Creating Personal Stories In RPGs (aka Not Cutscenes)

I'm reposting here to get some disscussion.

Sir_Brennus said:

Second - You are tired of story driven rpg? Well, I'm bored of fuckers who think that non-linear gameplay is able to tell a good and coherent story, or a story at all. Look at Gothic3 - it has virtually no story and the Nameless Hero is not a character I care for. Look at Fallout (albeit a great game) - the story is minimal and I did only care for one NPC I worked with. Have you ever played a p&p game? There is a reason VtM was called a "story-telling-game" once...

Click to expand...

Actually there is a difference between creating story and getting lead along by the DM's story.

Story can be done a lot of ways but fighting from cutscene to cutscene for "story" is pretty weak. Stories are about theme and premise. Designers give a standard save the world story, story shouldn't be weather the world will be saved or not but what it costs the characters and what decisions they make. JRPGs are able to just force your character to make decisions and sacrifice, a few Bioware games were able to at least have two path problem solving in areas.

The end of BG2 is a pretty good example, you are going to fight the bad guy but what do you give up between two options. Players probably thought more about those choices then the rest of the game put together, it brought story into gameplay. Doing things for free or for money isn't much of a choice.

This article is pretty complex but describes the theory.

Narrativism: Story Now

Most CRPGs are just simulating the genre story themes. Scripted events play out similar scenes from fantasy novels.

To get some story creation the game design would be designed to generate or script through Bangs:

GET TO THE BANGS!

Bangs are those moments when the characters realize they have a problem right now and have to get moving to deal with it. It can be as simple as a hellacious demon crashing through the skylight and attacking the characters or as subtle as the voice of the long-dead murder victim answering when they call the number they found in the new murder victim's pockets.

... It is the GM's job to present and, for lack of a better word, drive Bangs, in the sense of driving a nail or driving something home. In narrative terms, Bangs tend to come as one of the following: [list follows with details; to summarize: crisis to crisis, twist to twist, link to link, locale to locale - RE]

Ultimately, all of these elements provided by the GM are the same thing: a means for moving from decision to decision on the part of the players. Bangs are always about player-character responses.

This is why Bangs are not represented by many of the fight scenes or clues in traditional role-playing. Throwing mad hyenas at the player-characters is not a Bang if the only result of the fight is to wander into the next room. Nor is a clue a Bang at all if all it does is show where the next clue may be found. A real Bang gives the player options and requires his or her decision about how to handle it, which in turn reveals and develops the player-character as a hero.

Click to expand...

A game design I would like to see would involve enough scripting to generate or just ear mark Bang events such as "challenge to sacrifice yourself", "outcome for love", "outcome for greed", "outcome for duty", etc...

First the player would design the player by setting passions, destiny, and maybe anti-destiny. Similar to Riddle of Story.

So the game then generates or the designers script a scene like a town is faced with a dragon from the mountain.

The difference is that the setup of the challenge is based on the character. If the character is a knight they get sent as a duty, if a thief they go for greed. The important point is that at least two or more outcomes fire at once. So the knight is courting a lady in the town and if he leaves she mite marry his friend, the thief is offered more money if he betrays his friends on the trip there. The challenge is the same but the personal choices are adjusted to match what the player created instead of a bland designer abstraction.

Both outcomes would have tangible effects. So the knight mite escape with his girl but the town does get burned down. Real choices are foregone options.

The passions that the player picks aren't abstractions but (going along with the ROS system) give tangible benefits. A character that fights for honor gets dice bonuses when he is fighting for such and he levels up by fighting or honor or his other passions, driving players in the same direction as the character. This also has the benefit of starting new characters instead of loading and trying all the paths with one.

Destinies could be the most interesting idea IMO. The fact that Sauron is going to be defeated isn't in question in LOTR, Conan isn't going to die at the start because he is destined to wear the Jeweled Crown. Letting players choose destiny is declaring the end game scenario and a personal goal to work towards, the main story could tie with the player becoming a king, finding a soul mate, sailing to the new continent, or being the richest guy in the world. This also lets designers sneak in multiple solutions while calling them different game modes, because players are much more likely to try and play all "campaign scenarios" then look for other stuff; you could even make some unlockable so all the casual gamers play them all and you get praised for 100s of hours of gameplay.

