systematic vs. hand-crafted storytelling

[hivemind]

do you prefer if the stories you experience in RPGs are told through the interaction of the various game systems or if they are told to you by the developer through narrative structures ??

do you think that an RPG that would complete abandon all premade narrative structures and simply focus on narrative storytelling could work ?(mount and blade kinda does this already I guess)

this thread is mostly inspired by this bit from the latest Avellone video

(31:53 if it doesn't work for someone)

 

[Neanderthal]

Wasn't there a mouse swingy combat game that was aiming to do this? Good physics but looked a bit awkward, can't remember name of it.

Got to say I can't see how they can do this en masse, most of New Vegas was hand placed and benefitted from that, despite MCAs example. Interesting to see somebody try I suppose, wouldn't expect owt of any kop to arise from it narratively though.

 

[Infinitron]

MCA, in case you haven't noticed, is a bit obsessed with geeking out over things he's not personally good at doing.

 

[Frozen]

Im a storyfag and would go with narrative structure because at this stage of development gameplay is not there yet to give it a full story experience only through mechanic. It does but its mostly head canon.
You have to structure it and lead a player by the hand to give him a full story experience.
Problem is games are (still) entertainment for children/teens so themes and stories going both ways are kind of retarded, conflicts are morally and emotionally simplistic.

 

[Neanderthal]

I don't think you need to lead a player by the hand at all, simply make a believable world with enough information scattered around it, the tools to explore and solve problems and let the player discover at their own pace for most of the gameplay. Ocassionally narrowing down to chokepoints at logical places, that ideally reflect your playstyle and decisions. Thief missions are the perfect example of this.

Just my opinion though, and I agree that if games mostly head canon then there's no point playing, larping sucks.

 

[Duckard]

This isn't the first time MCA has talked about this. It's odd because when you look at his most beloved work, it's all stuff that has hand-crafted storytelling.

Anyway, I like the idea, but can you really call a bunch of random interactions a compelling narrative? Strategy games are pretty full of this kind of thing, but it's not so much storytelling as it is the player interpreting what happens in the game as a story.

 

[Excidium II]

do you prefer if the stories you experience in RPGs are told through the interaction of the various game systems

Yes. This is RPG done right.

 

[Infinitron]

Yes. This is RPG done right.

So this thread is a good opportunity to bring this up. There's this guy mg who acts like a smug troll on the Underworld forums. Like most good trolls, his posts aren't completely without merit, and I'm curious what you think about the following exchange: https://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=890.msg15190#msg15190

 

[Mozg]

I like human-generated narratives that are enhanced by systems like the spirit eater curse in MotB. Particularly in the type of RPGs which are significantly based in character. I think full blown "emergent narrative" stuff like Dwarf Fortress or the narrative elements of a Civilization or Pirates!/M&B are cool but too lightweight to sustain characters.

 

[Excidium II]

So this thread is a good opportunity to bring this up. There's this guy mg who acts like a smug troll on the Underworld forums. Like most good trolls, his posts aren't completely without merit, and I'm curious what you think about the following exchange: https://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=890.msg15190#msg15190

I think I understand what he means. That is, if you have so many ways to handle a situation, it becomes impossible to fail since you are guaranteed to stumble into a solution that brings success?

I think this is true in that particular context of the Shadowbeast encounter because there is one simple solution: produce a big lightsource...in a place full of ways to make big fires. I'd like to see how their simulation stuff goes on a more elaborate scenario.

 

[Neanderthal]

Witcher anatomy quest right way to do things if you ask me, you can think you're right but easy to fuck up.

 

[Excidium II]

Witcher anatomy quest right way to do things if you ask me, you can think you're right but easy to fuck up.

Yeah. A problem that plagues CRPGs is that different choices are often just different ways to reach optimal outcome so you turn off your brain and let the check you can pass blindly guide you to success.

Also I actually fucked up that quest.

 

[Mozg]

I looked it up to see what you were talking about and I am 99% sure I plowed through that quest without finding any of the subtle shit and assumed I'd done it correctly. That raises my retrospective opinion of that game.

