The story so far…

This is the second article in this series, and the first of a set of mini-posts that I’m going to be writing and publishing as quickly as possible, something I’m calling a mini-blitz.

My normal publication schedule will resume at the end of the mini-blitz.

Each post will examine one of the specific image categories nominated in the first post of the series, dividing them up into strata of commonality.

The goal is to define a set of policies, processes, and principles that use the game value of the result to define how and how hard it is worth searching for a particular image within each category / strata combination.

Objects

This first mini-post is likely to be one the larger ones of the series. It deals with objects – which is to say, things. This is a category full of nuance and shadings and exceptions, many of which will need explicit examination within.

Image by Lisa Yount from Pixabay

Mundane

As a general rule, mundane objects are ubiquitous within the game environment and have virtually no Game Value. If you mention a lantern, the exact design doesn’t matter very much, and spending any time describing the details is counterproductive.

And if the exact design does matter, the mere fact that it mattered enough to search out an image instantly telegraphs that significance to the players, even if there is no reason for them to recognize it. If you wait until they do recognize the importance, they will already have formed a mental image of what the lantern looks like, so the image is at best superfluous, and at worst counterproductive again.

There are, however, a number of exceptions to this principle.

• Objects that are iconic to a culture that is different to that the PCs are used to can carry greater Story Value by symbolizing the whole ‘we aren’t in Kansas anymore’ message. The vase and other objects in the image above clearly illustrate this principle.
• If there is something else visually obvious about the object, it can carry greater Story Value by representing that the owner has unusual objects.
• Some objects are especially symbolic of culture, no matter how mundane they might be. Food is a great example.
• Some recurring objects can, by virtue of the repetition, have a greater Game Value. But these are usually a lot more specific than this category.
• Any Vehicle that does not have enough Plot Significance to warrant illustrating the interior is considered to be an object, and some of those will be ubiquitous enough to be a Mundane Object. You can quickly determine this to be the case when you don’t care what the ‘object’ looks like, just that it looks ‘good’ or ‘cool’.

Searching for such images is a lot easier with a touchstone term. The basic search term is the name of the type of object – “lantern”, to continue the example. A touchstone term defines a specific subcategory with a descriptive term. That term could be “oriental” or “Babylonian” or “gold” or, well, anything your can think of that will winnow through the chaff and get you the image you want.

Always remember what the search terms mean when you enter them in an image search – they are terms that appear on the web page where the image being displayed can be found. If you are very lucky, and depending on the subject of the search, that might be a description of the item. But it might not. “Babylonian Artifact Restored” might be an even more successful search term than “Babylonian Lantern”, even though it is more likely to throw up non-lantern results. You have to Design your search terms.

As a general rule, availability of these images is quite high, because – once again – you don’t particularly care (or shouldn’t) what the image result is, so long as it will look good. But even so, unless there is some specific Game Value that will be achieved, these images are not worth the time to pursue.

With one exception, in addition to those listed above: Immersion. This is always hard to achieve, but a succession of relevant images is one way of doing so. Such a sequence contains, collectively, greater game value. This is especially important when setting the stage for a mystery plotline.

Common

Common images are Mundane objects with one element of specificity about them. That specificity must have specific game value or it doesn’t count.

That usually means that you are looking to compile a consistent “look”, and (as explained earlier) that gives the image results a greater Game Value.

It also means that you are justified in making a quick search for images of the specific objects. You may not find everything you want, but a little creativity in your search will usually find most of your wish list.

The same exceptions listed above still apply, and now warrant something more than a cursory search. My personal standard is to try to find three choices for each image, enabling me to choose between them.

I also pay special attention to the background behind the object. There are three possible options:

• A plain background, which may be cut away digitally and replaced with a more relevant setting;
• A background that constitutes a reasonably relevant image already; or
• A background that constitutes an irrelevant image that will be difficult to redact and replace.

Clearly, the second option is the most efficient, the first is an acceptable outcome, and the third should only be considered if the proposed illustration has the highest possible Game Value, i.e. you consider it essential that you have something to show at that point. And that is especially rare when you’re still dealing with common objects.

Another way to look at these potential illustrations is as seasoning for your adventure. As with cooking, a little can go a long way, and it is very easy to use too much salt, pepper, or spice. Be selective and take the time to prioritize your desired results. The default option should still be not to add an illustration unless it carries extra Game Value.

In practical terms, the stricter requirements mean that only 10-40% of the images found under a “mundane” level search will still be relevant, possibly less. That’s another way of saying that it will take about 2½ times as long to do an adequate image search.

That in turn sets the threshold that you should apply – unless the object has at least 2½ times as much Game Value as some generic “flavor” object, it’s not worth the effort to search. That’s a threshold that only examples that are right on point can reasonably sustain. If the result isn’t at least some minimum shade of perfect, forget it; you’re better off without an illustration.

