Single player RPGs tend to combine long convoluted story with diverse choices for player character development. This results in a chunk of the game (story and gameplay elements) being missed first time through. The length of the story and lack of new content (in game time terms)does not encourage the (casual) player to play through again as the story is always the same. RPGs focus on character development giving the player a wide variety of ways the make their character their own. A lot of choices tend to one way. Your either a mage or a warrior and your stuck with it. Playing as only one class limits your choices. Solutions Multiple player characters in the party Pros - player gets to experiment with different classes therefore does not feel they are missing much. Cons – Limits interface used as player must be able to controls multiple characters. Limits immersion as player does not relate to a single character. Story must be written to accommodate multiple characters in the party. Single character, long focused story with little deviation. Pros – player immersion in story. No replay value. Cons – plays on rails. Player choices don't effect story. Short story, but can be viewed from different points of viewed dependant on player class. Pros – short story encourages replay especially as the entire story is not known without replay. Cons - Player choices don't effect story(though do effect point of view). Player will have to replay for the complete experience. May lack immersion as player character not the focus of story. I am considering using the third option. The story timeline will progress regardless of what role you take in it. There will be three factions that are caught up in the story and the player character can asume a role in any of these factions. At the end you will have option to play through again, but as different character in a different role. The new player will likley cross paths with the previous character and will reveal some shocking plot twists not evedent the first time through. Any thoughts?

I'd say it all depends on why you're playing. Is the point to build a character? Experience the story? Get into a variety of encounters?

Most RPG stories are not that good, or if they are good they often end up hijacking the game. So maybe shorter stories would be harder to botch because you wouldn't expect as much from them? Not sure.

Immersion will be a problem for a player like myself, unfortuntely, as I tend to like to create my own character. But if you have named characters and your whole thrust is to have the player experience each of their stories, I guess that would be okay.

Quote:

Original post by StaticVoid Single player RPGs tend to combine long convoluted story with diverse choices for player character development. ... Any thoughts?

I remember a time when RPGs followed very different conventions. Games like the Bard's Tale, Ultima, and Might & Magic largely eschewed the kind of storytelling we see today. Today's RPGs place a greater emphasis on story, but I'm not at all convinced that they have produced a greater gaming experience overall.

In fact, what you describe as your "third option" (experiencing a different part of the game based on your class) happened for me in the original Might & Magic game, and happens in many games today.

Also, I would like to gently disagree with your assertion that multiple characters in the player's party "limits immersion as player does not relate to a single character." Probably fifteen (twenty?) years later, I still remember my favorite Bard's Tale (the original) characters: F'lar the Monk and Rathskeller the Hunter. And I remember absolutely hating my Bard. Immersion, I don't know, but obviously very memorable.

Sidebar: I think many people place too much emphasis on immersive storylines. Game technology is not yet at the point where the storyline can be immersive. It's the bare basic stimulus and response that makes games immersive. It's primitive, but the simple idea of pushing a button that makes something happen on the screen is the immersive part. Interactivity makes immersion work. If anything, storyline inhibits that.

Immersion is really a difficult science. Every demographic has its outliers, but every demographic is said to have certain psychological constructs. Predicting these constructs lies in what your player wants, needs, desires, etc.

I think that if players are allowed to define the characters, it means that either the game designer doesn't know what the player wants, or he realizes that within a certain demograpic, for certain, there are alot of people that would like different story lines, plot twists, behavior patterns, all that jazz.

I also think that if the player is not allowed to decide what he does in the story, and the players in that demographic mostly like that, then it's a good thing. The story, its twists, its contents, its vision, its characters, everything fits into the players idea of what "Pretty Pictures" are. Whether that be naked CG women, men, big tanks that blow stuff up, really shiney swords that emminate a certain light, cool new-age clothing, whatever they think would be pretty. That makes a good game if the story is pre-determined, if you give them pretty pictures, they will come(ehm...take that any way you like....).

I was involved in the same decision some time ago,

what if you let the player choose wether or not he wants to have a party? that pleases a wider variety of players and helps in replayability too
it might hurt storyline but I believe if handled right you can still get a good story that works on both single-character and party-based characters and not hurt storyline after all. or maybe the story can go a little differently in each case so it fits single-character and party-based respectively, that would help in replayability too

so that's what I'm doing