pondering on the "flow" of NWN1 (gameplay and modules)

[Andarian]

It's ironic that such an interesting discussion should arise right when I have so little spare time to write about it at length. (For our newcomers, I just accepted a job transfer to a new state and am going to me moving over the next few months.) I'd like to try to offer a few thoughts at least for now, since this is a subject (particularly, the design of linear vs. nonlinear games) that I've actually given a lot of thought to.

I'm fairly well known around the modding community as one of its staunchest advocates of linear game design. That's not to say that I don't appreciate a good non-linear design when I see one, but I rarely do -- especially for story-based work, which is my main focus in gaming and modding. Henesua has outlined some of the issues that come up in trying to develop a non-linear design, and I think there are several basic reasons for them.

I'm close, but I got bored because the other thing that I don't like is the linear adventure. I don't know if that adventure had any choices but I had a hard time finding them if they were there. Every conversation node had one response. While this worked for getting the story across, it makes me feel like I am just marching along a predetermined path...

I think my proclivities as a player help explain my painfully slow progress in my own module. I probably have too many options, too many details. So I am wondering if other folks here dislike tons of options.

Emphatically, yes.

The question: does a lack of spelled out choices lead you to stop playing?

Quite the opposite. Speaking both as a modder and as a player, I'm mainly interested (aside from a sprinkling of RP options for flavor) in meaningful choices. Nothing will turn me off as a player faster than a plethora of unstructured options (in dialogue or exploration) that I don't see as going anywhere, or having a meaningful reason for being there in the first place. And I build the same way I like to play. I know from experience that making more than a handful of choices actually be meaningful -- in terms not only of game consequences, but even plot and story integration -- is essentially impossible, for reasons I'll elaborate a bit on below. So I prefer story-based games to be honest with me about it from the start, and to present what is essentially a streamlined play experience with focused options. I know that the author is telling a story and regard it as my job as player to adapt to the needs of telling that story, rather than his job to adapt it to my desire for unstructured choice as player. The latter, in my view, mainly serves to dilute the impact of the story into a "least common denominator" or "one-size-fits-all" model.

The basic problem I see is that there is a fundamental opposition between the needs of good storytelling on the one hand, and plot-level player agency on the other. Truly compelling stories involve the development of a strong plot, in which the theme, characterizations, and story events are integrated into an organic whole. All of these elements have to be created and chosen to work consistently together, to convey a story experience that affects the reader or player as an integrated whole.

In a good novel, the major choices that the characters face and make all need to express the work's theme. The plot events not only need to make sense in relation to each other, but they also need to add up to something more than the events themselves, when taken individually. Things don't just "happen" to happen in a particular way, and the specific way that the author chose to have them happen -- when taken together -- says something. That's what gives the reader or player the sense that these elements all add up to a meaningful and emotionally impactful story, rather than being a series of disconnected episodes.

This isn't something that can be accomplished by simply stringing together a set of disparate "quests" (as is common in RP gaming and modding today), and giving the player a series of unintegrated choices about how to resolve them. The high degree of integration required by good fiction becomes much more difficult to achieve when you try to introduce the idea of needing to accommodate plot-level player choice. Every time you introduce such a choice you're immediately faced with the problem of coming up with not one, but two separate plot threads, each of which works in the context of the overall story, and each of which adds up to a meaningful whole in that context. The explosion in the number of plot-threads that have to be integrated is exponential in the number of plot-choices that you introduce.

That's why story-based gaming in practice has tended to become increasingly linear over time, and settled on making use of a set of techniques that provide more of an illusion of choice. RP choices tend to add "local flavor" sprinkled throughout the game's dialogues, so that you can act in accordance with one of several personality archetypes chosen by the author. But the choices offered tend to affect only the part of the story immediately surrounding where they happen, for example taking the player through different paths in a conversation tree or perhaps providing a choice of delimited side-quests. These choices mainly tend to be of a "branch and re-merge" variety, meaning that they all lead back into the trunk of a main plot which typically has little or no functional memory of them once they've been played.

This is the way that many games and mods avoid the problem of exploding plot integration -- by offering only a few choices that are actually fundamentally plot-relevant, and mostly choices that provide what are essentially cosmetic variations on a main theme. One consequence of this, however, is that these variations often lack impact because they're necessarily unintegrated with the main story. If they weren't, they couldn't be options; they would either have to happen in a particular way to maintain cohesion, or the mainline plot would have to have a branch to adapt to the different ways they can be played. That's why I would argue that most or all workable story-based games and mods are in fact essentially linear, with non-linear window-dressing. And when the window-dressing becomes too elaborate, it starts to distract from the focused experience of the main story, and thus turns more into a structured VR fantasy than a story experience.

