tone and writing, because they can still differ in terms of subject matter.

Then again, I haven't played that many Western RPGs..."

(My response: And there is your problem. You haven't played many of these games. BioWare and Bethesda aren't the only American companies making RPGs)

"@AFnord There were RPGs being made in Japan before wizardry was produced, but they were mostly in a western style. Wizardry was cited as one of the inspirations for DQ, iirc, but the genre was a hybrid at that point, and now has it's own statement.
It's Q&D, but I've always heard the rule of thumb as "If you create the role, it's a CRPG, if you're given the role, it's a JRPG". 

(My response: FYI, with that logic Shin Megami Tensei 3 isn't a "JRPG", nor is Final Fantasy 13-2. Or Final Fantasy 12. Or Final Fantasy 8. Or Final Fantasy 7. Or Final Fantasy 6. Or Final Fantasy 5. Or any game in the Disgaea series. Or, hell, any Japanese produced game where you can decide the party role of the character)


"@TheDuck1234 While Demon Souls and Dark Souls were made by a Japanese company, it is more of a WRPG than a JRPG if you go by their attributes. The colours are muted, the character design and aesthatic is for most part restrained, the story takes a backseat to gameplay and so on."

(My response: World of Warcraft has bright colors, an almost "manga-ish" aesthetic to its world and the story is kind of hard to avoid. Does that mean it's not a "WRPG"?)

Every time I hear people try to articulate why "JRPGs" and "WRPGs" are so, so different, I always have the same thought,

"Play. More. Games."

Because many gamer reviewers have selective memory (i.e. they crap over any game that doesn't fit neatly into their ideas of what "JRPGs" and "WRPGs" are supposed to be), here are a few you can start with,

Lord of the Rings: The Third Age - linear narrative "Final Fantasy"-like "WRPG"

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance - linear narrative "WRPG"

Champions of Norrath - linear narrative "WRPG"

Forgotten Realms: Demonstone - linear narrative "WRPG"

 Dungeons & Dragons: Heroes- linear narrative "WRPG"

Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale - linear narrative "WRPG"

King's Bounty: The Legend - linear narrative "WRPG"

Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song - "non-linear "JRPG" with huge emphasis on character customization based on behavior of the character, similar to Elder Scrolls

For similar non-linear gameplay and deep character customization gameplay, check out SaGa Frontier and SaGa Frontier 2

Radiata Stories - non-linear "JRPG"

Chrono Trigger - from the middle onward, the game is completely non-linear, to the point the protagonist may even remain dead. "JRPG"

That's just a handful of games that break the stereotypes. There's hundreds more.

A "Momentum" System for Radiant Fantasia

One of the commentators to the blog, Mildra the RPG Monk, shared with me his thoughts in a message on Youtube,

"Back when I played Warhammer Online, my favorite class was the Swordmaster, primarily its combo system that acted on an opener/builder/finisher setup. Thus my suggestion is having various 'tiers' of momentum, with abilities having an entry and exit requirement as its minimum. here's a rough example, a fighter could use "Steel Burst" as their first move, which has a momentum entry of 1 (the default minimum) and an exit of 2, allowing him to use an ability with a momentum of 2 or lower, and so on, with the strongest abilities having 'finisher' tags that reset the level of momentum they have.

In other words, instead of building up a kind of super meter to spend, they build up their combo piece by piece. In my opinion, this might allow it to be a bit more intuitive and have less in the way of micromanaging on the sheet."

 It's certainly true that a system where you unlock the ability to use tiers of abilities by executing lower tier moves requires less updating and note-taking than one where you build up and spend points to use abilities. 

However, I think a combination of the two might have merit.

Fortunately, all Spell and Weapon Techniques are already assembled into tiers. This was originally done to determine what level a technique can be learned at, but I'm now wanting to change things so the tiers instead determine the "momentum" needed to use them in battle. The highest tier abilities will probably have a level requirement to learn, because the strongest abilities are very powerful. I am thinking that to learn Grade B abilities you must be level 6, and to learn Grade A and S abilities you must be level 10.

For an example of what the tiers look like, let's look at the Sword Techniques in Radiant Fantasia,

Grade E: Air Slash, Double Cut, Hurl Sword 

Grade D: Iron Cutter, Artery Thrust, Blade Rush 

Grade C: Sword Stance, Demented Slash 

Grade B: Million Cuts, No Moment 

Grade A: Brave Buster 

Grade S: Final Hour

An example of what one of these abilities looks like,

Air Slash (Attack action)
Launch a stream of raw magical force from the sword blade to slash a target at a distance.

Tech. Power: 1    Delay: 1 round At Will [icon] 

Weapon, Sword Range: Medium Target: Single 

Check: Skill check Vs. Magic Defense

Special: This projectile attack can be used to intercept another projectile spell, resulting in a Magical Clash. 

Magic Point Cost: 4 

Tech Grade: E

(For historical purposes and so you can see how much progress I've made in refining the technique, this is what Air Slash looked like during the first draft of Radiant Fantasia,

Air Slash (Attack action)
Tech. Power: 1

This technique launches a stream of raw magical force from the sword blade to slash a target at a distance.

         Check: An Air Slash skill check plus the ranged attack bonus of the character sets the DC for the target‘s Magic Defense check. A successful save means the target does not take damage. Air Slash can hit only one target.
                Dual Air Slash: If the character is dual wielding swords, at the cost of 10 Magic points Air Slash deals double damage to a single opponent. The weapon damage of the main hand determines the damage to be multiplied.
                 Air Slash has a delay of one round. After it has been used the character must wait one round to use it again.
               Special: This projectile attack can be used to intercept another projectile spell, resulting in a Magical Clash.
Range: Medium; Single  

Time: Air Slash is an attack action; delay 1 round. 

