Article - Choices and Linearity

[Drakefyre]

Article - Choices and Linearity

 

When planning out your scenario, you will have to make some decisions regarding the progression of the plot. There's the question of how much impact the player's actions will have on the scenario, and what will always happen regardless. You have to decide if the player is ever able to make choices that will have far-reaching (or simpler) consequences, or whether the party is swept along in the story.

 

The first point of discussion here is the amount of choice the player will have. There are many scenarios where the party is able to choose a side to join - some of it is done outright ("Which side will you join?"), and some is done more subtly, even so discreetly that they might not even realize that they're picking a side. Then again, most scenarios don't use choices of this scope at all.

 

An overt choice, such as in Tatterdemalion, can be used well, but it generally separates a scenario into two (or three) smaller scenarios that much each be played to get a full feel for the scenario. A Small Rebellion also uses a choice like this to expand the scenario and give it another dimension - the ability to play for a sympathetic group of rebels. Ideally, the choice will come somewhere between the time it does in the above two scenarios. In Tatterdemalion, you choose at the beginning, and it feels too early. In ASR, you choose seemingly too far along to experience much of the rebel story.

 

A subtler choice, like in Of Good And Evil, will still have the party making a choice between two forces - in the case of OGAE, it's morals and orders, and the effects of the choices aren't known until the second play-through ends. This is very successful in OGAE, and it can be replicated easily in Blades of Avernum. Part of the challenge is presenting the sides so that it appears to be a dilemma to the player, and so that it strikes the right chords in the player's head. You don't want to ask them outright to switch sides or choose one, but their actions should influence the direction the story takes, and they should be able to realize it after a while.

 

The third possibility is to not let on to the party at all that their actions have influenced the game, but keep on changing the game based on them, and not let them find out until the end. OGAE and Falling Stars use a karmic system to determine their endings, how NPCs react to the party, etc. It's an invisible reputation counter, basically, and it has a lot of influence on how the game unfolds. Again, when this is utilized properly, it makes scenarios much more fun.

 

Still, you don't need to have choices like the three kinds described above to make a good scenario. You can present choices and options to the player, or you can force them to follow a linear plot and keep the story moving quickly. This opens up another discussion and the second point of the article - linear scenarios versus the open-ended scenarios.

 

Linear scenarios are usually plot-driven, and they have a quickly-paced story that should grab the player's interest and not let go until the scenario ends. An Apology does this, Redemption does this, Emulations does this, Revenge does this, and even Quintessence does. Those aren't all of the linear scenarios, but they are some of the most prominent, and some of the ones that use linearity well and to augment their scenario.

 

A linear scenario may have outdoor sections, but there should not be too many of them, or it will kill the urgent mood (if one exists) and become boring to the player. A linear scenario can still have sidequests, but they should never detract from the main plot, and it's even better if they add to it. The combat in a linear scenario should be interesting, fun, and important. It should never have the feeling of being repetitive (and this holds true for any scenario), and it doesn't have to exist at all.

 

The driving force behind most linear scenarios (and all of the good ones) is a gripping plot that involves the player and thrusts you into the action. It's primarily a story-based scenario, and if the story falters, the scenario will falter too. As a player, linear scenarios are my favorite by far.

 

There are two types of open-ended scenario - one with a set plot that can be deviated from, and one that attempts to be a world that immerses the player, usually without a definite ending point, except running out of missions to do. Most scenarios fall under the first description, but only the smaller ones succeed. Scenarios that try to emulate Avernum 3 or another giant game will inevitably fail or fall short. There are some notable exceptions (At the Gallows, Falling Stars), but generally, scenarios on a smaller scale will work better. The second type of open-ended scenario has not really been fully explored in Blades of Exile, but the Adventurers' Club scenarios and the Wreck of the Slug attempt it.

 

Open-ended scenarios that follow the first model are more likely to be well-received, based on the high favor that a plot curries in the community. Still, don't go overboard on the sidequests, sidedungeons, and sidetowns. Never forget that the main plot is the focus of the scenario, and everything else serves to flesh out the world and offer a break from the general plotline. Limiting the scenario's size also makes it more likely that you'll actually finish designing it, especially when you get into a more open-ended scenario that is slightly detached from the story. Linear scenarios can generally get away with being a little bigger than they need to be because the designer usually has a connection with the plot that keeps them going.

