TDM Mapping Conventions

[Springheel]

L.A. Noire bypassed that by having all enterable buildings' door knobs a shiny golden material you could that didn't stand out but clearly labelled it as the door you wanted when you came close

 

I'm proposing the opposite...a recognizable handle that is used only on "fake" doors. The model could be called, "use_only_on_fake_doors.lwo" to avoid confusion. Then the convention would be that doors with no handle or this generic fake handle are known to be unfrobbable.

 

There's definitely a difference between a tongue-in-cheek penny at the end of a labyrinthian vent network that serves no other purpose other than to house said penny, and a penny at the top of the map with no easy way up and nothing to telegraph its position apart from the other hundred windowsills up there; that's just bad design.

 

I don't really agree with this (though I think this is an issue of fun rather than conventions). Nobody HAS to find every last penny, and the type of player that cares about finding every last penny is usually the kind that doesn't mind scouring the entire map. Those pennies can also be used as minor rewards for players that like to try and get to places that look out of reach.

 

I was talking about locked doors. And the reason is that a mapper may not want the player to be able to know from the beginning where he can get in and where not. Personally I would not use this method either, but other mappers may have different opinions about that

 

I think locked doors that can't be opened are one of those techniques that mappers can choose to use but should realize that they are breaking a common player expectation (that locked doors have a key somewhere in the map). There will always be exceptions to even the clearest conventions--but like grammar, you should follow them unless you have a good reason not to.

 

Isn't the way of how to communicate things to the player a matter of mapping practice?

 

Yes, it falls under that umbrella, but I wanted this thread to focus specifically on a "grammar" for TDM as a game, so player expectations can remain relatively consistent from one mission to another. It's nice when missions use conversations, but it's not going to affect TDM as a game if one mission uses them and the next doesn't. The same goes for whether missions use opaque windows or transparent, or whether there should be empty rooms or not. Those are about making missions more fun and enjoyable. But the "grammar" of TDM should apply whether the mission is fun or not. It's quite possible I'm not explaining the difference clearly enough, but I think there is one.

[RJFerret]

My suggestion is to put a list of map-specific conventions in the readme and loading screen, especially if they differ from a norm. I do that with v2 of my FM for openable windows.

 

Certainly a good idea but don't expect players to read them. You see that repeatedly in comments posted in forum threads on FMs where players didn't know about X, when X was listed in that manner. The bigger the wall of text, the more likely people will click past without reading, so I'd suggest limiting it to the most important points.

 

That's why when it became critical I used the first screen of the briefing and included an alert in all caps so folks wouldn't just click past unread, which seems to have worked (although certainly not a convention I'm recommending--as it was a very unusual circumstance).

[Springheel]

So my suggestion is that, if a normally non climbable object such as a banner or drainpipe or even a vertical plank is actually climbable then either it is distinguished from all the non climbable ones in some way

 

This is another good one, and quite a problem. I remember one mission where I got stuck because I didn't realize something in the vicinity was climbable, and another where I fell to my death because I was jumping for something I thought WAS climbable.

 

I don't have any great ideas for a solution to this, however.

[RJFerret]

I don't have any great ideas for a solution to this, however.

 

Internal consistency in the map at least.

[Sotha]

I don't have any great ideas for a solution to this, however.

 

The mappers should simply put ladders when they want to have climbable stuff.

 

Don't make wall ivies climbable. If you do, put in trellis that looks like a ladder.

 

It really isn't more difficult than that.

 

Making a climbable surface without obviously climbable-looking structure is a mistake. (A mistake I *know* I have done in the past.) So we learn. If new mappers learn from the mistakes of the old ones, even better!

[Obsttorte]

Internal consistency in the map at least.

This should count for all matters.

