Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WRITING GAMEPLAY MECHANICS INTO THE NARRATIVE
Posts
Pages:
1
Ramshackin
1462
Ramshackin
View playlists
CloseI have a dungeon where two party members get stuck and work together to get out. The puzzle mechanics involve the floor being split into black and white tiles. One character can only walk on the black tiles, while the white tiles act as walls, and reverse for the other character. The problem is there is no narrative reason for why they can't walk freely.
So how do you deal with gameplay mechanics that don't make sense from a story perspective?
One option is keeping them separate. The characters never mention or discuss the elaborate puzzles they are working their way through. Dialog is used for character building and advancing the plot, not for discussing why the party has to collect 4 planks to assemble a bridge over the river instead of swimming across.
The other option is to work the gameplay into the story. But I feel this is difficult to do without sounding like a cop-out. Oh hey, this is that one magic temple where your birth date determines what color tiles you can step on.
Maybe you just never have gameplay mechanics that don't fit the overall narrative?
So how do you deal with gameplay mechanics that don't make sense from a story perspective?
One option is keeping them separate. The characters never mention or discuss the elaborate puzzles they are working their way through. Dialog is used for character building and advancing the plot, not for discussing why the party has to collect 4 planks to assemble a bridge over the river instead of swimming across.
The other option is to work the gameplay into the story. But I feel this is difficult to do without sounding like a cop-out. Oh hey, this is that one magic temple where your birth date determines what color tiles you can step on.
Maybe you just never have gameplay mechanics that don't fit the overall narrative?
Sometimes for the sake of good gameplay, you have to ignore such a thing and try to at least theme it for that one area. Personally I do like to give an in-game reason for stuff, but you can't always do that.
Hence ~magic~ as a hand wave. In this example, though, could it be that you give them an item or something stuck to them that only allows for walking on those particular spots, that is removed when they finish the puzzle? Something that reads as a curse "All ye who enter here, be accursed, until two become one once more!"
Sometimes, though, it just can't be helped. Do what you can with what you got.
Hence ~magic~ as a hand wave. In this example, though, could it be that you give them an item or something stuck to them that only allows for walking on those particular spots, that is removed when they finish the puzzle? Something that reads as a curse "All ye who enter here, be accursed, until two become one once more!"
Sometimes, though, it just can't be helped. Do what you can with what you got.
I'd focus on what differences exist between the characters. For example, you could have an inscription saying that red tiles are death to men and blue tiles are fatal to women. Or the characters could notice differences in the tiles, like white tiles are so slippery that only heavy people can walk on them while black tiles are pressure plates that trigger traps if heavy people walk on them.
Marrying game mechanics and story is very difficult, but also very effective. Humans being creatures of meaning, a concept that has meaning behind it will look better and feel better to a player than one that has nothing behind it, particularly in a story-based medium like the RPG.
I'd go so far as to say that the entire game should revolve around it, or at least, be heavily planned around it. The planning should come first! Execution later.
I'd go so far as to say that the entire game should revolve around it, or at least, be heavily planned around it. The planning should come first! Execution later.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Stories inspire game design for me, and it's very important for me to keep the two as closely intertwined as possible. Keeping the story and gameplay separated makes me feel like I'm going through two different experiences at once, which I'm definitely not a fan of.
In my current project, every nonhuman enemy is capable of entering a charged state where their parameters boost and gain new and powerful attacks for a limited time. Later on, you'll get one of those nonhumans as a party member, and naturally is capable of entering the exact same charged state. It would make no sense to me why this character would not be able to, so the state itself needed to be balanced so that both the player and the enemies can get some use out of it.
Here's the kicker: You also get a different one of those nonhumans as a party member near the beginning in the game who CANNOT enter such a state. Of course, there is a reason for this that ties into the core of that character's background, otherwise having two different nonhumans who don't follow the same rules would be pretty jarring. This ally being unable to enter this charged state leads to more character development, which leads to a stronger story, which can sometimes lead back to inspiring new and better tweaks to gameplay mechanics.
