Events Independent Of The Player

[Keyrock]

Apologies if this has been brought up already. I went about 6 pages back and didn't see anything.

 

There will of course be events centered around the player, that is necessary to have a deep and personal narrative. However I would also like to see events that will happen at a certain time with or without the player.

 

For example (I will use real world dates for this example since I have no idea what the calendar in Project Eternity will look like) let's say that there is a tribe of savages that lives some ways north of Dawning. These savages will send their warriors south and on November 10th they will attack Dawning. Now let's say that the player hears rumors of the savages gearing up for attack but decides not to do anything. The battle still takes place. Maybe earlier in the game there was a plot to poison the water supply in Dawning and the player foiled this plot. Maybe the player didn't foil the plot, in fact the player decided to help the plot succeed because some people in town slighted him and he wants them to suffer. If the plot was successful then many of the townsfolk, including guards and militia, are sick or dead and defenses are weakened. Now let's also suppose that there was a den of jackalopes near the town. The player may or may not have wiped out that den. If the den had not been wiped out then the savages, who are in tune with nature, can call forth the beasts and bolster their attacking force. The battle happens and depending on which of these things the player did or did not do either the savages win and burn the town to the ground or the town guards win and manage to drive the savages off.

 

Now let's say the player heard about the savages marching south to attack and decided to intervene. Let's say that at the time he was all the way across the map and had a long distance to travel. Or let's say the player was closer and had less distance to travel. Now this is where travel skills come in. Let's say the player's party has horsemanship skills that allow them to travel faster. Or let's say they have path finding or mountaineering skills that allow them to find a path through the mountains instead of having to go around and lose precious time. Depending on these different factors the player could arrive too late and the battle is over. Or the player gets there during the battle and can choose to help out either side. Maybe the player gets there before the battle and decides to help the townsfolk and with persuasion skills is able to rally the troops and boost their morale. Maybe the player arrives ahead of time and decides to help out the savages because he learned that some of the townsfolk raped the chieftain's daughter and they deserve to pay for their crimes. Maybe the player arrives before the battle and uses diplomatic skills to broker a peace and avoids bloodshed altogether.

 

Keep in mind that I certainly wouldn't expect each and every one of these options to be present in the same scenario, that would be really complex and go beyond even The Witcher 2 levels of branching storylines. I'm just spitballing here. What I'm saying is I'd like to see events that transpire with or without the player. If the player is in the right place at the right time then he can choose to influence the event. If the player is not in the right place at the right time, or if he chooses not to intervene, the event will still take place.

[Nonek]

I like living worlds like this, gives you a feeling that they're not simply theatres to show off your character.

[GhostofAnakin]

I mentioned a similar (sort of) scenario in another post, where it would be interesting if events were happening around the world regardless of the player.

 

Some cases the player has an indirect impact on these events (ie. my scenario where the player wipes out a guild of assassins, who just happened to be working for an individual vying for a throne, and thus weakening his position without actually taking part in the battle for the throne), and some cases, like your example above, the player has no impact based on deciding to do nothing, yet the event still occurs.

 

It would certainly make the world feel more alive.

[evdk]

Yes, this is always a good idea.

[agewisdom]

This is a good idea but could be very tricky to implement. It's quite similar to the reactivity and urgency thread I've seen earlier. The problem with this is, it could

 

(a) snowball into something that's complicated;

(b) force the player to get their butts off on certain quests (not a bad thing by itself, but I gather quite a no. of players don't like this).

[norolim]

Agreed. It would be great, but I don't see it happening.

[fathem]

Keyrock, I'm a fan of stuff happening with or without us. It's part of why some games have so much replay value.

One thing we need to know is how will time be treated in the game.

 

If time moves forward by us progressing in storyline events this may be easier to do.

If time is moving forward in a more natural way I would imagine there would be a huge headache to orchistrate more than a couple of these time release moments.

[rjshae]

To feel independent, these would need to be time-based events rather than events being keyed upon the character's progress. This could be used to key certain interactions and side quests, which would add replay value but make for a longer development cycle. (I.e. side quest X is only available during this time slot, which the player may or may not have access to depending on their progress through the game.)

Edited September 30, 2012 by rjshae

[Treantsin]

This would be nice, so long as we're given a period of time after learning of the quest, rather than a period of time after the start of the game, for the odd side-quest.

 

Or a post game to finish off non-timed quests.

[fathem]

OR, if you have a time mage you can just warp back in time and go to the event after you learned of it! =D I know everyone is screaming that's cheating but heck isn't that what magic is all about?

[wbn]

OR, if you have a time mage you can just warp back in time and go to the event after you learned of it! =D I know everyone is screaming that's cheating but heck isn't that what magic is all about?

 

 

"A time mage". Yeah, don't do that, please. There is no way to make time travel not either feel lazy (as a story device) or weird (as a plausible concept).

[Osvir]

Divine Divinity.