Anti-Destiny could also be awesome. This can add tragedy for NPCs or provide tragedy or challenging endings for players. "Be betrayed by a friend", "Killed by a lover", "Losing a loved one", "Being forgotten by history", "Sacrificing yourself for others", "Go insane", etc... This provides a draw that pulls the character towards tragedy and gives bonuses to the opposition at the end. It could be countered with a great enough effort thou.

JRPGs are linear and static but can provide large scale events by telling one story per world (D&D won't let a campaign world get shattered), and provide tragedy events. Aerie dieing could be randomly generated as leaving the party to try and save things and being killed by the Sep guy, but there would be a slight chance for survival (maybe by cashing in your own destiny for enough dice bonuses).

Ultima 7 is the best combo of free form gameplay and story. There is a railroad that you could follow along if you wanted a linear game or you could just walk the earth doing Avatarish things.

There are plenty of interesting characters in the game and half of the joinable NPCs are memorable to boot.

Not to mention my favourite RPG romance.

Claw said:

Not to mention my favourite RPG romance.

Click to expand...

In Bucaneers's Den?

I was surprised to read the people behind "Riddle of Steel" call it narrativist. It is usually hyped for its combat system, which would be of major concern to gamists. To a lesser extent its realism has been touted, which would attract simulationists. Is it trying to be all things to all people? That's tough to pull off.

TheGreatGodPan said:

I was surprised to read the people behind "Riddle of Steel" call it narrativist. It is usually hyped for its combat system, which would be of major concern to gamists. To a lesser extent its realism has been touted, which would attract simulationists. Is it trying to be all things to all people? That's tough to pull off.

Click to expand...

System is different then creative agenda.

They describe things outside of most mechanisms. Simulation is about duplicating out from works of fiction, gamist is about overcoming challenge. Depending on the players they could run it to challenge or duplicate fiction but the Spiritual Attributes of the characters mean that they can die quick when not pursuing their character goals (also the main way to gain XP). And the SA's giving bonuses and the ability to switch around with them mean that the player is playing with such themes as part of gameplay. It isn't about tactical challenge because unless you think about character goals and play off them you can die from one arrow headshot in an ambush (Spiritual attributes give you bonuses).

A Knight in a simulation game like Pendragon has a honor trait as a passive stamp and that means he is expected to act like that. A Knight in Riddle of Steel has honor as something for the player to play with and off of and change as he wants.

Review

The Riddle of Steel includes multiple text pieces regarding the thematic drive of the game, which I have paraphrased to the Premise: "What is worth killing for?" It also includes a tremendously detailed, in-game-causal combat system. My call is that we are looking at Narrativist-Simulationist hybrid design, with the latter in a distinctly subordinate/supportive role. This is a scary and difficult thing to do.
The first game to try it was RuneQuest. Realism, so-called, was supposed to be the foundation for heroic, mythic tale-creation. However, without metagame mechanics or any other mechanisms regarding protagonism, the realism-Sim took over, and RuneQuest became, essentially, a wargame at the individual level. The BRP (RuneQuest) system is right up there with AD&D and Champions in terms of its historical influence on other games, and no game design attempted to "power Narrativism with Simulationist combat" from the ground up again. I can even see dating the false dichotomy of "roll vs. role playing" back to this very moment in RPG history.

One functional solution to the problem, as illustrated for just about every Narrativist game out there, is to move combat mechanics very far into the metagame realm: Sorcerer, Castle Falkenstein, The Dying Earth, Zero, Orkworld, Hero Wars, and The Pool take that road to various distances, and it works. Until recently, I would have said these and similar designs presented the only functional solution from a Narrativism-first perspective.

