While branching narratives are a good roleplay mechanic, they're an underwhelming game mechanic.

[0sacred]

Just because developers, especially big name developers, can't make any sort of roleplaying outside of dialogue options and can't fit in more than two doesn't mean anything. The belief that roleplaying is dialogue options is false.

The most obvious instance of roleplaying would require vastly better reactivity from NPC's. Roleplaying in most CRPG's is shallow because the world reacts very infrequently and insufficiently to your character.

 

[Robotigan]

RPGs only need to be immersive enough to convince the player that there are branching narratives. There don't actually have to be any

No, this is always felt and will hamper the experience in retrospect players will always find out fake choices and it will make the experience less worthwhile.

Branching narratives are always going to have fake choices though. You can't make a game with infinite story content. Which is what I'm getting at. It's a game concept that doesn't translate outside of the highly improvisational table top space. I'd compare it to graphics. It greatly enhances the game but it doesn't make the game. Yeah, potentially the graphics and writing could be so good that it's an engaging experience regardless of how it plays but ultimately "game" is part of the acronym so it has to be taken into consideration when evaluating RPGs.

 

[MerchantKing]

Just because developers, especially big name developers, can't make any sort of roleplaying outside of dialogue options and can't fit in more than two doesn't mean anything. The belief that roleplaying is dialogue options is false.

The most obvious instance of roleplaying would require vastly better reactivity from NPC's. Roleplaying in most CRPG's is shallow because the world reacts very infrequently and insufficiently to your character.

There is nothing stopping developers from doing this other than they're trying to design long story games.

 

[Robotigan]

Doesn't matter what game journos (that's what's usually referred to by "players" since the average person tends to ape whatever retard who has a platform or publisher says) are willing to accept. Either you can roleplay, or you can't. Either you have a variety of options outside of dialogue, or you don't really have the ability to roleplay. Either your game has immediate and meaningful consequences (that is those that actually affect gameplay and aren't just epilogue slides) or it doesn't have real consequences.

I tend to agree, but the games that exemplify this best don't even call themselves RPGs. As this thread demonstrates, the writing and branching narratives is what differentiates roleplaying games in the public consciousness. You can try to tell someone that Spore has deeper gameplay consequences than Mass Effect but they're not going to listen because the genre labels don't agree. The hardcore spaces don't even pushback on it. Everyone goes along with the idea that RPGs are supposed to be visual novels with some inventory and combat systems attached. Maybe when David Cage finally adapts this stuff into his upcoming Star Wars game, people will wake up and realize what they've been celebrating.

 

[thesecret1]

Branching narratives are always going to have fake choices though. You can't make a game with infinite story content.

If the choice isn't real, it shouldn't be there. Better to have only a couple choices that matter, than dozens that don't.

 

[Tyranicon]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Well but a narrative is. I mean PnP modules are often prewritten.

Roleplaying is about having your character do things according to his personality, background, profession, etc. A narrative is not required. A prewritten narrative can only direct roleplaying into a particular direction or set of directions. That is, it only limits roleplaying

Only if the narrative is primarily about the player character. If it's a narrative about the world, then your player character fits into it however they roleplay.

Yeah but you're not a game writer unless you have 13 different cringe OCs that the player is forced to interact with. I'm pretty sure that's enshrined as a rule in all current cRPG studios.

 

[MerchantKing]

Doesn't matter what game journos (that's what's usually referred to by "players" since the average person tends to ape whatever retard who has a platform or publisher says) are willing to accept. Either you can roleplay, or you can't. Either you have a variety of options outside of dialogue, or you don't really have the ability to roleplay. Either your game has immediate and meaningful consequences (that is those that actually affect gameplay and aren't just epilogue slides) or it doesn't have real consequences.

I tend to agree, but the games that exemplify this best don't even call themselves RPGs. As this thread demonstrates, the writing and branching narratives is what differentiates roleplaying games in the public consciousness.

The public consciousness is always wrong about these things. Visual Novels often having branching narratives as well. You can put a branching storyline into any game yet it doesn't make it an rpg.

You can try to tell someone that Spore has deeper gameplay consequences than Mass Effect but they're not going to listen because the genre labels don't agree.

Spore is closer to being an rpg than any Ass Effect though. However, it's still not an rpg.

The hardcore spaces don't even pushback on it. Everyone goes along with the idea that RPGs are supposed to be visual novels with some inventory and combat systems attached. Maybe when David Cage finally adapts this stuff into his upcoming Star Wars game, people will wake up and realize what they've been celebrating.

It's a shame that people are pretending that visual novels with adventure game and rpg elements are rpgs too.

 

[Robotigan]

Spore is closer to being an rpg than any Ass Effect though. However, it's still not an rpg.

