Freedom : a good thing or a bad thing?
Author
hi guys
what do you think is better in a RPG
is it good to give the players total freedom and shape there own life or to make them fallow the life of someone in the story?
what do you think?
Total freedom IMO is the best because you can allow for so much more Role Playing and fun because you give the choice of
"ok do i want to be a black smith or a fast speedy kung fu artist?" or "what sould i be a knight or a merchant?"
just my 2cp
Sir Darkan Fireblade
sounds hard to do. Far too many variables.
Think about it.
Total freedom is just unfeasible.
Lets say you kill the king. Total freedom would mean that this is part of a coup d''etat, a grudge killing, or the work of a psycho. In each situation, a different outcome would arise.
1. Coup d''Etat: New government, new laws
2. Arrested and executed
3. Commited to an asylum
and then each of these outcomes would have new repercussions.
1. New government: Are you a ruler, or just a hero?
2. Arrested and executed: Do you die, or does someone you made freinds with pull off a daring rescue?
3. Commited: Do you stay your term and make freinds with other inmates, or do you become a loner? Maybe you try and escape?
and then after that there are even more repercussions i wont get into!
It would just be too hard to manage. The AI alone could make a team of the most experienced programmers break down and weep.
Think about it.
Total freedom is just unfeasible.
Lets say you kill the king. Total freedom would mean that this is part of a coup d''etat, a grudge killing, or the work of a psycho. In each situation, a different outcome would arise.
1. Coup d''Etat: New government, new laws
2. Arrested and executed
3. Commited to an asylum
and then each of these outcomes would have new repercussions.
1. New government: Are you a ruler, or just a hero?
2. Arrested and executed: Do you die, or does someone you made freinds with pull off a daring rescue?
3. Commited: Do you stay your term and make freinds with other inmates, or do you become a loner? Maybe you try and escape?
and then after that there are even more repercussions i wont get into!
It would just be too hard to manage. The AI alone could make a team of the most experienced programmers break down and weep.
Well, that depends.
In a pen and paper RPG, I''d say restrained freedom is the best way to go. Let the players do stuff that won''t be too out of place, or too frusterating to play.
In a console RPG, I''d typically go with a story. Given the fact that, at least until broadband and hard-drives become typical attachments, expandability is a tough thing to accomplish means that everything possible in the game has to be done before you ship.
In a PC RPG, I''d still go with restrained freedom. Let the player do what they want within some set of limits. This not only helps the designer pace the game and keep something interesting happening, it also allows the thing to be programmed.
The problem with total freedom is that it''s really difficult coming up with any decent level of interaction. If I''m a blacksmith wandering into a bar, I should get a different reaction than a well known assassin walking into a bar, which should get a different reaction from a noble walking into a bar, which should get a different reaction from an entertainer walking into a bar. Then all of those have to be aletered based off of how well I''m known there, and my previous actions. Did I save/kill someone''s sister? How will that change things? Am I someone''s realative?
And that''s one relatively small situation, with a limited bit of scope. Imagine if you could do ANYTHING? Hell, even within that, we''d still have to check if I was rude, or nice, or a big spender, or a liar. And we''d have to come up with ways to paramaterize all that.
So, while freedom sounds nice, it''s a nightmare to quantify. Good luck.
Just my thoughts, hope they helped out a little.
In a pen and paper RPG, I''d say restrained freedom is the best way to go. Let the players do stuff that won''t be too out of place, or too frusterating to play.
In a console RPG, I''d typically go with a story. Given the fact that, at least until broadband and hard-drives become typical attachments, expandability is a tough thing to accomplish means that everything possible in the game has to be done before you ship.
In a PC RPG, I''d still go with restrained freedom. Let the player do what they want within some set of limits. This not only helps the designer pace the game and keep something interesting happening, it also allows the thing to be programmed.