Spell Resistance: Yes 

Magic Point Cost: 4 (single); 10 (dual) 

Tech Grade: E 

Uses: Infinite

The structure was very similar to a standard 3rd edition spell. Currently it resembles 4th edition a'bit more, and fits neater into a little statblock. )

Anyway, as for the incorporation of the "momentum tiers", this is what I'm thinking of.

Grade E to B are going to be tiers that build Momentum. Grade A and S are going to reset Momentum.

By default a character has 0 Momentum, and with no Momentum character can use Grade E abilities.

Using a Grade E ability builds 1 Momentum, and Grade D requires 1 Momentum to be able to use those skills.

In order to obtain 2 Momentum the character must use a Grade D ability, which allows the use of. 

Grade C abilities

In order to obtain 3 Momentum the character must use a Grade C ability, which allows the use of Grade B abilities.

In order to obtain 4 Momentum the character must use a Grade B ability.

After reaching 4 Momentum, the character may use a Grade A or S ability, but after using one of these abilities the character will be left with 0 Momentum. 

Grade S techs are the strongest techs available, and the biggest difference between Grade A and Grade S is that Grade S abilities require the character to be in a mode called Dying Will, which all characters can enter after they have suffered significant Wound point damage (but can otherwise be entered for a limited time by using special abilities; for example, Elemental Champions have an ability called Gift of the Chiefs that allows them to tap into the Elemental Roads to enter a super mode and gives them the benefit of Dying Will on command.

(Dying Will normally functions as a way for a character to make a "last stand", not unlike the final fight scene of The 13th Warrior. The name of the ability, of course, comes from the manga Katekyō Hitman Reborn!)

I mentioned earlier in this post I am thinking that to learn Grade B abilities you must be level 6, and to learn Grade A and S abilities you must be level 10. If I implement this, then until level 6, using a Grade C ability will reset Momentum and until level 10 using a Grade B ability will reset Momentum.

Lastly I want the Momentum tiers to not be tied to certain classes of Techniques; if you built 3 Momentum by using nothing but Sword Techniques, you can use any Grade B ability your character knows, not just Sword Techniques. This way a character who decides to specialize in dual-wielding two different types of weapons (such as Sword and Shield) or wants to be a "spell-blade" kind of character who uses both melee weapons and magic, can generate Momentum without needing to focus on just one kind of tech. 

So, you could throw fireballs until you build up enough Momentum to unleash a powerful axe strike, or perform a chain of knife thrusts until you build up enough Momentum to bombard the enemy with a torrent of wind. 

Note that using Spell Techniques will cost Magic points, as will certain Weapon Techniques that are enhanced by raw magic ability, such as Air Slash. 

Musings on skill design in a tabletop system

So it turns out I wasn't the only one who was blogging about skills yesterday.

Over at Wizards of the Coast, Rodney Thompson (one of the designers working on D&D 5th edition) also made a post about skills. In that post he mentioned the design team is leaning toward most skill checks to just be an ability check, as in earlier editions of D&D.This likely means that you will no longer gain ranks in skills that add a bonus to the rolls you make.

I don't really like the ability check as the sole bonus to the roll. The reason I have a different opinion is because I likely don't view skills as being a very significant way to "customize" the character ( I view the package of abilities obtained from classes as more crucial to character customizing) .  Instead I think skills are great for adding more depth by way of building sub-systems on top of them.

For example, if you have a skill like Athletics that covers the character's aptitude to swim, climb, and jump, you can then create items and talents which grant additional bonuses to the Athletics skill. You can also create other abilities that rely on the Athletics score to grant a modifier.

Let's say you want to implement rules for a character to learn some kind of martial art style, like Jiu-jitsu or something. You can make it so all the attack techniques they learn from that art get an Accuracy or Damage bonus from the skill level of the character's Athletics score.

Additionally you can have the character equip items that increase their Athletics score -- like say, a black belt -- so they gain a further bonus when they are doing that attack which incorporates the Athletics score into it.

Without having these general skills, the only way you could make bonuses apply to the Jiu-jitsu moves is if you have items that increase STR or directly add a bonus to Jiu-jitsu moves. The problem with this is that there becomes too little diversity in equipment; it will be obvious for characters to just stack STR items, which can have other unbalancing issues (since STR applies to ALL attacks, it's not just Jiu-jitsu moves which get the bonus -- STR is also tied into everything from how much weight a character can carry to other things like how many hit points they have) that aren't desirable in a game.

So when you have a skill system in a game, it's not just players who get more control over the way their characters are built; designers also get more systems to manipulate so the game can have greater depth and balance to it.

It is my belief that in D&D 3rd edition, the designers went a little crazy with the bonuses to skills. They ended up creating way too many splatbooks filled with feats and classes that had circumstantial bonuses to skills, like, "this character gets a +2 bonus to Climb checks but ONLY during a full moon!" or "The character gains +2 bonus against mental attacks from a vampire" and so forth. The skill system ended up incorporating tons and tons of circumstantial stuff that doesn't apply half the time or perhaps at any time, and doesn't fit neatly onto the character sheet; there is no extra space in the skill modifier for circumstantial stuff.

I've tried very hard to not design circumstantial things into my skill system, instead a bonus applies all the time or it doesn't. The exceptions are bonuses against certain races and elemental alignments, but to me these aren't so circumstantial since every enemy belongs to a race and many characters are elementally aligned.

What I have done is designed some attack techniques to rely on General Skills to obtain a bonus; for example, the Minstrel and Dancer Specializations have talents that gain bonuses from Perform and Acrobatics skill ranks.

I still feel that my skills system has a layer of complexity more than it needs, and am looking to trim the fat away, but one thing I am positive about is that there will be General Skills so that the game has the kind of depth I believe a modern tabletop RPG should have.

