Crafting minigame (with prototype!)

[Ainamacar]

I've been pondering how to make a fun crafting minigame with strong strategic and tactical elements, that rewards players for crafting without making it necessary to super-specialize, and that puts less stress on the in-game economy.

 

Well, I decided to try out an idea and ended up programming a prototype. You can get it here. It's implemented in Python and requires the matplotlib and numpy libraries to run. (Installation details are in the zip file. I wasn't originally intending to share, or else I probably would have written it in something a bit more convenient.)

 

Here is a screenshot and a summary of the idea, which is basically a glorified Euro-style version of connect-the-dots.

 

 

The basic goal is to connect all the magical sources (represented by circles) within the larger grid by building paths between adjacent spaces. The path is represented by white lines between spaces that emanate from the sources, and valid moves are shown by white circles within spaces. The sources themselves are powered by crafting components, so the game is an abstraction for "connecting the power" among the various components to create a new magical item or effect.

 

The grid spaces are colored, representing different magical "elements" which affect affect how paths may be grown. Currently these generic elements are:

"air" - light blue

"earth" - brown

"fire" - red

"soul" - yellow

"water" - blue

In addition, there are magical "walls", represented by black, to which paths may not be added. These magical walls represent unforeseen difficulties, and are only displayed once a path is adjacent to it.

 

Crafting components are listed on the right-hand side of the screen. To add a component to a source simply click on a source (the circle will turn white) and then click on any of the components. The properties of the crafting components place additional restrictions on how paths may be placed. In this prototype every component has 3 properties:

1) A strength, which determines how many times a path may be added from this source. Every time a path is added using the selected source, the remaining strength decreases by 1. The current/maximum strength of the selected component is displayed in the center of each source, and the maximum strength is displayed in the upper left hand corner of each component. Once current strength reaches 0, no more paths may be added using this source as the active source.

2) A list of elemental sympathies. Sympathetic elements mean that, when adding paths, the player is forced to choose a space containing one of these elements if possible. If no such move is possible the sympathy has no effect. Spaces containing an element sympathetic to the selected source/component show a "+" in the center, and these are also summarized in the list of components.

3) A list of elemental antipathies. When using this source/component, these elements are impassable, and show a "-" in the center, and also summarized in the list of components.

 

The wide variety of crafting components reflects a desire that most items shouldn't have a specific recipe of required components. Rather, any set of components the player can use to connect the sources is sufficient.

 

One may change the active source at any time by clicking on a different one, and the properties of its component applies to all possible moves from a path connected to that source. Even as multiple sources become connected, only the component properties of the currently selected source are used to determine what moves are possible.

 

The game ends once all the sources are connected (a crafting success) or when no more moves are possible (crafting failure). (Note: the software currently only detects crafting failures if the strength of all sources is 0. Other failure conditions are not tested for.) One may swap which components are associated with which sources freely until at least one path has been added using that source as the selected one, at which point the choice of component is fixed for that source.

 

This program serves as a prototype and proof-of-concept. The intent is that a fuller game would include many more special events triggered by reaching specific spaces as well as special character abilities used to help connect the nodes. Examples of special events might include one that reveals all other special events within 3 spaces, or which adds an additional source (with a special effect for the crafted item) to the board. Examples of character abilities might include destroying walls, temporarily changing component properties, changing the element of a space, increasing a component's strength, or adding an additional source somewhere on the board.

 

Finally, it is expected that item properties will be determined from a combination of considerations: those fixed by source, those fixed by component, and those determined by special events. This basic format is also, in principle, compatible with implementing item upgrades and disenchanting.

 

-------

A few brief things I didn't cover above:

1) My intent is that "schematics" largely define source geometry and the basic effects for items. These could be found, purchased as character skills upgrades, and occasionally discovered spontaneously in "breakthrough" events while crafting.

2) The rules are determinstic, possibly aside from initial state of the board. Even then, I think it is in the spirit of the minigame to only determine that setup once per crafted object.

3) Most items would not rely on unique or specific components, mitigating the frustration of not being able to make an item because some specific thing wasn't found. (Or, even worse, was found and sold.) Items useful for crafting can be identified as such because they are largely generic.

4) Every playthrough would be a bit different, with the exact kinds of components found shaping the types of items that are most efficient to make, but usually not making any specific item impossible.

 

 

How, if at all, does this idea move toward the goals I outlined at the start?

