While branching narratives are a good roleplay mechanic, they're an underwhelming game mechanic.

[Robotigan]

For all this talk about choice & consequence, the degree to which you can manipulate the game state and the depth of their consequences just pales in comparison to essentially any non-narrative game element. You know what game is more "replayable" than Planescape Torment? Tetris. I'm not saying this stuff doesn't enhance the overall experience, but goddamn is it overrated. No, a few witty dialogue options and alternate quest endings does not make up for a shitacular combat system. If you want to see relationship intrigue rendered into a decently interesting game, that'd be something more like Crusader Kings.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I wouldn't say they are a bad mechanic, games that manage to incorporate C&C and branching stuff effectively are better off for it (e.g. Fallout 1/2, New Vegas, Witcher games). The real issue is that like most things in life, C&C has a cost. It takes resources to implement multiple branches, story angles, reactions, etc. Some games that try it end up missing those resources in other aspects of the game. Like say Arcanum, great C&C, absolutely shit combat, underwhelming exploration. Or AoD, great C&C, but a 10 hour long game with a barebones world.

So would you rather have a great all-around game with limited C&C, or a great C&C game with limitations in combat/exloration/writing? That's the typical choice.

 

[Tyranicon]

I have a few ideas about how branching narratives can be better handled than the usual way (which is cost and time prohibitive, and unsustainable).

Essentially, I'm taking a page out of grand strategy games and CYOA's. We will have to see if these ideas work out.

 

[gurugeorge]

I wouldn't call it a mechanic. Again, I come back to my hobby-horse that CRPGs are a mixture of several elements, gameplay being one of them, roleplaying being another, story and character development being another, etc. As opposed to being just tactical games, they are adventure simulators (hopefully with engaging gameplay).

Porky above is right, the only problem is really that every one of these elements takes some time and resources to do, so it's a matter of fine judgement how developers apportion that limited time and energy to perfecting the various elements. But in the best cases, when developers manage to pull the trick off, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts - even if some of the parts are limited in some way, when put together they "pop" as an immersive (the rp/story/C&C, etc. side) and engaging (the build/combat side) experience.

 

[Butter]

Branching narrative isn't a mechanic.

 

[Vic]

C&C mostly adds to replay value if you’re planning to replay anyways, so you can get some variety between playthroughs

 

[CryptRat]

I've got no solution but the problem is that if you only implement level design and tools which allow for different approachs to deal with obstacles but without different narratives acknowledging these (using either the same narrative result or only emergent narrative) then most players feel underwelmed and feel the game is linear. If anything most players actually feel that the opposite, no real gameplay difference but just some choices of narrative, is more satisfying.

 

[Lord of Riva]

I really love branching storylines though.

These things can also be done relatively cheap by sticking to a fixed narrative.
Der Langrisser for example does not change much when it comes to the general story, the same battles (it being a SRPG) occur mostly but what changes are your allies, your enemies and the characters motivations.

The real narrative branch for ending decisions comes in the last few missions, before that what matters is why your characters are in conflict, I found that to be an excellent solution and I uphold it as a great example of branching storylines done right.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Choice & Consequence doesn't require multiple branching paths and whatnot. It could be something as simple as "press button or not", help random person or not, choose x faction instead of y faction, do x or y... I honestly can be satisfied by minor C&C instead of whole branching paths that take too many resources to make.

 

[MerchantKing]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

 

[Bastardchops]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Well but a narrative is. I mean PnP modules are often prewritten.

 

[Shaki]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Yes, that's why games with emerging narrative, like Battle Brothers, are true RPGs, while most of what people consider RPGs is actually just shit and gay

 

[MerchantKing]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Well but a narrative is. I mean PnP modules are often prewritten.

Roleplaying is about having your character do things according to his personality, background, profession, etc. A narrative is not required. A prewritten narrative can only direct roleplaying into a particular direction or set of directions. That is, it only limits roleplaying

 

[gurugeorge]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Well but a narrative is. I mean PnP modules are often prewritten.

Roleplaying is about having your character do things according to his personality, background, profession, etc. A narrative is not required. A prewritten narrative can only direct roleplaying into a particular direction or set of directions. That is, it only limits roleplaying

Only if the narrative is primarily about the player character. If it's a narrative about the world, then your player character fits into it however they roleplay.

 

[MerchantKing]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Well but a narrative is. I mean PnP modules are often prewritten.

Roleplaying is about having your character do things according to his personality, background, profession, etc. A narrative is not required. A prewritten narrative can only direct roleplaying into a particular direction or set of directions. That is, it only limits roleplaying

Only if the narrative is primarily about the player character. If it's a narrative about the world, then your player character fits into it however they roleplay.

A narrative imposed on the pc does nothing but limit the ability to roleplay.

 

[gurugeorge]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Well but a narrative is. I mean PnP modules are often prewritten.

Roleplaying is about having your character do things according to his personality, background, profession, etc. A narrative is not required. A prewritten narrative can only direct roleplaying into a particular direction or set of directions. That is, it only limits roleplaying

Only if the narrative is primarily about the player character. If it's a narrative about the world, then your player character fits into it however they roleplay.

A narrative imposed on the pc does nothing but limit the ability to roleplay.

Yes, that's what I said.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

Plots in games are not mechanics, but the equivalent of an artificial bunny used to egg the dogs on at the races. The Greyhound may think he wants the chase, but in reality he is in a tightly controlled situation.

Personally, I think the plot is meant not to get in the way. If it's fun, even better. But we shouldn't take it too seriously.

 

[Alex]

Choice & Consequence doesn't require multiple branching paths and whatnot. It could be something as simple as "press button or not", help random person or not, choose x faction instead of y faction, do x or y... I honestly can be satisfied by minor C&C instead of whole branching paths that take too many resources to make.

It doesn't require branching paths exactly, I agree with you there. But if you don't have them somehow factored into the game world, all you have is window dressing, a decorative choice. Now, having your choices not really matter much is not necessarily a bad thing; but it is not what the Codex has usually meant by "choices and consequences". In fact, I think that if you don't want to deal with all the trouble of having the world be reactive to the player's choices; then maybe you should focus on a different kind of roleplaying. Games that did this well include Fallout and Arcanum, for example. One way they did it well was by having certain people react to what you did and what you were; having different options given your stats, your race, your skills, etc. Another is by having the world be built in such a way that the player could approach a problem in different manners. Quest objectives were sometimes simple items that existed in an NPC and could be obtained in different ways; by killing him or stealing or maybe through some convincing in dialog. This is more trouble when making a game, but also enables the game to be played in a certain way where player choice is at the centre.

If this kind of game is too much trouble for a given team, there are other kinds of CRPGs, such as roguelikes and blobbers, that can be very fun without giving much thought to "narrative branching".

 

[ind33d]

For all this talk about choice & consequence, the degree to which you can manipulate the game state and the depth of their consequences just pales in comparison to essentially any non-narrative game element. You know what game is more "replayable" than Planescape Torment? Tetris. I'm not saying this stuff doesn't enhance the overall experience, but goddamn is it overrated. No, a few witty dialogue options and alternate quest endings does not make up for a shitacular combat system. If you want to see relationship intrigue rendered into a decently interesting game, that'd be something more like Crusader Kings.

RPGs only need to be immersive enough to convince the player that there are branching narratives. There don't actually have to be any

 

[Robotigan]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Well but a narrative is. I mean PnP modules are often prewritten.

Roleplaying is about having your character do things according to his personality, background, profession, etc. A narrative is not required. A prewritten narrative can only direct roleplaying into a particular direction or set of directions. That is, it only limits roleplaying

Only if the narrative is primarily about the player character. If it's a narrative about the world, then your player character fits into it however they roleplay.