Simplifying Skill Purchasing

I've mentioned before that Radiant Fantasia is built from the OGL; 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons. I've made substantial changes to it, but one mechanic hasn't changed that much: the skills.

In Radiant Fantasia the OGL skills are referred to as "General Skills", because they are skills all characters have access to. However, there are some differences than how they work in 3rd:

- The concept of "class skills" is scrapped. All skills cost 1 skill point to level up, regardless of what Job you are. Instead, some Jobs and Specializations get bonus ranks in skills (ex. +3 to Treat Injury checks) from their talents.

-Many skills have been combined together. For example, all the STR related skills (Jump, Climb, and Swim) are combined into one 'Athletics' skill, and several of the DEX skills have been consolidated (Balance, Escape, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble) as 'Acrobatics'.

- The numbers for difficulty checks has been adjusted to accommodate the use of 2d6 instead of d20.

Having made these changes early on in the design of Radiant Fantasia, I haven't done much to General Skills since. However, I've always felt the system may still be too cumbersome for novice players, and I get tempted to simplify it so that players don't spend skill points into General Skills, and their ranks are tied to the Job level and talent bonuses.

The reason I haven't done that is because I personally like being able to customize the General Skills by spending skill points into what you want to learn.

The compromise I'm thinking of making is to have "skill packages" where, for example, there is "Gym Training" and if you spend 1 skill point into it, you get +1 to Athletics and Acrobatics. So rather than spending 1 skill point into Athletics and 1 point into Acrobatics, you just put one point into "Gym Training".

With some clever thinking, that type of design would allow me to consolidate the existing 11 General Skills into about 5 "Training" options during the level up process.

I'm still musing on if this is better or not.

A Rebuttal to Extra Credits "JRPGs aren't RPGs" argument

I don't have time right now to make a video addressing this, but I want to comment on a recent video from the folks at Extra Credits titled "Western & Japanese RPGs (part 1)".

The video puts forth several ideas that I think are fundamentally flawed,

1) That "WRPGs" and "JRPGS" shouldn't belong to the family of "RPGs", but are actually two entirely different genres which developed independently of one another. This is because the folks at Extra Credits believe "JRPGs" descend from eroge visual novels (apparently because Wikipedia says so-- it's the only other place I've ever seen such an argument made-- but we'll get to this in a moment).

2) That game genres should not be defined by the game mechanics of the game, but by how players perceive the game (ie. the reasons they play the game and what they take away from the game).

I believe the folks at Extra Credits are wrong.

Here's why,

Addressing argument #1: Anyone who has any inkling of knowledge about videogame history can tell you visual novels descend from graphic adventure games, which themselves descend from text adventure games, a branch of interaction fiction games.

Interactive fiction games are legions more popular in Japan than in elsewhere in the world, but they are made all over the world, including the "West", even if they aren't called "visual novels". The only substantial difference between the gameplay of point and click adventure games like Gabriel Knights: Sins of the Father (which I played extensively when I was a kid) and a game like Fate/stay night is you can actually move your avatar across the screen in Gabriel Knight , rather than gameplay deciding solely on which story branches you pursue like in Fate/stay night. This is a mild difference and certainly not enough to suggest no common familial ties.

And many "Western" RPGs also descend from interactive fiction games, but we'll talk about that later.

As for the argument that companies like Enix, Square and Nihon Falcom made eroge and then infused those elements into their design, I cannot argue they dabbled in games with visual novel elements before making computer RPGs.  However concerning Square, near as I can tell, did not make any eroge games before releasing Final Fantasy -- GameFAQs and Mobygames don't list any. Now, they did release Nakayama Miho no Tokimeki High School, a dating sim for the Famicom Disk System, but this game was released at the same time that Final Fantasy was released (both were released in December of 1987), so it seems to have been developed at the same time.

(Note that Wikipedia's article for eroge games currently claims Square and Enix made eroge games in their early days, but that claim is not sourced nor does it say what the names of those games are. Suspicious indeed, but it doesn't really matter if they did or not. You'll understand why as you read this article).

HOWEVER, if you look at the very early history of the computer RPG genre you find a lot of people trying to combine ZORK with the tabletop RPG Dungeons and Dragons, or at least the idea of a shared narrative space in an interactive fiction game . For example, MUD1 (the forefather of all things MMORPG) began its development with the intent to make a "Multi-User DUNGEN", with "DUNGEN" having been an unlicensed port of ZORK.

Now, while MUD1 did not use any of D&D, many other games descending from MUD1 did, such as DikuMUD, which is pretty much responsible for the creation of Everquest. 

ZORK, for those who don't know, was a text adventure game-- an interactive fiction game! The same category of game that visual novels belong to!

ZORK itself was inspired by Colossal Cave Adventure (1975) also known as ADVENT, which had influence on a wide number of computer RPGs, including every rogue-like ever made (including the Mystery Dungeon series and games like Azure Dreams from Konami, which many would call a "JRPG").

But let me talk about a game from which every "JRPG" and every "WRPG" directly descends.

'dnd' for the PLATO was made in 1975 by Gary Whisenhunt and Ray Wood. I've talked about it's importance in videogame history in an episode of RPG(ology). I'm also preparing to interview the creators. I've been able to talk with them a little about the game, and the events surrounding it, and they shared with me they had played pedit5, which is regarded as the first computer RPG. It was eventually deleted from the PLATO system, which encouraged Gary and Ray to make their own version (other reasons being they wanted to improve on its design, which they successfully did). 

'dnd' influenced Wizardry, which influenced The Black Onyx, which kick-started the  Japanese computer RPG industry.  Wizardry also influenced all the licensed D&D titles from Strategic Simulations, which eventually leads us to the games made by Black Isle, Bethesda and BioWare.