However, my project is highly story-driven. There are plenty of games out there that only care to provide basic context to what you're doing and why you're doing it, and some games simply don't bother with even that. With games like those, it's really not too important to always have a reason for everything you do, especially if it takes away from the overall experience you're trying to deliver. Ramshackin, since you're asking this question in the first place, I'm guessing story is pretty important to your game?
To get back to your question, I would figure out a way for the gameplay mechanics to make sense within the story or change the story itself. If I were in your situation, I would figure out a reason for the puzzle to work the way it does or rework the puzzle design. Having an otherwise obvious solution like allowing a character to move on both colored tiles be unavailable to me without even a handwave explanation is a critical hit to my immersion.
If all else fails, you can't go wrong with the "it's magic" explanation. It may not be very satisfying, but at least it's something.
In my current project, every nonhuman enemy is capable of entering a charged state where their parameters boost and gain new and powerful attacks for a limited time. Later on, you'll get one of those nonhumans as a party member, and naturally is capable of entering the exact same charged state. It would make no sense to me why this character would not be able to, so the state itself needed to be balanced so that both the player and the enemies can get some use out of it.
Here's the kicker: You also get a different one of those nonhumans as a party member near the beginning in the game who CANNOT enter such a state. Of course, there is a reason for this that ties into the core of that character's background, otherwise having two different nonhumans who don't follow the same rules would be pretty jarring. This ally being unable to enter this charged state leads to more character development, which leads to a stronger story, which can sometimes lead back to inspiring new and better tweaks to gameplay mechanics.
However, my project is highly story-driven. There are plenty of games out there that only care to provide basic context to what you're doing and why you're doing it, and some games simply don't bother with even that. With games like those, it's really not too important to always have a reason for everything you do, especially if it takes away from the overall experience you're trying to deliver. Ramshackin, since you're asking this question in the first place, I'm guessing story is pretty important to your game?
To get back to your question, I would figure out a way for the gameplay mechanics to make sense within the story or change the story itself. If I were in your situation, I would figure out a reason for the puzzle to work the way it does or rework the puzzle design. Having an otherwise obvious solution like allowing a character to move on both colored tiles be unavailable to me without even a handwave explanation is a critical hit to my immersion.
If all else fails, you can't go wrong with the "it's magic" explanation. It may not be very satisfying, but at least it's something.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I don't think it's necessary to fully explain everything. Nobody wants to hear your characters describe why it is that they can only carry exactly 12 items no matter how much those items weigh or how big they are, or why they can't wear more than two accessories at once. Nobody is questioning why the damage done by Energy Wave is increased by wielding a stronger glove, or why sleeping at an inn doesn't cause the story to progress without you. There are certain things that players will just accept as being abstractions for the sake of gameplay.
There's a rule of writing that says: don't try to answer a question that nobody is asking. One of the most famous examples of this is the introduction of midichlorians in Star Wars: Episode I, explaining how the genetic inheritance of the Force works, which is something that absolutely nobody was asking before the movie came out.
This rule relies a lot on knowing the expected conventions of your genre. You only have to explain shit when you introduce new material, not when you do things that players are comfortable with. It also relies on knowing how familiar your audience is with the type of work you're making. Adding something weird and abstract like a talent tree into an RPG Maker game is very different from adding it into an officially licensed Lego RPG, and you're more likely to need to justify it in the latter.
Regarding dungeon puzzles specifically, since that was the original question, I always try to come up with dungeons and puzzles that make at least some degree of logical sense. I might give one character a levitate spell that lets them hover just above the crumbling floor, and the other character an ice shield that lets them walk on lava. Except that's still random as all heck - I wouldn't come up with something random, I'd come up with something that both made logical sense and was thematically fitting for the dungeon they're in, and also made sense and was fitting for the characters.
For example, one of my games has a type of puzzle where if you're standing on certain tiles, a certain party member can fire a projectile. Without any real explanation, I could've just added this and made them magic tiles that give you energy for your magic wand. But instead I turned the tiles into light beams coming down through holes in the ceiling, and replaced the wand with a magnifying glass. Holding up the magnifying glass while standing in a light beam will let you burn distant objects. The first dungeon this occurs in is a crumbling haunted house, and the character who gets the magnifying glass is a detective, so it's all very thematically fitting. It still isn't perfectly logical - why can you only aim in the four cardinal directions, and why can't you just buy more magnifying glasses at Target for the rest of your party? But nobody is questioning the rest of it, because it's just how video games work.