[Henesua]

Quillmaster,
I decided that I did not want to use a premade character. Its important that the player be able to choose skills, feats, and ability scores. It was a tough decision because I had to decide between my original concept, and maintaining those choices. Ultimately I decided that those choices were more important than my original plan. As was the opportunity to check out the character creation options available to the setting which includes custom races and lots of lore in the alternate text I provided. All of that gets skipped by a premade character.

I may add a premade character option later as an alternate choice - a sort of director's cut way to play the adventure - but that will be added last after I finish everything else.


Andarian,
the strongest reason I am hearing from you for avoiding non-linear story based mods is the exponential expansion of plot lines. I think I've found a way to maintain meaningful choices while avoiding the necessity to go beyond the three possible branches. The mechanic I use is to make many small choices available that may seem to have similar results at first but subtlely change the relationships between the PC and various NPCs.

Basically I am using reputation in a story based way like the wanderer did. So far the most important NPCs are the goblin, your mother, and your father. Many conversation options can increase or decrease your reputation with each of these NPCs. And while there are subtle text differences along the way to reflect this. Its when you reach critical junctures in the story that it will be most important.

This is however just a theory until I get to those critical junctures. I'm at my first one now, and still haven't resolved it. I have a basic idea about what I want... but its important to me that the responses feel like a natural and logical outgrowth of player choices so I don't like to force anything if it feels wrong.

So anyway - think of it as the Sims. All those small options affect the relationship between a particular NPC and the PC. When a critical juncture is reached all of those small choices add up and stimulate how an NPC responds to the crisis which will open a choice for the PC while closing others.

I think that is one way that you can provide meaningful small choices that affect flavor in the short run, but result in real plot differences in the long run.

And lastly, I chose a very small story to try this out with, that will not last very long, but can be replayed a number of times to discover alternate endings. So there are really only three big choices. And once the final decision is made as to which of the three will be the ending... the story ends. Its more complicated than this because I want everything to feel natural. So I have a lot of work to do. But the amount of ground I have to cover isn't exploding into infinity because the story really focuses on a choice between one of three branches. The trick for the player is to recognize which of the three they are pursuing. In the first play through I doubt it will be obvious what the three big choices are while you are focused on all the small choices.

[Andarian]

To follow up briefly on Henesua's follow-up: the basic reason for my lack of enthusiasm for too much non-linearity in mods is that I think it almost always makes for inferior storytelling, compared to what is possible with a more linear plot. That's because of what I see as the requirements of a good story. The explosion in plot-lines is more what happens when you try to address that problem than the problem itself. It's an untenable solution, unless you're a plot-construction genius and have far more time to spend on it than even professional developers who do it for a living can generally manage.

I don't want to denigrate the utility of techniques like the "plot accumulator" or "relationship counter," which are widely employed approaches (especially for romance plots) that I use in my modules as well. But what I think you'll find is that they're not nearly the panacea you might be hoping for, for several reasons. One is that good, dramatic storytelling (at least as I see it) isn't generally composed of small, accumulating, interchangeable choices.

Another more basic reason, though, is that  what you're describing is in fact a pretty good example of  what I was talking about: an essentially linear storyline with variations. Think about the choices you've offered, and how you're going to resolve those critical junctures. Is it fair to say that they all essentially fall under one of your three named themes? Aren't you then, really, offering just three choices over and over again in small doses? This becomes apparent pretty quickly in romance mods, for example, where players will often figure out which figure out which are the "pursue relationship" responses and then consistently stick them.

How many new choices will be added or cut out  at those junctures, and how fundamentally will they affect the following plot development? If it's essentially the same plot with variations, then is it really non-linear in a fundamental sense? If the threads go off in fundamentally different directions, then how much work will you have to do to keep them integrated in terms of plot, theme, and characterization? And how many times will you be able to handle doing that until it becomes unworkable?

[Henesua]

Due to the scale of the story I have, I don't think I will see the problems you are discussing. I've defined a very small plot, and then tried to make it bigger through intricacy (which is what is eating up my time). Its kinda like a one act play ... except that I've split the act in three depending on which of the strands the player follows from a critical juncture. And then I've also allowed the player to see what might be available in each strand at the conclusion, and enabled the possibility to jump between choices if they have managed to keep their options open.