Furthermore, games like those in the Ultima series were ported over to Japan and influenced the design of Dragon Quest. Even Wizardry was translated and released in Japan, where the series became exceptionally popular, enough to warrant an anime OVA adaptation.

Furthermore, game companies in Japan make a diverse range of game products. They do not always use the same design mechanics. All of the major Japanese RPG companies produce many subgenres of RPGs. It is impossible to band them all together under the label of "JRPG", unless you are simply meaning "Computer RPGs made in Japan", which is the only way I believe the word should be used, since you can draw no conclusions about the mechanics of the game from that statement alone. Their industry is just too diverse. 

Nippon Ichi has done many action RPGs, roguelikes and strategy RPGs.

Square has produced every kind of computer RPG, ranging from the crude dungeon crawler (Deep Dungeon series) to the MMORPG (Final Fantasy 11).

Atlus has internally developed dungeon crawls, strategy RPGs, action RPGs and many of their Megami Tensei games have non-linear narrative elements to them. Atlus also produces a wide range of different types of games, everything from shooters to platformers to puzzle games. 

Many "JRPGs" have little in common with one another except a leveling system; for example, the Deep Dungeon series by Square has few of narrative structure and combat system design in common with Final Fantasy games. Many of the early Romancing SaGa games were essentially "Final Fantasy, if the narrative structure was non-linear". Any true student of the genre is going to know this stuff and recognize the differences.

I also know that Elder Scrolls: Oblivion had influence on the design of Final Fantasy XIII-2. I know this because in November 2011 I sat less than a foot away from Yoshinori Kitase, producer of the title, when he said that ES:O was one of the games the dev team had been playing a lot during the development phase of FF 13-2, when I was visiting the GotGame offices while he was there promoting an early build of the title.

There are no borders when it comes to game design, despite what the folks at Extra Credits assume. Japan has not been an isolated country for a long, long time. It is one of the United States most important trade partners and there is a lot of exchanging of ideas between our countries. 

So the argument that"JRPGs" like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest shouldn't belong to the same family of games as ones like Elder Scrolls and Mass Effect is positively ridiculous. They share common ancestors, so of course they belong to the same family! And had the guys at Extra Credits went outside their bubble and actually talked to the designers of these games they would know this.

Also, the argument about Call of Duty can't be an RPG because it's primarily a shooter is flawed; who says a game need belong to just one genre? If films can be both a "romance" and a "comedy", why can't games be both a "shooter" and an "RPG"? Why pigeonhole designers into choosing just one set of game mechanics?

Lastly, the guys at Extra Credits have assumed the Japanese designers did not know what D&D was when they were making their games and focused primarily on the videogame RPGs. This is mistaken.

Despite what Wikipedia will tell you (currently the article is confusing adventure games with RPGs, and making the common but mistaken assumption that all fantasy videogames must be RPGs), the first "JRPG" was actually made by a non-Japanese person; Henk Rogers, in 1984. The Black Onyx came about due to Henk's love of AD&D and belief that a game like Wizardry would work in the Japanese computer game market. Before 1984 nobody had ever heard of an "RPG" before in Japan and he literally had to teach the game reviewers how to play it. But they caught on quick and it caused a sensation in the market.

After the success of The Black Onyx,  there was a lot of interest in the tabletop RPG game that inspired it, Dungeons and Dragons. D&D then inspired Group SNE to develop the Sword World brand, (which most Americans are familiar with due to the anime and manga merchandise based off it, Record of Lodoss War), which became massively popular and spawned dozens of other tabletop RPGs, many of which have turned into manga and anime adaptions, like NIGHT WIZARD.

Sword World started in 1986 as a homebrew campaign setting for AD&D and the sessions were published in the magazine Comptiq, a popular Japanese computer game magazine.

This means AD&D was not just available in Japan, but very popular in Japan, BEFORE Final Fantasy (1987).  

Sword World was developed over a period of years, and even tried to become an officially licensed AD&D campaign setting before the designers made their own rule systems and self-published in 1989 with wild success.

Even as computer RPGs kept being developed, "Western" tabletop RPGs remained popular in Japan: for example, a beautiful version of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Rules Cyclopedia was translated into Japanese and published in 1991.

It is no coincidence that Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy use many monsters taken directly from AD&D's Monster Manuals. Creatures like slimes, oozes, gelatinous cubes and mind flayers have NO precedence in Japanese media. Hell, they have NO precedence in games before D&D.  Yet they, including the Mind Flayer, found their way into Final Fantasy.

So in conclusion, Extra Credits failed to do the research and since that flawed research is the basis for much of their argument on why "JRPGs" and "WRPGs" don't belong to the same family, "RPG" , their argument has very little weight. Both American and Japanese game designers find inspiration for their titles from the same game genres, and in many cases the same exact games.

Addressing point #2: Defining art primarily by how others perceive that art is fundamentally flawed because the audience is going to see things in the art that was not intended by the artist. This is why art, film and literature criticism strongly focus on the artist(s) who made the art, and what they intended to convey to the audience.

If we were to allow audiences to decide what genres media belong to, then Michael Bay films would probably be called "super awesome explosion" rather than action films-- but that is just a perception! Michael Bay gets a lot of crap for making popcorn movies but Michael Bay's films have a unique style to them, which is fairly consistent, even throughout the music videos from earlier in his career (which audiences are completely unaware of). I'm not a fan of all his movies, but I admit when you look at his work as a whole he has a consistent style in how he wants the story to be presented.