Character-based roleplay outside of table top just leads to all but 2 dialogue options being superfluous in every single interaction because they're clearly intended for other character archetypes. And inevitably some of those archetypes make the story feel like gimmicky alt-history fanfiction because Frodo passed the CHA check required to convince the Eagles to fly them to Mount Doom. It's kind of cool in theory except that
1) In practice it replaces a well-crafted story with a pointless one. So it's only a worthwhile choice so long as you don't pick it.
2) Despite the above, fans will insist it's the "best" or "canonical" ending because it allows you to save Boromir.
Players are less willing to accept negative outcomes because they're always staged by the writers whereas with emergent stories told through game systems there's more acceptance that things just happen.

 

[Lord of Riva]

RPGs only need to be immersive enough to convince the player that there are branching narratives. There don't actually have to be any

No, this is always felt and will hamper the experience in retrospect players will always find out fake choices and it will make the experience less worthwhile.

 

[Robotigan]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Damn, Emil was right the whole time (still not a good writer tho).

 

[M. AQVILA]

It doesn't require branching paths exactly, I agree with you there. But if you don't have them somehow factored into the game world, all you have is window dressing, a decorative choice. Now, having your choices not really matter much is not necessarily a bad thing; but it is not what the Codex has usually meant by "choices and consequences". In fact, I think that if you don't want to deal with all the trouble of having the world be reactive to the player's choices; then maybe you should focus on a different kind of roleplaying.

Decorative choices are better than no choices; done well they make the game feel interactive. But I wasn't mentioning decorative choices exactly. I still want the game to remember the choices I made, within reason of course. I just don't think they have to be major world or narrative altering choices. If the characters react to minor things I choose or mention what I said or done later in the game then I'll be happy.

 

[MerchantKing]

A prewritten narrative is not part of roleplaying in general.

Well but a narrative is. I mean PnP modules are often prewritten.

Roleplaying is about having your character do things according to his personality, background, profession, etc. A narrative is not required. A prewritten narrative can only direct roleplaying into a particular direction or set of directions. That is, it only limits roleplaying

Only if the narrative is primarily about the player character. If it's a narrative about the world, then your player character fits into it however they roleplay.

Character-based roleplay outside of table top just leads to all but 2 dialogue options being superfluous in every single interaction because they're clearly intended for other character archetypes. And inevitably some of those archetypes make the story feel like gimmicky alt-history fanfiction because Frodo passed the CHA check required to convince the Eagles to fly them to Mount Doom. It's kind of cool in theory except that

Just because developers, especially big name developers, can't make any sort of roleplaying outside of dialogue options and can't fit in more than two doesn't mean anything. The belief that roleplaying is dialogue options is false.

1) In practice it replaces a well-crafted story with a pointless one. So it's only a worthwhile choice so long as you don't pick it.

The problem is that there are few to zero "well-crafted" stories within rpgs. The idea that a rpg has to be based on some pre-written story is fallacious.

2) Despite the above, fans will insist it's the "best" or "canonical" ending because it allows you to save Boromir.

There is no reason for a developer to worry about a canonical ending. I want a real roleplaying game. Not a JRPG. If the developers intend to have a canonical ending for a character then they already failed as a designer for rpgs

Players are less willing to accept negative outcomes because they're always staged by the writers whereas with emergent stories told through game systems there's more acceptance that things just happen.

Doesn't matter what game journos (that's what's usually referred to by "players" since the average person tends to ape whatever retard who has a platform or publisher says) are willing to accept. Either you can roleplay, or you can't. Either you have a variety of options outside of dialogue, or you don't really have the ability to roleplay. Either your game has immediate and meaningful consequences (that is those that actually affect gameplay and aren't just epilogue slides) or it doesn't have real consequences.

 

[0sacred]

and the problem with an element being most conducive to roleplaying in a roleplaying game is what, exactly?