Here's something I've been thinking about: In many RPGs (well some anyway such as Daggerfall) you have a main plot that eventually ends the game. Then there are side-quests that the player can experience in a different order. I'm thinking instead of having a main plot, I'd give it an almost strategy game feel. There could be different groups (such as a thief group, a mage type of group, a guard for the king, etc) that would each have an ultimate goal. The thief group may have the goal of attain X gold, etc. The player would join one of those groups at the beginning or perhaps later in the game. Then the game would conclude when the player's group reached their goal. There would also be "side-quests" that could result in furthering the goal indirectly (attaining a lost treasure, etc) The NPCs would be members of these groups as well, and would carry out the processes to attain their goals . There could be many ways to attain the goals too (that's where the strategy comes in). So, there would be NPCs going about the world trying to take care of their goals. The different groups would naturally conflict. The thief group may be trying to steal money all the time while the guards would be trying to arrest the thieves. Then, I'd want something to get the player to explore the world as well. So, I am thinking that perhpaps NPCs that belong to the same group as the player would ask the player to go to a certain place because something there would help their goal (the thieves may know of some great treasure). Then along the way the side quests (which would probably use some sort of triggering system like Dwarf proposed) would be experienced for extra interest. This is just some brainstorming, but I was looking for some thoughts on this. Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers Edited by - Nazrix on February 21, 2001 9:56:41 AM

SNAP Nazrix... well almost... I''ve been sort of working with a team trying to develop a CRPG, and since one of the guys on the team thought it would be good to create a random background as part of character creation, and thus placing the character in one of n possible starting positions (member of a gang, company worker that kind of thing) and then having different story goals for that player.

It would certainly make the game more ''replayable'' as you could play as part of a different group each time. I think in the cases of some types of groups (e.g. thieves) there would be more than one actual group the player could join, each with slightly different victory and defeat conditions. Where defeat would be something that lead to the group being ''disbanded'', in the case of a band of thieves it could be all of them (except you) being arrested (or killed by a rival gang).

I assume you would let the player change groups if he wished (with a cut down selection of course dependent on previous groups he/she belonged too.)

The one potential problem I can see with having the NPC''s also helping to reach the goal (although its a good idea), is that of a NPC doing the deed that obtain the victory goal, leaving the player thinking "huh.. how''d I do that".

Also it may be possible for players to "cheet" thier way to victory, by joining a group thats almost reached thier victory goal.

Just my thoughs....

NightWraith

quote: Original post by NightWraith


It would certainly make the game more ''replayable'' as you could play as part of a different group each time. I think in the cases of some types of groups (e.g. thieves) there would be more than one actual group the player could join,

I agree. Rival groups of the same type (i.e. different thief rival thief gangs or perhaps rival rulers) w/ slightly different goals would be quite interesting.

quote:
I assume you would let the player change groups if he wished (with a cut down selection of course dependent on previous groups he/she belonged too.)

Yes, I think there could be a possibility of changing groups w/ consequences of course. The thief group would be pretty mad if you joined a different one. Perhaps there could be the possibility of joining two groups if you''re secret enough about it. Not sure about that though.

quote:
The one potential problem I can see with having the NPC''s also helping to reach the goal (although its a good idea), is that of a NPC doing the deed that obtain the victory goal, leaving the player thinking "huh.. how''d I do that".

Good point. I was considering having each group have some sort of leader that could perhaps keep a log of the happenings, so that when the player is away he could come back and see what their status was.





Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

>I''ve been sort of working with a team trying to develop a CRPG,
>and since one of the guys on the team thought it would be good
>to create a random background as part of character creation,
>and thus placing the character in one of n possible starting
>positions (member of a gang, company worker that kind of thing)
>and then having different story goals for that player.
Hmm... not sure I like that.

Personally speaking, when I play RPGs (quite rare) I like to create my own character - background and all. Having the game generate these details would spoil things for me. Maybe have an *option* to create a random background???