Secondly, let's look at literature: to millions of fans Harry Potter is a children's story that offers a great many life lessons and lectures at length about separating actions between, "That which is easy, and that which is hard". However, to an unfortunately sizable population of audiences, the book is interpreted to preach Satanism and much controversy has been had over those claims. Also, some people honestly believe Harry Potter is real and by acting out the steps in the book, they might be able to be Harry Potter.

So, if we actually allow audiences to define what a game is about based on how they "feel" about it, then we open the door to lending credibility to those who call first person shooters "murder simulators'.

You can't just say, "No, we only define by how the MAJORITY of audiences view it," because it is scientifically impossible to determine such a thing. We would have to insert Ender's Game-style scanners into the brains of everyone who plays Call of Duty and Super Mario Brothers to get an accurate reading of how the majority view those games and the particular reasons they play them. Making a broad assumption about something as complicated as a layman's perception of art, and then insisting that assumption to be dogma is not scientific, and has no place in any field of professional artistic criticism. Our genre labels must have consistency based in facts, not assumptions.

Game mechanics are facts. It is not open to interpretation whether something has a leveling system or not; a game either does or it does not. And that is why genre labels are determined by game mechanics, not feelings.

This is why real criticism is artist-centric. It focuses on what the ARTIST is trying to convey TO audiences, because what the artist intended tends to be very consistent, and is very easy to verify by simply asking them.

Granted, how audiences are emotionally impacted by the work is important, but the answer is only important for verifying how effective the artist was at delivering their message. That is why much criticism has been lobbied at Avatar; many critics feel the films environmental messages were too heavy handed and the line between who was "right" and "wrong" too black and white, which is interpreted as having the characters (especially the antagonists) be two-dimensional characters.

We know Harry Potter is a fictional children's story that intends to express the value of friendship, family and doing good in the world because the author, J.K. Rowling said so. We know it is effective at doing so based on the choices the heroes make compared to the ones the villains make, and how even though there is misfortune along the way, the heroes eventually prevail and protect their community.

We know Twilight is a fictional story aimed at young adults that seeks to express the value of friendship and making compromises in a relationship, and trying hard to be a great lover, because Stephenie Meyer has said so. We know it is not so effective at doing that because the story centers around the importance of having a boyfriend, even if he breaks into your house at night and stares at you while you sleep. The ideal lover is portrayed as a someone who can't decide if he wants to kiss her or kill her; a thought process most people would associate with a psychopath.

And....

....we know Final Fantasy 13-2 is a computer RPG because the fine folks at Square-Enix said so. We know it is effective as a computer RPG because players spend the overwhelming majority of their time manipulating the RPG mechanics, manually leveling up their character based on earned experience, and making decisions that alter the direction of the storyline toward one of the many possible endings.

I think the guys at Extra Credits are trying a little too hard to be clever. I hope they will retract their argument before they dump more fuel onto the "JRPGs aren't real RPGs" argument that is flamed all over the internet, which is based entirely from ignorance of videogame history as well as ignorance of game design theory, as well as ignorance of art criticism. It is sad to see Extra Credits giving any kind of credibility to those thought patterns, because I thought them more educated than this.

Actually, I'm certain they are more educated than to give that argument credibility and they should know better.

The layman doesn't think "JRPGs" and "WRPGs" are different because they play them for different reasons. They think they are different because they assume all "JRPGs" are like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, and all "WRPGs" are like Fallout, because they have tunnel vision for the titles that are most heavily promoted at Gamestop and talked about in major game publications (which are generally the same games).

They also judge at face value, and assume "anime graphics" = the poorly translated version of Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh from 4Kids, which got advertised all over TV, much to their annoyance.

The JRPG vs WRPG "genre differences" arguments only hold water when you ignore the majority of Japanese made computer RPGs and the majority of American made computer RPGs. Let's just take one company as an example: Electronic Arts. They have produced many computer RPGs that have no non-linear elements to the narratives, such as LOTR: The Third Age and Darkspore.

Another American company, Snowblind Studios, recently responsible for the dialogue tree featured but very linear narratived LOTR: The War in the North also made other linear narrative RPGs, such as Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance & Champions of Norrath. And the aforementioned Wizardry and Ultima games are very linear experiences.

If you actually bother to spend time on GameFAQs you can easily see the majority of American made computer RPGs have linear narratives, and there is actually quite a lot of Japanese made computer RPGs that have non-linear elements to their narratives. So the whole "WRPG" and "JRPG" genre labels really are a bunch of nonsense. For a brief period of time back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was more of a focus among American developers to make RPGs that featured silent protagonists whose personality could be determined however the player wished and much of the game was focused on exploring the narrative space (Fallout and  Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magic Obscura are examples) but that period was brief.

If there is any real design focus in the Japanese computer RPG industry it is in making complex systems that can be manipulated with a console controller, whereas American developers had historically made their interfaces to rely on utilizing keyboards, but this had more to do with what platforms they were publishing on. It just so happens to be the game console market has been dominated by Japanese manufacturers for nearly thirty years, and the personal computer market (Windows machines) is dominated by Americans.

In short, the average gamer is a poor judge, and in the past 10 years a lot of average gamers found work at game journalist magazines, and they brought their anti-intellectual viewpoints with them. They don't even use rational methods for rating games, instead giving arbitrary scores to games based on how they feel about the first couple hours of play, as if that is supposed to be of value to fans of the genre that game belongs to. They keep using the word "score" in their reviews as they issue a numerical value to the game, which they have pulled out of their ass. Their use of the word "score" reminds me of something Inigo Montoya once said in The Princess Bride, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

For example, a not so long ago review on IGN: "I've never played more than an hour of any Japanese RPG."

 So naturally, you, the guy who doesn't play JRPGs, are the perfect guy for IGN to hire to review some Japanese RPGs that will be used by the audience who does play them to determine whether they should buy the game. Brilliant!

