Quote:Original post by Nofootbird
Agree with Morri.

Maybe it is theoretically feasible to make a game full of action-results, yet developers have to add immense contents into a single game. As the growth of branches, the game content have to exponentially expand in order to complete the story. The storyline will like a binary tree, which is too hard to control and it will cost unimaginably plenty of time to accomplish the story.

I think it is possible. Back in the 80's you had PacMan. The player made choices and the game reacted. If you turned left at an intesection the game would react one way and if you turned right (or forwards, or backwards) it would react another way.

Now, the desigener didn't code in each reaction to every dsecision the player could make, that would have been impossible for the technology back then (even today it would be difficult). What they did was to create rules as to how the ghosts would react, not to a specific decision, but in general (iirc: One would head towards the next intersection the player would be at, one would head to where the player was last at, etc).

These simple rules created a situation where a great depth of gameplay emerged.

Now, if we could create a simple (although necesarily more complex than PacMan) set of rules that agents could impliment to drive a stroy then we could create games with dynamic stroies.

The way to visialise this is as a landscape and we need to create a pathfinding algorithm to traverse it. What we do is work out where the player is in this landscape (based on their interactions - as in what sunandshadow is taking about) and then find a path to where the designers what the game to go. Then the game (and NPCs) can take the necesary actions to drive the stroy along that path.

An example is that if the designers want the princess to be kidnaped, but the player never goes to the castle, then they can never find out (let alone feel the need to ) the quest to rescue the princess.

However, if the game can path find, then maybe some other NPC can be kidnaped, or maybe the kidnapers can become some other threat (it would depend on the landscape the designers want), or maybe the event waits and give the player a reason to visit the castle or get involved with the princess (maybe she tried to run away and become an adventureer and one of the player's party members is her).

Because certain things don't need to be resolved until they become important to the player (eg: if an NPC has a secret identity or not), these can be left unresolved in the plot until they become important. Like with pPacMan, it is unimportant about an intersection where noboty is, so the game does not try to compute any decision for that.

It is the same principal, just that we need more data and a more complex landscape than in PacMan.

Quote:Original post by Edtharan
The way to visialise this is as a landscape and we need to create a pathfinding algorithm to traverse it. What we do is work out where the player is in this landscape (based on their interactions - as in what sunandshadow is taking about) and then find a path to where the designers what the game to go. Then the game (and NPCs) can take the necesary actions to drive the stroy along that path.

An example is that if the designers want the princess to be kidnaped, but the player never goes to the castle, then they can never find out (let alone feel the need to ) the quest to rescue the princess.

However, if the game can path find, then maybe some other NPC can be kidnaped, or maybe the kidnapers can become some other threat (it would depend on the landscape the designers want), or maybe the event waits and give the player a reason to visit the castle or get involved with the princess (maybe she tried to run away and become an adventureer and one of the player's party members is her).

It is the same principal, just that we need more data and a more complex landscape than in PacMan.

Thanks Edtharan! That's very much the direction I was thinking of, but I couldn't find a good way to explain/visualize it.

An NPC has some sort of problem or conflict, so he creates a plot path (much like physical pathfinding) to create the easiest path of action. An Empire notices that there is a lot of traffic across a river by ferry, which is very painstaking and costly, so they decide to build a public bridge at the site of high-traffic.

You're definitely right though, it's far more complex than PacMan. But I think it should be possible with that method. Now if you put it in an MMO (complexity x1000), you'd probably need some kind of plot balancing engine/editor, that automatically creates events to balance out the flow of story (i.e. the new race you just created is stronger than you thought, so the engine applies balance automatically). But that's just pie in the sky at this point... I'll stick to a simple RPG for my plot-engine.

Any other thoughts on how to add more depth/ use mechanics to make story mean more?

Quote:Original post by Humble Hobo
Any other thoughts on how to add more depth/ use mechanics to make story mean more?

The short answer is: to give the player agency over the story.

What I mean by this is one can creaate an elaborate backstory and spend a lot of time working out a complex plot, but in the end, the story the player experiences is the one they make themselves, regardless of the effort you put into it. Your work can, at best, only act as a guid for the player and as a starting point. Beyond that, it is their actions in the game that create their story.

As an example: take the game "Sword of the Samurai" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_the_Samurai_%28computer_game%29 ).

In this, the player takes on the role of a Samurai and head of a family and works their way up to Shogun of Japan (and might take several generations to do so).

This is a game where there is strong role playing as the player has to take on the persona of a Samurai and act as if they were one. they have to make decisions that affect their families standing, and might even lead to their current character's death (althoguh if you have children you will take over them if your main character dies - but if you don't, then it is game over).

In this game, althoguh not usually classified as an RPG, I feel that there is deeper role playing more similar to pen and paper role playing and in traditional computer based RPGs.

When I though about this, I realised it is because the player has control over their story. The game's plot is set (the Samurai becoming Shogun of Japan) and doesn't change thoguh the game. It is the journy that the player takes their characters on to get there is the story, and it is the player who controles it. They have agency over the story (but not the plot).

I think by looking at games like Sword of the Samurai, we can gain a much better understanding of how to increase the deapth of role play in games and how to create greater deapth to them.