However, The Riddle of Steel is like a guy waving his hand in the back of the room -"Scuse me, scuse me, what about that first road? I'm not ready to jettison that idea yet." It's as if someone stepped into The Chaosium in 1977, and said, "Hey, you know, if you don't put some kind of player-modulated personality mechanic in there, this game is going to be all about killing monsters and collecting Clacks." This didn't happen in 1977, and that's why RuneQuest play was often indeed all about those things. But it's happened now ...

Click to expand...

I think it's too easy to dismiss that you can do productive roleplaying in a fairly linear plot. Bloodlines has a very *zoop-zoop-zoop* linear plot in the broad strokes, but you are consistently given the means to establish pretty vivid style for your PC and there are lots of plot-and-gameplay-trivial but narrative-strong consequences for your actions. In this case by plot I mean what happens, when, and to whom, which is a subset of narrative which also includes the meat on the bones of what characters are thinking and how they relate to one another. The narratives (and constituent roleplaying) of different archetypes feel different, despite the very static basic plot and compartmentalized locations.

Anyway, Riddle of Steel sounds very interesting, so I'll grab it on your recommendation.

Can't resist posting in this thread, even though I've had a chronic fear of posting here ever since I came and acted like a dick a few years ago (forgive me - I was 14 and stupid).

Bloodlines has a very bang-bang-bang linear plot in the broad strokes

Click to expand...

You're using 'bang' in a different sense than Human Shield is. The technique - by its very nature and purpose - can't be used in a linear plot. It's an oxymoron to say that you have bang driven play in a linear game.

A bang is a technique where a situation appears in a way that you can't ignore and are forced to make a moral decision. This moral decision has to be totally open and has to have an effect on the direction of the story (one of the reasons I've seen it argued that Story Now can never be achieved in a CRPG). If the story or character continues on in the same expected direction that it was before the bang - there wasn't a bang or it was a really shitty one.

Anyway - just thought I'd come by and throw around my GNS-fu. It's so rare to find other people who even know about it, let alone think it's any good...

Shit, I used "bang" totally unreflectively in my post, with no reference to HS's usage, as a little throwaway rhythm word. I read the original post long before in the original thread prior to thinking up my little caveat, so forgive me. I'm going to edit so that it will be less confusing.

Aikanaro said:

A bang is a technique where a situation appears in a way that you can't ignore and are forced to make a moral decision. This moral decision has to be totally open and has to have an effect on the direction of the story (one of the reasons I've seen it argued that Story Now can never be achieved in a CRPG). If the story or character continues on in the same expected direction that it was before the bang - there wasn't a bang or it was a really shitty one.

Click to expand...

Well how much do you lose from going from totally open to 2 outcomes with varied character motives? There are probably some bangs in PnP that are binary decisions, but the reasoning from the players for choicing one could be infinite.

Fallout presented Junktown with Darkwaters and Gizmo, you go into to buy something and an assassin attacks Darkwaters. You get the option to spy on Gizmo, work for him, kill him, or kill them both. It is probably missing some resonance to be a huge moral choice but if some small factors were varied to meet metagame character Passions and the situation was timed to have an effect even if player ignored it. Couldn't it be a reasonable bang?

Are bangs only for a main story? Can't it be done in an episodic fashion with separate stories for each town (as was the case in Fallout)? If they were better designed to present better moral and themed decisions, they could change each town's story.

How are situations that "can't be ignored" handled in PnP without being a linear requirement to get past? Is one outcome in motion to succeed on a timeframe?

Anyway - just thought I'd come by and throw around my GNS-fu. It's so rare to find other people who even know about it, let alone think it's any good...

Click to expand...

I don't understand it enough to be an authority, I just like the fact that system relates to how the game will play instead of demanding that everyone play make believe and try to roleplay regardless of a broken system.

Well how much do you lose from going from totally open to 2 outcomes with varied character motives?

Click to expand...

I suspect that you lose being able to properly address your premise. Instead of being able to make whatever moral statement you want with an action you're limited by what the developers thought up. On the other hand - even a limited pseudo-narrativism is preferable to none at all.

There are probably some bangs in PnP that are binary decisions, but the reasoning from the players for choicing one could be infinite.

Click to expand...

In PnP the game can react to the underlying reasoning for taking choice one over choice two, in a CRPG it can't. PnP has a definite advantage over CRPGs when it comes to narrativism because it's reactive to things other than just what is openly done (the GM can tell that the reason Joe the adventurer chose to let the foozle go is because of some traumatic past and can incorporate that later - the computer doesn't know that unless the developers anticipated tragic pasts causing Joe to let the foozle go).

Fallout presented Junktown with Darkwaters and Gizmo, you go into to buy something and an assassin attacks Darkwaters. You get the option to spy on Gizmo, work for him, kill him, or kill them both. It is probably missing some resonance to be a huge moral choice but if some small factors were varied to meet metagame character Passions and the situation was timed to have an effect even if player ignored it. Couldn't it be a reasonable bang?

Click to expand...

Um - guess it could be, though I'd tweak it quite a bit so that the choices don't come in so many stages. It lacks some of the immediacy that I think is required for a good bang.

Are bangs only for a main story? Can't it be done in an episodic fashion with separate stories for each town (as was the case in Fallout)? If they were better designed to present better moral and themed decisions, they could change each town's story.

Click to expand...

I don't see any good reason why they couldn't be done in an episodic fashion (though I've tried to form an arguement against it a few times now and failed - gut feeling that something's missing). Personally I would prefer a focus on a bang-driven main storyline though, as I think that would make for a more intense game than episodic towns.

A bang-driven main story would be a lot harder to deal with design-wise than basically unrelated episodes though. Episodes are self-contained - you don't have to worry that somewhere down the line that choice someone made in the first ten minutes should have an effect on what's going on much later on.

How are situations that "can't be ignored" handled in PnP without being a linear requirement to get past?

Click to expand...

Um - the character goes along on his non-linear way, the GM drops a bang, the character reacts in whatever way the player chooses. I don't see any linearity here. A bang (and narrativist play in general) has to be a free choice (i.e. non-linear) in order to be a bang.

I don't understand it enough to be an authority, I just like the fact that system relates to how the game will play instead of demanding that everyone play make believe and try to roleplay regardless of a broken system.

Click to expand...

Don't think that I'm any expert either - my knowledge is far more theoretical than practical, and even then my grasp on the theory isn't necessarily always right. Hoping to get games up and running soon so that I can enjoy the ideas of the Forge in reality rather than vicariously through actual play reports...

***

Also, I think the system you put forward in the original post has potential. CRPGs have been caught in the same 'system doesn't matter' rut that PnP games were caught in, so instead of rewarding what they want you to do they simply reward you for doing what you do in every other RPG regardless of what it's about. Giving rewards for doing something that the player has stated that they're interested in (eg honour) is going to get them to do more honourable stuff - which as that's what they're interested in means the game is fun - hoorah!

What do you think of the idea of using scene framing in a CRPG? That thought just occured to me and it might have some very interesting possibilities (one of them probably being to alienate the hardcore CRPG crowd, making it the nichiest game in existence and appealing to absolutely nobody...)

Aikanaro said:

I suspect that you lose being able to properly address your premise. Instead of being able to make whatever moral statement you want with an action you're limited by what the developers thought up. On the other hand - even a limited pseudo-narrativism is preferable to none at all.

In PnP the game can react to the underlying reasoning for taking choice one over choice two, in a CRPG it can't. PnP has a definite advantage over CRPGs when it comes to narrativism because it's reactive to things other than just what is openly done (the GM can tell that the reason Joe the adventurer chose to let the foozle go is because of some traumatic past and can incorporate that later - the computer doesn't know that unless the developers anticipated tragic pasts causing Joe to let the foozle go).

Click to expand...

The main limit on designers is outcomes, I think lots of moral statements could be included. Adding in moral traits and varying small parts of the situations to come in line with what the player goes with, and mixing in opposing traits at increasing intensity.

You would have to create a list of such passions and be able to vary any quest to hit a few. With some abstracted dialog and descriptive passages, it could be doable.