Anyway, what I was thinking is that with many RPGs, you roll your stats etc., define your character, but the actual goals of the game pay no attention to this.

Instead of simply making it one goal for thieves, one goal for sorcerers etc. why not base it more on the character details?

E.g. I generate my character who is a [half]vampire-ninja from a downtrodden peasant family. Early on in the game, I am presented with an opportunity to kill some vampires -- (enabling me to vent my frustrations at being left in poverty whilst those peksy vamps live in nice posh castles) -- which I take. The game can then set up my goal to be a vampire hunter.

Did I explain that ok?

Just a thought. Feel free to ignore me - I''m much of an RPG fan anyway.

Eight

Hey Naz! Welcome to my backyard. Pull up a chair and I'll get ya a cold one...

How far are you interested in taking this? There are some great possibilities for flexibility and non-linearity, but there are also some tough challenges. It all depends on how far you go.

I'm working on factions which duke it out in the background as the player plays. Theoretically, the great thing about this is that there's always something happening, depending on how far events are spaced out. There's also potentially a lot of freedom, as the player will be able to switch sides or start his own faction. The world will seem more believable, as well, as the player gets in to understanding and anticipating the moves and motives of factions: Here's also a great opportunity for players to not only participate, but maybe feel like a player in a suspenseful plot (e.g., "the Centauri Consortium has been dying to get their hands on plasma crystals... I'll bet they're behind the raids... ")

The major problems with this idea:

1) Behaviors: What strategic behaviors suit a given faction. If this is too narrow, then the faction's actions become too predictable. If you're interested in making strategy substitute for story, then you'll need a wealth of actions and interactions between factions (lots of ideas on this I'd be happy to discuss, btw)

2) Information Dissemination: How do you tell the player what's happening? A strategy game lays out a map that instantly communicates goals, progress, and positioning. You'll have to figure out how to do the same, preferably in an RPG-friendly fashion (I plan to use maps & NPC dialog).

3) Simulation method: You'll already have your hands full with the RPG aspects of your game while it's running in memory. This means that true strategy game AI algorithms won't be as useful to you-- especially when you stop to consider that even for dedicated strategy games these methods are expensive. So you'll have to find ways to abstract & fake (that's what I've been up to as I've been posting this stuff about AI-less strategy games, btw)

4) Feedback & Control: The last, probably most difficult challenge out of all of this is feedback and control. Is the player responsible for or affected by strategy failures? How does he see the results of his moves in such a way that it reinforces success? A simple way to approach this might be to say that all factions have strengths, and that somehow the player is informed of and rewarded for direct contributions to that strength (and vice versa, for failure).

You may want some escape hatch for the player to take if he signs on with a losing faction, however. I'm going with disguises & changed identities, so if a faction collapses and the player ends up hunted by that faction's enemies, he'll have a way of starting fresh.

It's a cool concept, but as you work on it you'll discover why people stick to linear scripts. Less satisfying, but comparitively easier to design!!!

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Edited by - Wavinator on February 22, 2001 4:43:36 PM

quote: Original post by Wavinator
Hey Naz! Welcome to my backyard. Pull up a chair and I''ll get ya a cold one...

Wav, you''re influencing me way too much. Before I know it I''ll be thinking in terms of strange alien races and starships

quote:
Theoretically, the great thing about this is that there''s always
something happening, depending on how far events are spaced out.

I have thought about the spacing out aspect. That is important because if things are not spaced out enough, things might get terribly repeditive whereas if things are spaced out more you wouldn''t use up all the possible actions right away.

quote:
1) Behaviors: What strategic behaviors suit a given faction. If this is too narrow, then the faction''s actions become too predictable. If you''re interested in making strategy substitute for story, then you''ll need a wealth of actions and interactions between factions (lots of ideas on this I''d be happy to discuss, btw)

This is one of the things that bothers me the most. Just how many different things can happen before it gets repetitious and boring? I''d be quite glad to hear any input you have on this.

quote:
2) Information Dissemination: How do you tell the player what''s happening? A strategy game lays out a map that instantly communicates goals, progress, and positioning. You''ll have to figure out how to do the same, preferably in an RPG-friendly fashion (I plan to use maps & NPC dialog).

