-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
Character Growth and Stories
I think the masking/disguising is getting towards interactivity. That is why I like it so much
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
For starters, we''ll need to scale down our stories.
Before I start, let me say that by "interactive story", I mean an engine-driven plotline that is flexible, but not random or freeform.
It is rather mind-boggling to create an interactive story involving dozens of characters and an entire continent. There are simply too many variables. But what about a story involving two people in one room? Well now, that''s pretty easy, but probably not too interesting. Somewhere inbetween, you may find a happy medium. (or a mildly pleased witch. . .ba-da boom)
Now, if you are at all interested in flexible storylines, you should check out www.erasmatazz.com. I physically drooled the first time I saw it.
Another crucial point is: This whole process would be loads simpler if we took the story''s emphasis off of the player. I wouldn''t advocate reducing the player to a bystander, by any means, and the game''s focus would still be the player, but the game and the plot are essentially seperate entities, though one may effect the other. I think an example might help to clarify things (pardon the cliches):
You have a kingdom in disarray. The king''s brother is attempting to assassinate the king and prince and put his own son on the throne; and is backed by many powerful factions. The crux of the plot is the king''s efforts to remain in power v. the brother''s attempts to dethrone him. Now, it would seem obvious that the main protaganist is one of these four characters, (king, prince, evil brother & son) since the action focuses on them. I would say that is correct, since the protaganist (or antagonist) should be the one pulling the strings. Now, we assume from the conventions of film & literature that the protaganist gets the lions share of screen time, therefore the player==the protaganist. However, the brick wall we''ve been running into is the difficulty of balancing player choice w/ the needs of a good plot. So if the player is the protaganist, he/she by definition can tweak and pull our carefully crafted plot any which way, and we are powerless to stop them.
What if the player is instead a kitchen servant, a knight, the king''s cousin, or simply a foreigner coming to town just as these events are unfolding. We could allow the player much more freedom and keep our precious plot in motion. The effects a player has on the plot would naturally be far more limited, but the player could still be just as "involved" w/ the plot. Think Sam instead of Frodo, or even Gollum instead of Frodo
.
The player''s actions could still work towards the resolution of the plot, and it need not be any less fun, but we as designers wouldn''t have to worry about the player, say, deciding to run off to Switzerland rather than deal w/ the trouble in Denmark. The player would still be free to do so, but he/she would miss whatever had happened in their absence.
Before I start, let me say that by "interactive story", I mean an engine-driven plotline that is flexible, but not random or freeform.
It is rather mind-boggling to create an interactive story involving dozens of characters and an entire continent. There are simply too many variables. But what about a story involving two people in one room? Well now, that''s pretty easy, but probably not too interesting. Somewhere inbetween, you may find a happy medium. (or a mildly pleased witch. . .ba-da boom)
Now, if you are at all interested in flexible storylines, you should check out www.erasmatazz.com. I physically drooled the first time I saw it.
Another crucial point is: This whole process would be loads simpler if we took the story''s emphasis off of the player. I wouldn''t advocate reducing the player to a bystander, by any means, and the game''s focus would still be the player, but the game and the plot are essentially seperate entities, though one may effect the other. I think an example might help to clarify things (pardon the cliches):
You have a kingdom in disarray. The king''s brother is attempting to assassinate the king and prince and put his own son on the throne; and is backed by many powerful factions. The crux of the plot is the king''s efforts to remain in power v. the brother''s attempts to dethrone him. Now, it would seem obvious that the main protaganist is one of these four characters, (king, prince, evil brother & son) since the action focuses on them. I would say that is correct, since the protaganist (or antagonist) should be the one pulling the strings. Now, we assume from the conventions of film & literature that the protaganist gets the lions share of screen time, therefore the player==the protaganist. However, the brick wall we''ve been running into is the difficulty of balancing player choice w/ the needs of a good plot. So if the player is the protaganist, he/she by definition can tweak and pull our carefully crafted plot any which way, and we are powerless to stop them.
What if the player is instead a kitchen servant, a knight, the king''s cousin, or simply a foreigner coming to town just as these events are unfolding. We could allow the player much more freedom and keep our precious plot in motion. The effects a player has on the plot would naturally be far more limited, but the player could still be just as "involved" w/ the plot. Think Sam instead of Frodo, or even Gollum instead of Frodo
. The player''s actions could still work towards the resolution of the plot, and it need not be any less fun, but we as designers wouldn''t have to worry about the player, say, deciding to run off to Switzerland rather than deal w/ the trouble in Denmark. The player would still be free to do so, but he/she would miss whatever had happened in their absence.
