Purpose in an RPG

[galsiah]

Some questions:
How important do you find a sense of (narrative) purpose in an RPG?
How important is it that your purpose is of great significance (either in Save-The-World terms, or in personal character terms)?
Does it only need to feel significant (e.g. exceptionally written/constructed quest-for-a-cheese-sandwich)?
How important is it that your purpose is clear (eventually), and clearly "right" (for your character)?
If you're unsure whether your actions were in fact reasonable (e.g. because you can't be sure of the facts) even at the end of the game, does that hurt (/help) the experience?
If you reach the end of the game without achieving anything (e.g. say the theme of a game is learning about some mystery, but at the end it seems there is no certain answer - that the real truth might not even be knowable), is this a bad thing?


I'm mainly thinking of a game with strong narrative elements (where by "narrative", I basically just mean "lots of pertinent writing" in whatever form), but without any clearly defined central purpose - e.g. no Save-The-World-From-Evil-Dudes.
I'm NOT talking about sandbox/sim/strategy/action cross-over RPGs here (though I'm not specifically excluding any such elements either). I'm definitely not talking about hack-n-slash / rogue-likes / any character-stat-improvement-as-its-own-end game. The driving force of the game would be the writing/"plot" - just without any clear central objective. There would be central themes, and various (conflicting) objectives - all just might prove eventually pointless, or of indeterminate value.

I'm taking it as obvious that the player gets to pick his direction (between more than trivial Good/Neutral/Evil paths), and that his actions affect the game world and many potential objectives significantly (in terms of his own situation) during the game. I'm just asking whether he needs to achieve anything much by the end (beyond somewhat greater understanding); and in terms of understanding, does knowing there's no One Absolute Truth remove motivation for a search for understanding? Does doubt over the possibility of ever learning the Truth (if it exists) remove motivation? (even if there's always more to learn?)

Thoughts?

[N.B. if you have any interesting points, please don't dismiss them on the basis of genre - e.g. something that'd end up adventure-game-like. I have zero interest in genre classifications at this point - I'm simply interested to know what you think could work in any remotely RPGish context.]

 

[Zomg]

How important do you find a sense of (narrative) purpose in an RPG?
How important is it that your purpose is of great significance (either in Save-The-World terms, or in personal character terms)?
Does it only need to feel significant (e.g. exceptionally written/constructed quest-for-a-cheese-sandwich)?
How important is it that your purpose is clear (eventually), and clearly "right" (for your character)?
If you're unsure whether your actions were in fact reasonable (e.g. because you can't be sure of the facts) even at the end of the game, does that hurt (/help) the experience?
If you reach the end of the game without achieving anything (e.g. say the theme of a game is learning about some mystery, but at the end it seems there is no certain answer - that the real truth might not even be knowable), is this a bad thing?

(Narrative) Purpose: It's fairly difficult to say, given how biased towards central narrative purpose CRPGs have been historically. I can easily imagine some extrapolation from a game like Darklands, for instance, where your initial movements and actions are not narratively purposeful (Darklands transitions to kill-the-foozle near the end). I don't see why I'd dislike it.

Significance: Relatively important, in terms of the character (not "Save the warld" though). The ability to invest the PC with genuine narrative depth isn't going to happen otherwise - how you deal with, say, a drunk accused of a crime, is going to reveal a lot more character than collecting ten wolf asses for the guy standing out front of the town.

Feel Significant: Yes, same reason.

Purpose clarity/feeling right for the character: I don't really grok this one without an example, sorry, and I don't want to take a shot in the dark in case my foundation is based on misinterpretations of your earlier questions.

Surety of facts: Hmm, good one. I think I'd probably replay the game until I had every clue possible, to be honest, assuming I enjoyed the core of it. It would be a metagame consideration.

Real truth: I'd be annoyed ceteris paribus without it. Of course, if there is an excitement created by conflicting evidence or narratives, that's a different story, but ambiguity for its own sake is not my taste.

 

[RGE]

How important is it that your purpose is ... clearly "right" (for your character)?

Very important if I as a player am supposed to take the story seriously. If my character isn't properly motivated I tend to just lean back and (try to) enjoy the ride, and that's not something an interactive medium should encourage. Though perhaps this applies mostly to PnP, because in a non-linear RPG I'll probably find something to do just for my own amusement.