1) A character with a high crafting skill will be able to craft an object using relatively less powerful components, but a character with low crafting skill will, in principle, still be able to craft some good things if they are willing to invest their best components into it. Therefore, characters that do not hyperspecialize may still have the opportunity to make some very good equipment, and it gives the player a meaningful strategic choice about how to expend components.

2) The game has some interesting tactical properties, in my opinion. The specific path taken in early moves has a large impact on what moves are available later. In particular, sympathetic elements are very interesting because they are very predictable at the start, but as the path grows longer it becomes more difficult to reign in. As events and character abilities are added this depth should increase.

3) The difference between an optimized path and a sufficient non-optimized path should be relatively small, because the geometry of sources puts some firm lower limits in place. (Interesting fact, the shortest path between sources is the Steiner tree problem for graphs, which is NP-complete.) Thus players who choose to optimize and those who settle for a more brute-force approach should not, I hope, be vastly separated.

4) In the game economy, novice crafters probably take a loss when making common items, for the benefit of making items that are not available at all. As one improves one can get away with using less valuable components to make a given item, eventually enabling a gain. It is also much easier to rationalize a non-fiat economic equilibrium in a system that alllows for both gains and losses.

 

Alright, I've said more than enough. Do try the program if it looks interesting to you. Thanks for reading, I hope you'll be able to draw some inspiration even if this isn't your cup of tea. Comments are welcome.

[Lephys]

While it may not be the most immersive interface, I can definitely see the merit in it. Also, I admire the amount of work you've put into this.

[Ainamacar]

While it may not be the most immersive interface, I can definitely see the merit in it. Also, I admire the amount of work you've put into this.

 

Not the most immersive interface...that's putting it gently. And thank you, I enjoyed thinking about potential game mechanics and coding them up. The code is released under an MIT license, so anyone who wants to can play around with it.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ainamacar

[JFSOCC]

I think it's an interesting mechanic, but maybe more apt for alchemy than crafting, because well, with crafting you have a clear goal and a clear requirement list. I would be weirded out if I was trying to craft a sword only to find I could only craft a verdant emerald.

I do like the mechanic though, has potential.

[Archmage Silver]

Frankly, mini games are a terrible waste of development resources most of the time. IIRC, Chris Avellone commented on them as one feature they should have cut when developing KotOR 2: TSL. They're just fluff.

[JFSOCC]

Frankly, mini games are a terrible waste of development resources most of the time. IIRC, Chris Avellone commented on them as one feature they should have cut when developing KotOR 2: TSL. They're just fluff.

the minigames in the sith lords weren't exactly great. Despite playing a fair bit of pazaak, I don't think they added much to the game. I did somewhat enjoy the turret games but they weren't diverse or hard enough.

[Karkarov]

I am not sure what to say. You put a lot of effort in and that's cool. I can see where you are going with your idea and for say... alchemy or perhaps enchanting it even kind of makes sense. But it is a bit complicated. I am not a genius, but I consider myself reasonably sharp. When I look at your crafting interface and the first three words in my mind are "What the !@#%?" then maybe the interface needs a bit of a redesign and to look more comprehensible? Worse it almost feels like I would be playing bejeweled or tetris. Which are fine games, but I am not sure they work as a crafting mechanic.

 

A crafting "mini game" should not actually feel like a "mini game" in other words. Or it should it should at least make logical sense in relation to the activity. For example... A rhythm game being tied to blacksmithing. If you time your swings wrong you "fail" the crafting because you did not properly shape the blade or armor plate. It is somewhat quick, it makes sense, and is easy to understand. Yet at the same time can be hard depending on some basic factors, like speed, number of checks, or complexity of the button input. The best thing though is that it logically applies to the task at hand because any smith will tell you that there is a rhythm to how you strike the metal and shape it.

 

While writing this post and thinking about the ui of your idea in general it occurs to me that if you narrowed the focus purely to say enchanting and instead of an arbitrary connect the dots sort of thing made it be about creating a specific design or "rune" it would work a lot better. Each material would logically create a certain pigment or texture and certain runes may need to be comprised of specific elements to be powered. Then more complex enchantments would of course need more runes to be effective which would require connecting the runes in a logical order so that they were able to tie into the whole scheme without breaking. For example a "fire" rune could not be powered by "water" element style materials but could be connected to a water charged rune if they were tied together via an "air" rune.

 

Does that make sense?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Karkarov

[JOG]

For spell research that happens within the mage's mind such an abstract minigame would be quite fitting.