 

The second type of open-ended scenario is, in my opinion, not suited to the Blades of Exile/Blades of Avernum medium. It's far too hard to create a whole world in this system, and we generally like to focus our attention on small parts of worlds, backwards frontier settlements, isolated valleys, et cetera. It's a giant undertaking when you attempt a scenario of this sort, and it's generally not as fun to play. A scenario does not need to be as big as a commercial game because very few players want to spend that much time in a world that you create with a driving story keeping you there.

 

TWOTS and the ACs all suffer from that tendency, and you're generally better off focusing on one of the other types of scenarios. I personally favor a linear scenario, and large scenarios need to be extremely good to keep my interest throughout the entire scenario. Don't forget that a party is not obligated to stay in the scenario the entire time - you can't just make it interesting at the end, because nobody will see it. You have to start out strong and keep the pace for the entire scenario.

 

All of this is just meant to keep you open to the different mindsets of scenario designing, and some of the common pitfalls in each. You're certainly free to design whatever you want to design.

[Shyguy]

This is a good article. Of course, (and you knew I'd object) I don't fully agree with one part of it.

 

"The second type of open-ended scenario is, in my opinion, not suited to the Blades of Exile/Blades of Avernum medium. It's far too hard to create a whole world in this system, and we generally like to focus our attention on small parts of worlds, backwards frontier settlements, isolated valleys, et cetera. It's a giant undertaking when you attempt a scenario of this sort, and it's generally not as fun to play. A scenario does not need to be as big as a commercial game because very few players want to spend that much time in a world that you create with a driving story keeping you there."

 

This entire paragraph is strictly one person's opinion... namely yours. I have had dozens and dozens of emails from many players who have never posted a thing on these forums, raving about how they enjoy the Adventurer's Club games. And the size is one of the features they most enjoyed. I had one person express saddness that he had come to the end of the game, begging me to tell him if there were any more things to do that that he might have missed. And many emails asking me when the next installment is coming up.

 

I would say that this type of scenario is definately the hardest type to make, and many people DON'T have the time to play through such a game. But there are also plenty of those that DO have the time and like their games "the bigger, the better." So don't put down this type of design just because YOU don't like it. Yes, you DID state in the beginning of the paragraph that this was "your opinion", and that's about the only thing I agree with.

[The Creator]

a) Too late, it's up on the website.

 

If we never allowed ourselves to express our opinions about what makes a scenario good or bad, where would we be?

 

c) While those who enjoy a large world to explore do comprise a larger portion of the Blades demographic than Drakey implies, I really don't think he deserved to be jumped on like that.

 

So basically, I'm on Drake's side here. There's no reason you can't write an article about how to make a vast, involving world.

[spyderbytes]

I hate to say this, as much as I respect you, Drakefyre, but this whole article DOES seem a bit more like an apologia for the supremacy of story than a general article on good scenario design.

 

Statements like "Open-ended scenarios that follow the first model are more likely to be well-received, based on the high favor that a plot curries in the community" are not above dispute, given the heated debate we just had over just how important plot is. They're more likely to be well received by you, and some of the more vocal others around here; but I don't think we've established the community as a whole feels that way.

 

You then go on to say, "Never forget that the main plot is the focus of the scenario, and everything else serves to flesh out the world and offer a break from the general plotline." Again, this is what we just had a huge debate about, in another thread, and no consensus was reached that plot is the overriding consideration.

 

Creator, yes Drakefyre is indeed entitled to his own opinion, and I doubt anyone here would dispsute that. However, I don't believe an article ostensibly dealing with the proper way to design a scenario is the best vehicle for expressing that opinion. I would hope article authors would strive to take an unbiased view.

 

For the record, I believe Drakefyre did just that, but fell a bit short of the mark in this particular instance. Overall, it's a well written article that makes some good points. I just think a bit of rewriting to remove some of the more flagrant pushing of one person's view as the "best" way to design a scenario is in order.

 

Now my own apologia : That, of course, is all just my own opinion and can be taken or discarded as desired.

 

-spyderbytes

[The Creator]

If you're going to write an article, how the heck are you supposed to do it without expressing an opinion? Geez.

 

There's article by TM that expresses a bunch of personal opinions - that lots of combat is bad, that lots of outdoors is bad, and that endings are good. Talk about pushing your own point of view. Why isn't anyone jumping down his throat?

 

If you're going to can something on the basis of personal opinion, you have to can every personal opinion. That, of course, is just my personal opinion.

[spyderbytes]

No one is jumping down anyone's throat here, Creator. I think Shyguy and I both expressed our differing opinions in a very civil manner. Heck, we both said it was a well-written and insightful article (or words to that effect), even.

 

As to how to write an article "without expressing an opinion", neither of us said that's what should be done. I said an article is not an appropriate vehicle for PUSHING an opinion (to paraphrase myself). That can be avoided by a) stating the opposing opinion if/when you know one exists; and not stating an opinion in a way that makes it appear to be accepted fact to a casual reader. Drakefyre indeed does at least some of (a), which is what led me to say I think he was making an attempt to present a fair, unbiased article. However, I think he failed ( in a few places.

 

AFAIK, the "opinions" you say TM is pushing in his article are accepted as fact by the community. Too much fighting IS bad. Too much outdoors IS bad. And a scenario without an ending (of some sort) would hardly be worth playing. No one that I know of holds a differing view of those things. So presenting them as "fact" is fine.

 

However, there ARE several people around here who dispute that "plot is god". It CAN be, quite sucessfully. But it certainly doesn't have to be. Therefore, I would tend to think that a fair and balanced article shouldn't state plot is the most important thing in a scenario without clearly indicating that it's the author's opinion and others feel differently.

 

The whole point of articles is to teach fledgling scenario designers the art of the craft. If we tell them "plot is god" without offering any opposing views, all we're ever likely to see coming down the pipe are plot-intensive scenarios. That would suit some around here just fine, I'm sure; but I, for one, would rather see a variety of things.

 

I don't intend to get into a shouting match here. I've politely stated my view and will be moving along now.

 

-spyderbytes

[The Creator]

Quote:

Originally written by Shyguy:
I would say that this type of scenario is definately the hardest type to make, and many people DON'T have the time to play through such a game. But there are also plenty of those that DO have the time and like their games "the bigger, the better." So don't put down this type of design just because YOU don't like it. Yes, you DID state in the beginning of the paragraph that this was "your opinion", and that's about the only thing I agree with.

When I talk about "jumping down throats", that's what I mean.

Spy's Quest, At the Gallows, and Spears have loads of outdoors and loads of combat. AC1 and AC3 are similar. So presumably Shyguy and Stareye disagree with a couple of TM's opinions there.

As far as I can tell, the "Plot is god" view is at least as prevalent in the designing community as the "outdoors is bad" view.

[spyderbytes]

Just to clarify one further point (yes, I know I said I wasn't going to post more on this thread--so sue me ): I'm part of the BoA designers community, but not the BoE one (I never even registered BoE--I didn't have the time or interest in designing scenarios when it came out). And I certainly don't hold the view that "plot is god". We just had an entire thread (I suppose I should look it up, but I'm too lazy ) where several people disputed that it was.

 

My point: it's entirely possible to become so involved in plot that you're asking the player to do things that aren't fun, simply to service the plot. The very fact that it services the plot might be fun to some, but not to me and others.

 

As someone pointed out in that other thread, there are other vehicles better suited to strict story-telling (e.g., novels and movies). To me, games are about having fun. Insofar as plot advances that, it's well and good. But the moment it comes into contention with my fun, the plot had better "give" or I won't be playing that scenario any more.

 

-spyderbytes

[Boots]

From well outside the "designing" community, and well inside the "too stupid to figure out how to download from Alex." community:

 

It might be interesting to recast this question. What "open-ended" and "linear" scenarios have tended to share is a similar motivation for their action. Built after the model of romance quests, their stories are pulled along by some goal. And it is tough to keep the contract of an open-ended, richly-detailed world in a story that otherwise progresses by being pulled. On the other hand, "push" plots -- to take the simplest example, the story of a pursuit -- are somewhat rarer in Blades. Yet set the law after me, and I'll be happy to have a world with as many obscure nooks and crannies as I can find.

 

I don't know that "push" versus "pull" is more useful than "open-ended" versus "linear." It probably isn't. But it does seem to me that we're familiar enough with the terms of the second debate that it's worth mapping the ground shared by its combatants. That might provide a reference from which designers can depart into new territory.

[Shyguy]

I was not jumping down anyone's throat, either, Creator. The first sentence actually agrees with what he has stated. I was just pointing out that his opinion may not be shared with the majority of players and he should be more careful about how he represents the BoE community.

 

I suppose using BOLD CAPITALIZED LETTERS made it seem like I was shouting, but I was just trying to stress these words. And as you're very well aware of our different views on this subject, I thought I would just use this opportunity to open up this subject to more debate. I was not attacking Drakefyre in any way.

 

I'm sure his article was well intended, and it is quite well written. But his fairly neutral stance took a biased turn when he spoke of the style of designing I most enjoy. I just wanted to point out that this shouldn't have been done in a "How To" article. I'm not saying my games are shining examples of how to do this style the right way. They're not. Of course there are flaws, some quite substantial. But he shouldn't condemn this style. State that it is difficult and not recommneded, perhaps... But don't flat out say it's "not suited to the BoE/BoA medium".

[spyderbytes]

Quote:

Originally written by Boots:
Yet set the law after me, and I'll be happy to have a world with as many obscure nooks and crannies as I can find.

Hehe... I'm working on a "push" scenario with just that premise, and the odd thing is, it will be farily smallish (as far as nooks and crannies go). Or, I should say I have both the "push" (the law is on your heiny) AND the "pull" (you have certain well laid out things you need to do to get the law off you, which you discover as you go along). It's also intended to be a comical scenario, however, so the "push" is never allowed to become all THAT dire (even though you'll be hanged if you're caught). Think of it as laughing all the way to the gallows.

That IS an interesting recast, Boots. I think we would be well served to re-examine some of the more successful BoE scenarios (again, I never registered it, so I'm not the one to do that ) in light of of the "push vs. pull" debate.

-spyderbytes

[Drakefyre]

This is not intended to be a 'How To' article, first of all.

 

Quote:

All of this is just meant to keep you open to the different mindsets of scenario designing, and some of the common pitfalls in each. You're certainly free to design whatever you want to design.

Secondly, I do have a problem with AtG, Spears, the ACs, Rubacus, etc. because they are just so freakin' big. Spears and the ACs can (mostly) get away with it because of the skill and experience of the designer, but any first work from someone of that second type of open-endedness will almost certainly (a) not be finished, ( suck really bad, or © be really boring.

 

EDIT: I'd appreciate it if we could keep the AC-specific comments @ the BoE thread.

[The Creator]

Quote:

Originally written by spyderbytes:
I'm part of the BoA designers community, but not the BoE one (I never even registered BoE--I didn't have the time or interest in designing scenarios when it came out).

By 'designing community' I meant people who have actually made scenarios. I'm not trying to discredit you or anything, just making my point. The vast majority of established designers put story as their No. 1 priority.

Quote:

And I certainly don't hold the view that "plot is god". We just had an entire thread (I suppose I should look it up, but I'm too lazy ) where several people disputed that it was.

How many of them were established designers?

The reason I bring this up is "players" or new designers often don't really understand what makes a scenario fun. They enjoy finding cool weapons and nice loot, so they assume that's all there is to it. They load their scenarios up with loads of mega-weapons and tons of cash, since more has obviously got to be better, and we get a Monty Haul scenario. Players making the transition to designers make this mistake over and over.

Basically, I'm saying that there are more people who know a lot about scenario design that disagree with the "Outdoors is Bad" point of view than there are one who disagree with the "Story as Priority No.1" point of view (or "Story as God" point of view, as you call it). If you're going to discredit the latter, you have to discredit the former.

As far as I'm concerned, you can say whatever you like in an article. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not to listen to you. If you feel newbies are being mislead, by all means, write your own article setting them straight.

[spyderbytes]

If you want to assume I'm just some young pup who hasn't earned a right to run with the Big Dogs, fine. I don't know the Sooper Seekrit Handshake of the local branch of designers, so obviously my viewpoint is worthless.

 

Players don't know what makes a scenario fun? Yeah, I'd agree with that... sometimes. As with any producer/consumer symbiosis, you give your players what they need, not what they say they want, if you want to achieve the most success. But players are durn good at pointing out what's NOT fun (though, of course, the specifics of what's not fun might vary from player to player).

 

If you've successfully discovered a fanbase by producing scenarios where plot is the end-all and be-all, great and wonderful! Just don't make the mistake of assuming that your fanbase is the entire fanbase of BoE/BoA consumers. Or even that just because no one wrote you and said "this suxxors--there was too much plot!", that every last person who played it thought it was terrific.