I don't know how important it is to accomplish something significant, because so far all the RPGs I've finished has forced me to do just that. But since I usually enjoy the early game more than the late game, I'd say that it's not at all important to accomplish something that's significant to the world, but it's quite important to accomplish something that's significant to the character. Or to me as a player - I'm selfish like that.

 

[JarlFrank]

For me there must be some kind of purpose, and if it's only "improve yourself" or "go on that quest to find the great relic" or "kill the bad foozle", or something more complex like "find out about that certain mystery" or whatever. The purpose doesn't even have to be clearly definded, but there has to be some kind of puropse... you may call it a main story if you want.

If in the beginning there is no real purpose ,and you are free to do whatever you want, go to a magic school, go adventuring, go help people and get money for it, whatever, it's okay. But after some time it gets repetitive, and I long for a story to go after. Like, be attacked by bandits and find out who they are, and in the process getting involved in a great conspiracy or whatever.

But I guess every RPG got some kind of purpose, even Diablo [kill the bad guy] and Darklands [defeat Baphomet], no matter how free roaming they are. A purpose, which is told by narrative, always has to be there to keep the player excited and make his actions matter.

 

[galsiah]

Purpose clarity/feeling right for the character

By clarity, I mean that there is some purpose which is clearly known and understood (mostly) by the PC for a significant time. E.g. I guess that Darklands qualifies towards the end (I haven't played it), but it wouldn't if you simply bumped into the final foozle right at the end, and killed it. There's a point in most RPGs at which your eventual purpose is very clear (usually not at the beginning, but not right at the end either). If you only knew that you were doing something important, but were never sure exactly why, would that matter? How long is it ok to be "in the dark"? Is eventual enlightenment a necessity?

By feeling "right" (for the character), I mean that whatever purpose there is - whether kill-the-foozle, or anything else - feels like something the character would be inclined to pursue (with the [mis]information he currently has). Usually this will probably mean that the issue is something the character would care about (or that he just likes interfering for the sake of it), and that there's some course of action that fits with his character.
E.g. if the PC were forced to complete quest X to advance the game, but in the player's mind, his character had no motivation to complete X (apart from the player's ability to see that it was what the game wanted), it wouldn't be "right". Alternatively, if there are only ultra Good and Evil solutions to a required quest, neither might seem to fit with the PC's character. Of course naturally difficult choices aren't a problem, but restrictive options between two choices the PC would never make (given more options), are not "right".

I expect that things not feeling "right" for the character is considered a bad thing by everyone. I'm interested as to how significant it's considered. Clearly every game is going to have some restrictions. But, for example, is it preferable to have one clear purpose that doesn't feel right for the character, or a wide range of influential options (which do feel right) without any clear purpose in any one direction?

For me there must be some kind of purpose, and if it's only "improve yourself" or "go on that quest to find the great relic" or "kill the bad foozle", or something more complex like "find out about that certain mystery" or whatever. The purpose doesn't even have to be clearly defined, but there has to be some kind of purpose... you may call it a main story if you want.

I'm thinking there'd always be some main "story" to get involved with - it might be a very specific, involved story. I'm just considering that there might be no simple set of solutions/endings, or that these might be hidden/uncertain/vague. I'm wondering whether it's enough to have a compelling "narrative" (of some sort), where the interest throughout lies in a search for purpose/understanding, rather than in finding clear purpose, or complete understanding.
I'm not sure it is (though I'd kind of like it to be).

If in the beginning there is no real purpose ,and you are free to do whatever you want, go to a magic school, go adventuring, go help people and get money for it, whatever, it's okay. But after some time it gets repetitive, and I long for a story to go after. Like, be attacked by bandits and find out who they are, and in the process getting involved in a great conspiracy or whatever.

What I have in mind is between these cases. I don't mean a simple, open sandbox situation, where there's no pressure/motivation to do anything in particular. Neither do I mean a single story about a conspiracy, with a few branches / endings.
I mean for the PC to be put into a situation with a load of pressures, interested parties, unanswered questions..., but to have no clear choice between various Path-X-to-Purpose-Y-for-Goal-Z options. The situation wouldn't have a few "solutions", or one particular realization bringing complete understanding. The aim would be to have it be interesting and compelling (with many simple player-defined goals/rewards), perhaps with player potential to improve the situation (from some perspective), or gain in understanding - but without having for the PC to completely "solve" things, in whatever sense.

