The story side of things

Story

Every RPG has a story line. Something that gives the player a goal, something to strive for, a quest that will mark the end of the game when completed. Usually this involves the player fighting some greater evil. This story is tried and true, but do you not want more? There are few (if any) surprising plot twists in RPGs and I think that this is a real shame. RPGs are one of the remnants of the "old days" as it were, before 3D came into being. Zelda graced our video game platforms and we were happy. Surely we can afford to put some story back into the games which we love to make.

Linear vs. Interactive

This was a thread on GameDev.net that discussed which medium of storytelling is more effective. In RPGs I would have to say that there is a lot of potential for interactive story telling. Generic quests that could be randomly placed (and any blanks filled in) would be fairly easy to add to a random map generating game. Players like something that is going to be different the second time around they play it. I suggest that there is probably some usefulness in creating quests that aid to the actual finish of the game, but are not required in any particular order. This would make it a little bit more fun for the players out there who are seeking something new. I do not think that this is a final step, but I would like to see this implemented. BBS' as I recall had some very good multiple-user dimensions (although not classic style MUD's, as most would know them). They provided quests randomly to the player, but also had some fixed quests, which the player was required to complete. I don't think that it would be too difficult to implement this into an RPG, because they both the same basic game concept and tile design (for the particular game that I am talking about: LORD II by RTSoft).

Adding a choice, "Bulletin Board Quests for the Bounty Hunter"

Something that was posted recently by Whirlwind was how quests could be posted on a bulletin board. The player then decides which quest to undertake, and therefore has some decision about the outcome. This could also make for some Bounty Hunting coming into play in RPGs, which is something that I have not seen since the days of Text-Based Adventure. There may need to be a balance between this system and a possible "Anti-PKing" system. Karma may be altered to accommodate this, and possibly a "guild" based system could allow Bounty Hunters to play their role.

Time critical events

In many a game, there are some obviously time-critical events that unfold but are very important to the storyline in a game. What this ends up doing is proving to the player that the whole world does revolve around them because time stops and waits for them. What I think needs to be done about this is that some time critical events can give the character bonuses but still remain time critical. An example of this is if the character must catch up to a wagon that carrying some escaped bandits and then stop them from leaving the town, the player then must hasten their character to complete the task. If they manage to complete it, then the character gets a bonus of an item or an NPC etc. If they do not manage to stop the wagon then there is no reward and the story continues. This way it seems like there is more interactivity and that each decision the player makes has consequences. Although this is only one example, there could be a multitude of quests that could be added with such yes/no outcomes. It is then like a branching tree in the story. If the wagon is not stopped, it may cause further hindrance to the characters quest later in line. If the wagon is caught then the player may be able to find a shortcut to their goal.

Adding Reason, "I want a dragon NOW! Daddy! NOW!"

This is yet another of my rants and I still choose to say this. There should be nothing in a game that does not have a reason to be there. This is the reason that is in a game. If you want a dragon in your game there should be a genuine reason for doing so instead of just saying "because everybody else has one". This is also true for genres. You should not make a first person shooter just because everybody else does. As such, you should not fall into the same trap about CRPG's or Roguelikes. Here is where I start to rant about a real reason for having a dragon in a game.

In my game, the reason that I have a dragon is to mock all of a certain breed of games. In my game, the dragon shall not be the hunted, and shall not be the prize. No dragon is ridden because that is not of the dragons will. What the dragon is to represent is the greatest of the magicians. It will stand defiant against those who face it and they won't even know that it is there. This is because dragons' are not a fearsome beast to be hunted. They are a proud, masterfully skilled being who hold great wisdom and wield the magic finer than any other could. They are the remnants of the past that refuse to lie down and be ridden over. They symbolize everything that there should be in magic. As is magic, the dragons are rare, few and far between. They can only be found by the true of heart in a time of great need, and none other will ever find their trace. They are the timeless ones who represent watchers over the world and the keepers of the peace. They are there to challenge only those who would threaten the world, and only bare those who fight against such evil. The dragon is the key to the world, the glue that keeps everyone stuck, the wise, timeless ones whom the loremasters communicate. They are hidden to all because they appear to those who do not understand as human. They hide in the midst of their enemies. The reason I want a dragon is to mock everybody's beliefs about the use of a dragon in a game, and I want him or her to understand that I have imagination for using such. This is not about just going with the flow and copying others, it is about challenging the reasons that the very fabric of a game is based on and so there is a reason for everything.

Do you think I got a little carried away? I tend to rant a bit when I think that something that should be said should be said a bit louder. That is a long description for a reason, and it is a reasonable excuse, (not the best) and it is an excuse that I have already stated to others. It is merely an example of why you have something in your game. You should do the same for everything in your game.

(New) A story-less RPG

Before you all start saying "But A story is in integral part of an RPG!" I have to say that this rant is not about that in essence. Nazrix meant his thread to be about the actual body of a game. The idea basically pertains to there being a setup story for any characters, and a conclusion that is attainable. The story-less part of the proceedings is the actual game. In the game you do not get told the story, you basically attempt to achieve the final goal in whatever manner you see fit, and whatever manner is available within the game. By doing so, the player creates their own story, where they interact with whichever characters, complete whatever quests, slay whatever race, and eventually reach their goal. This would greatly add to replayability value.

The distant future of gaming

There has been some discussion as to the possibility of self-generating storylines in games. This is not so unbelievable as it seems. At the moment it would require a vast amount of Artificial Intelligence to achieve anything interesting and believable and any storyline that is created is unlikely to be as emotive or as artistic as one that any human could write. This does not detract from what can be achieved with a self-generating story. It would be the ultimate Interactive experience for a player as they could choose to do whatever the game allowed them to do, but would also give them diverse endings and different reasons and explanations of everything that they have done and why. This is much more of an extremely futuristic dream, but it is one that should not be forgotten. At least the diversity of the story ought to be interactive enough.