Author
AP, that's so simple yet so briliant
I just sort of took it for granted that the player must be the protagonist, but it does not have to be....very interesting
""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator
"Though the course may change someimes the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Edited by - Nazrix on October 24, 2000 9:19:54 PM
I just sort of took it for granted that the player must be the protagonist, but it does not have to be....very interesting
""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator
"Though the course may change someimes the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Edited by - Nazrix on October 24, 2000 9:19:54 PM
quote:Original post by MadKeithV
Yes. Goblin.
( Well we''re trying, slowly but surely, to build a framework that will allow this, EVENTUALLY )
Another comment to make:
it may take more programmer hours, but much, MUCH less designer/storyboarder hours, since they will be able to work in parallel doing small interesting tidbits of story.
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
That''s cool. What approach are you using? (unless that''s classified info
) If you have a project info page you can just refer me there.
sunandshadow - go to ezboard and search for ''Goblin Game Developers'' or something of the like. That is where the discussion is
As for AP - That is genius. I, like Nazrix, was always under the impression that the player was the central figure in the scheme of things. It might prove very interesting, and could have quite a plot.
If you look at it as the ''main'' character being the front where the player does all of the dirty work (like finding out the info) then there may be more reason for people to trust the less macho looking servant than the forboding master. It could be a new element that is needed
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
As for AP - That is genius. I, like Nazrix, was always under the impression that the player was the central figure in the scheme of things. It might prove very interesting, and could have quite a plot.
If you look at it as the ''main'' character being the front where the player does all of the dirty work (like finding out the info) then there may be more reason for people to trust the less macho looking servant than the forboding master. It could be a new element that is needed
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
Actually, perhaps I''ve always found this too obvious to mention:
Even in Lord of the Rings - how much influence do the characters REALLY have on the story? Take Frodo for instance... All he does that is REALLY significant to the story, is getting the ring to mount doom. He doesn''t even throw it in himself, it''s forced on him by Gollum.
So - I''ve always thought of interactive stories as having a set of things that are going on behind the scenes, in places where the player isn''t, and that the player may witness, and influence. Since the player can''t be everywhere at once, he/she can''t influence everything..
Actually, that leads me to a VERY simple solution to the problem!
Always have TWO places that can lead to a certain outcome/story twist. Then, if the player happens to be in one place, let it happen in the other, and the player will feel as if he/she has influenced the story, while your carefully crafted series of events is not compromised.
( works in single player only of course )
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
Even in Lord of the Rings - how much influence do the characters REALLY have on the story? Take Frodo for instance... All he does that is REALLY significant to the story, is getting the ring to mount doom. He doesn''t even throw it in himself, it''s forced on him by Gollum.
So - I''ve always thought of interactive stories as having a set of things that are going on behind the scenes, in places where the player isn''t, and that the player may witness, and influence. Since the player can''t be everywhere at once, he/she can''t influence everything..
Actually, that leads me to a VERY simple solution to the problem!
Always have TWO places that can lead to a certain outcome/story twist. Then, if the player happens to be in one place, let it happen in the other, and the player will feel as if he/she has influenced the story, while your carefully crafted series of events is not compromised.
( works in single player only of course )
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
In the Lord of the Rings, the characters have choices on each of the turn of events, but they have no choice about the outcome. Therefore you could draw the conclusion that you could have many different obstacles with many different paths but which you may choose to go your own way. For this reason, Frodo might choose to give Sam the ring and Sam could have thrown it in the fire mountain (I believe that Sam had the strength of will to do this) or events could have unfolded in the stated way.
There is a difference, though, between literature and games. Before we can think of the better (note that there is no ''best'' or ''perfect'' way) ways in which the game can be made. We already have discussed that linearity suits books more where non-linearity suits games more. I think I like the idea of creating lots of obstacles and letting the player choose their own course.
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
There is a difference, though, between literature and games. Before we can think of the better (note that there is no ''best'' or ''perfect'' way) ways in which the game can be made. We already have discussed that linearity suits books more where non-linearity suits games more. I think I like the idea of creating lots of obstacles and letting the player choose their own course.
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
I think we can still incorporate a strong dramatic story, and place the player at the center of the conflict.