Yes, I thought about this as well. I was thinking of NPC dialogue as well.

quote:
3) Simulation method: You''ll already have your hands full with the RPG aspects of your game while it''s running in memory. This means that true strategy game AI algorithms won''t be as useful to you-- especially when you stop to consider that even for dedicated strategy games these methods are expensive. So you''ll have to find ways to abstract & fake (that''s what I''ve been up to as I''ve been posting this stuff about AI-less strategy games, btw)

Yes, I see what you''re saying. That can very much be a problem.

quote:
4) Feedback & Control: The last, probably most difficult challenge out of all of this is feedback and control. Is the player responsible for or affected by strategy failures? How does he see the results of his moves in such a way that it reinforces success? A simple way to approach this might be to say that all factions have strengths, and that somehow the player is informed of and rewarded for direct contributions to that strength (and vice versa, for failure).

Yes, this is an issue. Furthermore, unlike a typical strategy game where you are in command of a fleet of units, in the type of game I''m thinking of the player would control only one character and probably wouldn''t have direct input as to what the other members of his faction does.

So, the other NPCs in his faction could basically suck at their job, and the player could get punished for it

quote:
It''s a cool concept, but as you work on it you''ll discover why people stick to linear scripts. Less satisfying, but comparitively easier to design!!!

Yes, the more I think of it the more overwhelming it gets, but I believe that it could be quite rewarding. Furthermore, I want to retain my concept of the side-quests which are in themselves entertaining and have many ways to solve them. I''m not sure if it could work well with the concepts we''re talking about here. Trying to combine both may be just me trying to put 2 good features together that just shouldn''t mix. I''m not sure yet




Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

sounds good, but your goals seem a bit limited. i mean, acquire x gold? i´d rather play a linear main quest with sideplots.

better yet: have one big storyline that you can experience from different angles. Key events are ok, just as long as there´s always more than one option.

btw: do you know BladeRunner? (the game) that was something like that. about a dozen possible endings... just the problem that i never quite found out what made what happen.

and then there´s the question if you need goals at all... in most of the good rpgs ive played i was fine just exploring everything, doing a subquest here and there and enjoying the landscape.
i´m not sure, but i think most rpg players are like that. they like to set their own goals, but mainly they want unlimited options.. tons of little stuff to discover, gazillions of paths to explore. if you can get you hands on "Startrail", theres a prime example (played that for over a year and still found new stuff every now and then).

quote: Original post by Hase

sounds good, but your goals seem a bit limited. i mean, acquire x gold? i´d rather play a linear main quest with sideplots.

True. I suppose I'd want goals more detailed than that. I just wanted to get basic idea out. Although, the point is that you could aquire that goal many, many different ways, so it would be much different than a linear story/quest.

quote:
and then there´s the question if you need goals at all...

Well, if I had it my way, that's what I'd do. Although if it's a single-player game it must end somehow. There must be some sort of resolution. I think Wav is doing something like having the player have so much time to do what they will before they must retire.

With this concept, the player would still be able to choose their goals (by choosing a faction), but more importantly, choose how the attain those goals. The how equals interaction, and that's where things are interesting. The goal is not anywhere near as interesting as the how .

BTW, out of curiousity, how did Startrail end or resolve?



Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers


Edited by - Nazrix on February 22, 2001 12:57:03 AM

hmmm ... linear main plot, something about retrieving some magic thingie, defeat some kind of weird cult i think, save the region sort of stuff... funny, i cant really remember... it was enough fun and motivation to go places because you could.
because, YES, THE HOW IS WAAAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE WHY.
you got good ideas, now go make good game. and hurry.

quote: Original post by Hase
you got good ideas, now go make good game. and hurry.

Yeah, if only it were that easy, right?




Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers