"design document"
Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 6:46 am
So I'm gonna write this from mobile so it might be a bit wonky but I'd like you to hear me out, I'll try to keep it kinda short
In any story there is a common structure. Beginning, middle, and end. To be more precise (or pedantic), these phases are the phases of Buildup, Conflict, and Conclusion.
Ss13 is a game about storytelling at heart. Everything that happens, every punch thrown, bomb blown, boob shown (ERP), word spoken, and horn honked can be fun or not fun on their own, but in they end they all build up to tell a story. That time the traitor killed everyone only to be beaten by a nude clown, the time xenos attacked and the singulo broke out and the last survivors of the crew had to valiantly hold them off from the escape wing, that time the ayyliens stepped into the rage cage and won the championship belt. Stories come from every round, and they're all built off of the same structure:
Buildup -> Conflict -> Conclusion
The buildup is a weird phase that varies greatly between roundtypes. This is often the phase where scientists claim their jobs, the singulo is set up, and assistants rush tool storage. In modes like blob, it's simply the few minutes before the antagonist is announced.
Buildup is a delicate time, because it leads into the conflict. If the singulo gets loose early, that can often kill a round and make for a boring story (but not always. Sometimes the crew surviving the singulo can be the conflict). If an antagonist dies this early, it's the same deal. Buildup is essentially the preparation phase for the crew and the stealth phase for the antagonists, which are (most commonly) the rounds primary source of conflict.
The conflict is often the most important part of the round. This is where the story comes to fruition. The antagonists start antagonizing, the nuke ops arrive, the cult gets more aggressive. In the conflict there are going to be losses on both sides. This is a big key point! For a good conflict, there must be losses on both sides, as a one-sided battle can barely be called a conflict (for instance, a wizard that arrives and immediately KOs himself with fireball). The station has a LOT to lose. It has many crewmembers, departments that can be sabotaged, and the station itself which can be blown to smithereens. The antagonists often have only themselves to lose. It is simply the antagonists own life that he has. If he loses this, the conflict ends; the station, however, can take heavy losses without ending the conflict.
This is why antagonists are made powerful. They don't have a lot of leniency for failure, and if they slip up, the conflict ends and the story for that round becomes boring. People that go out of their way to hunt antagonists and end the conflict early are what the term "validhunter" refers to, as this person forgoes the greater story of the round for a cheap and unrewarding kill.
The reason so many conversion antags have started sprouting up is that a team of antagonists has more to lose, and therefore more room for conflict. Certain modes (namely rev) can occasionally take this principle too far in the other direction, however. A conflict that drags on for too long into a stalemate with both sides taking losses but never actually losing can make for a bad story and a rotten conclusion.
The conclusion is the payoff of the story. It is often in the form of the shuttle leaving, but can also be a gang dominating, a nuke detonating, a Nar'Sie summoning, or a revolution/blob succeeding/failing. A good conclusion often means that the story of the round, and by extension the round itself, has been very good. However, a conclusion is the sum of its parts: A good conclusion can only come from a good buildup and a good conflict. A good conclusion, therefore, is what a round should always be aiming for.
So how do we get to a good conclusion and make a good story?
Well, from what we've observed:
1. The buildup of a round needs to be left alone, for the most part. Antagonists should not be getting exposed this early, the crew shouldn't blow themselves up this early.
2. The crew should take losses in the conflict. This can be done with:
- Making the station more dangerous/vulnerable to sabotage
- Encouraging conflict among the crew itself instead of berating it (policy issue)
- Giving antagonists the proper tools to damage the crew
3. The conflict must not be too one-sided and short, but must also not drag out.
- Ensure tools given to antagonists are strong, but not TOO strong
- Ensure tools given to the crew are strong enough to take out an antagonist given luck, time, or overwhelming odds. Ensure they can't kill an antagonist too early into the conflict, possibly by leaving them open to sabotage/giving them numerous options for counterplay.
- Validhunting must be discouraged (this is the eternal player problem and is by far one of the hardest to solve)
4. Good conflict needs good conclusion.
- Longer/crazier conflicts like blob, rev, and wizard should have more abrupt endings
- Long-con antags like traitors and changelings should have their conclusions draw out a bit more. The shuttle should be called, but never too early.
- War antags like nuke ops, gang, and cult should have polarizing conclusions. Half/neutral victories should be avoided. Absolute victory should be encouraged. The conclusion should be short if the conflict is long, but otherwise should end like traitor or changeling.
If this general formula is followed, a good conclusion is most likely to happen, and therefore a good round and a good story. Balance changes should check if they adhere to this. Does the change have the potential to cut conflict short/drag it on for too long? Does the change make the conflict too one-sided? Does the change still allow for potential crew losses (but not necessarily absolute destruction of the crew)?
At the end of the day, it's all about fun, and fun in this game comes from a good story. We need to make sure our stories are as good as possible, so that we can have as much fun as possible. I love this game, and want only the best for it. I hope that this whole template I wrote can shed more light on what "the best for this game" actually is, and that we can use it to keep making the game better.
