This is something that has niggled at the back of my mind for quite some time. Today I was triggered to write it by receiving an email notification of a review on some ancient scenario. Whilst I don't claim to see it as some masterpiece, the review had the same similar ring to it that I've seen time and time again. This is in no way an attack on the reviewers, and simply an opinion piece. Also, I've probably written this for about three people to read at this point.
Challenging the AOKH Design Philosophy
The AoKH design philosophy, hidden or directly stated, has harmed the state of its own community growth, and discourages ‘risky’ design choices based on that philosophy. This ideal, held by many of the community, either by belief from the start, or having it drummed into them by other members, has plagued myself and newcomers for years. Based on my own experience over my time here, I believe the issue lies in story, creativity, and map design expectations.
One of the most amusing review sections on multiple scenarios is the story section. For scenarios within a game designed to be played, there sure is a lot of focus on the story, which will typically end up in some form of writing. Whilst some may enjoy a wall of engaging text before starting a scenario, others may not, it might not be relevant to the gameplay or story that unfolds within the scenario. Some people don’t naturally find themselves to be creative writers, and sometimes discovering the story as you play through environmental story telling is a much more effective and engaging than a typed narrative. Worldbuilding is still a very useful tool, however, like most tools, you don’t need to use them more than you must. The only amount of story required is the amount that provides some context for the player to begin. The lack of a decent written narrative does not detract from a scenario unless the scenario hinges on some very large amount of context.
The creativity requirement is somewhat a double-edged sword, where many times it unintuitively breeds non-creative creativity. Once creating a scenario or campaign becomes a checklist for publishing, the flavour and style of the author can be lost. Did someone use a very creative design trick once, and did it work well? Yes. That doesn’t mean everyone has to use it or invent a new trick every time they want to build a scenario. I personally fell victim to this, forcing myself to create weird new interactions such as ships being dashed on rocks and creating a scenario based upon human qualities. Some of these did end up with good results, but other times they surely fell flat. Many times, I have seen the focus of creativity on map design, followed by a lesser extent, the story and setting. There are different aspects where creativity can be applied, and these should not be overlooked. Creativity can be very powerful, but it is not necessary for every scenario. Sometimes, just use what you know works, as unoriginal, or based in reality, as that may be.
Finally, I would like to visit the expectations of map design. There are three main offenders, terrain mixing, elevation usage and the need for prettiness. These can all be used to great effect, however, once the community reaches a consensus that all of these must be included everywhere, you meet a kind of homogeneity, which once again, feels like too much of a checklist. I have found myself to purposely make design choices where I don’t mix terrain or have little to no elevation. This doesn’t mean I forgot to add it in, in fact it was definitely in the back of my mind, and the exclusion of it was meant to add some more atmosphere or meaning to the map. What is missing is as important as what is not. Similarly, prettiness experiences some similar issues. If it isn’t pretty, it isn’t good map design. This is poor philosophy, and I understand that there are some exceptions to pretty map design that have been received well. Pretty, lush worlds don’t work for all settings, some of which need to be ugly, gritty, or sombre, and work so much better for it. Build the map to serve the atmosphere, not the sight seers.
The current conviction to stick to the metrics used for judging story, creativity and map design has discouraged beginner scenario designers from sticking around, and discouraged, what can be described as risky design choices as they may affect review scores. Whilst there is nothing wrong with having high standards, and I understand the need for a metric to judge design contests, there is something left to be desired by non-cookie cutter designers. In the end, if you are designing a scenario, build it how you want, and don’t create it for the score. In the same token don’t discount all your feedback due to your own stubbornness.
Time of Tea
Still in the Dark Age
Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday
The AoKH design philosophy, hidden or directly stated, has harmed the state of its own community growth, and discourages ‘risky’ design choices based on that philosophy. This ideal, held by many of the community, either by belief from the start, or having it drummed into them by other members, has plagued myself and newcomers for years. Based on my own experience over my time here, I believe the issue lies in story, creativity, and map design expectations.
One of the most amusing review sections on multiple scenarios is the story section. For scenarios within a game designed to be played, there sure is a lot of focus on the story, which will typically end up in some form of writing. Whilst some may enjoy a wall of engaging text before starting a scenario, others may not, it might not be relevant to the gameplay or story that unfolds within the scenario. Some people don’t naturally find themselves to be creative writers, and sometimes discovering the story as you play through environmental story telling is a much more effective and engaging than a typed narrative. Worldbuilding is still a very useful tool, however, like most tools, you don’t need to use them more than you must. The only amount of story required is the amount that provides some context for the player to begin. The lack of a decent written narrative does not detract from a scenario unless the scenario hinges on some very large amount of context.
The creativity requirement is somewhat a double-edged sword, where many times it unintuitively breeds non-creative creativity. Once creating a scenario or campaign becomes a checklist for publishing, the flavour and style of the author can be lost. Did someone use a very creative design trick once, and did it work well? Yes. That doesn’t mean everyone has to use it or invent a new trick every time they want to build a scenario. I personally fell victim to this, forcing myself to create weird new interactions such as ships being dashed on rocks and creating a scenario based upon human qualities. Some of these did end up with good results, but other times they surely fell flat. Many times, I have seen the focus of creativity on map design, followed by a lesser extent, the story and setting. There are different aspects where creativity can be applied, and these should not be overlooked. Creativity can be very powerful, but it is not necessary for every scenario. Sometimes, just use what you know works, as unoriginal, or based in reality, as that may be.
Finally, I would like to visit the expectations of map design. There are three main offenders, terrain mixing, elevation usage and the need for prettiness. These can all be used to great effect, however, once the community reaches a consensus that all of these must be included everywhere, you meet a kind of homogeneity, which once again, feels like too much of a checklist. I have found myself to purposely make design choices where I don’t mix terrain or have little to no elevation. This doesn’t mean I forgot to add it in, in fact it was definitely in the back of my mind, and the exclusion of it was meant to add some more atmosphere or meaning to the map. What is missing is as important as what is not. Similarly, prettiness experiences some similar issues. If it isn’t pretty, it isn’t good map design. This is poor philosophy, and I understand that there are some exceptions to pretty map design that have been received well. Pretty, lush worlds don’t work for all settings, some of which need to be ugly, gritty, or sombre, and work so much better for it. Build the map to serve the atmosphere, not the sight seers.
The current conviction to stick to the metrics used for judging story, creativity and map design has discouraged beginner scenario designers from sticking around, and discouraged, what can be described as risky design choices as they may affect review scores. Whilst there is nothing wrong with having high standards, and I understand the need for a metric to judge design contests, there is something left to be desired by non-cookie cutter designers. In the end, if you are designing a scenario, build it how you want, and don’t create it for the score. In the same token don’t discount all your feedback due to your own stubbornness.
Still in the Dark Age
Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday