Storyline structure in RPGs

[Giph00]

What do you prefer in RPGs?

1. Completely open and organic storyline where you can do almost anything in any moment (for example killing an important npc) like in Fallout 1, New Vegas, Morrowind, Gothic 3 and it would fit to your actions somehow.

2. Constrictive structure with a set of predefined modules, that are usually more coherent and specific, but with more restrictions at the same (for example can't kill an important npc before some stage) like in The Witcher series?

You can't have both at the same time and on a same level because both approaches have their own pros, cons and limitations.

 

[Slow James]

I'll be lame and say I like stories a little more structured. That being said, I like a LOT of freedom in the order goals can be pursued and how they can be completed. A semi-open world Act formula, for instance, is good to me. And I also like well-crafted, off-the-beaten-path optional content. Games that can walk that fine line of having a strong story leash while also giving the player room (and incentive) to roam is the ideal, in my book.

 

[Lhynn]

Depends on the game, why do we have to pick?

 

[ERYFKRAD]

What do you prefer in RPGs?

1. Completely open and organic storyline where you can do almost anything in any moment (for example killing an important npc) like in Fallout 1, New Vegas, Morrowind, Gothic 3 and it would fit to your actions somehow.

2. Constrictive structure with a set of predefined modules, that are usually more coherent and specific, but with more restrictions at the same (for example can't kill an important npc before some stage) like in The Witcher series?

You can't have both at the same time and on a same level because both approaches have their own pros, cons and limitations.

How is 2 more coherent than 1? From the player's view, a story designed in either way would be equally coherent, wouldn't it? With the only difference being how much data is presented to the player in 1.

 

[Slow James]

How is 2 more coherent than 1? From the player's view, a story designed in either way would be equally coherent, wouldn't it? With the only difference being how much data is presented to the player in 1.

You awaken in a dark room. You can go north or east.

GO EAST.

You have stumbled into the lair of Nruglaz, Archduke of the Damned! He flays your skin from your body; the last hope of the Dyanese Elves dies with you.

THE END.


Sometimes, complete freedom to go anywhere or do anything leaves the player without a firm grip on what's going on.

 

[octavius]

I remember one Adventure game where you could go in several directions. In one particular direction "you fell off a cliff. You die".
I think that was the last Adventure game I played.

But in CRPGs I like freedom. If an area is too tough for my party to handle, they will usually be able to boldly regroup to an easier area.

 

[resilient sphere]

Would you say Ultima Underworld is "constrictive"? It lets you explore most of the abyss in an order of your choosing with only a few bottlenecks, IE, Roderick and dungeon level 7, but all those locations are tightly tied together and you basically need to visit every major location to beat the game anyway. If more games avoided transparent side-quests in favor of one huge quest broken down into sub-goals you can approach in any order then I'd be a happy bunny.

Although it's a positive to me when a game lets you kill an important NPC and lose the game because of it. There's yer C&C, sir!

 

[ERYFKRAD]

How is 2 more coherent than 1? From the player's view, a story designed in either way would be equally coherent, wouldn't it? With the only difference being how much data is presented to the player in 1.

You awaken in a dark room. You can go north or east.

GO EAST.

You have stumbled into the lair of Nruglaz, Archduke of the Damned! He flays your skin from your body; the last hope of the Dyanese Elves dies with you.

THE END.


Sometimes, complete freedom to go anywhere or do anything leaves the player without a firm grip on what's going on.

Have there been rpgs like that? From the examples the OP quoted, only Gothic 3 completely qualifies in that regard, and it's fairly coherent if you've played the sequels beforehand and talk to people once in a while.

 

[Giph00]

If you give the player complete freedom like in Fallout or Morrowind, you need to write the story, dialogues, events and other content in specific, isolated way so they would fit to any circumstances. You can't have too much related and connected stuff because player's actions like killing someone would affect them totally. Some of them would not happen at all.

I would just drop a simple example of how you can design the story if you have some locked variables on the table while writing it.

In The Witcher 2 if you would be able to, let's say, kill the Letho at the beginning, the whole story would not happen. And you can find tons of similar examples there. That's because main quest in The Witcher 2 is based mostly on events that happen while you play the game. If you would kill Letho at the beginning, Geralt won't be pursued for murderer and he won't have his goal to defend himself and prove that he is not the murderer.

 

[Slow James]

Have there been rpgs like that? From the examples the OP quoted, only Gothic 3 completely qualifies in that regard, and it's fairly coherent if you've played the sequels beforehand and talk to people once in a while.

God, I hope not. Still, as much as I love a game like New Vegas, the main plot doesn't even remotely draw you in unless you seek it out, while you can also cut out 90% of it just by going to two or three central locations.

Personally, I don't like that. NV does a great job of giving the player a host of other things around that are engaging and fun, but not having a clear objective other than "figure out what's going on" is not my preferred narrative style. The original Fallout games had a pretty clear opening objective and time constraints that made exploration possible, but ultimately a little "is this worth risking my main objective" type of arithmetic needed to happen occasionally.

Anyway, just my personal take. I have always liked the "intro with a ton of variation because of your background" opening, followed by "forced set of events to establish the (immediate) goal of the game" then give the player freedom to pursue goals in a somewhat open fashion (including side content and the main quest), occasionally reorienting with some main plot events and then a gathering point, where the last quarter or so of the game plays out.

Too many games give the player a ton of freedom early on, or conversely NEVER give the player freedom. I feel like both kills the sense of caring about a world. I'm the kind of person who hasn't beat the main story of a GTA game since before Google was a thing, but I have watched them all on YouTube. Open world is fun and can help make your own story, but as far as TELLING a story, I feel like it leaves a LOT to be desired.