The problem with total freedom is that it''s really difficult coming up with any decent level of interaction. If I''m a blacksmith wandering into a bar, I should get a different reaction than a well known assassin walking into a bar, which should get a different reaction from a noble walking into a bar, which should get a different reaction from an entertainer walking into a bar. Then all of those have to be aletered based off of how well I''m known there, and my previous actions. Did I save/kill someone''s sister? How will that change things? Am I someone''s realative?
And that''s one relatively small situation, with a limited bit of scope. Imagine if you could do ANYTHING? Hell, even within that, we''d still have to check if I was rude, or nice, or a big spender, or a liar. And we''d have to come up with ways to paramaterize all that.
So, while freedom sounds nice, it''s a nightmare to quantify. Good luck.
Just my thoughts, hope they helped out a little.
Author
quote:Original post by black_mage_s
and then after that there are even more repercussions i wont get into!
It would just be too hard to manage. The AI alone could make a team of the most experienced programmers break down and weep.
well i have thought about that and the solution is that everybody would have to be human players and it would have to be for a MMORPG.
all the kings, rulers, merchants, guards, and adventurers would be players
.what do you guys think?
Sir Darkan Fireblade
quote:Original post by Darkan_Fireblade
well i have thought about that and the solution is that everybody would have to be human players and it would have to be for a MMORPG.
all the kings, rulers, merchants, guards, and adventurers would be players
what do you guys think?
Sir Darkan Fireblade
Although it sounds great I think it would be impossible, who would ever play a game if you're not the king or a hero but some poor merchant or a guard with nothing to do? People play games to have fun and feel special, not to be pushed around by a nobleman played by some 12-year old kid.
I also belive that a strong and fixed storyline is much better than total freedom, as it is impossible to do complete freedom without compromises and so.. A good example of near-total freedom is Morrowind, a really great game when you look at it but it's just waay to big, and it feels "hollow". Stick to a fixed storyline (like the FF games, love them all
) is my suggestion. (-edit: fixed quotes)
-Lord Maz-
[edited by - Lord Maz on May 19, 2002 6:26:36 PM]
Author
i see your point
but what if the guards were being paid and if you wernt you could go and beat up that 12 year old noble. and the poor merchants(well everybody has to start some where)
also the reason marrowind is hallow is because its single player only my game idea is for a MMORPG where there is thousands of players.
what do you say now?
Sir Darkan Fireblade
[edited by - Darkan_Fireblade on May 20, 2002 2:38:35 PM]
but what if the guards were being paid and if you wernt you could go and beat up that 12 year old noble. and the poor merchants(well everybody has to start some where
)also the reason marrowind is hallow is because its single player only my game idea is for a MMORPG where there is thousands of players
.what do you say now?
Sir Darkan Fireblade
[edited by - Darkan_Fireblade on May 20, 2002 2:38:35 PM]
With today''s level of AI, I''d whole heartedly say restricted freedom and a more linear storytelling. As someone else said, in paper and pen RPG''s, this is the exact opposite. So why the difference?
In PPRPG''s, there is a GM or moderator who can make things up on the fly, and weave a story through seemingly unrelated incidents. He can create a tapestry out of seemingly random threads that the players chose to walk. Also, this GM can subtly or overtly force players into certain actions. This overtness can still be hidden from the players (for example, creating an earthquake to block a path...). Because of the GM, you essentially have a storyteller that can help guide events so that they seem linked and coherent and with meaning.
When a player has total freedom to do whatever pleases, where is the ability to link events and to be given a plotline? Some will argue from the players themselves, but the player does not have control over world events like the GM does...and the GM can create world events that can give symbolic meaning for the player''s quest. This is why total player freedom fails as a ROLE-playing game, and instead is just a ROLL playing game. Basically you go on quests with no links from quest to quest other than the overriding scheme to gain more experience.
If you''ve never played a paper and pen RPG, pick one up of a genre you like, and get a bunch of friends whod like to do the same and play. Trust me, it''s ten times more fun than any computer RPG I''ve ever played. Not only do you have a more meaningful storytelling situation, but you have a social interaction and camarderie with your friends as opposed to the impersonal computer.