Then add variables for each big quest to move the player or NPC party members towards a destiny. Even just handing out clues and leads in different places towards bigger designed decisions.

Um - guess it could be, though I'd tweak it quite a bit so that the choices don't come in so many stages. It lacks some of the immediacy that I think is required for a good bang.

Um - the character goes along on his non-linear way, the GM drops a bang, the character reacts in whatever way the player chooses. I don't see any linearity here. A bang (and narrativist play in general) has to be a free choice (i.e. non-linear) in order to be a bang.

Click to expand...

Then what happens if the player ignores it, takes too long, or runs away? Would not caring be a statement, or wanting things to play out naturally? In games like ROS you can remove SA points for not following through

I don't see any good reason why they couldn't be done in an episodic fashion (though I've tried to form an arguement against it a few times now and failed - gut feeling that something's missing). Personally I would prefer a focus on a bang-driven main storyline though, as I think that would make for a more intense game than episodic towns.

A bang-driven main story would be a lot harder to deal with design-wise than basically unrelated episodes though. Episodes are self-contained - you don't have to worry that somewhere down the line that choice someone made in the first ten minutes should have an effect on what's going on much later on.

Click to expand...

That is where the problem is, having to design everything.

What I'm thinking of is designing several Destinies as main story lines. The destinies are designed to be reached by each passion in different ways. Then the passion (moral choice) outcome for each episode leads to a variation of the destiny.

So destined to become a king would adjust to be about "what it takes", "how underhanded do you have to be", "does power corrupt", etc... By playing off the passions the character chooses to work with and escalating based on previous choices, while giving scripted leads and advancement toward completing the destiny.

Each choice point is pre-designed but can be varied and modular. Maybe the causality idea from Dogs in the Vineyard I read about could do something.

Also, I think the system you put forward in the original post has potential. CRPGs have been caught in the same 'system doesn't matter' rut that PnP games were caught in, so instead of rewarding what they want you to do they simply reward you for doing what you do in every other RPG regardless of what it's about.

Click to expand...

Definitely. Designs have just been trying to make more action games because no one thinks system can do anything beyond D&D. No one cares about broken rules if you can "play it right", which is like huge drift, and calls anyone who complains a powergamer. Where a powergamer in a system like ROS that is faced with a situation going between two of his SAs makes moral choices by playing the game to win instead of being expected to play with one eye closed to the system.

Giving rewards for doing something that the player has stated that they're interested in (eg honour) is going to get them to do more honourable stuff - which as that's what they're interested in means the game is fun - hoorah!

Click to expand...

And not just throwing honorable solutions as the expected course while doing the same quests (simulation and boring how its been done), but throwing out more difficult choices about honor to hopefully build to an actual climax.

What do you think of the idea of using scene framing in a CRPG? That thought just occured to me and it might have some very interesting possibilities (one of them probably being to alienate the hardcore CRPG crowd, making it the nichiest game in existence and appealing to absolutely nobody...)

Click to expand...

I'd need some of a refresh about scene framing and how you are thinking about it. Do you mean pacing?

Darklands had their text choice elements that was well-done. Adding in moral traits to put added value behind choosing to formally challenge bandit knights instead of sneaking in and poisoning them, would go a long way.

Then what happens if the player ignores it, takes too long, or runs away? Would not caring be a statement, or wanting things to play out naturally? In games like ROS you can remove SA points for not following through

Click to expand...

Those things might fall under the definition of 'turtling' - where the player dodges play. I think that if you ignore a bang then you can't possibly be trying to engage in play - they're set up so that it would be totally against the game to ignore them and carry on your merry way.

Sure, they might work in specific situations - running away is a valid response to some major events and the game should respond accordingly. But in general I don't think that the designer should feel obliged to support players that have totally missed the point with extra content or anything like that.

I'd need some of a refresh about scene framing and how you are thinking about it. Do you mean pacing?

Click to expand...

Scene framing is a technique where at the end of a scene the game jumps immediately to the next one, like in movies. It takes you straight to where the next item of interest is, rather than worrying about how the group traveled for the next five days and how they camped every night and blah blah blah.

