AndrewStoryConcerns

Andrew's Story Concerns

So Andrew had a bunch of feedback on the Story Delivery Methods Spec, and he has some good points to make. The disclaimer here, which he asked me to deliver, is that Andrew is just another voice in the design discussion, and not the boss telling us what to do. But like I said, he has good points that give me pause, and so I include them here. -- Rob

1) The "A" story isn't and shouldn't be everything. (Warning: Andrew totally made up this jargon)

Now when Andrew says "A" story, he means the main mission arc, the one that takes you from the ExOps? betrayal through to taking over South America. (He's not sold on our "A" story, by the way.)

Andrew thinks that crafting a large, intricate "A" mission arc with lots of reactivity is simply too ambitious. He'd much rather limit the scope of the "A" arc. For example, he said one approach to designing the game would be to have an "A" story that comprised a mere 25 missions, as opposed to Mercs 1.0's 47. And then you spend the rest of the designer resources on non-mission stuff like mini-games and quests, giving such things meaning and context and story elements.

He is worried that having a large "A" story with many reactive elements and branching paths would be too much to keep track of in a "real-world" development cycle, as opposed to our "sky's the limit" design sessions. He'd much rather limit the scope of our ambition and execute well. He might be right.

Matt Colville's Note: It's a point well taken. The main plot point, the A story, needs to be something you can convey in one sentance, and it needs to be reinforced and revised throughout the game.

The reason it needs to be simple and reinforced is that clarity buys us Story Equity to do complex things with characters and motivation and subplots. Because the player is never confused about the main story, he's primed to accept some interesting secondary stuff.

Cam's Note: This is kind of a strange reference, but I am reminded of the movie "Moulin Rouge". Baz Lurhmann used an extremely simple story to buy "story equity" (I like this term) to do complex things with production design, music, and other non-traditional elements. I think this is a good model.

2) How about several self-contained "B" stories?

Now bear in mind that Andrew is not arguing for cutting or reducing story stuff out of our game. Instead, he's proposing that we be pragmatic about it.

He proposes having a slim, manageable "A" story, and supplementing that with several self-contained and modular "B" stories. The "B" stories would not affect the "A" story, so we wouldn't have to design the reactivity there, which would be, quite frankly, a lot of work.

The big difference between Andrew's "B" story and the "B" story found in GTA is that Andrew is proposing including character role-playing and role-defining as a part of the "B" story, whereas in GTA, it's all about cash.

Matt Colville's Note: 'A' story and 'B; story are well-used terms Andrew didn't make up. They're TV Drama/Sitcom terms which may, in the end, not be totally analogous to our game. Both of the Star Trek RPGs I worked on had chapters devoted to understanding how TV shows structure their plots, and how your game could do the same thing so it would recognizably feel like a TV Show. When I think about that, and our game, I start to see some confict.

I want to see subplots and character development that in one way or another feed on, or provide contrast to, the theme. If Andrew says 'modular' because he wants lots of stuff that can be ditched at the last second should our scheduling prove unworkable, I'm in agreement to a certain extent. Cam describes working on a game which literally ditched the second act. The Story Department is not going to be able to provide you with a story that is this modular.

Cam's Note: I just want to clarify that I cite my experience of that game (cutting the second act) as an example of what not to do. The story was not modular, and didn't survive the cut (the shipped game made no sense).

Djordi's Note: I think the traditional, old school RPG structure has a lot to offer us in this situation. The "A" story is always, for example, getting the hero off the Executive Operations death list.

The "B" stories are small, self contained stories that are prerequisites for "A" level stories. For example, break into a bank and get a genetically engineered coca plant out of a safe deposit box (GM Cocaine is actually a big deal right now).

3) A "B" story example: The Looting Mini-game

Andrew proposes that each "B" story would allow the player to decide, "Why Am I A Mercenary?" Each one would allow the player to self-define his character through quests.

His example, and this is a very rough spitball example: let's say we had a Looting Mini-game where you would rob banks and such. At the end of the mini-game, you could give your bounty to one of two entities in the game:

• 1) The PMC who hired you, or
• 2) The government.

Obviously, this is a moral choice that self-defines your character, and of course, depending on what you choose, a new subquest is generated. If you choose to keep the loot for your PMC, government agents are sent out to recover it. If you send it to the government, a rebellious member of your PMC attempts to steal it for himself, and you have to recover it.

We can even give you perks or benefits, depending upon which action you choose, which you may then, of course assist you in your goal of completing the "A" story. We can give you cash, abilities, etc.

Andrew jokingly calls this a CDM - Character Delivery Method.

Matt Colville's Note: Character is, for our purposes, part of story. I agree with the idea that the player's choices can define his character.

Cam's Note: Even if the idea ends up being modifed as we progress, I think coming up with minigames that force the player to "be" a certain kind of character would be a very useful exercise. Also, I just fucked up Matt's formatting.


Having fixed Cam's assault on my formatting, I continue.

However, I don't know that the next game will have, as part of its core design, a mandate that the player be able to decide whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. Giving the player that kind of control over the story means...well, it means we need to do a lot more work and hire more writers, because then we've got an RPG that needs to react, as really no RPG has, to the notion that you could be good, or you could be evil. Scary. My gut tells me we decide who the chacters are, the player decides what they do.

Djordi Note: One of the Mercs2 Pillars right now is Choice and Feedback. Given, that I think we really need to seriously look at more branches.

Going with the Looting "B" story I would propose something like the following:

1. The mission is to steal the genetically engineered coca plant from the safe deposit box of a bank.
2. The mission teaches the player how banks work and how the robbing dynamic works.
3. The player is never told to steal money from the bank. The goal is a clean robbery to get the plant out of the safe deposit box.
4. The player can decide to steal money, which makes the "B" mission longer and more dangerous and forces a reaction from the world
5. The player can now engage in a bank robbing mini-game. Case banks and rob them for cash. The world should react to this course of action and give the player some. If someone makes a reference to the hero and his crew being bank robbers, we have a feedback victory!

To sum up, I think it is vitally important that the game give the player feedback based on his actions. That's why its called out as a Pillar. The question now, is how do we pay this off? Maybe good and evil are the wrong terms to fixate on. Maybe "bank robber" is a more touchable label we can focus on.

3) Andrew's Big Question: How do we "storify" the non-mission / mini-game / subquest stuff?

Saboteur has the esprit d' corps system, which basically rewards the player for acting like a jackass, but punishes him if he goes too far. If the player raises the esprit d' corps by taunting the Germans, the mood of the people will lift, and safe houses will open up, people will throw flowerpots at Nazis, etc.

Mercs is a bit to complex to have a single unifying non-mission mechanic, but there's still plenty of room to find a metaphor or a collection of metaphors for our challenge and non-mission gameplay. We did the sort of jokey challenges in the past, but obviously, if we can use the challenges and mini-games as Story Delivery Methods, that would be great.

Andrew suggested as a thought exercise, coming up with all the possible motivations for being a mercenary: money, adventure, villainy, and then seeing if there were mini-games or challenges that would evoke the fantasy of possessing these traits.

Matt Colville's Note: I think Andrew is focusing maybe too much on the Mercenary stuff. I agree with the rule that all challenges/minigames need to make SENSE in the setting, something GTA does brilliantly and Mercs did very, very poorly. I think many of them should further the theme of the game, but I don't see the need to pigeonhole all such efforts into 'Why Are You A Mercenary.'

What I need is a litmus test. Not a list. A good litmus test is; is this something people in this setting would really do? (GTA: trick out their cars, yes. Work out, yes. MERCS: drop Jeeps into Nuclear Reactors, no. Kick cans at lighthouses, no.) After that, does it somehow reinforce or contrast our theme?

Cam's Note: I think people playing Mercs 1.0 will understand that the challenges are really "meta", they're only jokingly related to the fiction. We didn't try to do this in Mercs. Having said that, I think GTA:SA illustrates that it's a better way to go.

Djordi's Note: Meta Challenges have to go. We have to bite the bullet and make sure that challenges reinforce the story. Like Matt points out, this doesn't have to be the plot it. It can be the setting, characters, etc.

The Looting example is perfect for how challenges should work in the sequel. A mission introduces the concept and then opens up the challenge. It reinforces the story that the country is an unstable place and that the banks are therefore vulnerable.

No kicking barrels around!!!

Other Concerns Andrew Has

4) Andrew's Character Question: Is Mercs a Character Game or an Avatar Game?

By this he means, do we give you a predefined character (Mercs 1.0), or allow you to create one on your own (KOTOR)?

OMG. This is a total can of worms. But I'd like someone to reach a conclusion, and then defend the thinking behind it. I think all of the designers, after having read The Losers, are really salivating for some cool characters that the player gets to control.

Andrew has an argument, a salient one, against this.

The fantasy of Saboteur is clearly a recognizable one that people can identify with: being a member of the French resistance during WWII, causing trouble for the Nazis.

But the fantasy of Mercenaries is not so clear. What is the fantasy of being a mercenary? It's one that players will define on their own. Thus, the avatar.

Which is why he proposes a charcter-defining "B" story and gameplay.

Matt Opens the Can of Worms!: Wow what a cop-out! We can't figure out why you'd want to be a mercenary, so we leave that up to you! :)

Cam's Note: I like avatars. But now I have to go to a meeting. Also, I just fucked up Matt's color-coding thing again!


Damn him!

Seriously, I think from a purely story perspective, we need strong, predefined central characters for the obvious reason that it makes our job a lot easier. That's not a cop out, by easier I mean 'something we know we can accomplish.' When we start talking about avatars, I become worried that we may enter the area where we can't deliver on our promises about good story.

For instance, what's the point of having an Avatar, if you can't make your own choices? Half-life 2 doesn't have any well-defined central character, seems like an Avatar, but I can't decide, at any moment to fuck-off and join the Occupation.

The only compelling reason I know of to have an Avatar is so the player can define the character for himself. Letting the player define the character's motivations, after the fact because the game was designed so that he'd have to be a hero is a cheap trick with no real payoff.

I think when most people say "Avatar" they mean 'poorly defined central character.' The Master Chief is another example. He's not you, he's his own dude with his own background and motivations and you don't get to decide anything except how he fights.

The idea that a poorly defined central character lets the player say "I did that!" is an false argument. The player will feel that way as long as he's controlling the character, be he well-defined or ill-defined.

I'm voting for strong central characters because I understand it and can make it work. I'm voting against avatars because I think it makes our job more complex with no commensurate benefit.

Djordi's Note: I'll come back to Choice and Feedback Pillar. Personally, I don't care that whether we have a predefined central character or an avatar. What I do care about is whether we have the proper level of feedback based on the player's actions. This doesn't have to be an avatar, but it could mean the hero reacts to the player actions. Think of it as super chatter.

Example: the player starts killing civilians left and right. Lets say the player kills 20 civilians in a 2 minute period. The hero gets tagged as bloodthirsty. Civs start to run away from the hero and the hero says some "asshole" lines to reinforce what's happening.

Also, something to keep in mind is how co-operative multiplayer will affect this. Co-operative multiplayer may become a fifth pillar, so be warned!!

5) Rob's Character Question: How does having multiple playable characters affect Story Delivery Methods?

OMG Part 2. I have no idea right now. Still thinking about it.

Matt Colville's Note: For one thing, it gives the player an easy mechanism for steering the story without dialog trees popping up on the HUD. "Press A to smack this guy. Press B to buy him a cup of coffe."

If you control, say, a team of 4 operatives, each with distinct personalities, and there's already a mechanic for easily switching between them, AND we've done our job and the player has a good notion how they'll react to any given situation, then RIGHT THERE we have our dialog tree mechanic. When you interact with someone, how the conversation goes depends on which character you choose to be the one who responds.

Multiple characters give us miltiple viewpoints, gives us the opportunity to have people disagree, figure things out, argue. Arguing is important. Exposition is the act of saying things to each other which we all already know. The only time this happens in real life, is when people are mad and arguing. Rob would never walk up to me and say "Hello Matt, who is the Story Editor," but he might say "For fuck's sake! You're the Story Editor! Act like it!!"

Anyway, multiple characters, I'm in favor of them.

Djordi's Notes: remember co-operative multiplayer.