Jeff Vogel Soapbox Thread

[Infinitron]

https://bottomfeeder.substack.com/p/gamer-deep-lore-exhibit-3-the-tomb

Gamer Deep Lore, Exhibit #3. The Tomb of Horrors.​

Balancing turn-based RPGs is hard.​

[/URL]
The first edition. My own personal copy. I was so disappointed when I realized that awesome bird dude isn’t in the adventure.

Second printing, with a color cover. Where’s mah bird dude?
The myth, the legend, the 1978 Dungeons & Dragons murderfest Tomb of Horrors. Famed for its difficulty, it was the most infamous of the early TSR Gary Gygax modules. It has its own Wikipedia page!

It was famously designed by Gygax to mess with the players in his own campaign and provide meat for players who came to him and said they could beat anything he threw at him. The Tomb was created to be sort of an ultimate challenge.

The main problem, alas, is that, while it IS a fascinating landmark for game design, it is not a good adventure.

Here are the two original covers for the adventure. (The older one is my copy.) To see why this isn't a good module, note: The scenes in the cover art are NOT IN THE ADVENTURE.


The Tomb of Horrors was an early attempt to solve a very difficult problem: How to balance a turn-based RPG once characters get very powerful. You can always make the numbers bigger, sure, but that's boring and leads to eternal fights.

Instead, Gygax filled his dungeon with obscure puzzles and instant deathtraps. Here's the map to the dungeon. It's one of those awesome, twisty, weird Gygax designs. Looking at it, you can tell there's not going to be a lot of fighting.


Pwned, n00b.
This was also one of those early adventures that came with illustrations to show the players. They should bring this back.


The most infamous trap comes at the beginning. The entry corridor ends with this fellow with a open mouth, leading to blackness. (The mouth is at 6 on the map above. The actual entrance, at 4, is very tricky to find.)


The mouth is a Sphere of Annihilation. If you try to pass through it, your character is gone forever.

I tried to run the Tomb when I was a teenager. This trap ended the run right here.

But ... This isn't fun, is it? I know some contrarians will fight me here, but, if this is such a great idea, why do basically no modern games have traps like this? If I put the black tunnel of instant death in my games, NOBODY would applaud. Not even Dark Souls does this nonsense.


There are numerous other insta-death traps. Here are pictures you are to show your players after they are all dead.

One passage is full of sleep gas. It is knocks out all of your party, an elephant-roller squooshes them.


Of course, some of the traps are more obvious. You're not going to believe this, but messing around with that gem is not a good idea.


But how many deathtraps can you muddle through before you want to just chop up a bunch of bozos and take their stuff?

(When I posed this on Xwitter people were trying to figure out a way to use this gem to their advantage. I guess it is a good trap. Even after reading the full description, people were falling for it.)


In the end, you might fight the demilich Acererack. (Dumb name.) This is not the awesumsauce fight depicted on the cover, alas. Instead the demilich is a laser skull.

If you attack the skull, it instantly kills one character. Boom. Ded. The skull kills characters in descending orders of power. The module specifically says it kills rogues last. Even in 1978, we knew that rogues sucked. LOL.


But how do you damage Acererack? There is a long list of weird, unintutive ways. A thief can damage it by slinging gems at it? How the HELL are you supposed to figure that out? This has been bugging me for 40 years.

It's a very odd mix of weaknesses. Bear in mind that in the old days wizards and priests had to choose spells in advance. Don't have forget or shatter memorized? (Nobody ever did.) Better just die, IDIOT.


Here is my final evidence that this mess was not properly considered. The module provides a list of sample characters the player can use.

Look closely. How many of them start with the ability to do damage to the demilich? #2 and #9 have enough dispel evil spells to scratch Acererack's paint. And that's it! You could play ALL of the sample characters and still almost undoubtedly fail the adventure at the end.

Tomb of Horrors is a very cool experiment, but it is not a well-considered one.

However! I can see a way to make Tomb of Horrors somewhat fun. With Kamikaze YOLO runs.

Here's how it would work.

1. The players get a library of those 20 characters. They can check them in or out and take as many into the dungeon at once as they want. When they die, they're gone.

2. The DM provides a library of powerful magic items and scrolls, some of which can damage the demilich. (Imagine that.) When they are destroyed, they are gone.

3. Nothing in the dungeon is restored when the party retreats. Damage to the demilich is permanent.

The players must kill the demilich without losing all 20 characters to win.

It'd be Paranoia-Meets-D&D. This sounds kinda fun.


Don't get me wrong. Gary Gygax was one of the all-time great game designers, and he was carry out wild and noble experiments to solve a very hard problem. This failure is more interesting than a thousand passable mediocrities.

In the end, though, the solution to overpowered parties is obvious. It happens eventually. End the campaign and start a new one. The end.

