MRY
Wormwood Studios
Normally, I would just say "there's no disputing matters of taste" and agree to disagree. But my only reason for participating in this thread (other than to promote CSG and its developer) is to proselytize not on how to consume RPG writing (as to which, who am I to lecture? enjoy what you will, as you will) but on how to produce it. I care about the latter because the Codex incubates producers of RPG writing, and since I might myself someday consume their works, I have a vested interest in the approach they take.
So, with that in mind:
(1) "You" in game text doesn't mean the player, it means the player character. The idea that a game should not tell you what your character thinks or feels is wrong. Anything but the most basic descriptive terms makes assumptions and impositions about what the PC knows. "The dining room is about 30 feet long" assumes the PC knows what a dining room is and can eyeball distances. Obviously, "You feel more afraid than the time your dog was caught in a bear trap" assumes much more. But they are both making assumptions. The important thing is not to assume or dictate things that conflict with options that the player has in game. If you say, "YOU ARE TOTALLY TERRIFIED!" but then let the PC waltz into the room, the problem is not that the first assumed/imposed; the problem is that the game writer behaved like a parent who tells his kid to do something but doesn't enforce it. Thus, it is fine to say: "You recognize this place: it's the Armory," even though the player doesn't recognize it at all, and even though the player has never seen the PC see the Armory before. But it is not fine to say: "You recognize this place: it's the Armory," and then give a dialogue option, "What is this place?"
(2) The reason why "show don't tell" (and its cousin "don't tell the player what his character knows/thinks/feels") is not good advice with game writing is that the player's engagement is limited. Even in text adventures, the player isn't playing primarily to read, but to play. The baseline expectation should be that when you ask the player to read (or watch) something, you are doing so because it is necessary to furnish some game play. If I have some clever turn of phrase or awesome animation, it's fine to include that too -- players can enjoy such things apart from the gameplay. But if the phrase isn't clever and the animation isn't cool, then letting it get in the way of playing the game is counterproductive.
(3) CSG is a game in which kill count is a tracked stat that people in the world know about. Thus, letting the player know that an NPC has a high kill count is consistent with the ruleset and potentially an important piece of information. If I want to let the player know about an NPC's kill count, I could do it by putting the kill count beneath the portrait (a bit much, probably), or with some description. "From one look at him, you know he has killed a lot of people" isn't meant to engage the player. It is purely a data-delivery vehicle so that the real engagement (deciding what to do with the NPC given his kill count) is informed. I could add another layer of prose between the player and the kill count. "Even though the man is wearing armor over most of his body, you can still count six scars -- from at least five kinds of weapons. If he has bothered looking you over in turn, he gives no sign of it. 'What?' he grunts by way of greeting." Now I'm asking the player for some engagement (read what I wrote, process what it's meant to indicate). That might be appropriate if I want the player to really connect with this NPC. But it's not the right move if all I'm trying to do is set up an encounter where you're deciding what to do with a dangerous guard.
(4) I don't want to suggest that purely functional text that lacks any mood or verve is "best" or even good. In some instances, mood-setting is essential because the way the player experiences the moments of engagement depends a lot on mood. ("You meet a bad guy. He has an innocent NPC hostage! What do you do!" is a less meaningful experience than one in which the player actually feels something "innocent NPC.")
The issue isn't adding psychological depth; the issue is avoiding the distraction to the player. You go into a room and there is a spot on the wall where there is a rectangular spot where the paint is lighter because the painting has been removed. The absence of the painting has not eliminated the distraction caused by the painting; it may even have enhanced the distraction. CSG makes a point of starting by telling the player some background details about the PC, enough to raise questions that the game then doesn't answer. And then some of the subsequent interactions seem to contradict the idea of the PC as someone who has lived and worked in the Pit for years and years, which then causes the player's mind to circle back to the pale spot on the wall. Honestly, it would be enough to start with:
"No real friends, no real family, no real job. Wake up, scavenge what you can, sell it for what you can, drink what you can, try not to get shot, and call it a day. For you, and most of the folks in the Pit, there's not much more to life than that. But today... today, Tanner's left you a note saying he's got a special job for you. Something big. Something different."
The idea wouldn't be to make the player sob about the PC's sad life, but just to say, "There's literally nothing to see looking back.
Last edited:
