A problem with RPGs: RPG developers are not well-read in myth and fantasy/sci-fi literature

[zaper]

I can't possibly speak for the professionals in the industry, but most of my experience with amateurs and small indie devs boils down to them not really understanding where their ideas come from, and what makes them interesting to others.

They just think of something and go “Okay, this is cool, I’m gonna work on it,” without stopping to consider why they feel that way about that particular idea.

Sometimes it’s a bizarre egotrip they might not even realize they are having, and they overvalue an idea just because they were the ones that came up with it, no matter how unoriginal or unappealing it is. Sometimes it's a fanboyish fever dream where they just want to reproduce something that they like, without adding anything new to it.

So, yeah, you get these endless superficial rehashes from people who only consume the most basic types of fiction, that care more about the aesthetics of it than about breaking new ground and trying new stuff. Their ideas are limited because their understanding of the genres they are working on is limited.

(I am a shitty writer, but at least I keep consuming and trying new and weird stuff--otherwise I'd bore myself to death)

TLDR: The Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[hajro]

Bakker is king

 

[Ravielsk]

I would argue that being well read in speculative fiction and mythology is more akin to the next great step towards becoming a great writer rather than the base requirement. What I really see as the problem with modern writing(whether in videogame or otherwise) is that its obviously the work of someone with basically 0 life experience. Great authors of the past were all something else besides "authors".
Tolkien was both a philologist and a teacher before he was an author. Conan Doyle besides being a writer was also a physician. Even Sapkowski was a economist and a translator before he was an (asshole) writer. You can tell from their works that their life experiences formed the canvas on which they painted(or wrote if you are not good with metaphors) their works.

Modern writers however, especially the professional ones, have neither that specialized nor general human experience. They are born and buried in big cities that are disconnected from the general reality of the world. Their lives are a series of effects without causes. They do not grow their food or even see it being grown, it just appears on store shelves. They do not make or fix their stuff, they just buy a new stuff from somewhere. They do not even have to deal with their own waste, someone just takes it away if they put it on the sidewalk.
Point being they live their whole lives in an environment that is nothing but effects without causes and causes without effects. A person like that cannot even begin to understand basic literary principle like Chekhov's gun because that is nothing but understanding how cause leads to effect. They cannot really do character development or growth when they themselves never really had to grow past their highschool years. And they absolutely cannot grasp the concept of a plothole because from their perspective the world is full of them, so why shouldn't their stories have them?

A prime example of this would be Outer Worlds where the writers constructed a plot about a impending famine without understanding how food is even grown. The result is a world where humans achieved interplanetary travel, gene editing and anti-gravity but forgot how to make fertilizer. Its obnoxious and stupid but from the perspective of a person who only ever got their food from wallmart its sounds like a small stroke of genius.

A writer like that is not bad because he did not read enough Dostoevsky or Homer but because he skipped over to writing fictional worlds before even getting a grasp on the one he is living in right now.

 

[Desiderius]

Counterpoint is that Swen Vincke said he used to be a huge nerd of fantasy/sci fi literature, used to read everything and was highly inspired by the Dragonlance books. Yet people in Codex want to shit on Larian's writing.

He’s doing pretty well for a Belgian, all things considered. Low ceiling.

 

[Desiderius]

I would argue that being well read in speculative fiction and mythology is more akin to the next great step towards becoming a great writer rather than the base requirement. What I really see as the problem with modern writing(whether in videogame or otherwise) is that its obviously the work of someone with basically 0 life experience. Great authors of the past were all something else besides "authors".
Tolkien was both a philologist and a teacher before he was an author. Conan Doyle besides being a writer was also a physician. Even Sapkowski was a economist and a translator before he was an (asshole) writer. You can tell from their works that their life experiences formed the canvas on which they painted(or wrote if you are not good with metaphors) their works.

Modern writers however, especially the professional ones, have neither that specialized nor general human experience. They are born and buried in big cities that are disconnected from the general reality of the world. Their lives are a series of effects without causes. They do not grow their food or even see it being grown, it just appears on store shelves. They do not make or fix their their, they just buy a new one from somewhere. They do not even have deal with their own waste, someone just takes it away if they put it on the sidewalk.
Point being the live their whole lives in an environment that is nothing but effects without causes and causes without effects. A person like that cannot even begin to understand basic literary principle like Chekhov's gun because that is nothing but understanding how cause leads to effect. They cannot really do character development or growth when they themselves never really had to grow past their highschool years. And they absolutely cannot grasp the concept of a plothole because from their perspective the world is full of them, so why shouldn't their stories have them?

A prime example of this would be Outer Worlds where the writers constructed a plot about a impending famine without understanding how food is even grown. The result is a world where humans achieved interplanetary travel, gene editing and anti-gravity but forgot how to make fertilizer. Its obnoxious and stupid but from the perspective of a person who only ever got their food from wallmart its sounds like a small stroke of genius.

A writer like that is not bad because he did not read enough Dostoevsky or Homer but because he skipped over to writing fictional worlds before even getting a grasp on the one he is living in right now.

It’s usually both. These iPalantiri in our hands probably don’t help, but at least they facilitate communication with each other. The OGs (TV) that turned the Boomers into Theodens and Denethors didn’t.

 

[Reinhardt]

main problem with vidya writers is that they can't imagine apple.

 

[Tchort]

All these prestigious literary lists from prestigiously fantasizing codexers nothing matter in game development. They only help put words into pleasant sentences and nothing more.

Story-line games are poorly compatible with system-interactive ones. If game is linear, or more precisely, the game is static and completely depends on the player - a good story will complement and enrich it. But in a system-interactive game, any plot will interfere with interactivity and will be taken outside of this interactivity (it will be good if it does not destroy part of the interactivity along the way). And every time you try to inject a plot into such a game it will conflict with the interactivity.

 

[Bad Sector]

But you said RPGs can have a bad story which I disagree with

Plenty of them have simple stories but Idk which Codex top RPG has a bad story

Well, IMO RPGs can have a bad story, they'd just be RPGs with a bad story. But note that what i wrote wasn't that, but that in many RPGs the story isn't that important - the fact that RPGs with simple stories that act little more than an excuse to get you going can still be great RPGs show that. Also take a look at the post i wrote above about setting vs worldbuilding vs story vs writing to get a better idea about what i have in mind.

FWIW i did not make any "simple = bad" association, a simple story can work fine especially when put in an interesting world and setting.

 

[ropetight]

All these prestigious literary lists from prestigiously fantasizing codexers nothing matter in game development. They only help put words into pleasant sentences and nothing more.

Story-line games are poorly compatible with system-interactive ones. If game is linear, or more precisely, the game is static and completely depends on the player - a good story will complement and enrich it. But in a system-interactive game, any plot will interfere with interactivity and will be taken outside of this interactivity (it will be good if it does not destroy part of the interactivity along the way). And every time you try to inject a plot into such a game it will conflict with the interactivity.

It is possible to tell a compelling story without sacrificing interactivity.
First two Diablos reduced storytelling to the quest giving, quest completion, environmental storytelling, some cinematics and lore dumps in dungeons and on items.
It is not groundbreaking or particularly original story, but it has twists, right amount of foreshadowing and it greatly enhances gameplay with suspension and anticipation.

Walls of text, endless dialogues and frequent cinematics break gameplay and immersion, and should be avoided.
They became staple of the genre thanks to BioWare's success in the 2000's, and lots of games still copy their formula.

 

[just]

if you havent read all the hidden scrolls and ancient manuscripts in tibet libraries*
sorry, you cant be a rpg developer

*in sanskrit, translations dont count

 

[v1c70r14]

If someone asks me what fantasy story is the most relevant right now, what comes to mind is not a novel or a movie or a TV show, but Baldur's Gate 3.

Some relevant fantasy writers (like Brandon Sanderson, Patrick Rothfuss, Joe Abercrombie and most notably George RR Martin) either talk about playing video games for inspiration or attach themselves to video games (like Torment: Tides of Numenera and Elden Ring) in order to satisfy their creativity or solidify their reputation.

 

[Tchort]

All these prestigious literary lists from prestigiously fantasizing codexers nothing matter in game development. They only help put words into pleasant sentences and nothing more.

Story-line games are poorly compatible with system-interactive ones. If game is linear, or more precisely, the game is static and completely depends on the player - a good story will complement and enrich it. But in a system-interactive game, any plot will interfere with interactivity and will be taken outside of this interactivity (it will be good if it does not destroy part of the interactivity along the way). And every time you try to inject a plot into such a game it will conflict with the interactivity.

It is possible to tell a compelling story without sacrificing interactivity.
First two Diablos reduced storytelling to the quest giving, quest completion, environmental storytelling, some cinematics and lore dumps in dungeons and on items.
It is not groundbreaking or particularly original story, but it has twists, right amount of foreshadowing and it greatly enhances gameplay with suspension and anticipation.

Walls of text, endless dialogues and frequent cinematics break gameplay and immersion, and should be avoided.
They became staple of the genre thanks to BioWare's success in the 2000's, and lots of games still copy their formula.

Diablo confirms my point. The game is completely static and depends on the player. This is a classic example of a story-driven game without any interactive mechanics outside of the player's control.

 

[luj1]

if you havent read all the hidden scrolls and ancient manuscripts in tibet libraries
sorry, you cant be a rpg developer

No

They havent read even the basics

 

[The Wall]

The harsh reality, that can be changed, today is: except for indie gamemaker masters like: Styg, Vault Dweller, Atomboy etc. all the other RPG game devs are: mentally-spent and spiritually-dead has-beens, diversity beasts, soyboy reddit bots, smug clown women and their ESG investor Owners

These... "entities" can not create. Can not learn, think deeply, self-reflect, be funny or program. You are expecting from cat to bark, if you expect any of this from they/thems

Shituation can be changed with better organisation of Forces for GOOD RPGs. Those forces will be 90%+ less or more akward, high functioning autistic white males. Don't blame me, I'm not Architect of Humanity. I'm just Serb that likes to play RPGs and is falling in love with making them

Good RPGs can be made, who says they can't? Fuck Infinitron's campaign of demoralization. I will not play StarShit. I'll play Colony Ship

 

[Decado]

How would they feel if they had not eaten breakfast this morning?

 

[Sibelius]

First post, long time lurker though.

I don't think it is simply the fact they are not well read in traditional fantasy and sci-fi, but that they actively despise it.

Look at The Rings of Power for example, the response to the fan backlash to race swapped elves and strong Galadriel was that Tolkien's work no longer suitable in the modern day, even to the point where LotR was described as being racist. Another example is the proposed Conan TV series where Amazon were supposed to produce a show closely based on Howard's novels. Before it could be developed they hired a female studio head who canned it as soon as she took office, due to the 'toxic masculinity' present in the scripts (closely based on the books). They than replaced it with their disgraceful adaptation of Wheel of Time.

The two examples were of TV, but the exact same type of activists have infested gaming at exec and developer level.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Exactly. Rather than being familiar with the basics like mythology, folklore, fairy tales, pulp fiction, etc. these writers learn from increasingly diluted and self-iterating sources like other rpgs. If you want to write well, then you need to be familiar with the tropes of the genre. I have learned a huge amount not just from stories but from reviews and critiques. Taking academic classes can help, but it's not mandatory. Just buy and read relevant books: anthologies of classic literature, analyses of genres, etc.

Have to agree with this. Most RPG designers seem to be actively allergic to basic fantasy tropes and fall over themselves trying to be "unique" and have "their own take on fantasy". The most egregious example of this is probably Pillars of Eternity, god it tries so hard to be unique that it becomes cringe, "It's not high fantasy it's DIFFERENT!!". Dude, we know the "Vessels" are undead, Aumaua are half-Orcs, and Orlans are halflings, what's the point? I would respect a designer 100x if they just embraced the Tolkienesque high fantasy setting to create something that feels familiar and nostalgic to the target audience. I feel like they don't respect the roots of the genre.

Just straight up copying the tropes and changing names is lame, but what I want to see is actual - well, fantasy. Isn't the whole point that it's supposed to be imaginative? One wants to see new, imaginative things, but imagined by people who are aware of, and respect, their predecessors.

In order to be imaginative, you have to understand the existing conventions and know the difference between genuine creativity and a copy with the serial numbers filed off.

For example, this artist “reinvented” dwarves by going back to the original Norse sources where dwarves are uplifted arthropods and interpreting that completely literally.



But to be honest, I’d prefer if writers focused on functional storytelling and worldbuilding first rather than trying to “deconstruct” fantasy conventions.

The easiest way to be creative is to make a game in a genre other than D&D fantasy. The genre is oversaturated af.

 

[sebas]

I don't personally read that much modern fantasy to chime in but for sci-fi, man oh man, game writers definitely aren't cultured, at all. There is so much creativity, there's so many fresh ideas in modern sci-fi writing that I just can't bear another A.C. Clark rehash. Even something corny like Red Rising, which seamlesly blends sci-fi with general fantasy tropes, is out of their depth.

But no no no give us more talking robots, "warp drives", "laser" weapons, ships driven like a truck and the sounds of boots on the metal ship floors. Fucking ignorant rats.

 

[ropetight]

All these prestigious literary lists from prestigiously fantasizing codexers nothing matter in game development. They only help put words into pleasant sentences and nothing more.

Story-line games are poorly compatible with system-interactive ones. If game is linear, or more precisely, the game is static and completely depends on the player - a good story will complement and enrich it. But in a system-interactive game, any plot will interfere with interactivity and will be taken outside of this interactivity (it will be good if it does not destroy part of the interactivity along the way). And every time you try to inject a plot into such a game it will conflict with the interactivity.

It is possible to tell a compelling story without sacrificing interactivity.
First two Diablos reduced storytelling to the quest giving, quest completion, environmental storytelling, some cinematics and lore dumps in dungeons and on items.
It is not groundbreaking or particularly original story, but it has twists, right amount of foreshadowing and it greatly enhances gameplay with suspension and anticipation.

Walls of text, endless dialogues and frequent cinematics break gameplay and immersion, and should be avoided.
They became staple of the genre thanks to BioWare's success in the 2000's, and lots of games still copy their formula.

Diablo confirms my point. The game is completely static and depends on the player. This is a classic example of a story-driven game without any interactive mechanics outside of the player's control.

Just to be sure what we talk about, describe to the forum what is "interactive mechanics outside of the player's control".
Maybe name few.

 

[easychord]

Exactly. Rather than being familiar with the basics like mythology, folklore, fairy tales, pulp fiction, etc. these writers learn from increasingly diluted and self-iterating sources like other rpgs. If you want to write well, then you need to be familiar with the tropes of the genre. I have learned a huge amount not just from stories but from reviews and critiques. Taking academic classes can help, but it's not mandatory. Just buy and read relevant books: anthologies of classic literature, analyses of genres, etc.

Have to agree with this. Most RPG designers seem to be actively allergic to basic fantasy tropes and fall over themselves trying to be "unique" and have "their own take on fantasy". The most egregious example of this is probably Pillars of Eternity, god it tries so hard to be unique that it becomes cringe, "It's not high fantasy it's DIFFERENT!!". Dude, we know the "Vessels" are undead, Aumaua are half-Orcs, and Orlans are halflings, what's the point? I would respect a designer 100x if they just embraced the Tolkienesque high fantasy setting to create something that feels familiar and nostalgic to the target audience. I feel like they don't respect the roots of the genre.

Just straight up copying the tropes and changing names is lame, but what I want to see is actual - well, fantasy. Isn't the whole point that it's supposed to be imaginative? One wants to see new, imaginative things, but imagined by people who are aware of, and respect, their predecessors.