But I guess every RPG got some kind of purpose, even Diablo [kill the bad guy] and Darklands [defeat Baphomet], no matter how free roaming they are.

Again - I'm not talking about freedom to roam around and do random stuff. I'm talking about freedom in over-all motivation/goal/significant influence [e.g. Morrowind/Oblivion have a load of the former, without (almost) any of the latter]. Basically I mean a "plot" that's more of a splotch than either a line or a tree.

A purpose, which is told by narrative...

It needn't be "told", it only needs to be stimulated (if anything). Perhaps the player needs goals, but he doesn't have to be told what they are - he just needs some reason to think they're worthwhile.

...always has to be there to keep the player excited and make his actions matter.

Sure, some purpose - but that can often be an immediate, localized purpose / combination of purposes. Does there need to be a clear, large-scale over-arching purpose (as opposed to just an over-arching context/theme/situation...)? [I'm not sure I exactly agree with "excited" either - intrigued/involved/invested will do without necessarily needing excitement all the time]

 

[Romanian_Dude2005]

Off Topic: Could you please stop using so many parantheses, it's realy difficult to organize everything you're saying.

How long is it ok to be "in the dark"? Is eventual enlightenment a necessity?

I think this should be up to the player, but I'm not suggesting something simple like:

Explore the game and follow the MQ - find out more about the story
Don't explore, keep to the MQ - stay "in the dark"

It's should be something that will connect the player more to the storyline like asking him "Are you ready to face the truth/ Are you ready to unearth your past/ Are you ready to face your sins and find out what a monster you truly are? Or will you choose not to find out and live a lie". Obviously, the plot should be able to be continued even without gathering information, but the chooices must have conscequences.

You find out who you were and still are - You permanantly lose stats due to the pain of realization, but you gather usefull information that will activate short-cuts to finishing the game

You choose "Aw, screw it! Who needs this bullshit?! I'm going my own way regardless of who I am or what I'm fighting for/against" - You don't lose stats, but you don't get the short-cuts to the endgame

I'm wondering whether it's enough to have a compelling "narrative" (of some sort), where the interest throughout lies in a search for purpose/understanding, rather than in finding clear purpose, or complete understanding.

If you want the plot to be compeling and tied with the character in such a way, that he would have all the motivation to follow and finish the storyline I would suggest that the best porpouse would be "Self-Preservation".

Has much has I like Ultima IV and Torment's storylines which focus on gathering information and varoius philosofical themes, but they never felt too compeling with the main character, in fact most of the time I spent playing these games was exploring the world, leveling (has speacily in Torment) and finding out all kinds of stuff that had little to do with the storyline.

A storyline focusing on the idea of saving yourself from a punishment specificaly related to you (if it's a end-of-the-world cataclysm, then you would be compled to seek an alternative in which you can save more then just yourself, or maybe even the whole world!). If your life is in danger, or you carry a big burden on your shoulders simply for being alive, if everyone hates you and wants you dead so that they won't have to endure your presence, then your much more involved withthe storylines idea of saving yourself, has selfish has it may be, the game should make it obvious that you have no reason to care for others and the chooices should focus on how many ways you can save yourself

E. g. There are many ways to kill the Master, but in the end he is still going to die!

It needn't be "told", it only needs to be stimulated (if anything). Perhaps the player needs goals, but he doesn't have to be told what they are - he just needs some reason to think they're worthwhile.

Again the porpouse of saving yourself from some high level assassin's that are trying to kill you calling you a traitor/murderer/pagan infidel/jackass is the most stimulating possible. How the player chooses to find out why his head is being sought all over the continent and who he realy is up to him and the constant fear of being killed in your bed or by eating an apple or by foolisly falling for a strange woman flirts or by not being quick enough to progress through the game.

Sure, some purpose - but that can often be an immediate, localized purpose / combination of purposes. Does there need to be a clear, large-scale over-arching purpose

Has long has it doesn't add plotwists that beep your screen with red letters "[colour=red]You fool! I've tricked you all alonged! Yoshimo has betrayed you and the captain has druged you so that you'll fall asleep at the end of this conversation! How does it feel to get Punk'd?![/colour]. So yeah, it could be done in a way that the porpouse becomes in a subtle way more and more clear.

 

[galsiah]

Significance:...The ability to invest the PC with genuine narrative depth isn't going to happen otherwise - how you deal with, say, a drunk accused of a crime...

Ok - say that you have the whole drunk+crime episode, and deal with it appropriately for your character. This leads to some significant consequences for the drunk, but before long he ends up dead - however you treated the situation. Is it enough that your actions had significance at the time you made them, or does their eventual insignificance spoil things? How about if you know that the drunk is going to die quite soon even before you act - does it feel pointless then? Is that bad?

Real truth:... Of course, if there is an excitement created by conflicting evidence or narratives...

I definitely mean for any ambiguity to be caused by an eventual surplus of conflicting information - without any one clearly authoritative/trustworthy source. For instance, a player might play once and think that A is "The answer"; play again, discovering more, then think that B is "The answer"; play again, finding yet more, and conclude that there is no clear answer; play again...C etc. etc.
Assume for the moment that the player will never have total certainty of any answer - once he's played a few times. Assume that there's always a reasonable expectation of finding more information with another playthrough (ignoring implementation for now). Is this a bad thing?

Of course, there might be little distinction between one long playthrough, and many short playthroughs. The availability of information can be very open from the start, and the main point can be to find information (and survive etc.). Whether you go from thinking A to B to neither to C... in one playthrough or several might not be too important. Either way, is it a bad thing if you can never definitively say you've "finished", or that you know all there is to know?

Very important if I as a player am supposed to take the story seriously. If my character isn't properly motivated I tend to just lean back and (try to) enjoy the ride, and that's not something an interactive medium should encourage. Though perhaps this applies mostly to PnP, because in a non-linear RPG I'll probably find something to do just for my own amusement.

Sure, agreed. I think I'd rather thing's weren't aimed at a just-for-kicks attitude though. That's fine as an option for some character types, but I'd want something for most characters to care about.
I suppose my question was mainly aimed at the "clarity" aspect. E.g. if you're always making decisions based on possibly suspect information, you can't be sure that your decisions are the "right" ones. Usually in RPGs there are some decisions where you're unsure and in-the-dark, but would it be ok for this to be the norm for most large decisions? [I guess most small sub-goals would automatically be much clearer, but the context might not be]

Could you please stop using so many parantheses, it's realy difficult to organize everything you're saying.

I'll try. I tend to use too many when I'm using a think-as-I-type stream-of-consciousness-(with-edits) mode.

"Self-Preservation"

That's probably a good idea. I worry that it's a little obvious/over-done though. I guess it's quite often a case of:
Why Are They After You?! -> You're At The Centre Of A Global Conspiracy!! -> STOP THEM BEFORE THEY DESTROY THE UNIVERSE!!!!!
It wouldn't have to be handled that way, of course.

Self-preservation is also an easy way to throw in a load of clearly motivated low-level gameplay - e.g. combat / survival / stopping arbitrary-life-ending-event-X. But I think that in an RPG-like game, there need to be many significant options beyond pragmatic survival decisions. Always having "I [or the PC] think option X gives the highest chance of survival" as a motivation for decisions, doesn't really say anything about character - just that the PC doesn't have a death wish. Having various options which merely suit particular stat sets isn't enough.
I think survival can be an important element, but there needs to be something beyond it. I know I said I'm not bothered about genre, but I would want decisions to be about character.

It's should be something that will connect the player more to the storyline like asking him "Are you ready to face the truth/ Are you ready to unearth your past/ Are you ready to face your sins and find out what a monster you truly are? Or will you choose not to find out and live a lie". Obviously, the plot should be able to be continued even without gathering information, but the choices must have consequences.

In the kind of game I'm imagining, in some sense getting information would be the plot. The situation wouldn't often change dramatically on a large scale, but the player's perspective/motivation would. Of course, that still means the player can stick at one objective, without bothering to find out it's all a lie. I just mean to say that the player finding information would be "continuing the plot", AND the player continuing with his current purpose without said information would also be "continuing the plot".
The main consequence would be to change the entire purpose of the game. In some ways that's the largest consequence you can get - just not one that directly affects stats or similar.

You find out who you were and still are - You permanantly lose stats due to the pain of realization, but you gather usefull information that will activate short-cuts to finishing the game...You choose "Aw, screw it! Who needs this bullshit?! I'm going my own way regardless of who I am or what I'm fighting for/against" - You don't lose stats, but you don't get the short-cuts to the endgame

I'm not keen on that, for a few reasons.
First, currently I'm not envisaging any clear cut-and-dried solution/conclusion to obtain a short-cut to. The game would have an end, but the end wouldn't necessarily play any role in neatly concluding and wrapping up the story. E.g. it might be "Then the world exploded", or "The evening drew to a close and they went their separate ways", or "The cheese sandwich tasted good".... There would be no definitive narrative round-up, regardless of whether or not the player had satisfactorily reconciled the "plot" in his own mind.

Second, without regard to my ideas, I'm not sure that {Stat penalty + skip to the end} vs {No Stat penalty + play for longer}, is a good choice. If both the paths produce a satisfying narrative, why is it necessary to penalize one in stat terms? If you're going to penalize the character on one route, why is it the shorter one? Many players might feel that this is a double punishment - their character gets a raw deal, and they get robbed of some precious gameplay time. I'd prefer to see rewards/penalties balanced simply in narrative terms: the revelation / lack of it, can have wide-ranging implications for the player's future decisions without any direct stat alteration. Perhaps finding the truth might lead him down a dangerous road, that effectively puts him at a disadvantage; perhaps NPCs might learn that he knows the truth, and react harshly as a result....
Even if you want to have a PC penalty for learning the truth, I think there are better ways than simple direct stat loss.

Ultima IV, Torment

I should probably play Ultima IV. AFAIK it has a clear main purpose though, right? It's just not clear in a mapped-out-step-by-step way(??). Does it become really clear at the end, or are there often still vagaries/mysteries? [Just "Yes" or "No" please - spoil it not.]
I think that Torment should have gone one way or the other - either a narrative-only adventure, or a game with more urgency / danger / better combat....

In general, I don't think it should be too hard to add some short-term/low-level purpose to almost any setting (e.g. combat/survival or similar). What I'm more concerned with is long-term, high-level purpose.

 

[Zomg]

Ok - say that you have the whole drunk+crime episode, and deal with it appropriately for your character. This leads to some significant consequences for the drunk, but before long he ends up dead - however you treated the situation. Is it enough that your actions had significance at the time you made them, or does their eventual insignificance spoil things? How about if you know that the drunk is going to die quite soon even before you act - does it feel pointless then? Is that bad?

No, not really, at least in a particular case. If it were an obviously recurring pattern it would feel contrived or create an atmosphere of futility.

Assume for the moment that the player will never have total certainty of any answer - once he's played a few times. Assume that there's always a reasonable expectation of finding more information with another playthrough (ignoring implementation for now). Is this a bad thing?

It could be done well in an individual game, but I wouldn't like it as an ideal or norm.

Of course, there might be little distinction between one long playthrough, and many short playthroughs. The availability of information can be very open from the start, and the main point can be to find information (and survive etc.). Whether you go from thinking A to B to neither to C... in one playthrough or several might not be too important. Either way, is it a bad thing if you can never definitively say you've "finished", or that you know all there is to know?

I don't like it for an RPG at a gut level. I'd consider it another one of those things that could be done well yet is not a good ideal. I think emphasis on multiple playthrough content (ex: the IF game Varicella) strains the thin membrane between PC and player and can easily turn the PC from "player's character" into an avatar or a toolbox.

Edit - Let me clarify, by multiple playthrough content I mean stuff that actually impacts following playthroughs - like for ex. knowing that some character will betray you and give you the "bad ending" (or whatever), so you should leave him at blah blah blah. An example of a game designed for multiple playthroughs on a totally different model is Galatea, another IF game. The thread of narrative that plays out on any individual playthrough does not represent "hidden facts" in other playthroughs that don't follow the same pattern - in many cases a fact true in one line of narrative is mutually exclusive with facts in others.

 

[MacBone]

Galsiah,

I think some sort of purpose is important in a game, whether that purpose be looking for clues to one's past, stopping some villain's plan, or learning some new truth.

This needn't be something of great significance. Perhaps one's goal is to become a part of a village and protect it from attacks as a guardsman, provide tools and weapons as a blacksmith, or dispense cures as the village healer. A sim game might allow the player to control all aspects of the village, but I'm envisioning a game that tells one village member's life story, and different events occur, like enemies attacking the village, wolves killing the cattle, or a plague decimating the population.

I dislike games that present a set of choices for a situation when the decision that best suits my character is not available, and such a situation tends to break the narrative structure.

It's all right if the player's purpose is not clear during the game, but I like some kind of understanding at the game's end an "Ah, so that's what all this was about" kind of moment. However, such a realization might be impossible in the type of game you seem to be suggesting. If so, perhaps some of the mystery might be resolved. Perhaps the player is able to determine who committed the murder but can't prove their guilt or establish a motive. Tell the story well enough, and the player may forgive you for not providing some clear sense of finality.

Why would you have a player go through a set of objectives that ultimately prove meaningless? Where is the value for the player? I much prefer the opportunity for some type of growth, change, or insight to occur.

and in terms of understanding, does knowing there's no One Absolute Truth remove motivation for a search for understanding? Does doubt over the possibility of ever learning the Truth (if it exists) remove motivation? (even if there's always more to learn?)

Knowing there's no Truth at the start or at the end of the game? Will the player ever come to the point where he knows there's no truth, or will he merely fail to find the answers he seeks? If the answer is that there's no Truth, this would seem to entail a significant realization, almost an attainment of omniscience. However, if the opportunity exists to continue to pursue Truth exists, no matter how minuscule, I think there will still be impetus to seek it.

 

[Nog Robbin]

I believe in terms of drawing a character in the story must have a sense of importance. In both MW and OB (for example) both cases required a potential hero with the desire to save the world. Of course, the fact that nothing happened to worsen the state of things until you progressed through the story is irrelevant (and also breaks the main sense of the story).
Unless a game is going to railroad people into playing particular characters with a back story and therefore set aims, ambitions, friendships and enmities, it is important that the actions available to the player allow them to play the character they want to, and for reasons that suits the aims given to the character. This may not sit well in a game with a set story as some characters may not feel the same compulsion to follow it (certainly not in the save the world sort of way, and especially not if the situation is not getting worse and therefore not compelling them to act, even if it is purely out of their own survival or to better their own interests).

When you think back to table top roleplaying, this was almost always the case. A party would be put together with the aim of completing a particular mission. Typically they would be adventurer or mercenary class, and while they could stray from the path (if you had a decent GM), eventually they would come back to the main story. Party politics would tend to keep things together so that even selfish characters would continue to take part. Plus, of course, if a character decided not to continue, the player could take that one out of the story and typically introduce a new one at an appropriate point but of a comparable level (not having to start over from scratch).

If an overall story is the focus it's important that the players characters feel some compulsion to play it through, other than just the sake of completing the game.

 

[suibhne]

Action produces purpose; it's true in real life and also in games. :wink: That is, a game which allows diverse actions with meaningful consequences in the gameworld doesn't also need to provide a strong central narrative for me, as long as it allows the possibility of engaging with a larger storyline if I choose. Is Darklands like that? It's on my list, but I still haven't played it.

I would love to encounter more ambiguity in games, galsiah. It's just so goddamn rare. It's kind of hackneyed, but I still remember that "trial" quest in KotOR because there wasn't a clear-cut "right" answer, and I've long forgotten every other individual quest in that game. I loved the textual ambiguity and conflicting perspectives in Morrowind even tho I found every other quest and piece of the storyline wholly forgettable. Etc., etc.

One "purpose" which I don't want to see is character progression. I can't speak for anyone else, but "levelling up" is so ubiquitous a gameplay mechanism, and is so constantly used in most games, that I sometimes catch myself making in-game choices, instinctively, solely to increase my character's potency in the gameworld. I want game systems which don't make this nearly as rewarding. The challenge is that levelling up, as a game mechanism, is overused because it's a (very poor) proxy for significance and achievement within the gameworld; it satisfies the simulational need for advancement and growth without the need for more sophisticated in-game systems permitting this goal. However, it's also a powerful tool for representing advancement and growth and (probably) isn't inherently bad design, so...

 

[Gambler]

Purposefulness of in-game actions has nothing to do with purpose of the game.

Blade Runner is a good example. You don't really know whether PC is a rep with fake memory or a human. Does it change anything from PC's perspective? Yes, it changes everything. Does it screws up the game? Absolutely not. In fact, that is one of it's strongest points, for the game was meant to express and explore the idea of uncertainty (an others as well).

Most of the meaningful literature is a good example as well. When someone writes piece of shit fantasy novel, he usually pumps up the scale, urgency and importance to hide the fact that the book is empty. It's an artificial way to make it "interesting." On the other hand a good book can speak about something like a bunch of people having a picknick and telling post-modern fairy tales to each other (Generation X, Douglas Coupland).