Yes, it falls under that umbrella, but I wanted this thread to focus specifically on a "grammar" for TDM as a game, so player expectations can remain relatively consistent from one mission to another. It's nice when missions use conversations, but it's not going to affect TDM as a game if one mission uses them and the next doesn't. The same goes for whether missions use opaque windows or transparent, or whether there should be empty rooms or not. Those are about making missions more fun and enjoyable. But the "grammar" of TDM should apply whether the mission is fun or not. It's quite possible I'm not explaining the difference clearly enough, but I think there is one.

This was my guessing, too. That the difference was not obvious to me. I think I understood it now.

[Springheel]

Don't make wall ivies climbable. If you do, put in trellis that looks like a ladder.

 

A trellis isn't always going to make sense though. And we do have a section in the Training Map that specifically uses (and references) climbing ivy. But I wonder if we could settle on a particular TYPE of ivy that can be climbed..the one in the training map, IIRC, was especially thick.

 

Pipes and chains are the other two that can be confusing. We do have a climbable ragdoll chain that is indistinguishable from non-climable static chain models if it's not moving.

[Melan]

I'm proposing the opposite...a recognizable handle that is used only on "fake" doors. The model could be called, "use_only_on_fake_doors.lwo" to avoid confusion. Then the convention would be that doors with no handle or this generic fake handle are known to be unfrobbable.

I thought that's why we had those curved handles, and the rounded ones added in 2.01.

 

Also, larger patches of ivy should ideally be climbable. I am looking at a big bunch of ivy right now, and even I could climb them, never mind a lithe and agile thief. Of course, thickening them (like using a decal and then supplementing them with models) is even better. The same goes for drainpipes and larger chains. But notice I am writing ideally - sometimes you can't do it due to the way the level is designed, which happens. But making objects climbable is generally a Good Thing, because it is one more way of opening up the mission, and because it feels cool to climb up on stuff.

[RJFerret]

This just came up in a beta test and it occurred to me applicable for discussion here.

 

Most missions design beds to not be accessible by AI. I've provided steps so AI might chase players on beds since it's makes no sense the player can step up there and be invulnerable, but others can't to me.

 

In one circumstance I communicated that to the player by having an AI start out seen on a bed, and walking off it. But that relies on luck of the player seeing that first. It also confused a beta tester, as they didn't expect to see an AI standing on/walking off a bed.

 

The more I think about these topics and see the contentious views here, the more it seems individual perspectives undermine conventions.

 

For example, it makes no sense to me for gutter downspouts to be climbable, since most can't support tens of pounds (half a dozen kilos) and are made of aluminum and copper that you can bend with your fingers. Yet multiple missions requiring climbing such.

 

Meanwhile, I expect to climb trees (and giant spiderwebs), which often aren't. Again I conveyed that ability to players by having AI do it. Similarly my AI can climb ladders, which is unconventional, so the first view of a ladder in one of my missions you witness an AI coming down it.

 

On the flip side, narrow walls that are perfect for chimneying often aren't climbable, despite people with no climbing talent being able to do that.

[Digi]

The more I think about these topics and see the contentious views here, the more it seems individual perspectives undermine conventions.

 

Lol, indeed. I'm reading this thread thinking "well, I guess it's just a matter of which camp I want to annoy" with many items. A few seem reasonable enough to everyone, but most, it seems, are meeting with some resistance. I think a few proposed by Spring have the best chance of catching on.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Digi

[Melan]

Ultimately, missions are expressions of personal creativity and ideas, and they should be respected as such. It is nice to have variety.

[Springheel]

Most missions design beds to not be accessible by AI. I've provided steps so AI might chase players on beds since it's makes no sense the player can step up there and be invulnerable, but others can't to me.

 

I don't see a problem with this. Players shouldn't expect AI to be stopped by things that wouldn't really stop them IRL, even though we all do. The only reason I would be using a bed to keep myself safe is because I'm exploiting a known weakness in the AI. Sure, it might be unexpected if an AI hopped up onto the bed after me, but since they _should_ be able to do that anyway, I would credit the mapper for making it possible. The alternative response, "Hey, you should leave AI artificially flummoxed by arbitrary restrictions so I can exploit them" is not worth much consideration, IMO.

