SCRIPTING Different Consequences to the Same Choice.

[John Yossarian]

TO IRONTOWER
There is a discussion going on at http://rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=267474#267474 about emergent gameplay, and this came up:

No, emergence would be if you stole some food from a farmer by mugging him, so he died trying to steal food from somewhere else. He gets killed in the process, and his son swears revenge, rises up through the ranks of the fighters guild since nothing else kills him along the way. He eventually meets up with you when you're near where he is because you were walking down the same road as him or going in to a location where he was. Fight insues.

... The next time through, you steal the food, but the kid dies as a wizard because some other event made him pick magic over fighters.

I think that kind of thing would be doable through scripting, so does AoD have any of this, i.e. if you choose the exact same skills and the exact same actions (and happen to succeed or fail the same way) in two playthroughs, is there any chance something will be different? So far all the quest samples you have mentioned have consequences being in bijection with skills+actions+success/failure, which makes the world look like everything depends on the character, but it would be nice if sometimes the character's involvement was just part of the equation and there was some random aspect to people's reactions, like in Saint's example.
If it doesn't, is it something worth considering if/when you make another game? IMO it would make the player pay more attention to towns and people on subsequent playthroughs and give more depth to NPCs.
Sorry if I'm asking too much but if you guys don't do it who the hell else will? Most CRPGs don't give you choices, the few that do don't give you different consequences for the different choices, so imagine asking for different consequences for the same choice.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Re: Emergent Quests

No, nothing like that.

Everything is scripted, there are no chance events. In other words, you can't do exactly the same thing and get a different result because something else had happened randomly. However, you can do a lot of different things and get a lot of different results that may affect your entire game in different ways.

 

[Greatatlantic]

Personally, as cool as "emergent gameplay" sounds, I'd much prefer that developers focus on adding consequences through good, old scripting. There is just no program smart enough that can create through "emergence" what a developer can create through planning.

 

[John Yossarian]

Personally, as cool as "emergent gameplay" sounds, I'd much prefer that developers focus on adding consequences through good, old scripting. There is just no program smart enough that can create through "emergence" what a developer can create through planning.

I think that kind of thing would be doable through scripting, so does AoD have any of this, i.e. if you choose the exact same skills and the exact same actions (and happen to succeed or fail the same way) in two playthroughs, is there any chance something will be different?

I'm sorry for the topic name, but I wasn't asking abou AI-type emergent gameplay. I was asking about scripting different consequences to the same action, through some randomization.

I also wouldnt like something completely random happening in the game while I was away, but some quests having a small random element wouldnt bother me. It's just that while I dont plan to play with the same char. build twice, I doubt all my char. builds will be completely different, so it would be nice to get different results even when I choose the same options and have the same skills.
Ok, im gonna give this a try, forgive my uncreativity. Using the ransom quest from RPG Vault Interview:

2. Assassinate the leader and intimidate the rest. You may successfully kill the raider via a dialogue option, but fail the intimidation check and find yourself in a very awkward situation.

Im guessing this means the leader will tell the gang to kick your ass if you fail to intimidate, but there could be a small chance that he took a liking to you and forgives your noobness, tells you he'll let you live but dont try that shit again. This option could also lead to making the rest of the quest choices harder, like not being able to negotiate in #3.

Deal with the raiders and convince the Noble House to pay the ransom. Negotiate with the raiders and make some money by paying them less. Pay them in full and get them to handle another quest for you.

Even if you pass the "convince" check, maybe the Noble House only agrees to pay 3/4 of the ransom, after which you can fork over the rest or negotiate with the raiders to charge 3/4 or less. Also, maybe the gang tricks you and wont do the quest even after you paid them in full, which could maybe make it easier (lower checks) for you to get the Noble House or Guards to go and take the raiders out (after they released the nobleman).

If you got the ransom money, convince the Thieves Guild that raiders are bad for business. They will help you for a cut.