Then take my original example comparing Crusader Kings against Infinity Engine games. Fact is, people who want deep systems and emergent gameplay seek out strategy and management sims whereas everyone from casual RPG playes to hardcore Codexers goes for something more narratively focused and "handcrafted". Look how much shit Bethesda gets for even attempting to incorporate procedural elements.

 

[Faarbaute]

I'm surprised RPG devs don't lean more heavily into characterization and framing, as opposed to these often fake, branching narratives. It's cheap, it's easy, and you're not defrauding your audience. Restrain yourselves, and write a structurally simple, but open ended narrative and let the complexity arise from how the player choses to frame their character's motivations and actions, and so on. Then, you can have as much or as little actual branching narrative/systems as you can afford, and have the time and skill to actually implement.

 

[MerchantKing]

Spore is closer to being an rpg than any Ass Effect though. However, it's still not an rpg.

Then take my original example comparing Crusader Kings against Infinity Engine games. Fact is, people who want deep systems and emergent gameplay seek out strategy and management sims

And there is no reason why rpgs cannot have deep systems and emergent gameplay. You can look at Warband, Kenshi, Battle Brothers, and Star Sector for such things. Warband in particular has quite a bit you can do in terms of roleplaying. But my post wasn't about this type of game. Rather the lack of any real choices and roleplaying in rpgs in general. Ass Effect is lacking in any real roleplaying. Rather it's just a CYOA dialogue game.

whereas everyone from casual RPG playes to hardcore Codexers goes for something more narratively focused and "handcrafted".

However having some handcrafted elements and such does not contradict the presence of deep systems and emergent gameplay. A game can have a mixture of both. Warband's companions for example are all hand-crafted. However, when it comes to scenarios most games falls completely short. There are few games that don't just lock you into a dialogue when you enter a certain area. There are few rpgs where you can choose to sneak by or approach a scenario any way other than the dialogue box+combat option. In that case does it matter if the scenario is handcrafted? All you can do is either dialogue check to win or go into combat after.

Look how much shit Bethesda gets for even attempting to incorporate procedural elements.

In the case of Bethesda, their games started with procedural generation of all non-story content with the story being a small part of the world. Much of their games, including Morrowind, have always had a significant amount of procedural generation whether it's just speed tree or using it to generate terrain in the world map. When it comes to what they did in Skyrim and Fallout 4 in regards to radiant quests the problem is how they're implemented in the bare bones laziest and minimalist fashion not that they're present at all.

 

[Robotigan]

And there is no reason why rpgs cannot have deep systems and emergent gameplay. You can look at Warband, Kenshi, Battle Brothers, and Star Sector for such things. Warband in particular has quite a bit you can do in terms of roleplaying. But my post wasn't about this type of game. Rather the lack of any real choices and roleplaying in rpgs in general. Ass Effect is lacking in any real roleplaying. Rather it's just a CYOA dialogue game.

In the case of Bethesda, their games started with procedural generation of all non-story content with the story being a small part of the world. Much of their games, including Morrowind, have always had a significant amount of procedural generation whether it's just speed tree or using it to generate terrain in the world map. When it comes to what they did in Skyrim and Fallout 4 in regards to radiant quests the problem is how they're implemented in the bare bones laziest and minimalist fashion not that they're present at all.

As much as I would love to believe Bethesda's critics are all fans of these niche titles, I don't think that's the case. I agree it'd be super cool if they integrated their radiant quests into their faction advancement and reputation system.

 

[MerchantKing]

And there is no reason why rpgs cannot have deep systems and emergent gameplay. You can look at Warband, Kenshi, Battle Brothers, and Star Sector for such things. Warband in particular has quite a bit you can do in terms of roleplaying. But my post wasn't about this type of game. Rather the lack of any real choices and roleplaying in rpgs in general. Ass Effect is lacking in any real roleplaying. Rather it's just a CYOA dialogue game.

In the case of Bethesda, their games started with procedural generation of all non-story content with the story being a small part of the world. Much of their games, including Morrowind, have always had a significant amount of procedural generation whether it's just speed tree or using it to generate terrain in the world map. When it comes to what they did in Skyrim and Fallout 4 in regards to radiant quests the problem is how they're implemented in the bare bones laziest and minimalist fashion not that they're present at all.

As much as I would love to believe Bethesda's critics are all fans of these niche titles, I don't think that's the case. I agree it'd be super cool if they integrated their radiant quests into their faction advancement and reputation system.

The two statements are independent. The Bethesda problem is independent of whether or not anyone plays Warband or games like it.

 

[Tweed]

Branching paths should be determined by character build rather than a crappy dialogue tree.

 

[Modron]

Only a handful of rpgs really have mutually exclusive content to explore depending on your actions: Witcher 1-2 and AoD. Best case you can usually hope for is different end game content like New Vegas, Expeditions: Viking, or Dead State with their different ending missions.

 

[Harthwain]

I am of the opinion that you could model "branching narratives" simply by making the whole game systemic by tracking characters' actions, instead of scripting them.