 

And using the map to show players things they might not expect is good practice (though I too would find it odd for an AI to be standing on a bed for no reason).

 

The more I think about these topics and see the contentious views here, the more it seems individual perspectives undermine conventions.

 

Some writers don't use quotation marks for dialogue or capitalize their sentences, but they know that's different from the norm. Breaking conventions is fine as long as you're breaking them for a good reason.

[esme]

Just thought of another style issue with torches, candles and lanterns.

 

Burning torches aren't really suitable for indoor use, in real life they generate copius amounts of thick black smoke so if you have a lit one in an enclosed space then that space will rapidly fill with smoke and become extremely unpleasant if not actually fatal to be in, so lanterns or candles would really be better for indoors unless there's a lot of ventilation.

 

Also these lightsources have a fairly short lifespan, couple of hours at most, maybe a bit longer for a big lantern, so if you're entering an area that no one is supposed to have visited in a long time then all the torches and lanterns should be out unless they are some sort of magical device or the undead AI keep them refuelled & lit for reasons known only to the undead.

 

So torches really should be for exterior use and lanterns/candles for interior, even if they are carried by the AI, if they go inside anywhere they really need a lantern rather than a torch.

 

Hmm just had a thought they could park the torch outside in a sconce and pick it up again or extinguish and relight it when they come back out that would be interesting to see, coding it is probably a nightmare though, just played "Return to the City" and was very impressed by the cook who picked up a spoon, stirred a pot and then put the spoon down, so blame this idea on that.

 

Again none of this is showstopping and doesn't prevent me enjoying missions that have them, I just wonder who keeps the lights on at times.

[Springheel]

Most medieval homes had open hearths in the center of the room with little or no ventilation at all. I think smoke was pretty common.

[esme]

Yeah but they had chimneys or at least a hole in the roof to let most of the smoke out

[SteveL]

Chimneys were late mediaeval I think, circa 14th C. Smoke in earlier homes filtered out through the thatched roof or the gaps between the wall and the roof. Ventilation wasn't really a problem before the days of cheap precisely engineered mass production, draughts were.

[Melan]

A lot of houses in history didn't have chimneys. In Hungary, it was a pretty popular thing not to have one... yes, that's correct, to avoid one of the dreaded scourges of the time, the chimney tax.

 

That out of the way, this is a question of image over reality - the ''Middle Ages'' might have been like this or it might have been like that (there are a lot of popular conceptions about it that are distortions or outright fabrications), but in our fiction, we picture a mediaeval room with cobwebs, torches, crude furniture and gargoyles up the wazoo. It is our imagery, and in TDM, torches even create great gameplay.

[Lux]

For example, it makes no sense to me for gutter downspouts to be climbable, since most can't support tens of pounds (half a dozen kilos) and are made of aluminum and copper that you can bend with your fingers. Yet multiple missions requiring climbing such.

 

Aluminum? in the ..what... 1300s? or 1600s? or whenever TDM takes place. Copper, maybe but I'd guess many old downspouts/gutters were either way to thick sheet metal or even cast iron/clay tile, and certainly robust enough for climbing particularly in this time period. Sure, current gutters would be ripped off the structure trying to climb them however I don't see that as being accurate back then.

 

Its my feeling that any and every downspout should be climbable but that's only because of the time period when things were new/overbuilt/robust.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Lux

[SteveL]

Torches burning in long abandoned crypts is an established game convention of course. Not realistic but atmospheric and preferable to darkness.

Before chimneys, smoke filtered out through thatched rooves or the gaps beneath the roof. There didn't have to be a visible hole. It was smokey, but draughts and exposure were the bigger problem in poor homes, i.e. small rooms. Rooves weren't flush with walls.