For alchemy research which is more trial and error I think Skyrim did it quite well.

 

For mundane crafts like smithing or trapmaking, I think a minigame would be boring. Either your character knows how to make a sword or he doesn't.

[Ainamacar]

I think it's an interesting mechanic, but maybe more apt for alchemy than crafting, because well, with crafting you have a clear goal and a clear requirement list. I would be weirded out if I was trying to craft a sword only to find I could only craft a verdant emerald.

I do like the mechanic though, has potential.

 

Well, that crafting has a clear goal (i.e. a predetermined resulting item) and requirement list (a predetermined list of exactly what is needed to make a given item) is an assumption, not a necessity. For example, in my idea item schematics might determine an item's fundamental properties and the geometry of the sources, but additional effects might depend on precisely what components are used in which source. Suppose the screenshot showed the process of building a +2 bow or something. Whether that bow does extra fire damage, increased accuracy, can shoot through cover, etc. might be determined by the components used. So if you try to craft a bow +2 you always get a bow +2 (as long as you connect the sources), but designing a bow +2 that fires insubstantial flaming arrows and doesn't require ammunition might depend on whether the components you have that would add those properties are sufficient to actually connect the sources. With greater character skill one would have greater freedom to create both more powerful items, but also to manipulate the board so you are more likely to be able to create the specific item (i.e basic item properties plus special properties) you want and/or using less powerful components to do it.

 

Frankly, mini games are a terrible waste of development resources most of the time. IIRC, Chris Avellone commented on them as one feature they should have cut when developing KotOR 2: TSL. They're just fluff.

 

My opinion is that whether a mini game is fluff or not depends on the consequences on the larger game. For example, a lockpicking minigame generally has no outcomes other than "door unlocked" and "door remains locked", possibly in some combination with "alarm sounded" or not. Anything that results in one of those 2-4 outcomes behaves more-or-less identically regardless of what has happened before or what will happen later. Minigames that aren't fluff offer an opportunity to interact with the game world in unique ways. For example, the X-Com games have both the tactical game and the strategic base-building game, and each impacts the other. Even if one is emphasized more than the other, the other one hardly counts as "fluffy" if the consequences are there.

 

I think a crafting minigame has the potential for rich strategic impact, and if it doesn't then it should be cut as a minigame, going instead for the simplest thing that achieves those outcomes. A crafting minigame with collecting fixed components to make fixed items doesn't really achieve that, no matter what busy work is done in between. I'm going for something where the connection between the input components and the output item isn't fixed, and the minigame mediates the details of what can be built with what components, and gives the player a meaningful decision about how to spend them. Not saying that I succeeded, but I hardly think the basic idea is necessarily fluffy.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ainamacar

[Ainamacar]

I am not sure what to say. You put a lot of effort in and that's cool. I can see where you are going with your idea and for say... alchemy or perhaps enchanting it even kind of makes sense. But it is a bit complicated. I am not a genius, but I consider myself reasonably sharp. When I look at your crafting interface and the first three words in my mind are "What the !@#%?" then maybe the interface needs a bit of a redesign and to look more comprehensible?.

 

The interface isn't pretty, but it is functional. Like I said, I wrote it as an experiment for myself. The interface allows 3 actions.

1) Select a source (Click on a hexagon with a hollow circle in it. The hollow circle of the currently selected source is white.)

2) Add a component to a source. (Click a component from the list on the right-hand side. That component is associated with the currently selected source. This can be changed as often as one likes until a path is added from that source, at which time the component of that source cannot be changed.)

3) Add a path (Click on a hexagon with a solid white circle in the center. What paths are possible to add depends on the selected source and its associated component.)

 

That's it. I grant, I should have stated this explicitly in the first post. A failure of documentation, at the very least.

 

Worse it almost feels like I would be playing bejeweled or tetris.

 

A crafting "mini game" should not actually feel like a "mini game" in other words. Or it should it should at least make logical sense in relation to the activity. For example... A rhythm game being tied to blacksmithing. If you time your swings wrong you "fail" the crafting because you did not properly shape the blade or armor plate. It is somewhat quick, it makes sense, and is easy to understand. Yet at the same time can be hard depending on some basic factors, like speed, number of checks, or complexity of the button input. The best thing though is that it logically applies to the task at hand because any smith will tell you that there is a rhythm to how you strike the metal and shape it.