As the the legend of Tomb of Horrors, well ... I ran and played in so many classic modules back in the day. Players would go through the original TSR modules again and again. However, I can't remember, not once, anyone running Tomb of Horrors or even talking about it. It wasn't fun, and it had no replay value.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

"Second printing, with a color cover. Where’s mah bird dude?"
Sutherland's cover illustration for the original version of S1 Tomb of Horrors remained in the later version as a page 1 drawing, completed with "bird dude".


"In the end, you might fight the demilich Acererack. (Dumb name.) This is not the awesumsauce fight depicted on the cover, alas. Instead the demilich is a laser skull."
Intelligent players will refrain from initiating the fight and instead peacefully make off with the treasure:

Inside are the following:
- all items from characters teleported nude
- 97 base 10 g.p. gems and 3 huge gems (a 10,000 g.p. peridot, a 50,000 g.p. emerald, and a 100,000 9.p. block opal)
- 12 potions and 6 scrolls (determined randomly)
- 1 ring, 1 rod, 1 staff, and 3 miscellaneous magic items
- a +4 sword of defending and 2 cursed swords and 1 cursed spear of backbiting
The demi-lich Acererak also lingers in the crypt . . .

Though the skull will "sink down again, sated" each time it destroys a character, which gives a foolish party an opportunity to escape (or perhaps figure out how to destroy it).

 

[Infinitron]

The grognard nostalgia fest continues: https://bottomfeeder.substack.com/p/gamer-deep-lore-exhibit-4-dragon

Gamer Deep Lore, Exhibit #4. Dragon Magazine, September, 1981​

Building the Tabletop RPG was a huge team effort.​

(On the advice of my lawyer, publicist, and priest, I offer no opinions on the cover art.)
Way back in the day, Dragon Magazine was the official magazine for Dungeons & Dragons (and occasionally other RPGs). I still have a pile of my old issues, and they reliably make fun reading.

At the time, tabletop RPGs were very much in their infancy. Everyone was trying to figure out how to make them work. How do you make good adventures? How do we do game balance? What systems need to be improved, and how?

If you care about these weird games, it was a really exciting time full of strange experiments, and Dragon Magazine was the petri dish. It was full of wild new ideas. 20% of them were good. 80% were madness. Mix this with cartoons and Gary Gygax's highly spicy opinions, and the first 100 issues of Dragon were a terrific read.

Here is my personal, very beat-up copy, which is full of good examples. And bad.


First edition AD&D came with a monk class, and it was really weak. Almost nobody ever played them. It was like being a wizard without spells. You just got beat up, died, and rolled up a real character.


The lead article was a massive tear-down rebuild job for the class. I can't remember meeting anyone who ever used it, but it was a really good job. It really tore the Gygax design a new asshole, and it says a lot for how cool a publisher olde-D&D did that their official magazine felt so free to criticize their flagship product. (If that happens today at all, it’s very rare.)


Dragon has tons of new character types. Some of them were cool and even got promoted to the main game. (Barbarian, for example.) Some of them were very half-baked. The Oracle, forever, sucks in a fight, but it is 100% able to predict that it will suck in a fight.

Most of these new classes explicitly said that they were intended to be NPCs. Yet, they all came with level charts, which you only really need for a character you are playing. I don't think anyone had hot pants to be an oracle. They can't kick ass. You want to kick ass.


Look! An ad for dice! Note that they are just white plastic, and they come with a crayon to color the numbers in. Really.

In 1981, dice technology was very crude. Sexy clear plastic dice with numbers you could actually read started coming a year or two later.

I have observed that, when people write about RPGs in our enlightened modern year, they thing they are discovering ideas and moral principles completely foreign to us dumb orc-people who played in the impossibly different time of the 1980s.

I assure you that we had every possible discussion and debate back then.


For example, we already knew that these games could provide an invaluable outlet for people with disabilities. Here is a moving article from a gamer with cerebral palsy, talking about what D&D meant to him.


And then, on the opposite page, an ad for Dragon subscriptions that ... would probably not be printed today.

I suppose I'm supposed to get all miffed and superior about this ad, but when I was a kid I thought it was funny. Bet the photo shoot was scary, though.


There were always new monster types, most of which were intensely bizarre. This may be the strangest one I ever saw. It's a lawful good lizard guy called as Argas. It gaines strength by eating gold and magic.

This is already not a good idea. But what elevates it to spectacular strangeness is that it comes with an experience table for a monster, the only time I ever recall seeing this. So you can keep track of how strong your argas is by how much you feed it.


What was this for? Is this a low-key character class? Should you have a hireling argas as a copper piece dump? If you feed your pet enough platinum, you get a free fireball a day?

OK, now I'm regretting not playing this.


On the next page, another new monster that's just dumb. Keep your off-brand gumby nonsense out of my game.


And we close with a tiny article. A half page at the back of the magazine. All dedicated to answering the question: "What level of cleric should be able to cure my character's lupus?"

So if I'm reading this correctly, you're gonna need a level 12 high priest to deal with leukemia, but a mere level 8 cleric can polish off pancreatic cancer. I'm so not sure why this table didn't make it into the official rules, but 5E D&D is being revised againagain. So it's not too late!

 

[Old One]

Old issues of Dragon are great fun.

Having read a whole, whole bunch of them, I think the magazine really hit its stride in the late 1980s into the mid 90s. By the late 80s they'd figured out what were the most valuable columns and features. The older ones are more gonzo.

The degradation after WotC took over was slow but continuous.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

"I have observed that, when people write about RPGs in our enlightened modern year, they thing they are discovering ideas and moral principles completely foreign to us dumb orc-people who played in the impossibly different time of the 1980s.

I assure you that we had every possible discussion and debate back then."

In before Jeff Vogel discusses paladin ethics, female gamers, depictions of women in TSR's artwork, and polearms.

 

[Infinitron]

https://bottomfeeder.substack.com/p/picking-apart-baldurs-gate-3-part-266

Picking Apart Baldur's Gate 3, Part 3 (The Only Thing You Should Care About: Loot.)​

If I have to wade through your story, I want my dopamine hits, darn it.​

It was a bold choice to ship this game with only one romance option.
I wanted to write a third and final article about Baldur's Gate 3 (BG3 for short), a really great game that most people have moved on from, but I want to talk about the most important part of any RPG: LOOT.

Treasure is the main driving factors of RPGs. The reward. The dopamine rush. The presents under the tree on XMas morning. If you can make getting loot really satisfying and exciting, it can paper over an infinite numbers of sins. (Looking at you, Diablo.)

Baldur's Gate 3 has a TON of loot. An enormous number of different items. It feels like everyone in the company got to design one item. No wrong answers. This is mostly very good, and also sometimes very weird.



Y’all basic.
Loot Is Important

One of my big problems with current desktop D&D is that the magic items in the game are very similar to back in the 1980s. This isn't a compliment. In olden days, the designers were still trying to figure out how to make a game at all. The magic items they made tended to be kind of dull (+1 sword), very flavorful but kind of useless (Decanter of Endless Water), or completely bonkers (Deck of Many Things).

In this area, more than any other, the BG3 designers really cut loose. There are a host of items in this game that are completely new to D&D, useful, and full of flavor. ("Flavor" meaning they feel appropriate to the setting and add color to it.)

A lot of magic items can cast spells once per long rest. In other words, they're consumables you can use without fear. Getting free stuff is always fun. The staff that can cast fireball once a day got heavy use in my group.

A lot of items combine multiple abilities, both passive and usable. Again, a nice change, though one sometimes more suited to computer games. I love an item that gives little bonuses to three useful stats, as long as a thinking machine is handling all the math for me.

One test I'm using for whether an item works is: Would it be appealing in the tabletop game? As in, is it useful, fun to play, and simple enough that your half-drunk buddy can administer it?



I like this item. It’s a goofy joke design, but it has a neat passive ability and a daily use ability. They’re good enough to be used but not broken. 10/10. No notes.
Baldur’s Gate 3 Has Mountains of Stuff

Over the years, I've tended to make my game designs cleaner. I like to cut out stuff that isn't interesting or useful and leave only things where I believe some player might actually get real value out of it. That is my personal aesthetic. Not everyone shares it.

One of the best articles ever written about game design is about Magic: The Gathering. It is about how they make magic cards for 3 different player psychologies. Basically, power gamers (Spike), people who want to solve puzzles and make useless things useful (Johnny), and people who just like big, impressive things (Timmy).

When I evaluate whether an item is a good design or not, I have to remember all the different sorts of players the item can appeal to. Thus, while some of the items seem impossibly fiddly to me, there are other players who love trying to get them to work.

BUT. Once you have figured out what your players are like and what sorts of things appeal to them, you have to make sure your item appeals to somebody. If nobody ever wants it, it could probably be cut.

Here is a list of all the item types/abilities in BG3. There's around 80 of them!

This is a LOT. And I think that a bunch of them have abilities like: "Enemy has 5% lower chance to hit you for 2 turns." I can't see anyone getting excited about that. The only reason to keep that ability in is to bloat your item list. It's a distraction that pads out an already enormous game.

And yet ... Maybe what I just said is wrong. For some players, the important thing is VOLUME. More rules, more items, more encounters, more stuff. For these players, removing anything is bad. And this is also a legitimate aesthetic. Really shaggy things can be cool.

So what is to be learned? I think the answer is the same one I always give: Take a moment to figure out the product you are selling and the group of players you want to sell it to. Then follow through.

It's art, after all. Follow your vision.