There could be a chance of the thieves messing up the job, getting the noble injured and getting you in trouble with the House.

 

[Gambler]

Everything is scripted, there are no chance events.

That's good. BTW, what scripting language do you use?

 

[Vault Dweller]

TorqueScript.

 

[FrancoTAU]

Theoretically that does sound awesome, but it's not something I'd even ask of a AAA title let alone from a 4 person team. RPG gaming has become so watered down that a return to something along the vein of Ultima 7, Fallout, etc would be so unique that most of us aren't even looking for any advances from that era of RPGing.

 

[elander_]

This is what the wiki has to say about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay

Emergent gameplay is the creative use of a game in ways unexpected by the game designer's original intent.

In games with complex physics and flexible object interaction it may be possible to complete in-game problems using solutions that the game designers did not forsee. Deus Ex is often cited as a game responsible for promoting the idea of emergent gameplay [1], with players developing interesting solutions such as using wall-mounted mines as pitons for climbing walls.

There are more examples in the page.

Sometimes it's just a glitch or an exploit that game designers weren't expecting but sometimes theres some talent into it and it doesn't just happen by mistake. It seams that emergent gameplay happens for two reasons.

The game environment is complex enough for the player to be able to try a great variety of solutions with possible side effects on the world that will make it more chalenging.

The game designer can create gameplay in a way that he doesn't need to predict every possible game situation in order to ensure the game will be fun and well balanced.

Theres some intuition or strategic sense in a good game designer that, without having to go into the detail level (so much as newbee designers need to go) knows how to better combine game features so that theres a large range of interesting solutions to problems without conflicting with each other by making some features useless or overpowering.

I don't think emergent gameplay refers to a game feature but more to a quality of good game design or good game desginers. It doesn't impose any game design features, be it random or dynamic behaviors. It can be done with scripted gameplay or not. However templated quests and dynamic behaviors increase the range of possibilites over scripted quests and may simplify the costs of creating a game for people who can work with a rule-based engine or a more evolved programming language.

Advanced AI and physics won't create emergent gameplay or any gameplay at all just by itself. Game design is an artistic and a complex mental activity and not something that happens by chance or by receipe.

The shit is when we get used to play games with excellent design made by only a few people in the world which are talented enough to create that level of quality design most other games play like nauseous crap.

 

[John Yossarian]

Fuck you all, I'm changing the topic name. Although someone should make an emergent gameplay thread in the Gen. RPG section.

 

[John Yossarian]

Theoretically that does sound awesome, but it's not something I'd even ask of a AAA title let alone from a 4 person team. RPG gaming has become so watered down that a return to something along the vein of Ultima 7, Fallout, etc would be so unique that most of us aren't even looking for any advances from that era of RPGing.

Yeah I'm sure if it isn't in right now they won't add this late, seeing how VD is probably doing all the scripting and writing by himself. But if the game does well he could get a scripter or writer for the next game, making it easier to add more quests, so a few like I mentioned shouldn't be that much more work then.

 

[Stark]

Re: Emergent Quests

Everything is scripted, there are no chance events. In other words, you can't do exactly the same thing and get a different result because something else had happened randomly. However, you can do a lot of different things and get a lot of different results that may affect your entire game in different ways.

so all game decisions are based on strict skill/ability check and there is no die roll involved? or I am reading too much into your sentence here?

I imagined your game to be similar to how DnD works. abilities and attributes are modifiers to your roll. Let me know if i assumed wrong.

As for emergent gameplay, it can be done in some limited form provided the game mechanics are well modelled to allow chain reactions (be it social mechanics, economic mechanics, NPC relations or just the physics). Dark Messiah of M&M which utilizes source engine for the physic simulation, may be a good example. have a look at the previews at Eurogamer.

speaking of Dark Messiah of M&M, i was hoping you guys cover it here. it is a heavy action, lite rpg game, but if you guys cover Oblivion, i don't see why Dark Messiah is excluded.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Re: Emergent Quests

Everything is scripted, there are no chance events. In other words, you can't do exactly the same thing and get a different result because something else had happened randomly. However, you can do a lot of different things and get a lot of different results that may affect your entire game in different ways.

so all game decisions are based on strict skill/ability check and there is no die roll involved? or I am reading too much into your sentence here?

