风姿物语txt全集下载:分析游戏内容设计的线索和推理元素 | GamerBoom.com 游戏邦

我觉得玩家都非常聪明，但有时难免会出乎意料地错过某些显而易见的信息。本文主要谈论玩家如何根据线索到达目的地。
关于线索
线索的首个重要原则：若大批游戏角色置身某大宅邸寻找线索，探究杀死宅邸主人的凶手，不要让玩家描述其寻找线索的地点。这是糟糕设计。纸笔角色扮演游戏生成于我们脑海中，只有通过明确地点描述社区协议，我们才能分享某虚拟地点联系模糊的画面。你很难充分形容偌大宅邸，这样玩家就无法进行想象，所以很容易就会检查非线索所指的某个地点。若你详细描述宅邸，绘制蓝图，不要认为这些细节会有所帮助。假设大宅有40个房间，而重要线索描述的是第四层的客厅。玩家多半只是想要简单的陈述：“我检查大宅”或者“我检查地面”。最好跳过干扰玩家的多余信息。不要促使玩家检查所有房间，除非每个房间有其独特风格，存在可供探索的有趣内容。若你令玩家穿越所有房间，直至其找到存在重要线索的地点，他们通常无法做到。待到最终到达目的地，他们已完全失去兴趣。他们已不再关心主要线索，或谁是杀死主人的凶手（游戏邦注：答案是想要成为主人的人）。

sprawling mansion from dailymail.co.uk
关于推断
从上述内容中，我们可以发现游戏有趣之处不在于线索，而是在于玩家根据线索所进行的推断。若你同意此观点，我建议你将信息获取变得简单些，而把推断设置得稍有难度。要警惕出现这种情况——玩家：“我在检查衣柜，里面有什么？”GM：“没有”。“冰箱呢？”GM：“有，但这不重要”。玩家：“哦”。
但推断创造供玩家解决的逻辑谜题。大宅主人的尸体出现在地下室，毫无血色。书房昂贵的地毯上出现一个烧一半的圆环，女仆称今早还没有。书房出现许多当地没有的银色飞蛾。喜欢悬疑故事的我想要立刻知道其中联系。这些线索不难发现。真正的挑战不在于角色，而是玩家需要发现其中联系。这就把我们带入下个部分：
但我的角色会知道！
虽然玩家也许不擅于逻辑解谜，但他们扮演的角色优于自己的能力，令他们握有前所未有的技能，或者他们顺利给出提示。这是个很好的折衷方案。
他们都握有线索，为何不让他们知道凶手是谁？
玩家在地下室看到主人失去血色的尸体。他们看到烧一半的圆环，还有银色飞蛾。他们完全可以立即下此结论：想要获得房子的人士排干尸体血液误导玩家角色，让他们觉得是当地吸血鬼杀死主人，而不是觊觎房子的某人通过补充文本所述的法术，在主人房子中烧半个圈，用此仪式招引银色飞蛾？
不要基于玩家没有的游戏知识做假设。
不要依靠游戏指南的信息，若你希望运用此信息，就不要同玩家分享。
设置复杂、奇怪、需推断的线索，但不要认定你眼中的最佳推断方案就一定会达到预期效果。也许当你构思悬疑时，你最先想到的是结局，或者当你构思巧妙陷阱时，你先设计结局，然后再补充中间细节（游戏邦注：你无需直接解决谜题内容，所以你无法客观评估玩家所要进行的推断是否能够正确和轻松带出结论）。
同样，若玩家角色推断他们需到夜店X和醉鬼Y交谈，但你觉得他们应该去公园 B和公园流浪汉C交谈，或直接告诉他们夜店与此没有关系，或把醉鬼Y变成公园流浪汉C，这更好。这样能够节省时间，相信我。
有关谜题的最后一点：借助适时转移话题之类的通用策略。若用得过于频繁，内容就会变得陈旧，以及能够被预料。偶尔利用这些策略，对其进行变化，因为玩家在这一过程中总会有点健忘。
游戏邦注：原文发布于2008年12月5日，文章叙述以当时为背景。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）
How To Deal With Players When They Miss Clues Or Don’t Infer What You Thought They Would
I don’t think I’ve gamed with anyone I’d call stupid. In fact, I’ve been fortunate to game with people I regard as fairly intelligent. Yet somehow they, and I when I’m playing and someone else is running, have this weird habit of not seeing the obvious OR what appears to be obvious to the GM. This post will be on the subtle and desperate art of figuring out “How the hell did they get from A to B to arrive at Q?”
On Clues
First an essential rule on clues: If you have a group of player characters in a sprawling mansion searching for some evidence of who killed Mr. Mansion Owner don’t ever assume or ask players to describe each and every area that they search for clues in. This is a bad idea for multiple reasons. Pen and paper rpgs take place in our heads and only through explicit social agreement of location description do we share vaguely related images of the same imaginary places. Chances are you didn’t describe the sprawling mansion so well that the players even imagine what you are, and so checking a specific place in the mansion that they’re not picturing is out of the question. If you have described the mansion out fully, drawn a blueprint, et cetera don’t assume these details will help. Say the mansion has 40 rooms (I have no idea how many rooms mansions have – I live in a studio) and it is only in the fourth parlor that the vital clue is in. Chances are players will just want to make a basic roll like “I investigate the mansion” or “I investigate the floor.” For the love of speeding past redundant rolls just let them. Don’t make them search through every single room unless each room has its own unique flavor, something interesting to discover, or something fun. If you make your players go through every room until they get to that one with the vital clue, they will never make it. They will disengage entirely by the time you get them there. By then they won’t give a damn about the vital clue or who killed Mr. Mansion Owner (Answer: It was Mr. Wants-to-Own-a-Mansion).
On Inferences
Hinted at in the above is that it is not the clues that are interesting, but the inferences that players make with them once they have them. If you are of this opinion then I recommend making the acquisition of clues comparatively easy to the inferences that players must make with them. Scavenger hunting for clues doesn’t lend itself to rpgs because it would essentially come down to a player saying, “I look in the dresser. Anything in the dresser?” GM: “No”. “The refrigerator?” “GM “ahhh… sure, but it’s not really important.” Player: “oh…”
Inference, however, creates a logical puzzle for gamers to solve. Mr. Mansion Owner’s corpse is found in his cellar, drained of blood. A half burnt circle is on the priceless rug in the library, and the maid says it was not there this morning. The study is filled with hundreds of lunar moths that are foreign to the region. Right away the mystery lover in me wants to know how these are related (or if any of them are red herrings). None of these would be hard to discover (or require a roll). The real challenge comes down not to the characters, but the players to find the connections. Which leads us to the next section:
But My Character Would Know!
If a player isn’t great at logic puzzles but they’re playing a character who is, or at least better than themselves, then to allow them to enjoy what their character is supposed to be good at let them roll, and if they succeed give them a hint. I believe that advice was in the DM guide for 4e. I thought it was a good compromise.
They Have All The Clues, Why Don’t They Know Who The Murderer Is?
The players have seen Mr. Mansion Owner’s corpse in the basement drained of blood. They’ve seen the half burnt circle, and the lunar moths. Shouldn’t they instantly jump to the conclusion that Mr. Wants-to-Own-a-Mansion drained the blood to fool the player characters into thinking the local vampire killed Mr. Mansion Owner instead of Mr. Wants-to-Own-a-Mansion who used some obscure spell from a supplement text your players probably didn’t read that involves burning half a circle into the victim’s home, and the ritual, for some trivial reason, summons Lunar moths?
Don’t make assumptions about what out of game knowledge your players have OR do have (but won’t remember).
Don’t rely on information from a gaming book and not share this information with your players if you want them to use it.
Do use complex and odd clues to be inferred, but don’t assume what you believe to be the inference to the best solution will necessarily be the same that they come to. Chances are when you thought up your mystery you thought of the ending first, or thought of a good hook, came up with the conclusion and filled in the middle details. What I’m getting at is that you didn’t have to solve your mystery and so you can’t objectively assess if the inferences required of the players both validly and easily warrant your conclusion.
Also, if player characters infer that they ought to go to Night Club X to talk to Drunk Y, but you thought they’d for sure go to Park B to talk to Homeless Park Guy C either tell them that the nightclub is irrelevant or better yet just turn Homeless Park Guy C into Drunk Y. It’ll save time, trust me.
One last thing on mysteries in general: Use common tropes like red herrings sparingly. They get old and predictable if used too often. Do use them on occasion. Just make sure to change up what tropes you’re using: red herrings, player characters waking up with amnesia, et cetera (I don’t want to give a comprehensive list because players I game with read this blog). （Source：philosophyofgames）