However, I could have totally gotten away with just having a magic wand that only works on magic tiles. That would have been just as much an explanation - it would still make perfect sense. It just would've been kind of lame, because it's thematically weak.
There's a rule of writing that says: don't try to answer a question that nobody is asking. One of the most famous examples of this is the introduction of midichlorians in Star Wars: Episode I, explaining how the genetic inheritance of the Force works, which is something that absolutely nobody was asking before the movie came out.
This rule relies a lot on knowing the expected conventions of your genre. You only have to explain shit when you introduce new material, not when you do things that players are comfortable with. It also relies on knowing how familiar your audience is with the type of work you're making. Adding something weird and abstract like a talent tree into an RPG Maker game is very different from adding it into an officially licensed Lego RPG, and you're more likely to need to justify it in the latter.
Regarding dungeon puzzles specifically, since that was the original question, I always try to come up with dungeons and puzzles that make at least some degree of logical sense. I might give one character a levitate spell that lets them hover just above the crumbling floor, and the other character an ice shield that lets them walk on lava. Except that's still random as all heck - I wouldn't come up with something random, I'd come up with something that both made logical sense and was thematically fitting for the dungeon they're in, and also made sense and was fitting for the characters.
For example, one of my games has a type of puzzle where if you're standing on certain tiles, a certain party member can fire a projectile. Without any real explanation, I could've just added this and made them magic tiles that give you energy for your magic wand. But instead I turned the tiles into light beams coming down through holes in the ceiling, and replaced the wand with a magnifying glass. Holding up the magnifying glass while standing in a light beam will let you burn distant objects. The first dungeon this occurs in is a crumbling haunted house, and the character who gets the magnifying glass is a detective, so it's all very thematically fitting. It still isn't perfectly logical - why can you only aim in the four cardinal directions, and why can't you just buy more magnifying glasses at Target for the rest of your party? But nobody is questioning the rest of it, because it's just how video games work.
However, I could have totally gotten away with just having a magic wand that only works on magic tiles. That would have been just as much an explanation - it would still make perfect sense. It just would've been kind of lame, because it's thematically weak.
I think the most important things to consider have already been covered by the people above me. I'd just like to add two aspects that can (but don't have to) play a role in these kinds of design decisions, too.
One is the question of the in-world intention behind the existence of a puzzle (or any gameplay mechanic) to begin with. A good way to justify an otherwise strange phenomenon that also happens to be an obstacle or challenge for the player can be to provide some context as to why it has been created and by who. For instance, having to solve a puzzle with strange and inexplicable rules makes a lot more sense if it's literally a game within the game's setting itself.
Somebody could demand the protagonists prove their worth/intelligence/courage/etc. by overcoming a challenge specifically created for this purpose. Similarly, access to a special area of a temple or otherwise restricted area could only be granted to people who first prove they have internalised the virtues or values associated with that place. Then the need for logical explanations is reduced, as the protagonists willingly subject themselves to certain rules that were set by other people in order to test them.
The other possibility is to emphasise the metaphorical rather than the logical side of a mechanic. Everything the player can do in a game has the potential to convey something on a more symbolic level, and this obviously works better if you're going for a more abstract mode of storytelling. If a gameplay mechanic can be interpreted as a way to tell us something about the internal struggles or developments of a character, for example, and the focus clearly lies on that side of the narrative, then a logical explanation for the mechanic's workings becomes less important than its meaning.
A good example for this would be the game Labyrinthine Dreams. In this game, the player faces a number of puzzles, but the reason for why they function the way they do is never really explained. And it's not necessary, since the game takes place in a dream world. But still, none of the puzzles feel arbitrary or unfitting, because the actions the player has to take to solve each of them reflect the different stages and difficulties in life the protagonist had to go through. The logical aspect of the puzzles' existence is far less significant here, yet the established connection between story and gameplay becomes very strong on a different level.
