Well, how I am handling the first few decisions are along the lines of battle. The first major affect is when the player comes across the marauding goblins who are attacking farms (they are really just human bandits, but the player can see goblins due to his/her insanity ). The player then is just left to do what they think is right. They could go back to town and inform the local guards, who would then arrest the bandits and everything would be fine. They could also choose to slaughter every last one of them. If they choose to kill, then they grow more insane. When they go back to the town to collect their prize, the town guard will appear like goblins when they come to meet the character.

This is the next decision... Seeing as the player has already slaughtered goblins I would guess that they would try it again. They would then be chased from the town and have to go into hiding... With the REAL goblins . That is all that I am telling for the moment, though there already is an alternate route that I have not stepped along yet. I just wanted irony in the game, so hence the player must hide with the goblins

-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
          

dwarf, hehe...that sounds so interesting, but now it won''t be much of a suprise when we all play your game for the 1st time


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Don''t worry naz. I am thinking of implementing a random beginning sequence. Your setup is defined by your actions in the setup. But really, who was ever going to trust killing the goblins in this game anyway? MKV already said that... Though, the story is a little more interesting if you kill them at the start and give up killing from then on (hint hint )

-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
          

quote: Original post by MadKeithV
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|-| ~

OK MKV, I am still waiting (as is Naz I guess) on a more detailed explanation of what you were saying. Are we talking about places in the physical (or game) world sense or are we talking about places as points in the story? I am still a little confused as to what you were refering to... details?

-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
          

Yeah, I'm waiting too for MKV's reply too
Glad to see I'm not the only one that was uncertain as to what he meant....It sounds like an idea that has potential, but I'm not sure if I totally understand...

Furthermore, I was hoping LF would explain more on his last post in here as well...Everyone's too busy arguing to actually discuss things anymore



"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on November 2, 2000 1:47:05 AM

quote: Original post by Landfish

I don''t have much time, I''ll get into this a little deeper tomorrow...

Naz, I think you are making a classic mistake by downplaying the division between player and character. Most story based games give the player exceedingly little control over personality traits, favoring instead concrete right/wrong decisions or tactics.

This is neither bad nor good. A lot of great games have characters who ARE the player, and a lot of my personal favorites draw a very thick line between the two... More later.

OOOh Naz, seeing as you mentioned it, I had to go back to it

Player has exceedingly little control over the character - that is soooo true and is a bad thing IMO. What this kind of game needs (neatly dodges RPG[-ish] issue ) is more connection between player and character. The connection is the immersion. If there is little control then there is little connection and therefore reduced immersion. As such, players need to feel responsible for their characters and become one with their characters... Otherwise they just lose out on the whole experience of playing another role...

I await to hear when you list the great games that draw a thick line between the two... Actually I can think of great games that were good in other aspects, though the connection lacked. I think that they would have been better with a bit more player-character connection...

-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
          

quote: Original post by Landfish

I don''t have much time, I''ll get into this a little deeper tomorrow...

Naz, I think you are making a classic mistake by downplaying the division between player and character. Most story based games give the player exceedingly little control over personality traits, favoring instead concrete right/wrong decisions or tactics.

This is neither bad nor good. A lot of great games have characters who ARE the player, and a lot of my personal favorites draw a very thick line between the two... More later.

Darn it, LF. Are you going to expand on this? It was tomorrow about 2 weeks ago




"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

I''m still waiting for it LF... Just as Naz is

-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
          

yeah, dammit...we''re waiting for you too MKV to expand upon that idea about the player being at 2 places at the same time...

You guys can''t leave us hanging like this...it''s immoral.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Gah! I''ve been too busy firefighting to actually read! BTW, Anonymous Poster., you are my favorite person ever. Once again, you''ve taken words right out of my mouth...

Reduce the goddamn plot span, I say! Not even the great epics of the past spanned places the size of your average RPG. Beowulf happened primarily in TWO locations, the Oddessy only spanned oceans, but certainly not the WORLD. Games like Shen Mue are proving that you can have a whole RPG set in a small part od a small city in Japan in 1986.

Set your RPG in a town, rather than a nation. My brother always says: "God is in the details." My favorite game ever, Panzer Dragoon Saga, had only two towns and a small wandering caravan. But they towns were extremely detailed! No cookie cutter houses or isometric layouts. You got lost in these monsters! But you LEARNED your way around because you weren''t coming to a new town ever five seconds. Plus, you got acquainted with the locals, instead of just stopping for directions.

As for matching interactivity with story, there are so many levels on which you can do this, who is to say which is best? Final Fantasy is certainly interactive! You get to chose the order and time at which you ask the signpost NPCs what to do next. Divergent plots are another issue, but there are as many ways to handle them as there are divergent plots themselves!

---

Okay, back to character growth.

The FF approach, as well as many others, is to use abstract statistics to make absolutely certain that the character (note: character, not player) is better at the end of the story than the beginning. I don''t like this very much. The character grows, while the player sits there pounding on the X button until she wins the game.

I much prefer the Player growth approach. The player either acquires new tools and must learn to use them effectively (a la Zelda) or the player must discover tools that have always existed and must learn to use them effectively (a la spells in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night). A combination can be great.

The way this latter form tends to work is that the character goes through the game learning new tools from people and events. This way, at the end of the game you don''t just have a better character, but a better player.

There''s something else about character growth I want to say, getting back to the original post. I''ll break it up for your convinience.