I imagined your game to be similar to how DnD works. abilities and attributes are modifiers to your roll. Let me know if i assumed wrong.

It depends. Some actions come with skill checks, some with die rolls. Dialogues and most text-based activities are examples of the former. Combat, including text-based assassination attempts are examples of the latter. Basically where luck plays some role, we use die rolls modified by your stats/skills. Where it doesn't or is insignificant, we use stat/skill checks.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

While I think that emergent gameplay is an interesting route for RPG's to pursue, it is by no means the only way, nor even remotely central to the genre. Emergent gameplay is a particularly interesting idea for Sandbox games, and AoD is in no respect a sandbox game.

 

[galsiah]

True GBG. There's no sense in going all formulaic, and adding emergence in because "market research shows it's a good thing".

On this topic (which isn't really about emergence in any case), I don't like the idea of artificially adding random results. I'd much prefer that some things depend on other in game events which happen to be inherently random.

For example, I don't like this:
I choose dialogue option so-and-so and fail a skill check, getting reply X.
I play again, choose the same option, fail (in the same way), and get reply Y.
This seems pretty arbitrary.

I much prefer something like this:
NPCs X and Y are engaged in combat as I arrive. Y is then knocked unconscious, so X talks to me (leading to various events).
I play again, but this time X is knocked unconscious. Y talks to me (leading to different information, events...).


Basically I'd want the variation to come from events in the game world which the player has already accepted as part of that world - that way things don't seem artificial.

These could be actually fairly random (e.g. who wins a combat), or just "accidental" (e.g. what time the player happens to arrive somewhere / whether he has already been to place X before Y / whether he has talked to NPC X...).

If there is a desire to mix things up, then I think it's entirely possible (and preferable) to do without introducing arbitrary roles of the dice.
I also think it's a lot more satisfying for the player to be able to find an explanation for why things went differently (even if it isn't always obvious).


I'm sure AoD already includes this sort of thing - many choices will have future consequences which aren't immediately obvious at the time of the choice.

If it were going to move in any direction, I'd say to have more of the same (i.e. increase the amount of factors influencing NPC reactions / responses, and ideally the range of responses [and have it all make sense, of course]). I think it'd be a shame to introduce artificial randomness.


Doing this in an emergent way (i.e. having a general, generic system of response influences / responses for each NPC or NPC type) would be interesting, but not for AoD. In a dialogue driven RPG without filler NPCs, response influences and responses need to be unique to each NPC (with perhaps a few shared between groups - e.g. guards).

 

[John Yossarian]

For example, I don't like this:
I choose dialogue option so-and-so and fail a skill check, getting reply X.
I play again, choose the same option, fail (in the same way), and get reply Y.
This seems pretty arbitrary.

Well, I guess it's a matter of taste. I wouldn't like it if it was completely arbitrary either, but if the game provides some explanations for both replies I'd be fine with it. For example, the NPC could portray different moods for the two replies, which came about by two different set of events that happened and over which the player had no influence. However, the player should be able to investigate and find out the events, so it wont seem arbitrary. Maybe the NPC's daughter died of something, so that day he's not thinking clearly and gives you reply Y. You had nothing to do with her death, shit just happens, but you could be able to find out that she died.

I much prefer something like this:
NPCs X and Y are engaged in combat as I arrive. Y is then knocked unconscious, so X talks to me (leading to various events).
I play again, but this time X is knocked unconscious. Y talks to me (leading to different information, events...).
...These could be actually fairly random (e.g. who wins a combat), or just "accidental" (e.g. what time the player happens to arrive somewhere / whether he has already been to place X before Y / whether he has talked to NPC X...).