It also make it more meaningfull to the player. With a preset story eg: (Neverwinter Nights), the designer has to trick the player into taking on the stroy, and this usually ends up with cliches or just fails miserably (occasionally there is something that works - but once done it will be repeated and become cliche). When it does work, it usually only appleas to a small subset of players interested in that type of story.

I think this is why developed have not attempted to create true roleplaying and have just gone for the hack and slash "role playing" designes. It is not a simple thing to achieve, it is complex and there hasn't been a good theory to use to develop games like that. But the fact is these kind of games do exist, so it is posible to achieve player agency over the story. We just have to figure out how to do it.

Quote:Original post by Edtharan

The short answer is: to give the player agency over the story.

When I though about this, I realised it is because the player has control over their story. The game's plot is set (the Samurai becoming Shogun of Japan) and doesn't change thoguh the game. It is the journy that the player takes their characters on to get there is the story, and it is the player who controles it. They have agency over the story (but not the plot).

You know, I think that's partly the reason why MMO stories are so shallow over simple RPGs. MMOs are primarily level-based, with the players all racing to get to the 'end-game'. The journey is almost completely lost, because all that matters is the end-game. And since the worlds generally cannot be altered, the quests just become a means to an end (leveling), they have no other significance.

Giving players some measure of control over a dynamic story might be a good next step in improving MMO stories. Actually making the system would be a real challenge.

That's a good point sunandshadow. I'm not saying I'm opposed to a linear storyline. There are plenty of ways of going about telling a story, and both novels and movies are entirely linear. They still make excellent stories and can convey deep character progression.

But I guess what I'm getting at, is that it feels to me like a waste not to exploit the dynamic properties of a game. Because it's a game, it has the potential to change the plot according to the player's actions, and I'm trying to think of/research about ways to do so better. I keep bringing up MMOs because I feel like this would be a great stage to push such mechanics, and it's the stage where the story needs the most improvement.

It just seems to me like the way we make MMO stories is shallow. As if you had 'developers' and 'players' on WIkipedia, where only an expert team of 20 developers could change any of the content, and thousands and thousands of players simply experience it. There's too much content for just 20 people to handle, and that limits how much quality/quantity of content we can stuff in an MMO.

That said, there's nothing inherently wrong about the way game stories are currently made, but I wonder if there's a mechanic (such as the plot engine we've been discussing) that could bring a more interactive story experience to the player.

Whether or not such a mechanic would actually be any more fun or meaningful still needs to be tested.

Quote:Original post by sunandshadow
I don't really see why it's important for the player to be able to change the world in an MMO. There have been many great novels written where the main character does not change the world, only himself and/or his immediate surroundings.

There have also been many novels in which they do change the world. The scale doesn't seem to matter much, but big scale is more interesting to me personally.

Nonetheless, you have a great point. I'm not saying I'm opposed to a linear storyline (or a 'reactionary' one). There are plenty of ways of going about telling a story, and both novels and movies are entirely linear. They still make excellent stories and can convey deep character progression.

But I guess what I'm getting at, is that it feels to me like a waste not to exploit the dynamic properties of a game. I want to use the capability that games have, that movies and books cannot: interactivity. Because it's a game, it has the potential to change the plot according to the player's actions, and I'm trying to think of/research about ways to do so better. I keep bringing up MMOs because I feel like this would be a great stage to push such mechanics, and it's the stage where the story needs the most improvement.

It just seems to me like the way we make MMO stories is shallow. As if you had 'developers' and 'players' on WIkipedia, where only an expert team of 20 developers could change any of the content, and thousands and thousands of players simply experience it. There's too much content for just 20 people to handle, and that limits how much quality/quantity of content we can stuff in an MMO.

That said, there's nothing inherently wrong about the way game stories are currently made, but I wonder if there's a mechanic (such as the plot engine we've been discussing) that could bring a more interactive story experience to the player.

Whether or not such a mechanic would actually be any more fun or meaningful still needs to be tested.

Quote:Original post by sunandshadow
I want to play a game with much greater development of relationships between the player's character and factions and also relationships with individual NPCs.

Most of us do. And though I think a dynamic story might be capable of improving relationships, it's hardly necessary. I also think that that kind of relationship building might be developed outside of the story itself. Relationships alone provide a kind of side-story anyways (and depending on the setting might be the entire story). If that's the case, then relationships are all the dynamic story you'll need.

I want to play a game with a story that I can influence the direction of, not just the reactions the world has to me. But that's simply a matter of preference. People want different things.

Yes, MMO NPCs are probably some of the shallowest AIs in gaming history. They're basically just waypoints/checkpoints with a skin. A binary checklist of which of 2 things to say to you. (quest accepted text vs. quest completed text).

I'm trying to think of ways to solve too many problems at once. MMO scale of complexity is definitely not the best place to start, but it is my eventual goal. Were I to get out of design document stage, I'd definitely start with a very very simple RPG that could eventually scale a little bigger. But the story principles still apply on all scales, I think.

For example, if NPCs were the agents of a dynamic story, then they would have to be much more complex: They would have to have goals, and use some path finding to decide on what to do to accomplish their goals. They have priorities, and emotional states to determine their actions. They would very much be reactionary to you as well, but still not in that deep, complex way that you're looking for.

That's why I think the dynamic story could help NPCs intractability, but it's not necessary to do so.