I think the reason that computer RPG''s have come to dominance over PPRPG''s is simply because it''s not easy being a GM. You have to constantly be on your toes and think of ways to weave a storyline and campaign out of your players actions. It''s a skill that few have, but I believe everyone can improve on.
Perhaps in the future with more advanced AI, we can develop game engines that can identify narrative techniques. If we ever develop a natural language engine, then the engine could actually develop off the cuff scenarios rather than randomized scenarios with little connection to each other. Also with better AI, NPC''s could become much more realistic. So perhaps in the future total player freedom will be possible, but even then, it will be guided by an invisible hand.
In PPRPG''s, there is a GM or moderator who can make things up on the fly, and weave a story through seemingly unrelated incidents. He can create a tapestry out of seemingly random threads that the players chose to walk. Also, this GM can subtly or overtly force players into certain actions. This overtness can still be hidden from the players (for example, creating an earthquake to block a path...). Because of the GM, you essentially have a storyteller that can help guide events so that they seem linked and coherent and with meaning.
When a player has total freedom to do whatever pleases, where is the ability to link events and to be given a plotline? Some will argue from the players themselves, but the player does not have control over world events like the GM does...and the GM can create world events that can give symbolic meaning for the player''s quest. This is why total player freedom fails as a ROLE-playing game, and instead is just a ROLL playing game. Basically you go on quests with no links from quest to quest other than the overriding scheme to gain more experience.
If you''ve never played a paper and pen RPG, pick one up of a genre you like, and get a bunch of friends whod like to do the same and play. Trust me, it''s ten times more fun than any computer RPG I''ve ever played. Not only do you have a more meaningful storytelling situation, but you have a social interaction and camarderie with your friends as opposed to the impersonal computer.
I think the reason that computer RPG''s have come to dominance over PPRPG''s is simply because it''s not easy being a GM. You have to constantly be on your toes and think of ways to weave a storyline and campaign out of your players actions. It''s a skill that few have, but I believe everyone can improve on.
Perhaps in the future with more advanced AI, we can develop game engines that can identify narrative techniques. If we ever develop a natural language engine, then the engine could actually develop off the cuff scenarios rather than randomized scenarios with little connection to each other. Also with better AI, NPC''s could become much more realistic. So perhaps in the future total player freedom will be possible, but even then, it will be guided by an invisible hand.
Author
you all have good points
Dauntless
here is my solution to what you just said
think of it this way, player X is a dark Mage and he hates the king that is holding the throne of Kingdom X so he Decides to kill the king, while he is sneeking though the castle he kills one of player Ys(a warrior) friends, then goes and kills the king and then he runs for it! whale he is trying to escape he comes opuon a boy carrying a bag with some food in it so he kills the boy for the food so he can regain his stamina too keep running and then he gets back to his Caltle or stronghold.
so
Player Y has 3 quests
king got killed by player X. quest #1 bring evil mage to justice
friend got killed by player X. quest #2 revenge death
whil he is tracking player X player Y comes opoun the boy. quest #3 Get sack back and whip that mages butt!
so if you have made it through that ramble you will see that there are three quests that are related and they have a plot and a storyline and they are all player generated.
well what do you think?
Sir Darkan Fireblade
[edited by - Darkan_Fireblade on May 20, 2002 6:33:11 PM]
[edited by - Darkan_Fireblade on May 20, 2002 8:50:20 PM]
Dauntless
here is my solution to what you just said
think of it this way, player X is a dark Mage and he hates the king that is holding the throne of Kingdom X so he Decides to kill the king, while he is sneeking though the castle he kills one of player Ys(a warrior) friends, then goes and kills the king and then he runs for it! whale he is trying to escape he comes opuon a boy carrying a bag with some food in it so he kills the boy for the food so he can regain his stamina too keep running and then he gets back to his Caltle or stronghold.
so
Player Y has 3 quests
king got killed by player X. quest #1 bring evil mage to justice
friend got killed by player X. quest #2 revenge death
whil he is tracking player X player Y comes opoun the boy. quest #3 Get sack back and whip that mages butt!
so if you have made it through that ramble you will see that there are three quests that are related and they have a plot and a storyline and they are all player generated
.well what do you think?