The videogame journalism industry is the only industry where you will see something that absurd. It would be like a food critic website hiring a vegan to review the food at a chain of BBQs, and expect them to actually produce a review of value for people who might want to eat there.

The labels "JRPG" and "WRPG" came about because the field of game journalism is in a terrible state of affairs.  There is no other reason.

The average game player no better understands the design of games than the average car owner understands the design of their car. Both a car and a game are complex devices designed to be so user-friendly that the operator does not need to understand how it works, they just need to understand how to use it.  But in the professional field of car reviewing and game reviewing, the only people who should be passing judgement are those who understand automobile mechanics and game mechanics, respectively. That this has not been happening for the field of game journalism is the real problem here, and leads to these kinds of silly debates that are given unwarranted credibility by game magazines with poor hiring standards.

The truth is that designers in both continents make a wide range of different types of RPGs, and they play the games made by one another to get inspiration. A true fan of the genre knows that.

(Edit: I've made another, much shorter post about this topic that covers a few things I left out.)

Writing the sequel to Pandemonia Chronicles: DAWN

Well, seeing as how I've now released the first book it is time I start getting the sequel finished for publication.

As of this moment, about perhaps 10% of the second book is done. I've had the outline for all the books in the series planned for many years, so it's just a matter of actually writing down what is in my head, as the characters speak and the events unfold before me. My writing process is less, "What I want to see" and more "What comes out of me as I write". The first draft is always a big splurge of action and adventure, and then I go back later and fill in the gaps with conversations and discussions and details to the scenery. And editing, oh lots of editing. Sometimes even a few character and location name changes as I change my mind about what they ought to be called.

I can tell you this much about the next part of Gestalt's story; it'll actually be two books, and one of them won't necessarily be about Gestalt. One of them will follow an adventure Zaria goes on. Sort of.

It's hard to explain without revealing an important subplot from the next book, so I'll just talk about it: the second book, Pandemonia Chronicles: EVE, is going to focus strongly on the demon world. If you read the book to the end you'll know that some of the demon lords are not pleased about the idea of a human being their king, even if he is possessed by Anu Malsumis. Some demons actually believe they don't need the Demon King anymore, as they've got along quite well without him for many centuries.

So there will be a plot to usurp the throne coming at Gestalt from several directions. I don't anticipate events unfolding into a civil war (that would be very bad, as it would make Pandemonia susceptible to invasion from the Gluskab Empire, and nobody wants that -- also, with Anu's powers Gestalt can become ridiculously powerful, so directly trying to kill him isn't the most healthiest tactic. The conspirators need to be more subtle) but there will be blood!

One of these attempts will seek to isolate Gestalt from his friends.  In particular, efforts will be made to get rid of Zaria, who some may rightfully view as a stabilizing pillar for Gestalt's moral compass. Surely without her love and support Gestalt would have given up resisting Anu early on, and that fact will be taken advantage of.

Zaria will be tricked into doing something she believes will allow her to get closer to Gestalt and help him, when in reality this act will cause her to be cursed into a deep slumber, Sleeping Beauty style. However, unlike the fairy tail Zaria will have no pleasant sleep -- the curse will make her live out her deepest and darkest fears, and chief among those fears is Gestalt going dark side. So while the subplot of Zaria being cursed and then that curse being broken may only consume a few chapters of the second book, I will be writing another "side-story" called "Pandemonia Chronicles: The Nightmare of Zaria" that will detail what transpired in Zaria's nightmare and how that experience has affected not only the way she views herself but her relationship with Gestalt. The book will end with her curse being broken, and how the experience has changed her will be reflected in the latter chapters of EVE.

You may wonder why I am doing it this way. The main reason is because I want to further explore the themes of good and evil. Most fiction focuses greatly on how the hero may be tempted to do great evil but always chooses the side of right. I don't think people are built that way. I think it is very possible that someone who is trying to do good can give in to their baser instincts, justifying what they are doing in any way they can. Gestalt, who is basically possessed by a manipulative psychopath (Anu Malsumis) who can hear all his thoughts and know all his secrets, constantly teeters on the edge. Every crisis he finds himself in, he ends up turning to the Demon King for help and guidance. And though Gestalt is not stupid and knows the Demon King has his own ambitions, Gestalt reluctantly listens some of the time. Having a charismatic but bad friend who is constantly giving bad advice is one way a person can go dark side.

In a way, Anu is The One Ring from The Lord of the Rings, if we could hear what The One Ring is saying to Frodo and Golum, and if it could actually give them a substantial amount of Sauron's power.

The second reason is because Zaria is capable of more growth. She's had a little during the events of DAWN, but she requires more. I dislike the idea of separating her from Gestalt so she can go off on her own adventure that runs parallel to Gestalt's; that doesn't seem a natural progression of the story to me. She's already had to stay home as he went off to war, which isn't ideal but makes more sense than someone with little to no combat experience going off into battle just because it'll make her look like a stronger female character. She is strong, but she is strong in her own way, and that will come out as she must face her fears in her nightmare of what will happen if Gestalt goes dark side and she is unable to save him.

Then, the curse having been broken, so can return to the "real world" with the newly obtained knowledge about herself and be a more compelling character than she currently is.

As for Gestalt, he will start having his own share of dreams-- flashbacks from Anu's past. He will be informed that his heavy usage of Anu's power from the prior book has hastened the fusion of their souls. Anu is delighted, because he believes he can become the dominant personality if the circumstances are in his favor. Gestalt will attempt to not rely on Anu's power and learn more about the depths of elemental magic, but certain circumstances (such as Zaria being cursed) will force him to make a hard decision between increasing the bond between Anu and himself, or turning a blind eye to those who need help that cannot easily be obtained without the use of Anu's godly powers and knowledge.