 

[Apols if I double posted. Struggling with my mobile interface and I seem have lost a post]

[Lux]

Torches burning in long abandoned crypts is an established game convention of course. Not realistic but atmospheric and preferable to darkness.

 

An excellent alternative to this would be to have old torches in place but extinguished and give the player at the start, a lighting stick (of have them find some near the beginning). This would add realism and immersive feel to a crypt having to light the long extinguished torches. It would also be neat when the player lights a torch to see what it lights up and the mysteries it uncovers. You could have the first unlit torch near the beginning where some light is creeping in and makes the first unlit torch seen. From there its just connect the dots.

 

Obviously the blue flame is magical and therefore always lit but we don't see much of that either. Some have done this, though in favor of believability many don't favor the blue lit environment.

 

I do like the idea of lighting the torches yourself though I'm sure many would be put off by the idea of having to do this extra work in the environment themselves. Many players I guess don't like getting a real sense of place from a game and just prefer to game.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Lux

[RJFerret]

Aluminum? in the ..what... 1300s? or 1600s? or whenever TDM takes place. Copper, maybe but I'd guess many old downspouts/gutters were either way to thick sheet metal or even cast iron/clay tile...

Very good point about the lack of aluminum, Romans used brick/clay guttering, then came wood and gargoyles (-1200 AD from most sources), then lead downspouts replaced gargoyles, 1700 saw cast iron replace lead, copper was apparently never popular until modern times interestingly.

 

Lead is soft/not sturdy (particularly attached to rotted wood above), and cast iron is ridiculously brittle and weak in tension when new, nevermind corroded (although impurities in the cast metal back then slowed rusting).

 

But either way, it may be completely preposterous, but such is the nature of the video game. I'd prefer the game-play be in than the believability be in.

[Obsttorte]

I do like the idea of lighting the torches yourself though I'm sure many would be put off by the idea of having to do this extra work in the environment themselves. Many players I guess don't like getting a real sense of place from a game and just prefer to game.

But actually a good idea even gameplay wise. If you have a crypt mission with very low or no ambient light at all, light is crucial for the player to navigate. On the other hand, light is a danger to the player as it makes him visible. This would add a nice effect to an undead mission imho.

[Digi]

Aluminum? in the ..what... 1300s? or 1600s? or whenever TDM takes place.

 

I always placed the Thief games (and TDM by extension) in an alternate 1800s. T2: The Metal Age is rather analogous to the Industrial Revolution in Europe, which took place from roughly 1760-1840. Some of the visuals and references also seem Victorian, which takes us right up to 1900. Some dip further back into history for a more Middle Ages and/or Renaissance vibe, though, especially depending on the FM. So it's somewhat fluid.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Digi

[Springheel]

According to lore, TDM takes place in the 1600s, but since steam-powered devices were developed earlier in history, it looks more like the Victorian age in lots of places.

[Digi]

According to lore, TDM takes place in the 1600s, but since steam-powered devices were developed earlier in history, it looks more like the Victorian age in lots of places.

 

Interesting, I didn't know that. If we try to match it to real-world history, the steampunk elements do suggest a somewhat later century. The Renaissance started to develop much of this tech, but for example, the first (commercial) steam-powered engine wasn't employed until 1712. And it didn't become common until several decades later. The licensed Thief games certainly draw comparison to the Industrial Revolution, though I realize we're separate from them lore-wise.

 

But we're working with a fictional universe, of course, so I'm not critiquing here. As I edited into my last post, depending on the FM creator, the "feel" of a mission could be anything from 1300-1900. A few, like "A Night to Remember," with it's heavy use of modern-looking architecture, and mentions of airships and such, actually "feels" like the early 20th century.

 

Variance like that is good, though. For a licensed game with 10-12 levels, strict coherence to a set idiom, time period, "feel", etc. is a must. But for dozens, and eventually hundreds, of FMs, a more fluid interpretation is often needed.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Digi