I've only got three big choices. And they are very different. However... once the choice is made, the rest is denouement. I don't keep going. You could argue that there is only one plot with three resolutions. But from a game design standpoint I have had to create environments and experiences that are not involved in every play through. Early on, for example the player has a choice between three paths and each of those paths involve different "areas", "cutscenes" etc....

This type of thing is not common in RPGs it is however exceptionally common amongst interactive fiction projects. Emily Short has produced several short interactive stories each with many endings. This was one of my inspirations. I've seen her pull off character focused stories very well, and so I am trying the same in an RPG format. I know it can be done well, specifically that the storytelling can be very strong.

What I agree with you on however is that you can't keep going very long in the same vein. Its just too time consuming.

And lastly I want to add - this is starting to sound all high falutant etc... The truth is that I don't know what I am doing. I am figuring it out as I go. I have a vision that I want to achieve and I am working toward it. But all the rest is theory. The real proof will be whether I finish this, and if it is any fun to play. I don't know if any of that will be the case yet.

[PJ156]

For me the choice of linearity vs non linearity became a pragmatic one. Chasing several plot paths over any great distance in a mod is a lot of work especialy if you are dealing with a large number of npc's. I tried it in my first mod and soon realised that, for me, a single good quality plot was better and far more achievable than running several paths through the mod.

While I like linearity I also like to have choice, or at least the illusion of choice. I think Andarian mentioned above that several meaningless responses on a pc node added nothing to the play experience and i agree but three or four better thought out responses do i think. They keep you in touch with your pc and, provided there is variety in the responses, can help you to develop them in your mind. I think this is particularly the case if they call on skills (bluff, perform etc).

I like the goblin boy idea by the way and in the starting posts you mentioned class choice. I think any of the instunctive classes would work though you mention access to books? so realy you could justify a learned class. I would have thought sorcerer or favoured soul would work, fighter is okay and perhaps cleric since thier gift is a divine one. Wizard and rogue need training and practice though, picking locks requires a range of locks to practice on.

Just some thoughts ...

PJ

[TimG]

One thing is sure on the open-ended modules is that the storytelling is much tougher to handle.  I don't really think it is possible to have the same level of story while maintaining the "free-form" feel.  Having said that I think there is a place for a well built "free-range" module that has a number of generally unrelated quests that maybe tie together only lightly if at all.  In the end though there needs to be some resolution to give the player an "I'm finished with this moment".

I did really like the way Darkness at Daggerford handled the quests where people would come to the player's castle and ask for help from the "local hero".  I feel like that was well conceived and delivered.

[TimG]

Rather than start a new thread I thought I'd add this perspective here since it sort of applies.
The value of "walkthroughs"

Some players (me) can only play NWN in fits and starts.  The chance to sit down and play for hours at a time is rare and getting rarer.  If there is a chance for multiple hours of play I try to put a group together rather than waste valuable playing time on a single player experience.  Because of work, home life and the normal commitments of life I don't always have the brainpower to devote to figuring out an esoteric puzzle that is elegant and well thought out (read: complicated).  Other times, because of starting and stopping play time over and over it is easy to forget what has been done and what hasn't.  Even the journal doesn't go into any real detail on plots missed.
So I come the the "walkthrough".  Yes, it diminishes the play experience some but it also makes it possible for players with time constraints to "play through" when you get stuck.  Sometimes it's as simple as forgetting to head north (a recent example) other times is can be really tough to figure out (the last level of Eye of the Beholder).
When a lot of your time is spent thinking about payroll, inventory, electric bill and car repairs the time on NWN needs to be fun escapism rather than tedium and frustration.
That's my defense of the walkthrough

[Andarian]

I'm more of a fan of the "Spoiler File" combined with thorough use of journal entries to help players understand where they are and what they can or should be doing. That's the approach I use in my modules, and my journal entries tend to be somewhat like a dynamic walkthrough as a result. If you know what the potential sticking points are in the playthrough and can provide ready-to-hand information for players who get stuck, that can be less immersion-breaking than reading a completely OOC walkthrough that gives you a formula of what to do.

[Henesua]

TimG, I feel the same way. I don't have the time or energy to invest in a 20 hour+ epic. The single player modules that I have most enjoyed in NWN are short adventures - less than ten hours long - and the shorter the better. As a side note, this is generally recognized in the gaming industry, and is one of the reasons why casual and social games are so popular.

I think the walkthrough or guide book or spoilers etc... is one method to still have an epic but provide a reminder for someone that comes back to the story.

Another way to handle this I think is to shorten the required playing time to reach a satisfactory ending. You could still maintain an epic but divide it up into manageable pieces. These could be episodes, chapters etc.... Make each of these sections playable in less than two hours (preferably one), and when the section is finished the player can walk away with a sense of accomplishment - similar to the feeling you have when you finish a chapter of a novel.