 

I've never advocated phat lewt as a substitute for plot. The irony here is that I'm sure most would place anything I design squarely in the "plot is god" camp, looking at it from the "outside". All I've ever said is that plot CAN BE (and has been, at least according to some) carried too far for the good of the fun of the scenario. I'd agree many game/scenario designers (and especially most first-timers) don't carry it far enough. So telling them plot is the single most important aspect might conceivably spur them to produce a scenario with just about the right amount of it. But that doesn't make it Universal Truth.

 

Also, I never said "outdoors is bad", and if I read TM correctly, he didn't either. TOO MUCH outdoors is bad (as in vast stretches of outdoors with not enough happening in them). By definition 'too much' of ANYTHING is bad (including plot--or even my own 'god', gameplay, which I realize is a rather nebulous term that subsumes most everything, including plot ).

 

Achieving a proper balance to make a scenario fun is a tricky thing, indeed. If you have a formula that works for achieving balance, more power to you! But don't assume your formula is the only one. I stand by my viewpoint that said balance is more important than plot, however, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

 

-spyderbytes

[Alorael at Large]

The difference is that plot can carry a scenario. There isn't really any cap, either. Design the plot well enough and you can make it as intricate as you'd like. It's a question of implementation, not feasibility. Loot, on the other hand, has a hard cap. Enough is enough. Too much and you suck the fun out of it. The same with straight combat. The same with almost anything.

 

The key is that plot is, or should be, unique. It doesn't get old or it's a bad plot, which is no better than no plot at all. You can only give a party so many swords and have them face down so many horrible monsters, but you can always through another fork in the plot road or hit them with yet another curveball surprise.

 

—Alorael, who also has no credentials to back up this statement. He would like to add that open-ended and multiple path scenarios really shouldn't be lumped together as non-linear. Branching scenarios still have lines, they just have a few places where lines diverge. Open-ended scenarios have no neat diagram. The former can be made into essentially several similar linear scenarios in one, while the latter is an open-ended romp through one scenario.

[Eldiran]

Everyone has a certain tolerance for different things. If I played a scenario that was all plot, and I didn't actually do any fighting whatsoever, if the plot was not asbolutely great beyond imagination, I would probably become bored before too long. Nobody can say how much of anything is too much; it's entirely a matter of opinion. Diablo II fans will love a combat filled scenario. Those less hack 'n' slash inclined will take less of a liking to one. So basically what I'm saying here is that everyone's got opinions; let's not let the conflict of opinions make an argument. I'm adressing this mostly to some other topics I've seen that have gotten a little too... agressive. Nobody in specific.

 

How good a scenario is is decided by how many people like it and how much they like it. That's all there is to it.

[Lilith]

It is indeed possible to have too much plot; confronted with screenfuls of text, many players will simply skip over it. This is bad, as it often leaves the player not knowing what to do next. (The "Current Quests" list in BoA is a very, very good thing, and something which was lacking in BoE.)

[Donald Hebb]

Not entirely true- Bandits 2

[Imban]

Well, it wasn't default to BoE. The fact that you added it yourself to Bandits 2 didn't add it to any of the other scenarios that needed it.

[The Creator]

*sigh*

 

I was never arguing that "plot is god", spyderbytes - I was arguing that the "plot is god" point of view is at least at prevalent as the "outdoors is bad" point of view, regardless of whether or not I actually agree with either. You can't disallow the "pushing" of one such opinion in an article without disallowing the other.

 

You make a lot of points for and against various opinions, most of which are very good, but all of which are completely irrelevant to what the discussion is (or rather, was) actually about.

 

But since this seems to have turned into a debate about plot, I'll point out to Thuryl that a pile of text boxes does not equal plot - it's the exact opposite. Story = stuff happening. How much actually happens while you're reading those text boxes? Nothing, most the time. They're usually filled with backstory & exposition - something it is VERY easy to have too much of.

[Drakefyre]

I mentioned in the 'Why?' thread some scenarios that stumble because they are too plot-heavy.

 

I have also said that I'm not in the 'plot is god' group. However, it's easy for a fun scenario without a plot to get between a 6 and 7 from me. That may be a good rating for some people. However, a boring scenario with a plot will get around a 5 - 6 from me. The perfect scenario is one that's fun, has a great storyline, and brilliant sequences in it that add the 'wow factor'.