In order to be imaginative, you have to understand the existing conventions and know the difference between genuine creativity and a copy with the serial numbers filed off.

For example, this artist “reinvented” dwarves by going back to the original Norse sources where dwarves are uplifted arthropods and interpreting that completely literally.



But to be honest, I’d prefer if writers focused on functional storytelling and worldbuilding first rather than trying to “deconstruct” fantasy conventions.

The easiest way to be creative is to make a game in a genre other than D&D fantasy. The genre is oversaturated af.

It's difficult in how you logically differentiate a watered down copy of Elric made for millennial snots who have no idea who Elric is and an ironic "up-armored" version of Elric made for sophisticated readers. Plenty of people even on this prestigious forum are pleased with shite recycled like rabbit dung, such as the Witcher.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

It's difficult in how you logically differentiate a watered down copy of Elric made for millennial snots who have no idea who Elric is and an ironic "up-armored" version of Elric made for sophisticated readers. Plenty of people even on this prestigious forum are pleased with shite recycled like rabbit dung, such as the Witcher.

Right now is not a good time to try adapting Elric. Hollyweird fucked up Interview with the Vampire and Winx Club, so Elric doesn’t stand a fucking chance. It’s a pity, because I’m pretty sure a straight adaptation would be hugely popular with female audiences.

 

[luj1]

RPG developers are not well-read in myth and fantasy/sci-fi literature

I wish it were just that

RPG developers are not well-versed in literature, cinema, art, philosophy, history

RPG developers are not well educated period (like most people nowadays)

Everything can be traced back to the present cultural, educational and societal decline

 

[Tchort]

All these prestigious literary lists from prestigiously fantasizing codexers nothing matter in game development. They only help put words into pleasant sentences and nothing more.

Story-line games are poorly compatible with system-interactive ones. If game is linear, or more precisely, the game is static and completely depends on the player - a good story will complement and enrich it. But in a system-interactive game, any plot will interfere with interactivity and will be taken outside of this interactivity (it will be good if it does not destroy part of the interactivity along the way). And every time you try to inject a plot into such a game it will conflict with the interactivity.

It is possible to tell a compelling story without sacrificing interactivity.
First two Diablos reduced storytelling to the quest giving, quest completion, environmental storytelling, some cinematics and lore dumps in dungeons and on items.
It is not groundbreaking or particularly original story, but it has twists, right amount of foreshadowing and it greatly enhances gameplay with suspension and anticipation.

Walls of text, endless dialogues and frequent cinematics break gameplay and immersion, and should be avoided.
They became staple of the genre thanks to BioWare's success in the 2000's, and lots of games still copy their formula.

Diablo confirms my point. The game is completely static and depends on the player. This is a classic example of a story-driven game without any interactive mechanics outside of the player's control.

Just to be sure what we talk about, describe to the forum what is "interactive mechanics outside of the player's control".
Maybe name few.

Lords & Kingdoms in Mount & Blade
Rangers & Dominators in Space Rangers 2
Kenshi factions

and any others who try to create dynamic and open gameworld. im not simply mean "sandboxes conflict with the plot and they don’t need it". Actually its universally for every game.
When you break your weapon on head of essential npc - this is conflict between plot and interactivity
When your party is not allowed into Pitax because there are important reasons - this is conflict between plot and interactivity
When in open game every quest it's just simple scattered tasks withnout any deep - this is conflict between plot and interactivity
They exclude each other.

 

[ropetight]

All these prestigious literary lists from prestigiously fantasizing codexers nothing matter in game development. They only help put words into pleasant sentences and nothing more.

Story-line games are poorly compatible with system-interactive ones. If game is linear, or more precisely, the game is static and completely depends on the player - a good story will complement and enrich it. But in a system-interactive game, any plot will interfere with interactivity and will be taken outside of this interactivity (it will be good if it does not destroy part of the interactivity along the way). And every time you try to inject a plot into such a game it will conflict with the interactivity.