Ambiguity of facts about the game world (as in Blade Runner) is okay. On the other hand, ambiguity of author's ideas (as in The Matrix aka "make up your ow meaning") is not okay at all.

 

[serch]

Yes, IMHO a purpose is needed in every activity for human enjoyment. Think of religions Anyway, this purpose can be ample enough. The finality in a cRPG can be defining the PC position in front of an ambiguous situation.

 

[The_Sloth_Sleeps]

Purpose beyond the story I think is important. You ought to be more than just a fancy. You should exist to fight battles and be rewarded for it, sneak and steal and get rewarded for that. The game ought to keep ticking over even if the story at that point is slow.

 

[anvi]

You would not like my answers. I hate stories. Also Sopranos sucked.

 

[The_Sloth_Sleeps]

You would not like my answers. I hate stories. Also Sopranos sucked.

Sopranos was about characters and lifestyle. There was not that much of a story, and it was a slightly ridiculous premise that there would be 1930's Chicago mafia in 2000's NYC.

It was otherwise an enjoyable watch, but no, no story to speak of.

With that in mind, I don't feel a story has to be overt, in your face, or driving the game. I was playing Commander Keen 4 last night with my son, and I was thinking how stylistically it has a story, but the story itself could be summarized within three sentences. Or DOOM for that matter, does not really need a story beyond 3 sentences.

But I feel a game ought to play out a certain way, and that's why the background "story" is necessary. Even if its characters that behave in a particular manner that paints the story. I enjoyed AOD without actually paying *that* much attention to the story. It was the flavour of the world that I was soaking up.

 

[anvi]

I was thinking more about the ambiguous ending where we are supposed to imagine what happens ourselves. I hated that. I like games where the story is just, "You are on a quest do this" and then the focus is all about the gameplay. But I think OP and a lot of devs these days want to make a story heavy game because making gameplay is hard.

 

[MarathonGuy1337]

Some questions:
How important do you find a sense of (narrative) purpose in an RPG?
How important is it that your purpose is of great significance (either in Save-The-World terms, or in personal character terms)?
Does it only need to feel significant (e.g. exceptionally written/constructed quest-for-a-cheese-sandwich)?
How important is it that your purpose is clear (eventually), and clearly "right" (for your character)?
If you're unsure whether your actions were in fact reasonable (e.g. because you can't be sure of the facts) even at the end of the game, does that hurt (/help) the experience?
If you reach the end of the game without achieving anything (e.g. say the theme of a game is learning about some mystery, but at the end it seems there is no certain answer - that the real truth might not even be knowable), is this a bad thing?


I'm mainly thinking of a game with strong narrative elements (where by "narrative", I basically just mean "lots of pertinent writing" in whatever form), but without any clearly defined central purpose - e.g. no Save-The-World-From-Evil-Dudes.
I'm NOT talking about sandbox/sim/strategy/action cross-over RPGs here (though I'm not specifically excluding any such elements either). I'm definitely not talking about hack-n-slash / rogue-likes / any character-stat-improvement-as-its-own-end game. The driving force of the game would be the writing/"plot" - just without any clear central objective. There would be central themes, and various (conflicting) objectives - all just might prove eventually pointless, or of indeterminate value.

I'm taking it as obvious that the player gets to pick his direction (between more than trivial Good/Neutral/Evil paths), and that his actions affect the game world and many potential objectives significantly (in terms of his own situation) during the game. I'm just asking whether he needs to achieve anything much by the end (beyond somewhat greater understanding); and in terms of understanding, does knowing there's no One Absolute Truth remove motivation for a search for understanding? Does doubt over the possibility of ever learning the Truth (if it exists) remove motivation? (even if there's always more to learn?)

Thoughts?

[N.B. if you have any interesting points, please don't dismiss them on the basis of genre - e.g. something that'd end up adventure-game-like. I have zero interest in genre classifications at this point - I'm simply interested to know what you think could work in any remotely RPGish context.]

I mean I guess a good RPG need to have a clear purpose like the OG fallout had you searching for a water chip to save you vault, its a clear objective but is ultimataly major mcguffin quest. They elevate this in the games second half with the hunt for the Super Mutant stronghold but still the first half is a mcguffin.

KOTOR 1 had this same idea with the star-maps being a sought of Mcguffin but they incorporated the fight against the Dark-side and the threat of the Star Forge which also added the early game mystery, along with the surprising twist in KOTOR 1 which added some more personal stakes into the conflict.