 

Ehh, it's a board game serving as an abstract representation of the underlying magical reality of crafting, not about the physical tasks needed to do the same. It is no more right or wrong than using a dice roll to determine if a sword hits instead of using the mouse to control the sword directly. Each gives a different sort of experience -- each can be designed well or poorly, and each can implemented well or poorly. I don't mind if this particular abstraction isn't your cup of tea, but there are many ways for a thing to make "logical sense in relation to the activity." In this case the "activity" could be shaping unruly magic forces to a particular magical purpose rather than shaping steel.

 

While writing this post and thinking about the ui of your idea in general it occurs to me that if you narrowed the focus purely to say enchanting and instead of an arbitrary connect the dots sort of thing made it be about creating a specific design or "rune" it would work a lot better. Each material would logically create a certain pigment or texture and certain runes may need to be comprised of specific elements to be powered. Then more complex enchantments would of course need more runes to be effective which would require connecting the runes in a logical order so that they were able to tie into the whole scheme without breaking. For example a "fire" rune could not be powered by "water" element style materials but could be connected to a water charged rune if they were tied together via an "air" rune.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Yes it does. "Enchanting" may have been a better description given the specific elements I described. Nevertheless, one could define the "elements" to refer to non-magical concepts if desired. As for going for a rune-based design, that's a perfectly reasonable way to approach the problem. I had toyed with a similar idea, by assigning elements to components themselves and then defining more elaborate interactions between specific elements that occur when sources of different colors are joined. I went in a different direction, but I'd like to see a mock up of what you mean. (And since schematics define source geometry, there is a "rune-like" aspect to them, but that's neither here nor there.)

 

The main thing I want is a way to join compelling strategic management with the tactical aspects of the minigame. If your runes conception would work better, I'm all for it! If no one finds a minigame that does these well, I'd cut the whole idea.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ainamacar

[Lephys]

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest that, under the circumstances, it SHOULD'VE been the most immersive interface. I understand it's just a prototype, and, as I said, it's admirable that you've put the amount of work into it that you have.

 

I really don't see it working well for crafting across the board, but, if it were fully hashed out and the interface were streamlined a bit, it could easily be some sort of Alchemy/Enchanting minigame-oid. Puzzle-type interfaces work pretty well with that, because our mind doesn't really have an inherent idea of how fictitious, magical components react with one another like we have with how metal is crafted into a sword. Alchemy and enchanting are more abstract processes, so connecting them to the reality of the player's interface interaction with the logical organization of a puzzle is a pretty functional solution. ^_^

 

This was already brought up a bit right in the last few posts, but I just wanted to express my support of the ideas.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Lephys

[Ainamacar]

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest that, under the circumstances, it SHOULD'VE been the most immersive interface. I understand it's just a prototype, and, as I said, it's admirable that you've put the amount of work into it that you have.

 

No worries, I didn't take that meaning. I actually laughed when I read your first sentence.

 

I really don't see it working well for crafting across the board, but, if it were fully hashed out and the interface were streamlined a bit, it could easily be some sort of Alchemy/Enchanting minigame-oid. Puzzle-type interfaces work pretty well with that, because our mind doesn't really have an inherent idea of how fictitious, magical components react with one another like we have with how metal is crafted into a sword. Alchemy and enchanting are more abstract processes, so connecting them to the reality of the player's interface interaction with the logical organization of a puzzle is a pretty functional solution. ^_^

 

Yeah, the more I think of it the more I tend to agree with you on this point. It depends on the fiction of the game world, of course, but usually magic and the natural have sharp conceptual difference. If so, having the same crafting representation for both doesn't do a good job of supporting that distinction.

[Lephys]

^ Haha. I'm glad. Being able to occasionally incite laughter is one of my few strong suits.

 

And yeah, it definitely depends on all the other factors in a given game's item system, but, at a glance, it just seems like it makes the most sense for the more abstract types of crafting.

 

It's really, really weird how our brains tend to accept certain representations of completely abstract things (such as magical item catalysis) over other ones, heh.

[HangedMan]

I like your program. You put a lot of work into it, and it shows. After reading your explanation, I found it intuitive and fun; the interface is pretty basic, but as it is a proof of concept, I completely understand that it's not polished. I think, if you coded it in flash, and expanded on it a bit, you could actually come up with a pretty neat stand-alone widget that I'd like spend several hours playing with. Or even utilize it as a cool mini-game in a flash game.