It is possible to tell a compelling story without sacrificing interactivity.
First two Diablos reduced storytelling to the quest giving, quest completion, environmental storytelling, some cinematics and lore dumps in dungeons and on items.
It is not groundbreaking or particularly original story, but it has twists, right amount of foreshadowing and it greatly enhances gameplay with suspension and anticipation.

Walls of text, endless dialogues and frequent cinematics break gameplay and immersion, and should be avoided.
They became staple of the genre thanks to BioWare's success in the 2000's, and lots of games still copy their formula.

Diablo confirms my point. The game is completely static and depends on the player. This is a classic example of a story-driven game without any interactive mechanics outside of the player's control.

Just to be sure what we talk about, describe to the forum what is "interactive mechanics outside of the player's control".
Maybe name few.

Lords & Kingdoms in Mount & Blade
Rangers & Dominators in Space Rangers 2
Kenshi factions

and any others who try to create dynamic and open gameworld. im not simply mean "sandboxes conflict with the plot and they don’t need it". Actually its universally for every game.
When you break your weapon on head of essential npc - this is conflict between plot and interactivity
When your party is not allowed into Pitax because there are important reasons - this is conflict between plot and interactivity
When in open game every quest it's just simple scattered tasks withnout any deep - this is conflict between plot and interactivity
They exclude each other.

You are not completely wrong.
I asked for clarification, because there are different kinds of mechanics outside of players control.

1. RPG System or the rules mechanics, like breaking armor, weapon durability, rest - these don't neccesarily impede story and greatly increase interactivity.
2. NPC mechanics - good games let you kill or break weapon to the head of essential NPCs and rarely hold your hand. You killed essential NPC? No world saving for you - that is your story now. As I remember, Fallout and F:NV let you kill almost anyone, in the contrast to the Bethesda entries in the franchise. But sure, examples of more limited "reactivity" are prevalent.
3. "Immersive Sim" mechanics - interacting with environment in apparently free way - again, huge boost to interactivity, also great tool for storytelling without text. Bitch to implement properly, especially to incorporate with other mechanics.
4. "Sandbox" mechanics - ones connected to the free roaming, non-linear exploration of the world. Superset of RPG system and Immersive Sim mechanics. Should make propapagation of reactions to players actions believable and make world seem "alive".You mentioned Space Rangers 2 and Mount & Blade, which had good, reactive open worlds. Hardest one to make properly, and most of your examples fall here.

Interactivity doesn't have to be absolute, "world is my oyster" at every step.
There is a difference between a toy and a game - toy can be interacted in whatever way you desire, often one maker did not anticipate.
Games have rules, great games predict attempts to break the rules and have response to it.
They have interactivity, but it is not limitless.

So, when you can't enter open world location because you didn't do some quest, it isn't conflict between interactivity and story per se.
Why should you be able to enter some city if you haven't solved prerequisited quests?
Why shouldn't game kill you instantly if you attack "essential" NPC?

If these things bother you, play with cheats, which make game more of a toy.

Linear story in interactive mediums should not exist; it is always branching story in the vein of CYOA.

It always feels weird when game forces you to linearity with some filter or siphon between chapters or installments in trilogies.
Modern AAA studios can't implement full reactiveness to their "open world games" with all the costs to development, cinematics, voice acting, motion capture...
Bling makes their games heavy and unelegant, hard to extend.

Older games had... let's call it "lower fidelity" - you didn't have to worry about unnecessary technical details, so smaller development teams could implement better reactiveness.
Also, less screeching wokists to please.
So those games were better in mixing interactivity and story.

But don't worry, here comes AI to the rescue, to generate all the superficial flavor to bland open worlds and make them more meaningless.

Not a RPG, but still a sign of times to come

TL;DR
It is not impossible to combine open world, story and interactivity, but it is rare and not easy to do the right way.
Interactivity is always limited in games, not only because of story.
And decline is stronger than ever.

 

[Desiderius]

But purple-hairs look like waifu now.

This is sea change. Shadowheart has child-bearing hips.