The rules for this item are complicated and fiddly, but if you work hard and think about it, you can build your character in a way that makes it sort of useful. Happily, there are players who get all their fun from solving puzzles like that. Me, I sold it.
The Curse of the Consumable Mountain

It is very difficult to get people to use consumables in your RPG. It's not hard to understand why. Humans are hugely loss-averse. When you use a potion, it's gone forever. You are permanently weaker. Players HATE that.

Some games deal with this by larding the consumables into the game, one mountain at the time, until the player is coddled and reassured that they actually use them. Which is why, when I finished BG3, I had about 1000 potions and scrolls. I probably used 1% of the consumables I found.

Losing a few minutes in an 80 hour game sorting potions isn't really a big deal, and a lot of players really get off on having 50 sorts of scroll.

So is having this huge part of the game that most people are scared to interact with a problem? And, if so, how is it solved?

I think it's a fixable problem. (Again, if it is a problem.) Some examples of solutions… In my Queen's Wish games, potions come in refillable bottles, so you always get them back when you return to town. The items in BG3 that cast one spell a day are also psychologically easy to use. In the tabletop game, wands recharge every day. Also a decent answer.

A Few Final Comments

When a computer RPG has a very complex terrain system with lots of elevations, it becomes tempting to have every fight be complex with a spread of enemies at all sorts of different heights.

If you succumb to this temptation, I personally think you should keep it under control. I found fights in BG3 where it became really hard to target the high-up enemies.

Also, casting fireball is fun. Yes, spreading out all the enemies everywhere and at all the possible heights is the design standard now. But let me have one simple fight every once in a while where I can torch a big group and feel awesome?

That said, the balance in this game is very strong. At the end of my Tactician run, everything felt pretty easy, but I occasionally got a fight where I was still in real danger. Nicely done.

The open-endedness of this game is genuinely terrific. It lets creative players come up with all sorts of ways to be weird. (I did a basic, meat-and-potatoes, sword and spell playthrough.) For example, you can play 99% of the game as a cat. To see how comprehensive and versatile this system is, this video is excellent.

In Summary, At Last

I think Baldur's Gate 3 is an all-timer. One of the best computer RPGs. Anyone interested in the genre can have a great time picking this game apart. It has so many good ideas, implemented extremely well.

And that, finally, is all I have to say about that. Time for a vacation. Then I will write another game, now that I have been reminded that, yeah, these toys really can be a lot of fun. I need that sometimes.

 

[Infinitron]

A return to Vogelstalgia: https://bottomfeeder.substack.com/p/the-deck-of-many-things-peak-game

Next Kickstarter in "about a month". Will it be Queen's Wish 3 after all or something else?

The Deck of Many Things: Peak Game Design​

What is Dungeons & Dragons for? Why not just get crazy with it?​

How many other magic items get an official expansion all their very own? Though the prices for these things are so eye-watering.
The Deck of Many Things is one of the greatest designs in all of gaming.

Created by Rob Kuntz and Gary Gygax and published in 1975, it dates back to the earliest days of Dungeons & Dragons. It was created back when everything was new and nobody knew how to do anything and all writers just had to navigate by dead reckoning. Along the way, they stumbled upon all sorts of strange genius.

I often complain about modern design being too over-balanced and tight-assed. There's too much control-freakery in modern games. So I want to sing the praises of the craziest of all designs.

So What Is It?

It's a magic item in Dungeons & Dragons. One of the rare, powerful ones.

In its original form (which has remained mostly blissfully unchanged), it's a deck of 22 cards. You can choose to draw up to four of them. Each one has a powerful effect. You can get incredible wealth, wishes, or powerful, permanent blessings. You can also just get destroyed.

Once all players have drawn their cards or you draw one of the two REALLY bad ones, the Deck vanishes.

It's Russian Roulette in game form. Awesome rewards or utter ruin.

For example, the last time I was in a game where we got one, two members of my group got a free level out of it. One got totally rich. One got a permanent enemy who would stalk us through future adventures. And my character permanently lost a leg.

To be clear: Once this item is introduced, it will permanently change the game it is in. So the draws don't just pose risk for the players. They also threaten the Dungeon Master.


The version we used when I was a kid. Not even Baldur’s Gate 3 would let itself get this crazy.
So Let's Cover The Obvious

The Deck is great theater. You have to come up with cards and set them up on the table. The players then draw them in reality, with their own hands.

It is gripping. I can guarantee your players will give you their total undivided attention. Nobody will be checking Instagram when the draws are happening.

It will shake things up. For everyone. Whether you want it to or not.

So Would You Draw From It?

So here's a question, assuming you play or have played D&D. Picture yourself playing your beloved character and the deck shows up. Glory or destruction face you.

Do you draw?

If You Said 'No' ...

Think about why.