Specific

As the specifics of what you want increase, the difficulty of finding exactly what you want in an image search also increase, and it becomes increasingly practical as a solution (if you have the skill) to edit an image to get what you want.

The effect of the latter is to broaden the scope of a search that has become so narrow as to be difficult and time-consuming. The greatest probability is that it will still be so, even after that compromise.

In many (but not all) cases, the Game Value of the image as an illustration will also have increased, but has it increased enough to justify the time and effort involved?

Sometimes, the answer will be yes, and sometimes no.

The answer will be different from individual to individual, depending on how skilled they are at image editing and manipulation. But it will also, inevitably, be fuzzy in other ways.

You see, when an illustration is provided by the GM, the assumption is that the players will find it useful or even need it, but that’s something that will vary from player to player and from day-to-day. On one occasion, a given player might need the extra support to get a clear understanding of what’s happening in-game, and on a different occasion that same player might not.

It’s usually the best that you can do to play the odds, while allowing yourself a margin of safety.

Most of the time, you can ignore this and simply go with your gut; it’s when the effort required is close to the limits of what is acceptable that this assessment is most likely to be unreliable.

A “Specific” image is one in which most parameters of image content are fixed and unalterable, but the object is nevertheless sufficiently popular as an image subject that there is a reasonable likelihood of finding something that can be manipulated to be “close enough” for game purposes.

In the first post in this series, I discussed the cars that the PCs could choose between in my Zenith-3 campaign. One of those was a Sky Blue and Burgundy Sedan DeVille. The image that I found for this car was White and Burgundy. It had to be edited to provide the image that was ultimately used. In fact, about half of the cars on the list needed image alterations of this kind. Most of these changes took less than an hour, a couple took a full evening each. All told, the available prep time meant that this editing took a little less than two weeks.

The only reason they held enough Game Value to justify this was because we were in Covid Lockdown, and hence I had substantially more prep time than would normally be the case. In normal times, I might have edited the images representing the cars that the PCs chose after the fact, but not doing them all in advance.

There is also the possibility of ‘amortizing’ the effort over multiple adventures.

One of the ongoing ‘bits’ in the Zenith-3 campaign is the mysterious appearance on one character’s pillow each day that she is where she is expected to be of a set of perfectly-fresh gourmet muffins and an exotic, even magical, coffeepot. This always has two stalks, each of which dispenses a different beverage designed to ‘match’ the muffins.

Every time this coffeepot has appeared, it has been a different color. It took a while to isolate the coffeepot from its background the first time it appeared, but because I saved the file in Krita’s native format, it took only a handful of minutes to change its appearance the next time.

The image to the right is a compilation of the four colors that it has manifested so far in the campaign.

Oh yes, when the last cup of beverage has been drawn from within its depths and it is set down, it vanishes the first instant that no-one is looking. What’s more, the players have discovered that if they stay put in a strange place for long enough, the muffins and coffeepot will start showing up there – it just takes them a couple of days to find the PCs.

This involves a more sophisticated calculation – first use and ongoing use – because it can generally be assumed that ongoing use will require a lot less time than doing the initial image editing, while the recurrence increases the Game Value of the illustration.

Technically, because the examples are all supposed to be the “same” coffeepot, this would be a unique object; but because the images are different each time, it should be treated as four separate objects.

I use the same logic and technique when I have the TARDIS materialize in the Dr Who campaign – a different background each time, and I have three different “pre-faded” materialization to choose between. It takes very little time to marry a chosen background and a prepared Tardis Materializing (it usually takes a lot more time to find the right background, to be honest).

Because the baseline Game Value of these images is higher, anything on the exceptions list becomes a high priority.

Unique

Unique images have to match specifications so exact and so distinctive that the chance of finding one of them in an image search is essentially nil, and there is a near-certainty that a base image will have to be edited to get what you want.

Such images do not all have the same Game Value as illustrations, however. It depends on how central they are to the story. What can also be said is that even those of comparatively low Game Value – “Magic Sword,” for example – this value may be high enough to justify a search.

It’s usually a lot less work to find a suitable image and alter your description to fit, than to create a bespoke image. For that reason, it can be a good idea to do a lot of your image searches as you go.

There is a compromise approach that should also be borne in mind: curating a list of required images, with some sort of priority rating. That rating tells you how much effort to put into the image, taking everything discussed here into account. One-star might be “quick search, take anything remotely compatible”; two stars might mean “ten minutes search, accept only good images of a decent size”, and so on; that’s up to you.

As a general rule of thumb, I like to have two or three alternatives to pick from – sometimes more – as I may have said already. There are times when an image that is ‘good enough’ (or even ‘perfect’) pops out of the woodwork, and is accepted immediately, though.

Next: NPCs.