In other words, which do you think is better for an RPG? In a task based plotline, the player is given specific tasks to focus on at any given time. Examples of this are console RPGs such as Final Fantasy: while the player has an overall goal at any given time, the focus is strictly on an immediate task at hand (for example, the player needs to cross over to another continent. The focus is not on crossing the ocean per se, but on acquiring an airship, which would allow the player to move forward in the storyline). The advantage of this system is that it gives the storyline a greater focus, allowing for deeper storytelling, at the expense of freedom. In a goal based plotline, the player is given goals but is allowed to figure out how to meet them. Examples are Deus Ex and Fallout. In Fallout, for example, the player is told that he needs to find the components to repair the Vault''s water system or something (gimme a break its been years =), but not told exactly how to do it. The game then allows the player to explore the world and find the solution as he sees fit. The advantage of such a system is that it gives the player a much greater sense of involvement, and more immersion to the world (in a task based story, a landslide may block forward movement until the player completes the quest for the town, in a goal based system said landslide may or may not exist, but the player can find any number of ways around it, since the focus is not the task (completing sub quests in the town) but completing the goal (progressing to the next town)). The disadvantage is that storytelling is much more difficult to tie into the player''s progression, and thus cannot be as deep. Personally, I tend to favor a goal-based system, but there are decided advantages to the task-based system. I''d like to hear what you all think. Moo.

Well, it''s a continuum, really. Certainly, on one extreme end of the scale, you don''t want the game to be constantly telling you every minute detail of what you have to do. ("Your mission: shoot that guy. No, shoot him again. To the left! The left!") And on the other end, simply telling the player "Eventually, rescue the princess" is going to imply an extremely non-linear storyline that most games just can''t provide. I think that should really be the guiding factor: a game should be as goal-based as possible without leaving the player bumping up against the invisible walls of the game world with no idea what to do next.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

Interesting....since I''ve been asking myself the same question but from a strategy game perspective.

I''m starting to think that goal based is the better way of doing it for both genres. The problem with goal-based playing is that it still requires a direction....a sense that the characters have something to do. Task-based systems make it glaringly obvious what the characters have to do, and usually make it very specific. Goal based systems however are more open-ended, and they sometimes are not clearly stated. In a traditional PPRPG, a goal could be as simple as to resolve a character''s flaw. In other words, goals could be character based....task-based systems are always story-driven or focused, but goal-based can be either story and/or character driven.

That''s why in traditional RPG''s, they were always goal-based (no good GM would make it task based and basically tell the players what they had to do). The GM would act sort of as a guide post to the players goals, and if he had a story in mind, then he could weave the player''s own quests with his own.

That''s why until an RPG game comes out with the capability to have something akin to a GM, they really don''t interest me that much.

Why not have some of both? So long as you design the game correctly, you can give the player both general goals, and also a specific set of tasks that are but one of many paths that will eventually accomplish those goals.

One of the most telling examples of this would come at the start of Deus Ex. The methods by which you might approach Miss Liberty are stated to you directly - storm the front with guns blazing, or find a way to sneak in. In addition, you are given the option of rescuing Hermann or not. It''s never made particularly difficult to understand "what to do next," because you are practically led up the statue by the nose, and it takes little time to recognize the alternatives with some inspection of the area.

This makes the game much easier to play through, as there is no deadweight time spent wandering aimlessly, but neither are you chained into one "path of doom" that the player might dread facing, with no alternatives available.

All too often, games spawl more than is good for them. You are told to "find Mr. X" and perhaps told that "he''s in city Y." Then you are set loose on this wonderful goal. No amount of wit will help you get closer to Mr. X - the only thing that works is a brute-force search of the world, and then city Y, interrogating citizens for their two sentences of knowledge about X hoping to find the one Ms. Z that says something different from the rest. And there is no button to press that will do this for you - modern games always operate on the immediate scale and force you to talk with each person individually, unable to collapse the process into the sentence, "Player questioned everyone in the town, and found..."