No, really. Think about it. Because remember, none of this is real. As I often say, "I don't care that much if my character dies. All I need to make a new one is a sheet of paper. I own lots of sheets of paper."

If you are spending your time engaged in this pleasant but somewhat silly ritualized make-believe, what, exactly, are you trying to get out of it?


This long-ago tweet is heart-breaking. If I gave my players a chance at the Deck and they were all scared, that’s a campaign I’m ending, whether I made nice custom cards or not. No hard feelings. I’m just looking for a different story.
The Power Of Fantasy And Make-Believe

To understand why the Deck is such an iconic creation, ask this question: What is the point of fantasy?

Fantasy is a human universal. All cultures have tales of heroes, gods, and monsters, going back to earliest history. Isn't it a little odd that humans are compelled so strongly to tell each other stories of the unreal. What do we get out of it?

I believe the power of fantasy is that it uses metaphor and analogy to deal with difficult, painful realities in a powerful way without looking at them too directly.

The stories of Icarus and Phaethon are silly. A giant labyrinth? Wax wings? Dragging the sun across the sky with a chariot? This is nonsense. But there is something about giving a lesson in a surreal way that slams a message into our brains more effectively than a thousand dry, didactic speeches ever will.

(This is why attempts to make orcs and goblins in D&D less "racist" are so pointless. The "evil" races are a manifestation of the occasional need to fight for our survival, on an individual or national level. Any people who blunder into a real war, where tragedy is constant and survival is on the line, will suddenly rediscover the need for the idea of an "orc.")

What Is The Deck Of Many Things A Metaphor For?

Life.

Life is full of choices that lead to reward or disaster. In fact, such events are the signposts of your life. To take that job? Go to college? Start a business? Close it? Move? Join the Army? Get married? Have children? Or not?

These choices are important, but they are only rarely fun. Even the joyful ones, like marriage, tend to also be full of terror. Not to mention having a kid.

But you do have to make those choices sooner or later.

The Deck of Many Things is mental practice. Because, remember, IT DOESN'T MATTER. All you are risking is a sheet of paper.

Drawing from it lets you practice risking all. And, more importantly, it lets you see that losing is tolerable. If the Deck destroys your character, you get might more out of it than if you get the treasures. It lets you practice overcoming a small loss, which gives a tiny bit of reassurance that you can handle the real losses when they (invariably) come.


There are a bunch of custom decks for sale on Etsy, which is adorable. Though I just use a deck of card. I mean, I’m not made of money.
A Message For Any Normies Reading This

Yes, I am talking about using this silly game to learn life lessons and understand the world. Yes, this is very odd. Did you really need me to tell you that the vast majority of people who play D&D are kind of odd?

Dungeons & Dragons is best understood as a sort of structured socializing for people who are highly introverted or have problems coping with other people. Some kids learn lessons about life, communication, and perseverance by doing sports. Others play D&D.

I'm not going to pretend it isn't strange. I believe, based on long observation, that the sports played by kids vs nerdy kids, in the long run, result in equal happiness.

Also, It's Good For Campaigns

Some Dungeon Masters are afraid to use the deck because it'll shake their campaign up.

Yeah? Well ... good! I've never been in a campaign that couldn't use a good kick in the pants every once in a while. Suppose one player loses their soul and must go on a quest to get it back. (Void.) Another gets a treasure map. (Key.) Another gets the hatred of a powerful devil. (Flames.)

This is a lot of chaos. Embrace it! This can be the springboard for a bunch of new adventures. You'll have to scramble and hustle a bit, but isn't that fun? Why are you so determined to have total control of a fantasy? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of fantasy, even a little? Stagnant campaigns have a nasty tendency to end.

Nobody Could Make This Design Today

I believe that a lot of the reason Dungeons & Dragons is still so popular is because of the weird old stuff. The cruft and wild ideas of designers who did their best and are no longer able to hear our complaints.

I think it's a good idea to be unfair sometimes. Sometimes people should get more or less than they deserve. If your game isn't PvP, I think you should put in at least two times when the player gets something that feels too good and one time when the player gets unfairly screwed over.

(From Software really gets this. That's why their brutal, nasty, freakshow games are mainstream hits now.)

And if you play D&D and get a chance to draw from the Deck, I really hope you do it. Because then you'll know you're a person who can.

---

Subscribe


We’ve taken a long break for vacation and hard work on our next game. We’re getting back into the PR grind. We’re doing a Kickstarter in about a month, and we’d love your support. Subscribe to this free newsletter to be sure to learn about it.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

I played tabletop D&D for 20 years, both DM and PC, and every time the Deck of Many Things appeared the players A. loved the idea and B. whined like bitches at the consequences. This was before "modern day gaming."

Players have never liked consequences. Nothing new about that. The Deck of Many Things is a stupidity check for players. It's the gambler's fallacy incarnate. The only good move is not to play.

 

[Tweed]

I played tabletop D&D for 20 years, both DM and PC, and every time the Deck of Many Things appeared the players A. loved the idea and B. whined like bitches at the consequences. This was before "modern day gaming."

Players have never liked consequences. Nothing new about that. The Deck of Many Things is a stupidity check for players. It's the gambler's fallacy incarnate. The only good move is not to play.

Wild Mages are great, they can try to manipulate the deck to draw the card they want.

 

[n0wh3r3]

Why can't I stand Jeff Vogel's games anymore? I've always loved them from when I first noticed their existence, but I didn't finish my Geneforge Mutagen playthorough and even beginning Geneforge Infestation felt like a chore ...

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

Why can't I stand Jeff Vogel's games anymore? I've always loved them from when I first noticed their existence, but I didn't finish my Geneforge Mutagen playthorough and even beginning Geneforge Infestation felt like a chore ...

Because he has dumbed them down for some reason, I recently played the Avernum 3 remake and it feels gutted compared to the original Avernum/Exile version. Even the skill system is simplistic shit now.

 

[n0wh3r3]

Why can't I stand Jeff Vogel's games anymore? I've always loved them from when I first noticed their existence, but I didn't finish my Geneforge Mutagen playthorough and even beginning Geneforge Infestation felt like a chore ...

Because he has dumbed them down for some reason, I recently played the Avernum 3 remake and it feels gutted compared to the original Avernum/Exile version. Even the skill system is simplistic shit now.

I have my free copy of Blades of Exile, do you think that one is better of his current games? Should I give it a try? I've tried to launch it once, but felt too dated...

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

I love that old style. Yeah, I would have thought remasters would have extended content and an even more complex system for mechanics and combat. Making it simple is a fucking insult.

 

[n0wh3r3]

I love that old style. Yeah, I would have thought remasters would have extended content and an even more complex system for mechanics and combat. Making it simple is a fucking insult.

It's not like the "new" style is entirely different from the old one... They are like Adderall and Dexedrine. Or even less different.
Are my eyes wrong?

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

Why can't I stand Jeff Vogel's games anymore? I've always loved them from when I first noticed their existence, but I didn't finish my Geneforge Mutagen playthorough and even beginning Geneforge Infestation felt like a chore ...

Because he has dumbed them down for some reason, I recently played the Avernum 3 remake and it feels gutted compared to the original Avernum/Exile version. Even the skill system is simplistic shit now.

I have my free copy of Blades of Exile, do you think that one is better of his current games? Should I give it a try? I've tried to launch it once, but felt too dated...

I haven't played Blades of Exile, but I did enjoy Blades of Avernum, which is quite similar. Neither got a remake so far.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Maybe that's good. Maybe he puts out some odd simpler versions so he can then make yet another remaster called "Ultimate." At this rate though... he'll be dead before that happens.

 

[n0wh3r3]

Maybe that's good. Maybe he puts out some odd simpler versions so he can then make yet another remaster called "Ultimate." At this rate though... he'll be dead before that happens.

IIRC he kinda explains everything:

https://youtu.be/stxVBJem3Rs

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Let's compare a little:

 

[almondblight]

I have my free copy of Blades of Exile, do you think that one is better of his current games? Should I give it a try? I've tried to launch it once, but felt too dated...

It's a good game, and many scenarios are only a few hours long so you might as well give it a try. I think it comes with 3 of Vogel's own scenarios, but there are plenty of other ones out there as well.

 

[n0wh3r3]

I have my free copy of Blades of Exile, do you think that one is better of his current games? Should I give it a try? I've tried to launch it once, but felt too dated...

It's a good game, and many scenarios are only a few hours long so you might as well give it a try. I think it comes with 3 of Vogel's own scenarios, but there are plenty of other ones out there as well.

Where can I find them?

 

[almondblight]

Where can I find them?

The higher rated ones are here. Lower rated scenarios are here. Ratings, description, and difficulty level can all be found on those pages.

 

[kuniqs]

Why can't I stand Jeff Vogel's games anymore? I've always loved them from when I first noticed their existence, but I didn't finish my Geneforge Mutagen playthorough and even beginning Geneforge Infestation felt like a chore ...

Maybe Adderall is the problem. Recently I played through the first 2 Blades of Exile scenarios on, say, Adderall and had a blast processing good time.

There're marked differences between Exile/1st Avernum trilogy & Nethergate/Other Spiderweb games. The biggest one is how mechanics and combat work, especially spell system. The other big one is how overwritten the nu-remakes are, Jeff somehow went from tasty and sparse room and encounter descriptions to pages of text describing the most mundane shit possible. Compare the beginning of Exile I and the second remake - first gives you a brief of what happened and leaves you alone in a dark cave, second stretches that into 5 minutes of busywork like a Magnum condom. I'm getting FUCKING OLD and reading all that shit is physically painful to me.