 

[Xathrodox86]

Depends. I generally like a tight, more focused storyline, as it keeps me interested and commited. On the other hand few games have this kind of story AND an open world. Skyrim has an awesome world but a shitty storyline and PC-NPC interaction.

So I want to say that I preffer a good story.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

This is one of those questions which seems useful but in fact has very little use. The answer to this question is just the basic "it depends", because the structure of the story-line isn't what defines whether something is well made or not nor will play huge part in the reason why someone praises a game. It's like asking if people prefer Long Swords or Pistols in their RPGs, the only reason you'd see a difference in stats is if some people are unreasonably focused on only one very specific type of game. The most important thing is whether the method that is used is implemented well or not.

 

[Crevice tab]

What do you prefer in RPGs?

1. Completely open and organic storyline where you can do almost anything in any moment (for example killing an important npc) like in Fallout 1, New Vegas, Morrowind, Gothic 3 and it would fit to your actions somehow.

2. Constrictive structure with a set of predefined modules, that are usually more coherent and specific, but with more restrictions at the same (for example can't kill an important npc before some stage) like in The Witcher series?

You can't have both at the same time and on a same level because both approaches have their own pros, cons and limitations.

The answer is very much it depends. You can structure your game either way- or you can do a relatively rigid main quest with very flexible sidequests etc.

 

[naossano]

Anyway, just my personal take. I have always liked the "intro with a ton of variation because of your background" opening, followed by "forced set of events to establish the (immediate) goal of the game" then give the player freedom to pursue goals in a somewhat open fashion (including side content and the main quest), occasionally reorienting with some main plot events and then a gathering point, where the last quarter or so of the game plays out.
.

I might be to young to brofist but the intend is there.

 

[Slow James]

I might be to young to brofist but the intend is there.

You're never too young for a good fisting.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

1. I actively avoid games with 2.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

1. I actively avoid games with 2.

I'm currently looking for games with open worlds (but not sandbox) that are as close to pure RPG as possible (not a huge fan of roguelikes) and of high enough quality to not need lots of fan-patching prior to playing, you sound like an expert in just such a field, can you please recommend me 10 games from the past 15 years (yeah, bit of a graphics fan, but no too much so) that I might research for my shortlist?

(I'm just asking Awor Szurkrarz here folks, I'm sure he doesn't need help in quickly bashing me out a quick top 10, thanks)

 

[Giph00]

1. I actively avoid games with 2.

Have you avoided titles like Dragon Age, The Witcher or Mass Effect too? No offence, just asking.

 

[Sykar]

1. I actively avoid games with 2.

So you never played Baldur's Gate 2 or System Shock 2?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

1. I actively avoid games with 2.

I'm currently looking for games with open worlds (but not sandbox) that are as close to pure RPG as possible (not a huge fan of roguelikes) and of high enough quality to not need lots of fan-patching prior to playing, you sound like an expert in just such a field, can you please recommend me 10 games from the past 15 years (yeah, bit of a graphics fan, but no too much so) that I might research for my shortlist?

(I'm just asking Awor Szurkrarz here folks, I'm sure he doesn't need help in quickly bashing me out a quick top 10, thanks)

I don't know, I don't play much cRPGs. From that list, I played Fallout 1. I'm not sure if Arcanum would count because IIRC the continent was divided in two and the second part was accessible only after obtaining some special info late in the game.

1. I actively avoid games with 2.

Have you avoided titles like Dragon Age, The Witcher or Mass Effect too? No offence, just asking.

Never played any of them.

1. I actively avoid games with 2.

So you never played Baldur's Gate 2 or System Shock 2?

I have played Baldur's Gate 2. I strongly disliked the way the story was handled (especially Bioware choice dialogues and the wizard is in another castle! thing). Haven't played System Shock 2 besides its demo.

 

[Lilura]

I thought Jagged Alliance 2, System Shock 2 and Gothic 2: NotR were good sequels, arguably superior to the originals. BG2 and Fallout 2? I'd argue no.

 

[Sykar]

I thought Jagged Alliance 2, System Shock 2 and Gothic 2: NotR were good sequels, arguably superior to the originals. BG2 and Fallout 2? I'd argue no.

Personally, I like BG 2 and FO 2 more than the predecessors, but I understand why some dislike them.

 

[tuluse]

Fallout is the best, but I can appreciate lesser structures.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

BG2 I'd argue no.

I've never seen anyone go all-in on the premise of BG2 being inferior to BG1. People are happy to say they prefer the first one, but they normally qualify it with "I know two's probably the better game, but I personally...etc".

You really think BG1 is objectively better in some way?

 

[Outlander]

How is 2 more coherent than 1? From the player's view, a story designed in either way would be equally coherent, wouldn't it? With the only difference being how much data is presented to the player in 1.

You awaken in a dark room. You can go north or east.

GO EAST.

You have stumbled into the lair of Nruglaz, Archduke of the Damned! He flays your skin from your body; the last hope of the Dyanese Elves dies with you.

THE END.


Sometimes, complete freedom to go anywhere or do anything leaves the player without a firm grip on what's going on.

Eh, your example fits more a CYOA book where once you made a choice you have no room to do anything about it.

Take Gothic 1 for example: you start the game and you can go straight to the area in the back of one of the forests where a huge ass troll is. You can choose to leave or engage it in combat. If you choose the latter you won't kill him at a lower level and if he hits you just once you'll be insta-killed.

But the troll is slow and if you're careful to avoid his hits, once you realize there's no way in hell you can beat it yet, you can run away (and pray you don't run into the Snappers hunting in the area)