Since I don't like linear games, the approach the interactive fiction crowd has taken is appealing to me. Emily Short's work is a very good example of what I am talking about. (I might have mentioned her before in this thread) She has written several short works of interactive fiction that can be replayed several times and still offer a different experience each time. Some of these are only a single conversation. I think this idea can be applied in an RPG context to make a "casual RPG" type experience. I like the idea of a complex jewel of an adventure, something that can be played through in a sitting, but has many facets to be explored in subsequent play throughs. Admittedly I have struggled and failed to achieve this with Goblin Boy so far. But I think its more of a failure of my discipline to keep the story small rather than a failure of the concept of a tight RPG.

[QSW]

Walkthroughs are great for the reasons already mentioned. I'm certainly not opposed to them, and think that under certain circumstances (like becoming utterly frustrated with a puzzle/quest problem) they can save and or enhance a game.

One author's work I played created a walkthrough that while you could see the quests or puzzle titles, you had to highlight the lines under those headers in order to read the solution. I found this a really good way to do it, as it meant that my eye would not 'accidentally' take in solutions to other info...unless I wanted to *waggles eye ridges*

[PJ156]

I've just posted somthing similar in the main forum on this. I am a fan of the walkthrough and journal for many of the reasons TimG mentions. Mostly I feel that we as modders are not in competition with players. We don't have to foil them with our complex trickery and if we do we have failed. Some won't be bothered to work out the sequence the plates have to be polished in a walkthrough helps them not to be and keeps everyone happy at the end of the day.

We can chose to peak if we wish or not as the case may be.

PJ

[TimG]

There's no substitute for high quality journal entries.  It adds clarity to the player's purpose when there's no "in game" mechanism to do it.
I think it's also wise to keep elegant simplicity in the forefront.  Since coming here I have a new appreciation for what the custom content means and how it enhances the game.  That doesn't mean that I need every object on the screen to be clickable for no result.  If an item isn't involved in the story in any way then I don't need it to highlight when the tab key is pressed.  The Original Campaign is often panned by players but it did have a certain simpleness to it.  Sort of "charming way" if you will.
I think that as a player the overwhelming desire is to move the story forward and the different chapters of the OC were well suited to sate that desire.  Because of this there can be a tendency to make quests more complicated and convoluted in custom modules because simple quests have a "been there and done that feel".  Even so when you are playing a low level character the "been there done that" feel is inevitable.  You can't become a higher level PC without a certain amount of low level experience.  And low level experience comes at a hard price...

[TimG]

Finding a silver lining to the Master Server/Bioware mess I got to play Pirates of the Sword Coast finally.  The Premium module program was discontinued by the time that I got my first copy of NWN and I always thought PotSC would be fun.  I did have fun with it but the ending brought me back here to ponder some more.
Based on the end conversations the game appears to have two possible outcomes.  I was happy with the one I chose initially although I did reload from a save and try the other just to see how it went.  After "the choice" the game ends pretty abruptly.  I am a big fan of a gentle ending that allows the player to check back in the with the NPC's  and then end the scenario with a menu choice via conversation.  In Pirates I would like to have had a chance to help out/and/or check on the dragon at the end.  Abrupt endings seem to be a Bioware staple where NWN is concerned.  As a player I find them jarring, why as builders, do people assume the players wouldn't want to tie up loose ends for the characters that they have so much time invested in?

[Henesua]

I think the issue is that typically  a player's range of choices narrows towards an ending. After the ending player choices widen again. So it is difficult for the developer to cover all contingencies.

I didn't finish PotSC. I found the gamishness of it tedious although there are aspects to the game that I liked. Perhaps it was too challenging for a rogue and that was my problem. I wish they had pushed the humorous angle further. I thought that the piratey humor was working well for it.

[Bannor Bloodfist]

I like the optional ending style where you are given a choice... "End the game" or "Continue playing for a few more turns" which could also be stated as "Go back and talk to xxx before ending this game" type of thing.

Not having ever really created a full mod, nor done a heck of a lot of scripting etc, I would still think that you could set a variable on the player, and say 2 or 3 of the npc's (various quest givers) that checks for that variable then offers an extra/final dialog choice of ending the game, or continuing... one dialog choice that remains static, so that it is always available by those specific quest giving NPC's so that the player can eventually decide they are through, and exit the module gracefully.

However, a large number of games just go *boing* you are done, whether or not you want to be.  Seems to be easier for the developers.