To tell you the truth, I prefer this type as well, but I couldn't have thought it up. You really need to get better at programming(or whatever reason it was you gave for not making your own game). You'll have my money for sure.

I'm sure AoD already includes this sort of thing - many choices will have future consequences which aren't immediately obvious at the time of the choice.

VD gave an example of this, something or other got wiped out because of the player's actions, and apparently the guy was confused about the consequences. Let's hope there is more of it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm sure AoD already includes this sort of thing - many choices will have future consequences which aren't immediately obvious at the time of the choice.

Plenty of that.

 

[galsiah]

For example, the NPC could portray different moods for the two replies, which came about by two different set of events that happened and over which the player had no influence. However, the player should be able to investigate and find out the events, so it wont seem arbitrary.

That's not bad, but as a player I'd usually like to have observed (or carried out...) the influencing event before the response.

Having said that, the situation you describe could easily occur in an emergent style game (e.g. the guy's daughter did actually die because of <some large combination of factors>, but you had nothing to do with it as a player). Then it'd be quite reasonable to have the guy respond differently, since the facts would support that response.

I think you'd have to consider how it appears to the player though (on the second playthrough too). In a game where the player knows there is a whole emergent world simulation going on, he expects and will accept many events happening in different ways beyond his control / observation.

In a game like AoD, he's not expecting this, so things going differently for no reason in the second playthrough will likely seem arbitrary.

Even though you could argue that the randomness is a kind of approximation of the world simulation going differently, I don't think the player will think of it like that. Or rather, the problem is that it'll seem odd to the player, and that he starts to think about how the game is working behind the scenes.

Whether or not the player thinks the randomness is reasonable, he'll almost certainly identify it as randomness. That's going to break immersion in a way it wouldn't in an emergent game (where the "randomness" would automatically be accepted by the player).

You really need to get better at programming (or whatever reason it was you gave for not making your own game). You'll have my money for sure.

Perhaps I should spend more time learning and less time posting. Hopefully in a few years I'll have had something to do with something worth playing. [with luck someone might pay me for it too ].

 

[John Yossarian]

I don't think the player will think of it like that. Or rather, the problem is that it'll seem odd to the player, and that he starts to think about how the game is working behind the scenes.

Whether or not the player thinks the randomness is reasonable, he'll almost certainly identify it as randomness. That's going to break immersion in a way it wouldn't in an emergent game (where the "randomness" would automatically be accepted by the player).

I see your point, and that's definately the reason why I thought it would be good, I was coming at from a "Hey this is not what happened last time, why? Let's find out!" angle, and I wasn't thinking players could see it as odd that something different happened. So do you think if the game (not AoD) let people know from the start that things could go differently (still no emergence, just scripting), it would be more acceptable? Or does the entire game have to look emergent?

 

[galsiah]

I guess that the most important point is that the player accepts it as a reasonable part of the game world (automatically, without thinking about game mechanics / design etc.). Why that happens isn't important from the player's point of view - only that it does happen.

I don't think you could get away with simply telling the player at the start, then throwing it in occasionally. The player doesn't just need to think "this will happen occasionally" on a conscious level - he needs to assume it unconsciously so that when it happens it doesn't seem odd.

The way to do that is to make it a commonplace part of the game (as it would be in an emergent game). The important point isn't that the game is emergent, but that the "random" situations don't look out of place. In an emergent game they don't look out of place - they're just part of the way things happen. You'd have to create the same impression in the player's mind with scripting.

I think it's entirely possible with scripting, but it would be a lot of work. It'd have to be just as likely that something different happened to some bloke called Bob yesterday, as something different happened to King so-and-so's daughter. (or at least almost as likely)

That's a lot of extra work. If the game were specifically designed assuming (or aiming) that players would play though multiple times, it wouldn't be so bad - the player might enjoy reading different stuff each time through (though clearly it'd start to repeat eventually).