So, the plan is for two books to be released at the same time. If you enjoyed the first one, I think you'll love the next two!

Abstract Movement, Formations and Teams in Radiant Fantasia

The Radiant Fantasia system has seen a lot of changes as I've refined the system. It's probably not obvious but it's built from the OGL, meaning it originally was D&D 3rd edition. It bears little resemblance to 3rd edition now. 

One of the first changes I made to the system was moving the measurements from feet to meters and pounds to kilograms. I spent a great deal of time making that conversion, because I felt it'd make the game more accessible to a world-wide audience.

However one day I decided that I really didn't want my game to be something people needed to have large maps and miniature figurines to play. I wanted it to be possible to play the game mostly in your imagination. 4th Edition plays a lot more like chess and demands use of minis, as the mechanics rely heavily on being able to move and push characters between spaces, or have abilities affect others within a certain number of spaces. I think that detracts from immersion into the narrative, and you feel more like playing a board game than a roleplaying game.

The reason to not require miniature play is straightforward- miniatures cost money, which can be discouraging to new gamers. They also require the GM to prepare maps for the minis to run around on. I think this makes a game harder for new players to get into, and new GMs especially. As I've written before, I want Radiant Fantasia to be a system people can play without having ever played another tabletop RPG before and no one to instruct them on how to play. One of the biggest problems with tabletop RPG design is the designers assume someone more experienced will teach new players how to play. It wasn't always like that -- it was possible for children to buy the Basic D&D boxset and figure out how to play themselves.  That is the kind of gameplay I want to revive.

One of the systems I've liked a lot is Mutants and Masterminds. Because the game has to accommodate characters like The Flash and Super-Man, movement is a lot more abstract. I went further than M&M does (it still clings to a detailed system of measurement) and simplified my movement categories into Short Range, Medium Range and Long Range. Attack range also works that way.

Short Range is essentially the max movement an average human can walk in one round of time (a minute).
Medium Range is the max movement an average human can run in one round of time.
Long Range is the max amount of distance the average human can see.

This means characters like unicorns can cover more ground when they walk and run than humans can; Unicorns, when transformed in their natural horse-like form, can walk at Medium Range and run at Long Range, as can all other types of mountable characters in the game.

This does lead to one problem though, which became apparent to me while playing Mutants & Masterminds: how to strategically form a party.

Basically, it's hard to have tanks when there is no clear understanding of where the front lines are.

So drawing experience from computer RPGs, I came up with the concept of formations. I think it still needs some refinement, but the following pages should demonstrate it allows the tactical depth of 4th edition without necessarily needing a bunch of minis and complicated maps.
---------------------
Formations

A Formation is the tactical arrangement of characters on the battlefield. Formations are an abstract concept; characters in a formation are not necessarily standing in a fixed location. Characters might be moving in a formation, perhaps even on mounts or vehicles.

There are three rows in every formation; front, middle and rear.

The most characters that can occupy a row are three, meaning a formation can have a total of six characters.

Characters occupying a row directly in front of other characters provide cover to characters behind them. When a character is providing cover to another character, the covered character cannot be attacked by weapons with a Reach of 1.

However, a melee weapon with a Reach of 2 can attack the front and middle row with one attack, even if a character is providing cover to the middle row. A weapon with a reach of 3 can attack all rows.

Ranged weapons are different. For example, bows can attack any character in the formation regardless of their row or who is in front of them. Spells, like ranged weapons, may target any character in a formation regardless of row.

Some debuffs, such as confusion, force a character to temporarily fall out of a formation, making themselves an easier target for opponents.

Ideally, defense oriented characters should occupy rows in front of less defensive characters.

Flying formations: Normally, if a character is flying then they are considered to occupy a separate formation than characters on the ground. This means that if some characters are flying and others are not, the party is divided into two formations.

However, characters that are merely floating above the ground are still considered to be occupying a ground formation and can be arranged in rows in front of other characters to provide cover.

Attack from the rear: If a formation is caught by surprise, the attackers may choose to strike the rear of that formation. This means all characters who would be in the back row are now front row and all characters in the front row are now back row. Middle row characters remain middle row.

On the surprised formation‘s next turn, the characters can move between rows to restore their normal positions.

Multiple player formations: It is possible for players to divide their forces into two or more formations. This is done to support more than 6 players or (more commonly) to allow NPCs to battle alongside PCs (such as when a Noble has NPC servants and followers).

-------------------

Characters are able to change what position they are in a formation by using a Move action. Like D&D 3.5 they have full round actions, attack (standard) actions and movement actions each round. However, they also have what I call a 'reaction', and these power very specific abilities or use of abilities. For example, as a reaction a warrior who is shield oriented might be able to interject himself between another character adjutant to himself in the formation to defend that character from injury. A character can only use 1 reaction command per round, so they should think carefully and pay attention to the battle even when it isn't their turn (reactions are implemented largely to make combat less passive than it currently is in many tabletop RPG systems, where you attack and then someone else attacks. Here you have ways to defend yourself or take advantage of poor choices the enemy makes, even when not your turn. And it's way easier to understand than attacks of opportunity in D&D 3.5, because reactions are tied to specific abilities a character can use, rather than "if you do X, characters who can do the pretty obscure A,B, C or D might hurt you. With my reaction system, it is, "if an enemy does X to you or a fellow party member, you can attempt to do Y to intercept X).

In addition to this,  Radiant Fantasia has a subsystem called Teamwork.
---------------

The Teamwork system allows the GM to reward players for cooperative play and good roleplaying.

The player character‘s party is treated as a character (called the Team) that can level up and earn bonuses.

The Teamwork bonuses are rewards for good roleplaying bestowed by the GM.

Team Experience Points and Team Leveling
Leveling up the Team requires Team Experience Points (T.XP).

Activities which award T.XP include the following things,
-Completing a quest.
-Defeating a difficult boss NPC.
-All team members surviving a session of play.
-Team members engaging in good roleplaying.

The GM has sole discretion on how much T.XP to award and when to do so. The following chart gives a general idea of how much T.XP to award per task.

Team XP Reward Examples
Difficulty (DC)                         Proposed T.XP Reward
Very easy task                                 0 T.XP
Easy task                                        5 T.XP
Average task                                  50 T.XP
Tough task                                     100 T.XP
Challenging task                             500 T.XP
Formidable task                             800 T.XP
Heroic task                                   1,000 T.XP
Nearly impossible task                  5,000 T.XP

Each time the Team levels up, it can learn a Team Feat.

Team Points
At the start of every play session, the Team has 5 Team points which can be used to perform special team-related tasks such as Teamwork Attacks or Team Skills. Team points will reset to their max value at the start of each new session, but additional Team points can be awarded to the Team as the GM desires.

Team Feats 
As the party levels up, players can vote on what Feats the Team learns.

We Rule
The cost to purchase or construct a Holding for use as a team headquarters or guild hall is halved. This cost reduction can only be applied to one Holding at a time; if the Team wishes to buy or construct a new Holding, they must abandon the previous Holding (or pay the full amount if they wish to keep it).

Treasure Hoard
By spending a Team point, the amount of zenny or treasure the team would gain by looting a defeated enemy (or their treasure hoard) is doubled.

Rumor Research
All members of the Team receive a +1 aptitude bonus to Investigate and Charm checks made for searching or gathering information.

Cheat Death
At the cost of 1 Team point when all Team members have died, the Team can avoid death. By invoking this ability, all members survive their deaths and are restored to 1 Wound point but have no Vitality points.

Glory of Battle
At the cost of 1 Team point, all Team members receive a +2 bonus to Accuracy rolls used to perform a Teamwork Attack for the rest of the encounter.

Emergency Retreat
At the cost of 1 Team point, all Team members successfully flee from hostile characters and retreat to a safe location.

Unionized
All team members receive a +1 aptitude bonus to Craft checks.

Circle Wagons
If ambushed while resting, team members will not be caught off-guard.

Slumber Party
All team members require only half the usual amount of rest.

Fearsome Roster
At the cost of 1 Team point, all Team members can perform a Charm check to intimidate a single foe, combining the results of each Team member‘s individual skill checks into one. This ability can be used against multiple foes at once but for every additional enemy targeted, they must spend 1 Team point.

Teamwork Attacks
Team members can synchronize their special skill attacks together to perform a powerful blitz attack.

A teamwork attack can be initiated at the start of a round by a character using a free action to request assistance with their team members; the initiator of the teamwork attack is referred to as the 'leader‘.

The leader determines the Initiative for all team members who participate in the attack (meaning all characters involved in the team attack take their turn at the same time the leader does).

After a teamwork attack, all members that participated forfeit their next turn for the next round.

Each invocation of a Teamwork Attack consumes 1 Team point.

Teamwork Assist
By spending 1 Team point, a team member can assist all other party members in their use of General Skills.
 This means they can make their skill check apply to every member of their party.

For example, a character with a high skill level in Athletics can use Teamwork Assist to help all their team members swim across treacherous waters.

Teamwork Assist cannot apply to Special Skills like Weapon Techniques or Magic Spells.

Teamwork Movement
Team members have the option of all taking their move action at the same time in order to move the formation to another position. Members that are incapable of moving or decide not to move with the formation will be left behind and break from the formation.

Teamwork Tactical Formations
By spending 1 Team point, team members can organize their formation in a tactical way. While the Team is operating as one of these formations, the team members receive certain benefits.

Box Formation
During this formation all Team members must stand together in a 90 degree angle, like a square. All team members receive a +1 Team bonus to Defense but take a -1 Team penalty to Accuracy rolls.

Wedge Formation
During this formation all Team members organize as a wedge. All team members receive a +1 Team bonus to Accuracy rolls but take a -1 Team penalty to Defense.

Circle Formation
During this formation all Team members surround a formation of opponents. Activating this formation causes the encircled opponents to be flanked.

While circling, neither the player or NPC formations may receive cover—any character may be attacked by any character regardless of their row.

Team Roles
Team Roles are special characteristics which can be assigned to a PC team member. Only one PC team member can be assigned a Role at a time; two characters cannot have the same Role in the Tea

Team Roles may be assigned before a battle but never during one.

Ace
This character gains a +2 role bonus to their Accuracy rolls.

Cannonball
This character gains a +2 role bonus to their Initiative checks.

Mediator
This character gains a +2 role bonus with all Charm checks, as well as all other skills and/or abilities used while being a diplomat on behalf of the team.

Medic
This character gains a +2 role bonus with all Treat Injury checks, as well as all other skills and/or abilities used to heal team members.

Scout
This character‘s Speed increases by one movement increment.

Striker
This character gains a +2 role bonus to their Battle Power.

Wall
This character gains a +2 role bonus to their Defense checks.

----------------------

The Teamwork system still needs refinement, but I like the basic framework and feel it has a lot of potential.

Note that with formations, players can still use minis to help them keep track of placement of characters in the formations. Hell, they could use coins or Monopoly tokens, too. Chapstick. Action figures. Whatever they think is best.  The point is the minis don't need to directly interact with anything or move around a detailed landscape, like the room of a dungeon. When they make a search they don't need to say, "I search x squares around me" or whatever, they just say, "I search the room." because their search range is now Short Range, and they can walk anywhere in the room.