Obviously, if you're going for a decidedly realistic rather than symbolic or psychological mode of storytelling, this kind of implicit narrative might be much more difficult to realise. But it is a possible way to tackle connecting gameplay and story from a completely different angle.
One is the question of the in-world intention behind the existence of a puzzle (or any gameplay mechanic) to begin with. A good way to justify an otherwise strange phenomenon that also happens to be an obstacle or challenge for the player can be to provide some context as to why it has been created and by who. For instance, having to solve a puzzle with strange and inexplicable rules makes a lot more sense if it's literally a game within the game's setting itself.
Somebody could demand the protagonists prove their worth/intelligence/courage/etc. by overcoming a challenge specifically created for this purpose. Similarly, access to a special area of a temple or otherwise restricted area could only be granted to people who first prove they have internalised the virtues or values associated with that place. Then the need for logical explanations is reduced, as the protagonists willingly subject themselves to certain rules that were set by other people in order to test them.
The other possibility is to emphasise the metaphorical rather than the logical side of a mechanic. Everything the player can do in a game has the potential to convey something on a more symbolic level, and this obviously works better if you're going for a more abstract mode of storytelling. If a gameplay mechanic can be interpreted as a way to tell us something about the internal struggles or developments of a character, for example, and the focus clearly lies on that side of the narrative, then a logical explanation for the mechanic's workings becomes less important than its meaning.
A good example for this would be the game Labyrinthine Dreams. In this game, the player faces a number of puzzles, but the reason for why they function the way they do is never really explained. And it's not necessary, since the game takes place in a dream world. But still, none of the puzzles feel arbitrary or unfitting, because the actions the player has to take to solve each of them reflect the different stages and difficulties in life the protagonist had to go through. The logical aspect of the puzzles' existence is far less significant here, yet the established connection between story and gameplay becomes very strong on a different level.
Obviously, if you're going for a decidedly realistic rather than symbolic or psychological mode of storytelling, this kind of implicit narrative might be much more difficult to realise. But it is a possible way to tackle connecting gameplay and story from a completely different angle.
Ramshackin
1462
author=Red_Nova
Ramshackin, since you're asking this question in the first place, I'm guessing story is pretty important to your game?
Yep, you guessed right. Story is important to the game, though it never takes itself too seriously. I'm sure I could come up with some explanation. This particular dungeon happens to be filled with talking statues carved by a lonely sculptor who heard if he made a statue from the stone in this cave, it would talk back. And all the statues you meet end up being total lying schemers. I'm sure there's some magic stone mischief explanation hiding in there, but I feel it would bother me as the developer since the explanation has no impact on the story.
Ha, maybe the real issue is I'm too caught up being a perfectionist and am trying to feel out how much imperfection people will accept in a game?
author=Kalin
I'd focus on what differences exist between the characters. For example, you could have an inscription saying that red tiles are death to men and blue tiles are fatal to women. Or the characters could notice differences in the tiles, like white tiles are so slippery that only heavy people can walk on them while black tiles are pressure plates that trigger traps if heavy people walk on them.
I really like this. One character is a thief and the other a priest. I might actually rework the dungeon so the puzzles focus on the differences and similarities between the characters. I could move the black/white tile puzzles somewhere that they actually fit into the dungeon's narrative. Or save it for another game ;)
author=LockeZ
I don't think it's necessary to fully explain everything. Nobody wants to hear your characters describe why it is that they can only carry exactly 12 items no matter how much those items weigh or how big they are, or why they can't wear more than two accessories at once. Nobody is questioning why the damage done by Energy Wave is increased by wielding a stronger glove, or why sleeping at an inn doesn't cause the story to progress without you. There are certain things that players will just accept as being abstractions for the sake of gameplay.
There's a rule of writing that says: don't try to answer a question that nobody is asking.
This is some solid advice. In a dialog heavy genre like an RPG, cutting unnecessary explanations is a gift to players. There's already a novel worth of text in each game.
Just do what basically every RPG and indiana jones does: ruins and other places are full of all sorts of puzzles and booby traps to deter progress and allow the in-universe architects a reason to get a little creative/sadistic.
I divide this into 3 stages.
1) Maybe the dungeon architects worked for Umbrella and the puzzles are just as baroque as possible. There is absolutely 0 shame in not explaining the "why" for gameplay.