I would say the player need to feel accomplished or at the very least fulfilled after playing the game, you either want them ready to replay or at the very least recommending the game to friends and the best way to achieve this is by having them feel a sense of accomplishment.

 

[banana]

How important do you find a sense of (narrative) purpose in an RPG?

Very. Why should I play a pointless game? Was Depression Quest a good game? Did it have a point?

How important is it that your purpose is of great significance (either in Save-The-World terms, or in personal character terms)?

It depends. If you're first establishing a setting, you can go with anything: the "save the world" story, a political story (FFT/TO minus the supernatural parts, Suikoden), or something more personal like a regional or local conflict over water rights, cattle theft, overthrowing a corrupt sheriff, slaying a local vampire lord, etc. Named characters (not necessarily the main character) assist with this better than generics or randomly generated stuff.

Once you have the setting established, then you can go back through the setting in sequels of similar or different genres and explore it with generic characters.

So if you made an very high power level FF6-style 2D JRPG with named characters that loosely follows the plot of FF6 except you can pick between 1 of 3 major factions in the main conflict (and assist other minor/local/regional factions in their conflicts with one another), then a sequel could be a low power level FF5 style 2D JRPG where you explore the setting as a grunt in some faction, and you can pick which faction you start with.
> In the first game, everyone has a fixed set of abilities, stats, and gear options, and while some customization is possible for them the draw is more in the story, the art, and the setting.
> In the second game, everything is maximally customizable with a job class system, with multiple generic, named, and procedurally generated mooks to recruit and customize with associated quests.

People generally want sequels and prequels and spin-offs in a setting because they like the setting and they want to fantasize about living in it. This is one reason why people who deliberately and gleefully shit up their settings are so off-putting; they are breaking the deal they made with the reader. It's why will never read anything GRRM writes or wrote ever again after the shit he pulled with ASOIAF.

The example I made is really fun because with the second game its final bosses are mid-tier enemies from the first game. You go from literally harvesting thousands of them for bear asses or stat points to desperately praying that you survive the next attack. It's a vidya equivalent of playing a game where everyone goes to level 30 with any race they want and any template they want to playing as peasants in a village. That warg you casually blasted 20 miles into the sea is now a death machine.

And when the main characters from the first game appear, it's as if an angel or a demi-god strolled by for lunch after casually stomping a building into rubble, or suplexing a train.

Does it only need to feel significant (e.g. exceptionally written/constructed quest-for-a-cheese-sandwich)?

Making a story feel significant is done largely through risk and loss. If you can write and create art which arouses strong emotions over not getting or losing your protagonists cheese sandwich, then it works. If not, then it doesn't.

Obviously a quest for a cheese sandwich would be something for a younger crowd, perhaps an anime story about a little girl who really likes cheese and craves it, but is constantly thwarted and gets very sad about this. If you can make this work it's a sort of flex of your artistic ability.

How important is it that your purpose is clear (eventually), and clearly "right" (for your character)?

Robert McKee's book Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting talks about the structure and logic of writing stories. I recommend you pirate it and read it. I could write a syllabus for a class on writing just about your little girl who loves cheese, using this book as the guide.

If you're unsure whether your actions were in fact reasonable (e.g. because you can't be sure of the facts) even at the end of the game, does that hurt (/help) the experience?

It doesn't matter if your actions were reasonable, what matters is if they were reasonable for the characters who acted and that their logic fits the logic of the in-game universe.

If for example the little girl starts crying when her teacher takes away her cheese sandwich that she had waited for over several days just as she was about to eat it, because she was dancing in elation that she had finally won her prize, and this led to her running away from home after her mother punished her - well why is that reasonable to her? Why does she love cheese sandwiches so much?

Oh, it turns out her father would make her a cheese sandwich when he took care of her while her mother was away because he couldn't cook, and she loved her father. Now he is gone away somewhere or for some time, and she misses him. Eating a cheese sandwich sooths her because it reminds her of a time when she felt safe, loved, and comfortable.

If you reach the end of the game without achieving anything (e.g. say the theme of a game is learning about some mystery, but at the end it seems there is no certain answer - that the real truth might not even be knowable), is this a bad thing?

If you're trying to make a horror game, sure. Lack of resolution is typically something you don't see in happy endings.

If you're trying to make an experimental story, you should first try to master the techniques in making traditional stories. You can't break the rules in all the right ways if you don't know what the rules are.