In effect, "goal-based" play has degenerated itself into "task-based" play in this example - you will not feel true freedom in the world if you still have to do the same thing as everyone else to advance the plot. And for me at least, it wrecks the sense that I might actually be having some adventures if I''m interrupted by such monkey business every time I boot the game. The several small tasks allowing for a "variation of diet" must exist, or the player will end up with one enormous one, which is like work.

Also, many games actively restrict the player from skipping areas of the game in an otherwise free world - attempts to climb the wall of the foozle''s final palace 3 hours into a 50+ hour game are often met with a "you can''t do that" or a "strange force" blocking your attempt. Or perhaps insta-death. I know I always like games where you can do something insane like that, though, especially if it''s possible to win that way, just more challenging.

RTF: I agree with you, but I have to say that the case that you give out is one of bad design (BTW, the extrapolating of time into ''you questioned everyone and found x'' is a good idea)

Actually I think Deus Ex is one of the best examples of a goal based system. When the game begins, it clearly spells out possible paths for you, in the interests of allowing newbie players to figure out a way into the statue. As the game progresses, however, it starts leaving it up to you to figure out the best way, to the point that a player who has developed his own style might never even notice paths that don''t match it. (for example, a guns''n''glory player might never think to go in that airvent, while a computer hacker player would certainly not go in like a cowboy. The sniper would only see towers, while the sneaky one might steal some keys...)

I agree that simply plopping someone down with no direction does not work...but forcing someone to find a single person in a city is ridiculous as either a task or a goal. Goals should be general in the interests of allowing freedom of playstyles, but not vague. The game should also constantly nudge the player with hints.

Personally, I see no problem with allowing a player to beat the game in three hours. Remember in Chrono Trigger how you could take the main character and get to the final boss in about 5 minutes?

I see no problem with a player waltzing up to the enemy fort and slaying the main boss for a victory (such a thing would _ALMOST_ require a fully levelled character and/or a _VERY_ skilled player and as such, a second play through). For example, in Fallout you could theoretically complete the game by visiting two locations (the locations for each ''goal''), but doing so requires serious metagaming, which would require that the player know where the goals are....which means he would have to be at least on his second play through.

Moo.

The benefits of a task-based system is that you have creative control on the progression of the story. However, in extremity you get any given mission from GTA3 or Vice City. Screw up a detail and the mission is over, leaving you with the entire city police force out to get you.

Goal-based presents the Zelda situation, where you get open-ended gameplay, but the story itself is going to be a little flimsy. By the nature of non-linear tasks as part of a goal, you can''t have the story specific to any given task or goal. Unless...

In a dual system, where we have a series of goals, and tasks for each goal, and present them in mixed format, we could have an interesting game going for the player. Lets analyse an example.

For the next week of in-game-time, we have 3 goals to accomplish. This gives the player 4 days of leeway (think of it as 4 lives.) S/He can progress the game in any order, save the hardest for last, or do it first if so desired. At the end of the week, with the 3 goals accomplished, a new 4th goal emerges based on the other 3 goals influence. The story branched off into multiple paths, but recombined at this 4th goal thats manditory as part of the story.

I''ve sorta used goals and tasks here interchangably, but lets define a goal as an plot-controled purpose and a task as a guideline. If we give the player a goal that they must accomplish (say, bombing an aspirin factory), and give tasks as a guideline as I defined (without pending and completed marks), then we give the player a clear and flexible purpose in the game. And buy going non-linear until the story needs linear, we can immerse the player into a well laid out story as well, comparable to console RPGs.

Though, be careful with cutscreen length.

Task-Based                           Goal-Based|---------------------------------------------|         ^            ^            ^     Adventure     Strategy/      RPGs       Games         FPS 

I doubt this will end up looking right..

[edited by - irbrian on April 10, 2003 6:59:22 PM]

There''s trillion of linear task-based barely-interactive games out there. I wouldn''t mind seeing a few totally non-linear ones once in a while. Just give me a world that reacts to me and remembers me, I''ll do the rest.