 

However, I don't really want to see that kind of mini-game in P:E. Really, the only ones I'd accept would be games of chance/luck, like in a gambling hall. I think, for this game, if their was to be a crafting system, it'd be sort of... choosing stuff from lists. In example:

 

List A) Equipment type

List B) Material type

List C)Misc things

 

So I could, for instance, select:

Dagger

Steel

Ruby

 

and end up with a Steel Dagger with a ruby in its pommel (increasing its sale value? Maybe an enchanted ruby that gives elemental damage?). I feel that sort of set up would allow for plenty of customization, while also being smooth and streamlined; things I look for in this sort of game.

 

Still, though, you an awesome dude, and you should feel awesome for making this.

[jivex5k]

This would be awesome for alchemy or spell crafting.

Kudos to the OP for doing this!

[Ainamacar]

I like your program. You put a lot of work into it, and it shows. After reading your explanation, I found it intuitive and fun; the interface is pretty basic, but as it is a proof of concept, I completely understand that it's not polished. I think, if you coded it in flash, and expanded on it a bit, you could actually come up with a pretty neat stand-alone widget that I'd like spend several hours playing with. Or even utilize it as a cool mini-game in a flash game.

 

Thanks. I'm thinking that I may take some time at Christmas/New Year's to make something like that. Ideally, a version with character abilities, rules for determining item properties, and expansions on the existing mechanics wrapped up in a nicer package. We'll see.

 

However, I don't really want to see that kind of mini-game in P:E. Really, the only ones I'd accept would be games of chance/luck, like in a gambling hall.

 

And I'm not really a fan of item lotteries in this sort of game, although the details matter a lot. If the outcome depends on very few "rolls", and especially if they take place in a short span of time, then the power of crafting may depend more on the player's attitude toward reloading than to the crafting system itself. (I don't hate that reload-heavy playstyle as such, I dislike systems that have wildly divergent outcomes depending on playstyle.) The degree to which the random outcomes depend on character skill is also important. Too much and only specialists will be able to use it effectively, too little and crafting is just a weird store. Finally, there is the issue of consequences. I enjoyed the wizard stronghold crafting quests in BG2, which were chance-based, because they presented the character with meaningful tradeoffs to consider.

 

In the end, of course, I'd gladly accept a crafting system not in my preferred style if it is executed with some inspiration. If crafting is just busywork, even if it's ignorable busywork, I'd rather it be cut or reduced to the simplest form of input->output.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful comment!

[HangedMan]

You're welcome. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what you can, in terms of making that widget into a game. If you need a beta tester or anything like that, please consider me.

 

Also, just an aside note about the casino-esque games I mentioned; I'd really only support their being there, because it would make sense for something like gambling to exist in the game. It's not something I'd spend much time on, as I generally avoid most games-inside-of-games; I have no real love for it.

[Naesh]

Interesting. I like the idea that crafting, enchantment, alchemy and spell research could make the gaming experience more robust and immersive. Extending on this carefully could make a game that easily devours your soul.

 

However! You have to think about that games like Baldurs Gate tend to be quite lenghty. (But never lenghty enough. )

Do you really think that you will enjoy the same minigames after you are, say, 20-30 hours into the game?

 

What about this idea - crafting, enchantment, alchemy, spell research.... *micromanagement*.... Not minigame, but *micromanagement*!

It's not annoying, because it's just micromanaging your character in a greater detail and that's part of the usual rpg recipe.

Your character could be a smith or an alchemist prior to the adventure, so it makes sense to assume that he/she can fix some simple armor or make a healing potion from some herbs.

 

As for spell research.... i don't know. It works fine for me how bg handles magic. Don't get me wrong, i see the possibility of a great weird-energy-mixing spellsystem working out but.... it's very easy to go wrong here. What about many combo-spells instead? Grease can catch fire.... things soaked in water might feel funny when electrified.... things like that.....

[anubite]

Actually, in KOTOR2 - in regards for the 'turre't mini-game. At least for that one where you have to shoot the soldiers running into your ship? Just let them all pass through --- you get to fight them aboard your ship, which gives significantly more experience. Just a funny little tidbit.

Edited December 10, 2012 by anubite

[Dragoonlordz]

I like minigames, though not linked to crafting. I think someone else already said you either know how to make something or you do not, that is how I see it.

 

I prefer animation of the crafting to minigames for crafting. I like minigames, traps and puzzles applied to level design and story though.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Dragoonlordz