 

[Excidium II]

The quest with the trapped ghost at the lake tower is also similar.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

So this thread is a good opportunity to bring this up. There's this guy mg who acts like a smug troll on the Underworld forums. Like most good trolls, his posts aren't completely without merit, and I'm curious what you think about the following exchange: https://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=890.msg15190#msg15190

He's right and I believe Paul and company agree with his assertion.

 

[Job Creator]

I think I understand what he means. That is, if you have so many ways to handle a situation, it becomes impossible to fail since you are guaranteed to stumble into a solution that brings success?

I think this is true in that particular context of the Shadowbeast encounter because there is one simple solution: produce a big lightsource...in a place full of ways to make big fires. I'd like to see how their simulation stuff goes on a more elaborate scenario.

I don't feel like this is intrinsically tied to simulations, but I guess if developers are going after as much manifold emergence as they can get they'll over do it and solutions will be trivial, so I guess his remark might help them keep that in mind


Do you guys think something like a non-banal (a Myst-like with Raven's matrices in various guises wouldn't count) adventure game could be theoretically produced procedurally?

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I prefer handcrafted, especially in a game that actually has story as its selling point.
While full systemic story telling might be great in idea, in execution it falls short.
Using your example, Mount and Blade. While the game is good and enjoyable, it never is about "Hey, this game has enjoyable story". Instead it is the sense of challenge and "How powerful can I be" that make the game enjoyable. The same could be said for other similar game like, let's say, Battle Brothers.

 

[CyberWhale]

Combination of both.

 

[DefJam101]

yes

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

do you prefer if the stories you experience in RPGs are told through the interaction of the various game systems or if they are told to you by the developer through narrative structures ??

do you think that an RPG that would complete abandon all premade narrative structures and simply focus on narrative storytelling could work ?(mount and blade kinda does this already I guess)

this thread is mostly inspired by this bit from the latest Avellone video

(31:53 if it doesn't work for someone)

I think you mean scripted versus unscripted narrative, bro.

 

[laclongquan]

The key is still the writing department. If they suck, auto or manual both suck. Give me a great writing personel and I will let you game dev choose your favourite method.

 

[Thonius]

Wasn't there a mouse swingy combat game that was aiming to do this? Good physics but looked a bit awkward, can't remember name of it.

Got to say I can't see how they can do this en masse, most of New Vegas was hand placed and benefitted from that, despite MCAs example. Interesting to see somebody try I suppose, wouldn't expect owt of any kop to arise from it narratively though.

Examina? (sui genesis)

 

[V_K]

A combination of both, dungeon crawler style: best games imo have handcrafted high-level narratives but present them through level design rather than text and cutscenes.

 

[Baron]

Coming from a pen and paper background my favourite adventures were born out of a good plot, much more so than just surviving some difficult dungeon dice rolls.

But as to the OP's question, I'm hoping we no longer have to choose. Modern games (general gaming) are giving us some pretty spectacular sandboxes to play in and create your own stories, plus they're at least trying with including a decently written story (Bethesda aside). Pillars of Eternity bet it's kickstarter funds on the fact that people liked plot, with reasonable success.

As much as I love them, the old games (whilst giving you great game worlds for their time, like Wizardry, Bard's Tale) were pretty thin on plot. The title of Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord was longer than the plot. It took Ultima IV to show you could have both.

Out of the new shit, I really enjoyed both story elements of Shadow over Mordor; being ambushed by random vindictive orcs, plus the written story with it's subversive corrupting theme as you rise in power and dominate your orcish minions. It fit extremely well with the source material and was far better than I was expecting.

Mad Max also provided a game world for great adventures although its story was reduced to "I need a V8" (it must be noted that, in Australia, this is considered a moving heart wrenching tale of loss and spiritual redemption on the level of Les Miserables). And it also included a nice subplot about the dangers of hope in the wasteland. For a game in which I only asked to hit other Australians at high speeds with a bull bar, it was a pleasant surprise.

 

[Neanderthal]

Examina? (sui genesis)

That were it, cheers matey, doing my fucking bonce in trying to remember.