I've nevel liked Geneforge, I suffered through 1 for the story but the way everything looks like a clay figurine straight outta the mean streets of Neverhood and how turgid combat was made a playthrought of it my personal Vietnam. Second Avernum trilogy uses the same engine and repeats the absurdity of Ultima 6/7 where major cities are literally a minute's walk apart of each other which reminds me I'm playing a stupid game and really ought to become a doctor or something.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Why can't I stand Jeff Vogel's games anymore? I've always loved them from when I first noticed their existence, but I didn't finish my Geneforge Mutagen playthorough and even beginning Geneforge Infestation felt like a chore ...

Maybe Adderall is the problem. Recently I played through the first 2 Blades of Exile scenarios on, say, Adderall and had a blast processing good time.

VOGEL!!!!!

 

[Infinitron]

https://bottomfeeder.substack.com/p/how-to-write-a-good-story-that-doesnt

How To Write a Good Story That Doesn't Give Me Headaches​

Logic, clarity, and making sense are missing more often than they should be.​

The 1995 south park short was the first viral video I ever say, back when videos took hours to download and were the size of postage stamps. Kids, ask your parents to explain what a ‘postage stamp’ was.
(I freely admit that I do most of my writing online to get attention for our games in an immensely overcrowded industry. So let me briefly mention that we have announced the Kickstarter for our next indie RPG, Avernum 4: Greed and Glory. Follow the link and press the button to be reminded when it starts in a week. Thanks!)

"When someone says a video game has a good story, they mean it has a story."

- Vogel's 1st Law of Video Game Storytelling

There is a video I like to amplify whenever I see it. It's storytelling advice from Trey Parker and Matt Stone, makers of South Park, The Book of Mormon, and other stuff.


I think it's really good.

The key quote is here:

“We found out this really simple rule: We can take these beats of your outline and if the words and then belong between those beats, you’re f***ed. You’ve got something pretty boring. What should happen between every beat you’ve written down is the word therefore or but.”

Whatever you think of Parker and Stone's work, I think everyone would grant that it is very tightly plotted. As surreal as their stories get, they make sense. You know who the characters are, what they want, and how they are going about getting it.

Of course, rules for art are always flawed. Art is a slippery thing, and it has a way of getting out of any chains you put on it. Still, if you're having problems with your story, you may find their tips very helpful for fixing them.

Now me, I make my living selling stories. My games are pretty good, but the things that keep my kind, tolerant fans around for decades are the worlds I make and the things that happen in them.

Thus, in my arrogance, I want to talk a bit about what their rule means to me. Why it is useful, and when you can break it.



None of this needed to happen. When does your movie have time for side quests? That’s where the art is.
The First Part: Always "Therefore" Or "But, Then"

The idea here is that when you go from one scene to the next, they should be connected. Each event should be a result of what happened before.

Bob does something that affects Sue. Sue is mad about it, so she does something to stop Bob. Alice sees this and she likes Bob, so she goes to Frank for help. Frank seeks out Sue. And so on. Continue until done.

This is a great way to structure your story for two reasons:

1. It keeps things moving forward. Every scene moves you tangibly toward a conclusion. (You do have a conclusion in mind, right?) This maintains suspense and avoids boredom.

2. It makes the story make sense. There's no confusion. It's all clear. You have to be a VERY good storyteller to recover from your audience getting confused. They should understand what is going on. (Do YOU understand what is going on?)

This is, honestly, basic stuff. It's just telling a story. But the simple telling of a coherent story is, it turns out, very hard.

If you want some really good examples of this being done well, I suggest Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad is perfect genre fiction in part because every episode relentlessly pushes the story forward. You always learn why everyone is doing everything they do. Like it or not, it's very well-plotted.



Yes, the Sopranos occasionally got lost in self-indulgent, abstract nonsense. Blame Twin Peaks. But you can get away with things like this if the main framework of your story is clear and compelling.
The Second Part: Never "And Then"

This one is trickier. It's pretty simple on the surface: Events shouldn't come out of nowhere. At the beginning of your story, you present your setting and characters. Then the engine starts running. Events flow logically from the start point. You keep random stuff happening to a minimum.

Still art is meant to, at some point, reflect life. In life, weird stuff happens. Coping with unpredictable things is part of existence in this world. They need to be part of a story too.

When a random thing happens (the witches in Macbeth, the storm in King Lear), it provides surprise and interest. Once it's in place, characters can react to it, and other characters can react to that, and we get back to the flow.



The chief villain in The Rise of Skywalker was revealed not in the movie but in a Fortnite event. No, I’m not kidding. This is the sort of bone-jarring nonsense that makes people pretend that The Mandalorean is a classic, as opposed to adequate....
Star Wars Examples!

