Quote from: S'mon;1094560First person would be where you say I and identify with your PC? If so then D&D would be 1st person, Forge games more 3rd person since they encourage author stance.

The OP doesn't define what he means by 1st person and 3rd person but he seems to have them back to front from common use.

Yep, I think the OP has the 2 terms swapped around for common usage. However, I think perhaps what he is trying to get at is that at the moment of "gameplay" (I,e, rolling dice, interacting with rules, etc) D&D is very "3rd person" - the GM tells you what happened, whereas in more forge-oriented games, what happens is more up to the player - which you could call "first person". But that's a very different use than usual, and I could be talking  out of my ar5e (it's been known to happen!)

Quote from: spon;1094570Yep, I think the OP has the 2 terms swapped around for common usage.

Yeah, I've always views first person as "what would I do" and third person as "what would my character do". As soon as you add personality mechanics, you inevitably begin to focus on how the character acts or thinks over yourself.

While a single player can switch back and forth, the key difference for me is in the goals of the players. If the player's goals are the same as the character's goals (i.e. getting treasure, not dying) then it's first person. Once the player has goals different from the character, for example "creating memorable moments", then there is a level of disconnect between the player and the game world. That's what I call 3rd person.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1094573Yeah, I've always views first person as "what would I do" and third person as "what would my character do". As soon as you add personality mechanics, you inevitably begin to focus on how the character acts or thinks over yourself.

While a single player can switch back and forth, the key difference for me is in the goals of the players. If the player's goals are the same as the character's goals (i.e. getting treasure, not dying) then it's first person. Once the player has goals different from the character, for example "creating memorable moments", then there is a level of disconnect between the player and the game world. That's what I call 3rd person.

That's true.  However, the voice with which you identify the character in your mind, and the voice you use to portray what the character does, and the voice you use to portray what the character says--all do not necessarily need to be synchronized.

The confusion of "roleplaying" as "acting" is the most obvious problem from people that don't understand that, but not the only one.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1094580That's true.  However, the voice with which you identify the character in your mind, and the voice you use to portray what the character does, and the voice you use to portray what the character says--all do not necessarily need to be synchronized.

The confusion of "roleplaying" as "acting" is the most obvious problem from people that don't understand that, but not the only one.

Which is why thinking of these distinctions in such terms (1st person and 3rd person) is probably not especially useful and likely to cause confusion.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1094479.
I really feel like understanding what perspective you would want to focus on will give you a solid framework to aim for while furthering your games design. Personally I am working on a concept at the tabletop level to work into a video game. I want to create a puzzle around getting the characters to experience things in the world, and those experiences allow for the characters to work through complex missions or mysteries at the mechanical level instead of the player level. As a player you can just go look up a guide and efficiently get through the game, but these games are about the journey and not just the outcome, so creating mechanics that require some level of exploration to proceed through stories is the way my game would be different than others in the market. I know that Trail of Cthulhu works with clues, but I haven't ever played the game and hope someone that knows it will give me some insight.

These are the two systems that I am personally most familiar with. What do you think about other systems if you have some experience with them? Are those ideas contrary to mine? What do you think about aiming to create an experience that rewards exploration rather than how fast you can click through prompts? The game will still be optimized, but the optimization will hopefully be much more complicated and interesting than previous games.

This is the part that interests me.

As a ttrpg designer, I strongly recommend that, if you want to design video games, you focus on them. People that make elf games don't "graduate" to video games: they do considerably different things. (The brilliant Jenell Jacquays notwithstanding)

Some of the logic of exploration and level design does carry over, which is why I bring up Jacquays. I strongly recommend investigating her work as it applied to classic d&d dungeon design and how she applied those insights into video game level design.

I really dislike it when people give a term a new, idiosyncratic meaning, especially when what they mean is the opposite of the usual, well understood meaning for that term.

Quote from: Azraele;1094589This is the part that interests me.

As a ttrpg designer, I strongly recommend that, if you want to design video games, you focus on them. People that make elf games don't "graduate" to video games: they do considerably different things. (The brilliant Jenell Jacquays notwithstanding)

  There has been some movement in that direction, though--Warren Spector and Sandy Petersen.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1094604There has been some movement in that direction, though--Warren Spector and Sandy Petersen.

Hey I'm cool being wrong here. I'd love to work on video games someday.

I'm just sayin', it's tons easier now than ever to just... I mean, just start by making your video game.

[video=youtube;z06QR-tz1_o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z06QR-tz1_o[/youtube]

There's a degree of technical competence to making either video game or TTRPG; like, I had to learn a ton of new skills to get my game in an actual, workable, playable, downloadable form. Everything form how to present ideas to how to write compelling and informative instructions. If I'd wanted to make a fighting video game instead, I would have needed to focus on different technical skills; learning how to design a playable video game doesn't really exercise one's technical writing and editing skills.

Sure, some of the concepts cross over; making a good megadungeon or a good metroidvania is basically the same skill set in the design phase. But presenting a megadungeon in book form is a distinct set of challenges from programming a legendary dungeon game and like, why do the one first if it's no less difficult and way less profitable?

If "Make video games" is your end goal, and your starting point is "design a traditional tabletop roleplaying game"; I'm telling you man, you don't really need that first step.

Especially if you're design focus is something like this 1st/3rd person thing, which is... Pretty specific to RPGs, from how it's being characterized here. You're not really going to be doing immersive roleplay in a video game unless you want to; and there, unlike in a TTRPG, it won't change anything or matter. Video games are slaves to their mechanics in a way that roleplaying games are not; the GM is an enormous advantage that traditional games have over a computer program, no matter how sophisticated. Contrast the rich, multifaceted depth of interpersonal interaction, the nature of heroism and villainy as it manifests in an ongoing RPG with the binary black/white psychopathy of video game morality systems. It's no contest.

An NPC in a computer program is severely limited in their possible reactions in a way a character portrayed by a living GM never will be; video game players simply aren't going to be able to "shift to first person" the way an RPG player can, because they don't have a human being to interact with to bring life to the fantasy. They can't convince a program of anything; the best they can hope for is to input the right commands for their favored response. Even the simplest "living" NPC has a galaxy of nuance compared to that.

Interesting theory, ThePoxBox.

It seems to me a case of "mechanics-first" vs "fiction-first" approach, in that the former asks you to think in terms of mechanics (do I use a Hero point now or save it for later? How many dice should I allocate in my Attack Pool?) while the later simply asks the player to think like he was there, in the situation (Should I attack or fastalk the guard?). And it reminds me why I dislike Fate: having to think what kind of conflict it is (challenge? contest?), the action my character is using (create opportunity, attack, overcome, etc) and then decide if I'll use a Fate point to get another chance, etc. takes me out of the fiction and feels overall a "meh" roleplaying experience to me.

I think perhaps Fate's writing style makes it seem confusing.

Generally the PC decides to do any old action, and if the GM decides it requires a roll then it's typically a standard roll (Overcome), or a roll that augments another roll (Create Advantage).

That's predominantly it, and it saves looking up heaps of Spot Rules etc.
Pretty open and flexible, and its only bland if the narrative explanation is bland.

In the case of combat, then the scene often works better with the Attack/Defend actions, but it's pretty evident when to add that to the mix.

We have found it works easy in practice, but reads a bit weird in the actual book.

I do agree with issues regarding the Fate Pt economy however, it does sometimes seem to add a layer of unnecessary complexity, and its a meta-mechanic that can sometimes take you out of the fictional mind set.

Fate does work best when viewed as if watching a story about a group of characters. I quite like it at times, but at other times prefer the old feeling that you are looking out of the character's eyes. In a Fate game you can do this, but the way Troubles work etc often brings you back to 3rd Person, sometimes when you rather it didn't.

Quote from: spon;1094570I think the OP has the 2 terms swapped around for common usage.

Yes, they do.

Quote from: spon;1094570However, I think perhaps what he is trying to get at is that at the moment of "gameplay" (I,e, rolling dice, interacting with rules, etc) D&D is very "3rd person" - the GM tells you what happened, whereas in more forge-oriented games, what happens is more up to the player - which you could call "first person". But that's a very different use than usual, and I could be talking  out of my ar5e (it's been known to happen!)

If that's the case then they need to clarify for this discussion to make any sense.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1094573If the player's goals are the same as the character's goals (i.e. getting treasure, not dying) then it's first person. Once the player has goals different from the character, for example "creating memorable moments", then there is a level of disconnect between the player and the game world. That's what I call 3rd person.

While not typically associated with those concepts, I think it's useful to do so when it comes to RPGs.

To the OP.

You have your terms reversed. Also mechanics do not in and of themselves indicate if a game leans one way or another. Or at all.

Just because a game has social mechanics in no way at all means that the game leans to 1st person. Nor does the lack of such mean that the game leans to 3rd. Same with a game with lots of tactical combat or kingdom management rules. That in no way is an indicator that the game is 3rd person or anything else.

Having a DM does not automatically lock a game out of being 1st person. Having players control the narrative does not automatically make a game 1st person and in fact it tends to lean to the exact opposite. Especially in alot of Forge/Storygamer games. In removing the DM they tend to also remove the first person perspective that older games like D&D allmost exclusively lean to.

Interesting thesis.
I'll try and build something with it to see how it works in design practice.

Thanks for all the feedback and insight. I've shifted focus to a 5E OGL/SRD based project. Trying to make a video game is out of my wheelhouse, and I imagine the new direction will offend everyone, as is proper.