Thanks.
In any story there is a common structure. Beginning, middle, and end. To be more precise (or pedantic), these phases are the phases of Buildup, Conflict, and Conclusion.
Ss13 is a game about storytelling at heart. Everything that happens, every punch thrown, bomb blown, boob shown (ERP), word spoken, and horn honked can be fun or not fun on their own, but in they end they all build up to tell a story. That time the traitor killed everyone only to be beaten by a nude clown, the time xenos attacked and the singulo broke out and the last survivors of the crew had to valiantly hold them off from the escape wing, that time the ayyliens stepped into the rage cage and won the championship belt. Stories come from every round, and they're all built off of the same structure:
Buildup -> Conflict -> Conclusion
The buildup is a weird phase that varies greatly between roundtypes. This is often the phase where scientists claim their jobs, the singulo is set up, and assistants rush tool storage. In modes like blob, it's simply the few minutes before the antagonist is announced.
Buildup is a delicate time, because it leads into the conflict. If the singulo gets loose early, that can often kill a round and make for a boring story (but not always. Sometimes the crew surviving the singulo can be the conflict). If an antagonist dies this early, it's the same deal. Buildup is essentially the preparation phase for the crew and the stealth phase for the antagonists, which are (most commonly) the rounds primary source of conflict.
The conflict is often the most important part of the round. This is where the story comes to fruition. The antagonists start antagonizing, the nuke ops arrive, the cult gets more aggressive. In the conflict there are going to be losses on both sides. This is a big key point! For a good conflict, there must be losses on both sides, as a one-sided battle can barely be called a conflict (for instance, a wizard that arrives and immediately KOs himself with fireball). The station has a LOT to lose. It has many crewmembers, departments that can be sabotaged, and the station itself which can be blown to smithereens. The antagonists often have only themselves to lose. It is simply the antagonists own life that he has. If he loses this, the conflict ends; the station, however, can take heavy losses without ending the conflict.
This is why antagonists are made powerful. They don't have a lot of leniency for failure, and if they slip up, the conflict ends and the story for that round becomes boring. People that go out of their way to hunt antagonists and end the conflict early are what the term "validhunter" refers to, as this person forgoes the greater story of the round for a cheap and unrewarding kill.
The reason so many conversion antags have started sprouting up is that a team of antagonists has more to lose, and therefore more room for conflict. Certain modes (namely rev) can occasionally take this principle too far in the other direction, however. A conflict that drags on for too long into a stalemate with both sides taking losses but never actually losing can make for a bad story and a rotten conclusion.
The conclusion is the payoff of the story. It is often in the form of the shuttle leaving, but can also be a gang dominating, a nuke detonating, a Nar'Sie summoning, or a revolution/blob succeeding/failing. A good conclusion often means that the story of the round, and by extension the round itself, has been very good. However, a conclusion is the sum of its parts: A good conclusion can only come from a good buildup and a good conflict. A good conclusion, therefore, is what a round should always be aiming for.
So how do we get to a good conclusion and make a good story?
Well, from what we've observed:
1. The buildup of a round needs to be left alone, for the most part. Antagonists should not be getting exposed this early, the crew shouldn't blow themselves up this early.
2. The crew should take losses in the conflict. This can be done with:
- Making the station more dangerous/vulnerable to sabotage
- Encouraging conflict among the crew itself instead of berating it (policy issue)
- Giving antagonists the proper tools to damage the crew
3. The conflict must not be too one-sided and short, but must also not drag out.
- Ensure tools given to antagonists are strong, but not TOO strong
- Ensure tools given to the crew are strong enough to take out an antagonist given luck, time, or overwhelming odds. Ensure they can't kill an antagonist too early into the conflict, possibly by leaving them open to sabotage/giving them numerous options for counterplay.
- Validhunting must be discouraged (this is the eternal player problem and is by far one of the hardest to solve)
4. Good conflict needs good conclusion.
- Longer/crazier conflicts like blob, rev, and wizard should have more abrupt endings
- Long-con antags like traitors and changelings should have their conclusions draw out a bit more. The shuttle should be called, but never too early.
- War antags like nuke ops, gang, and cult should have polarizing conclusions. Half/neutral victories should be avoided. Absolute victory should be encouraged. The conclusion should be short if the conflict is long, but otherwise should end like traitor or changeling.
If this general formula is followed, a good conclusion is most likely to happen, and therefore a good round and a good story. Balance changes should check if they adhere to this. Does the change have the potential to cut conflict short/drag it on for too long? Does the change make the conflict too one-sided? Does the change still allow for potential crew losses (but not necessarily absolute destruction of the crew)?
At the end of the day, it's all about fun, and fun in this game comes from a good story. We need to make sure our stories are as good as possible, so that we can have as much fun as possible. I love this game, and want only the best for it. I hope that this whole template I wrote can shed more light on what "the best for this game" actually is, and that we can use it to keep making the game better.
Thanks.