2) If you CAN explain gameplay in a logical way then you should. Some is often better than none.
3) If you overdo the explanation it has an opposite effect. Like LockeZ said, nobody needs to know why you can only carry 12 blueberries in a slot when you can also carry 12 broadswords in a slot. Players just accept it (or they don't accept it, but IMO those people need to chill). Basically, if you do explain gameplay, do it tactfully.
For the puzzle in your example, do they specifically need to be black and white tiles? From what you've said so far it seems like the tiles could be anything so this makes it even easier. Spikes the cleric can't leap over vs. some blessed ground that punishes the dishonest that the thief can't cross.
In many, many cases you don't need to explain crap about the reasoning behind puzzles. You just need to make sure that the hint of how to solve it comes through clearly (even if difficult). Why does putting a raven crest in the tailpipe of Albert Wesker's black 2014 Ferrari F12 get the engine started? Dunno. But the slot on the tailpipe was crest shaped and the cryptic mural in his garage mentioned some dumb crap about ravens biting and pulling snakes out of black turtle shells or some nonsense. (hire me, Capcom)
In my current project, I keep hitting points a puzzle could easily be solved with skills or abilities the characters have previously been shown to have. So I understand a bit of your plight with this sort of issue. The puzzle in your example just has lots of ways to sidestep the matter.
1) Maybe the dungeon architects worked for Umbrella and the puzzles are just as baroque as possible. There is absolutely 0 shame in not explaining the "why" for gameplay.
2) If you CAN explain gameplay in a logical way then you should. Some is often better than none.
3) If you overdo the explanation it has an opposite effect. Like LockeZ said, nobody needs to know why you can only carry 12 blueberries in a slot when you can also carry 12 broadswords in a slot. Players just accept it (or they don't accept it, but IMO those people need to chill). Basically, if you do explain gameplay, do it tactfully.
For the puzzle in your example, do they specifically need to be black and white tiles? From what you've said so far it seems like the tiles could be anything so this makes it even easier. Spikes the cleric can't leap over vs. some blessed ground that punishes the dishonest that the thief can't cross.
In many, many cases you don't need to explain crap about the reasoning behind puzzles. You just need to make sure that the hint of how to solve it comes through clearly (even if difficult). Why does putting a raven crest in the tailpipe of Albert Wesker's black 2014 Ferrari F12 get the engine started? Dunno. But the slot on the tailpipe was crest shaped and the cryptic mural in his garage mentioned some dumb crap about ravens biting and pulling snakes out of black turtle shells or some nonsense. (hire me, Capcom)
In my current project, I keep hitting points a puzzle could easily be solved with skills or abilities the characters have previously been shown to have. So I understand a bit of your plight with this sort of issue. The puzzle in your example just has lots of ways to sidestep the matter.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Ramshackin
This particular dungeon happens to be filled with talking statues carved by a lonely sculptor who heard if he made a statue from the stone in this cave, it would talk back. And all the statues you meet end up being total lying schemers. I'm sure there's some magic stone mischief explanation hiding in there, but I feel it would bother me as the developer since the explanation has no impact on the story.
One character is a thief and the other a priest. I might actually rework the dungeon so the puzzles focus on the differences and similarities between the characters.
Have the statues tell the players that the priest will die if he steps on black tiles, because they represent sin. And then have them tell the players that the thief will die if he steps on white tiles, because they represent purity. And then when you get to the end of the dungeon, you find out they were lying just to screw with you. (Simple way to both discover and prove that they were lying: have an NPC, maybe the sculptor, just walk safely across a complex maze of black and white tiles.)
This would avoid the "it's magic" non-explanation that you don't like, and it would feed into the lying-statue story you already have as the dungeon's central theme, but it wouldn't bog the player down with any pointless technobabble.
Not sure how much help this would be, but you can have it so that the characters are solving different "versions" of the same puzzle. Maybe A-san is walking on top of the maze walls that B-san is traversing. The maze walls could be high enough that dropping down or climbing up is just plain impossible, but the characters can still be near enough to be able to converse with each other at any point.
Pages:
1