Simply look at the Final Fantasy games...these have strong stories and charactors...true they are pretty linear and near as interactive as say Diablo is...But for many players this is a strength, not a weakness. This is because games like that seem to lack focus, players can feel lost as there is nothing they should clearly be doing next...The story feels tacked on, and unimportant...the king will say "*players name*, you have done well!" no matter if speaking to a elf, half orc, or whatever else the player had chosen for thier charactor...In the FF games, players are more like actors..takeing on the role of the charactor as if in a play or film...the various members of the party are all uniquely different, they have personalites, conflicts of intrest, and seem much more real then the simple charactor class differences found mixed together in parties in other RPGs...
Anyhow, I think to really develop stories with moral delemas, and other such situations, we need to take a hollywood "high-concept" stance...focus the game world and game play directly around such situations...for example, this is the game I''m working on:
basied around a re-definition of magic...what if in the game world, when the player runs out of MP they die...further changeing convention, for every spell they cast, they lose MP as normal, but there is only one way to regain it [by eating the heart of a dragon, perhaps]...further complicateing things, MP is drained every day basied on the number of hearts eaten [1 heart = 1%, 2=2%, etc..]...thus forceing magic users to constantly seek more and more dragons...now then place the player''s charactor in the middle...at game start they are charged to protect the few remaining dragons in existance...along comes a wizard who has enough MP power to easily kill a dragon [and needs the dragon''s heart to help him sustain this level of MP]...as the player, what do you do?...without any MP, you are''t strong enough to take on the wizard...and to become that strong you would have to eat a dragon''s heart...clearly there are two paths here, but once the player eats a heart, they will never be the same...it''s "high-concept" [think of the film "Speed" and the bus going 55 MPH] but deeply woven into the gameplay...and there are thousands of smaller details and events that could be interpolated from this concept...
Simply look at the Final Fantasy games...these have strong stories and charactors...true they are pretty linear and near as interactive as say Diablo is...But for many players this is a strength, not a weakness. This is because games like that seem to lack focus, players can feel lost as there is nothing they should clearly be doing next...The story feels tacked on, and unimportant...the king will say "*players name*, you have done well!" no matter if speaking to a elf, half orc, or whatever else the player had chosen for thier charactor...In the FF games, players are more like actors..takeing on the role of the charactor as if in a play or film...the various members of the party are all uniquely different, they have personalites, conflicts of intrest, and seem much more real then the simple charactor class differences found mixed together in parties in other RPGs...
Anyhow, I think to really develop stories with moral delemas, and other such situations, we need to take a hollywood "high-concept" stance...focus the game world and game play directly around such situations...for example, this is the game I''m working on:
basied around a re-definition of magic...what if in the game world, when the player runs out of MP they die...further changeing convention, for every spell they cast, they lose MP as normal, but there is only one way to regain it [by eating the heart of a dragon, perhaps]...further complicateing things, MP is drained every day basied on the number of hearts eaten [1 heart = 1%, 2=2%, etc..]...thus forceing magic users to constantly seek more and more dragons...now then place the player''s charactor in the middle...at game start they are charged to protect the few remaining dragons in existance...along comes a wizard who has enough MP power to easily kill a dragon [and needs the dragon''s heart to help him sustain this level of MP]...as the player, what do you do?...without any MP, you are''t strong enough to take on the wizard...and to become that strong you would have to eat a dragon''s heart...clearly there are two paths here, but once the player eats a heart, they will never be the same...it''s "high-concept" [think of the film "Speed" and the bus going 55 MPH] but deeply woven into the gameplay...and there are thousands of smaller details and events that could be interpolated from this concept...
That is an interesting concept. Deception is my key to the game. Basically use player prejudice against them. But anyway...
I would really hate for a player to have lost their way in a game, that is why there should always be a BIG NEON SIGN that points them in the right direction. Maybe an NPC could seek the player out to tell them the news, but any way that it happens, it has to happen.
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
I would really hate for a player to have lost their way in a game, that is why there should always be a BIG NEON SIGN that points them in the right direction. Maybe an NPC could seek the player out to tell them the news, but any way that it happens, it has to happen.
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
Author
Dwarf, you can use the daggerfall approach: Have a stranger hand the player a note from an NPC then get away before the player can ask the messanger any questions (the player was just informed that he''s handed a note in a little text box then the player can read info from ther NPCs).
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