With an emergent game, you get the consistency for free; with a non-emergent game you don't. It'd still be worth a thought if your main goal were to make the entire game different each time (not just a few quest branches). That way the goal of maintaining consistency would tie in with the major goal of providing a varied experience throughout.
Doing that much work just to avoid a few "That's odd" thoughts from the player wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I was coming at from a "Hey this is not what happened last time, why? Let's find out!" angle, and I wasn't thinking players could see it as odd that something different happened.

Such a feature becomes important when there are very few, if not only one way to do a quest, as after awhile you know exactly what would happen and you wish for a random event. I don't think that the randomness is a best way to handle it though, which is why every quest in AoD has a lot of very different ways to complete it, and each way would change something for you.

Here is an example. Remember that "find the ore" merchants' quest? (I think RPG Dot posted these screens in the interview). Now, the first thieves quest revolves around the same ore (which means that even if you managed to join both factions somehow, you won't stay a member of both for long). Your job is to arrange safe "shipping conditions". You can:

1) Bribe the guards - requires finesse and 2 skills
2) Talk to the guards and find out that the captain has a large gambling debt. Leads to another quest, which, if completed successfully, grants you both free passage, courtesy of the captain, and his friendship, which would be useful in the future.
3) Talk to the guards and find out that the Imperial Guards ship stuff in and out, using some kind of mandate. You can either acquire the original mandate, talk to the loremaster Feng (assuming you didn't double-cross him (see the RPG Vault screens)) and ask him to forge you a copy, or forge one yourself, which may or may not work. If it doesn't, you are fucked.
4) Kill 2 mercs hired by the merchants to block the standard smuggling route through the "shanty town".

As you can see, there is a lot of options that use many different skills: 1 - persuasion, trading; 2 - sneaking, lockpick, perception check; 3 - lore, intelligence check if pick the do it yourself option; 4 - combat. Also, some options only available if you did or didn't do certain things in the past. If you double-cross Feng and help the new loremaster, you can't ask the latter for help. Feng knows little, but you can count on him in a shady situation. The other guy is knowledgeable and can provide a lot more valuable info throughout the game, but he's honest. Your choice. Or take the captain, for example. He could be very useful, but only one option of one quest can establish a working relationship with him. In one game he reaches the top with your help. In another he dies (see the Imperial Guards' quest description in the GameBanshee interview). In yet another game he lives a "normal" life.

That kinda stuff is more interesting to me than some truly random events.

 

[John Yossarian]

@galsiah
You're right, just making it known to the player won't make him/her "feel" it's not odd. I guess we will have to wait for real emergent AI to have something like this in games.

@VD
Dude, I know you're trying to make a point, but from now on, none of my arguments are worth spoiling AoD over. Could you please warn about spoilers next time? Especially the captain thing, that seems kinda important. Anyway, that sounds like a pretty complex quest, not just in ways to solve it, but all the relationships you build and break around it (and before). Good job,let's hope there are a lot like that (no, dont give any more examples).

 

[Vault Dweller]

It was a good way to illustrate quests & NPCs design.

 

[John Yossarian]

Yeah I know, and now I agree with you that AoD won't need what I asked for. I was just I bit pissed after I read the only quest and option thing about the captain. Sorry for the bitching.

 

[Cycloptis]

That's definitely one very interesting path that CRPGs could eventually take in the future, if more than ~3 companies still gave a damn about the real mechanics.

Advances in AI would have to be tremendous before something like that could be easily done. Scripting everything could take much longer and draw the attention away from quality. Unfortunately, the emphasis still seems to be on the "holy" trinity: graphics, physics, and sound.

 

[Gambler]

Unfortunately, the emphasis still seems to be on the "holy" trinity: graphics, physics, and sound.

Physics? More like mechanics. And it's usually for show only.

Same thing about sound. There are very few games where it plays significant role.