“And then” storytelling isn’t always bad.

A good example of “And then” storytelling: The trash compactor scene in Star Wars. The heroes escape down a chute on a space ship and fall into a big trash compactor. Then a monster in the junk attacks them. Then the walls start closing in and they have to escape.

It's a fantastic sequence, beautifully shot and insanely suspenseful even on the tenth viewing. It's painful to imagine the movie without it.

And yet, you CAN imagine the movie without it. This is the essence of "And then" storytelling. It isn't the necessary result of what came before. Suppose, instead of the heroes sliding into the trash, the film cuts to them sneaking down a hall and planning. This would be fine. Your brain would fill in the cracks. But the trash compactor side quest still make the movie undeniably better.

This is the art of the thing. These diversions are like candy. Candy is great. You just need to eat a moderate amount of it and then get back to healthy food. It was fine to have a long distraction in a trash pit because they get back to business immediately afterward.

In contrast, consider Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, an absolutely incoherent and dreadful movie. It's just an infinite flow of "and thens". The Emperor from the 1983 film is back? OK. They need to go on a quest for a key or something? Sure. Even though the rebellion is defeated, a thousand ships can come together to support it at a moment's notice? I guess.

Meanwhile Avatar: The Way of Water was a phenomenal hit, even though it was only pretty good, partly because the story flowed and motivations were so clear.

(It would be really fun to pick apart Star Wars: The Last Jedi, another film with ... storytelling issues. But it is caught up in the Eternal Culture War, so I'll stick to safer ground.)

Art Comes In Knowing When To Break Rules

I am a huge fan of famed surrealist director David Lynch (Twin Peaks, Eraserhead, Blue Velvet). If you gave him the advice above, he'd laugh and punch you in the face.

I could come up with a long list of terrific films that completely fail to obey these rules. (Lynch’s films, of course. The Seventh Seal. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Being John Malkovich.)

All artistic rules can be broken. My advice for doing so: Be a genius. That helps a lot.

For example, The Sopranos is a prestige cable series of great renown, like Breaking Bad. However, The Sopranos frequently dips into surrealism, multi-episode dream sequences, and similar wildness. Sometimes it works, and this is part of what made the show great.



I love the films of David Lynch, but they will almost never become iconic. Truly strange things never get the big bucks. But wait. Twin Peaks was a huge hit, wasn’t it? Maybe I’m completely wrong about everything. Surprise twist!!!
But The Logical Progression Is Where The Money Is

When I think of really iconic classics, the sort that led to eternal franchises, I am really impressed by how logical and disciplined the storytelling is.

Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Ghostbusters. Back to the Future. Star Trek: The Original Series and Next Generation.

Each of these works indulged in bits of unexplained weirdness, completely out of nowhere events, dream logic, and general chaos.

Yet, take any of these movies/shows. Pick any character at any point in the work. You could come up with several clear words to describe that character. You can say what that character wants and what he/she/it is doing to achieve it. You can say what the results of those actions were.

This is just my personal opinion, but: For a work to be really enduring? Really iconic? It has to be CLEAR. People might enjoy a work that confuses them. It might make a profit. But to endure, most of it has to be plainly comprehensible.

Good Storytelling Is A $100 Bill Lying On The Street

Of course, my specialty is video game storytelling, which tends to be extremely simplistic and uncompelling.

It's a shame, because a good, interesting story is relatively easy and inexpensive to make. It's way easier to write dialogue than make intricate 3-D models. All you need is a text editor.

A story that excites people can do a lot to sell a game. The story doesn't have to be an eternal classic. It can be just fine (Portal, The Witcher 3, The Last of Us), and it will still gain attention and sell copies. It doesn't take much.

But it's not as easy as this. It's actually really hard to write a good story inside of a game while the game still functions as a game. Parker and Stone's rules do a lot to show why.

I'll do that post soon. But first, I have to start our Kickstarter for our next RPG, coming Wednesday, September 18th!

 

[Sceptic]

It's not as awful as the opening made me think it'd be, but it's still a very Vogel essay in which he tries to turn everything into a production line churning identical-looking products. My biggest problem with it is that he equates "iconic" exclusively with commercial success, which is a stupid way to restrict the definition and just not what the word means. It also ignores the fact most great works in any media are ones that challenge established dogma and do something new and different, not the ones that adhere to the well established SOPs of Jeff Vogel. His own examples reflect this, with the hilarious inclusion of the Star Trek series because they are the perfect counterexamples to his argument (I'm going to ignore for a minute the attempt to use the series as a whole as indications of anything when the quality from one episode to the next varies so wildly). The single best episode in TOS plays a bit with the convention and goes in unexpected directions with its story, and of course nobody wants to remember that Spock's Brain and The Child exist, but they adhere rigidly to the convention; does this make them iconic episodes with enduring success? Yeah sure.