In my games I'm hoping to reach something which has been labeled 'Story Now, Motherfucker' at The Forge. This is extremely aggressive scene framing where the game hops from bang to bang without breaking intensity. I don't know if you could get that kind of aggressive scene framing working in a CRPG though.

***

Is this game that you're plotting here purely theoretical, or is there a chance of it being developed at some point?

Aikanaro said:

Those things might fall under the definition of 'turtling' - where the player dodges play. I think that if you ignore a bang then you can't possibly be trying to engage in play - they're set up so that it would be totally against the game to ignore them and carry on your merry way.

Click to expand...

Won't that make the CRPG feel more linear?

Scene framing is a technique where at the end of a scene the game jumps immediately to the next one, like in movies. It takes you straight to where the next item of interest is, rather than worrying about how the group traveled for the next five days and how they camped every night and blah blah blah.

In my games I'm hoping to reach something which has been labeled 'Story Now, Motherfucker' at The Forge. This is extremely aggressive scene framing where the game hops from bang to bang without breaking intensity. I don't know if you could get that kind of aggressive scene framing working in a CRPG though.

Click to expand...

Well I like the strategy and tactics of travel. Do the players still choose a direction? Would probably feel closer to a text adventure, with limited decision options and themes I don't think it can work on its own. Quests could include fast paced bangs that moved the player through till a mini-climax.

Is this game that you're plotting here purely theoretical, or is there a chance of it being developed at some point?

Click to expand...

Just theory. If I had a million dollars...

Those things might fall under the definition of 'turtling' - where the player dodges play. I think that if you ignore a bang then you can't possibly be trying to engage in play - they're set up so that it would be totally against the game to ignore them and carry on your merry way.

Click to expand...

Won't that make the CRPG feel more linear?

Click to expand...

Yes, but who cares? Why should the developer be spending time developing content for people that are avoiding the game, when he could be developing content for those that are engaging with it. It won't feel more linear to those that are playing the game rather than avoiding the game - it's only those who ignore the bangs (designed specifically so that they can't be ignored) who are going to discover that it's a dead end anyway.

On the other hand, if more people than expected turtled it might be better to try and drag them back into the story by making things go horribly wrong because they ignored the bang. It seems like a waste of time to develop content that there's plenty of reason for the player not to play through though.

Well I like the strategy and tactics of travel. Do the players still choose a direction? Would probably feel closer to a text adventure, with limited decision options and themes I don't think it can work on its own. Quests could include fast paced bangs that moved the player through till a mini-climax.

Click to expand...

It's possible for players to scene frame in PnP games - for CRPGs I doubt it.

I think I'd need to plot out this part of a game to see whether it would work. Might do that tomorrow, no time at the moment. 40 minutes and I finally get to run a session of The Pool

Aikanaro said:

"Won't that make the CRPG feel more linear?"

Yes, but who cares? Why should the developer be spending time developing content for people that are avoiding the game, when he could be developing content for those that are engaging with it. It won't feel more linear to those that are playing the game rather than avoiding the game - it's only those who ignore the bangs (designed specifically so that they can't be ignored) who are going to discover that it's a dead end anyway.

On the other hand, if more people than expected turtled it might be better to try and drag them back into the story by making things go horribly wrong because they ignored the bang. It seems like a waste of time to develop content that there's plenty of reason for the player not to play through though.

Click to expand...

So they would only get one at a time? Standard quests sometimes require travel, which the player picks up more quests along the way, can bangs be layered or are they all one step? Would a normal quest just have a series of linked bangs?

Well I like the strategy and tactics of travel. Do the players still choose a direction? Would probably feel closer to a text adventure, with limited decision options and themes I don't think it can work on its own. Quests could include fast paced bangs that moved the player through till a mini-climax.

Click to expand...

It's possible for players to scene frame in PnP games - for CRPGs I doubt it.

Click to expand...

What are the better ways PnP does player scene framing? In a game like Darklands choosing to wander back alleys at night or going to shady bars is the player signaling something they want to explore.