Sir Darkan Fireblade
[edited by - Darkan_Fireblade on May 20, 2002 6:33:11 PM]
[edited by - Darkan_Fireblade on May 20, 2002 8:50:20 PM]
Darkan-
You can have lots of quests, all you really need is a random generator, but the trick is having a "big picture" which in one way or another unifies these events.
The best thing I can think of to bes illustrate this is compare Star Trek: TNG vs Babylon 5. ST:TNG was basically just an episodic adventure. You got to see the life of a crew from point to point with very little direction overall. A viewer could for the most part, hop in to the series at anyone point and not get too lost about what was going on. In Babylone 5 on the other hand, each episode foreshadowed future episodes, or were somehow linked to past ones. This created a heightened sense of mystery and wonder because the viewer wondered what would happen next week, or next season. There was a "big picture" and a definite direction the series was heading towards.
When the player has total freedom, there is no "big picture", because the player does whatever he wants. What if the player had instead eavesdropped on the evil king right before he was about to kill him and discovered a plot to betray his ally to gain his own lands, but that you needed to discover who the mole planted on this ally''s side was?
See what I mean? You won''t get that kind of storyline or adventure from total freedom. Instead you will have infinite freedom to chose what quest you go on. In my above example, you COULD chose to ignore the dire implications...but why would you that? And even if you do, the crafty GM will come up with another way to embroil the players in this betrayal campaign.
With total freedom, you can chose where you want to go, what quests you want to play out, but there''s no way to effectively make a "story" out of it with a sense of grandness to them. Otherwise it''s just mere actions played through puppets rather than characters fleshed out through intriguing play. The other thing I admired more about PPRPG''s is that they relied more on conversational skill than fighting. More often than not, you could talk your way out of a situation, or if the players were smart enough, avoid fighting altogether. But I think this takes human interaction via a moderator....i.e. a GM. Computers aren''t ready to handle this....yet.
You can have lots of quests, all you really need is a random generator, but the trick is having a "big picture" which in one way or another unifies these events.
The best thing I can think of to bes illustrate this is compare Star Trek: TNG vs Babylon 5. ST:TNG was basically just an episodic adventure. You got to see the life of a crew from point to point with very little direction overall. A viewer could for the most part, hop in to the series at anyone point and not get too lost about what was going on. In Babylone 5 on the other hand, each episode foreshadowed future episodes, or were somehow linked to past ones. This created a heightened sense of mystery and wonder because the viewer wondered what would happen next week, or next season. There was a "big picture" and a definite direction the series was heading towards.
When the player has total freedom, there is no "big picture", because the player does whatever he wants. What if the player had instead eavesdropped on the evil king right before he was about to kill him and discovered a plot to betray his ally to gain his own lands, but that you needed to discover who the mole planted on this ally''s side was?
See what I mean? You won''t get that kind of storyline or adventure from total freedom. Instead you will have infinite freedom to chose what quest you go on. In my above example, you COULD chose to ignore the dire implications...but why would you that?
And even if you do, the crafty GM will come up with another way to embroil the players in this betrayal campaign.With total freedom, you can chose where you want to go, what quests you want to play out, but there''s no way to effectively make a "story" out of it with a sense of grandness to them. Otherwise it''s just mere actions played through puppets rather than characters fleshed out through intriguing play. The other thing I admired more about PPRPG''s is that they relied more on conversational skill than fighting. More often than not, you could talk your way out of a situation, or if the players were smart enough, avoid fighting altogether. But I think this takes human interaction via a moderator....i.e. a GM. Computers aren''t ready to handle this....yet.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