 

It is an open world/sandbox, mostly right? I haven't played that far (trying to get into the castle). But the world portrayed there could work with a time system (and it does, does it not?).

 

Bandit's attack a village, the village gets attacked real time. At the same time on the other side of the world you are doing a completely different quest, unaware or nonchalant.

 

Living Quests, quests that complete themselves by some mean (I have tens-twenties of quest ideas for this, some include companions, villains, rebellions and so forth).

[Cthulchulain]

 

The flip side of time limits (i.e. the world progressing even if you don't get your act together) is that there should be times when the world can't and doesn't get its act together by the time you have.

 

General: "Ah, you're back from that scouting mission. Our oracles told us what you'd find and when you would return, and we've timed our battle preparations to the minute. The vanguard departs immediately!"

 

Hmm, no. More like:

 

General: "Well, we didn't expect you back so soon -- you're two days early! It will take time for us to modify our strategy based on the information you've uncovered. I'll have more instructions in a week."

 

So there might be times when you'd need to ignore someone in need due to a more pressing concern, but also downtime when factions can't quite keep up with your efficiency and you can go do some exploring on the side. There could even be in-game months when nothing necessarily may happen (perhaps mutable if you discover something particularly significant). But how/whether this works would depend on what the overarching storyline is -- something more open-worldy about self-discovery vs solving the impending disaster.

 

In short, quest completion triggers might not always need to be instantaneous, but given that some people want infinite time before stopping the eldritch horror at the city gates and others might want to do the game in a day, YMMV.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Cthulchulain

[Keyrock]

 

 

The flip side of time limits (i.e. the world progressing even if you don't get your act together) is that there should be times when the world can't and doesn't get its act together by the time you have.

 

General: "Ah, you're back from that scouting mission. Our oracles told us what you'd find and when you would return, and we've timed our battle preparations to the minute. The vanguard departs immediately!"

 

Hmm, no. More like:

 

General: "Well, we didn't expect you back so soon -- you're two days early! It will take time for us to modify our strategy based on the information you've uncovered. I'll have more instructions in a week."

 

So there might be times when you'd need to ignore someone in need due to a more pressing concern, but also downtime when factions can't quite keep up with your efficiency and you can go do some exploring on the side. There could even be in-game months when nothing necessarily may happen (perhaps mutable if you discover something particularly significant). But how/whether this works would depend on what the overarching storyline is -- something more open-worldy about self-discovery vs solving the impending disaster.

 

In short, quest completion triggers might not always need to be instantaneous, but given that some people want infinite time before stopping the eldritch horror at the city gates and others might want to do the game in a day, YMMV.

Agreed.

 

One of the things that having time progress on its own and having certain events occur at a certain time adds to the game is forcing the player to make choices. There could be certain events that occur far apart but at nearly the same time. Since the player can't be in both places at once and, barring long range teleportation, can't travel fast enough to arrive in time for both events so he has to choose to intervene in one or the other, or neither. For example the player could choose to foil an assassination attempt on a noble or defend a village of farmers, but not both since they are two hundred miles apart but occur within a 2 day period. This could obviously also be done with scripted sequences that are dependent on the player, but having these things occur naturally within the world gives it a more dynamic feel.

[DocDoomII]

 

Agreed.

 

One of the things that having time progress on its own and having certain events occur at a certain time adds to the game is forcing the player to make choices. There could be certain events that occur far apart but at nearly the same time. Since the player can't be in both places at once and, barring long range teleportation, can't travel fast enough to arrive in time for both events so he has to choose to intervene in one or the other, or neither. For example the player could choose to foil an assassination attempt on a noble or defend a village of farmers, but not both since they are two hundred miles apart but occur within a 2 day period. This could obviously also be done with scripted sequences that are dependent on the player, but having these things occur naturally within the world gives it a more dynamic feel.

How about splitting the party sending 2 characters (rogue and priest) to stop the assassination attempt and the bulk of the melee group to fend of who is assaulting the village?

[Cthulchulain]

How about splitting the party sending 2 characters (rogue and priest) to stop the assassination attempt and the bulk of the melee group to fend of who is assaulting the village?

 

Eminently sensible IRL, but http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverSplitTheParty

[Keyrock]

Agreed.

 

One of the things that having time progress on its own and having certain events occur at a certain time adds to the game is forcing the player to make choices. There could be certain events that occur far apart but at nearly the same time. Since the player can't be in both places at once and, barring long range teleportation, can't travel fast enough to arrive in time for both events so he has to choose to intervene in one or the other, or neither. For example the player could choose to foil an assassination attempt on a noble or defend a village of farmers, but not both since they are two hundred miles apart but occur within a 2 day period. This could obviously also be done with scripted sequences that are dependent on the player, but having these things occur naturally within the world gives it a more dynamic feel.

How about splitting the party sending 2 characters (rogue and priest) to stop the assassination attempt and the bulk of the melee group to fend of who is assaulting the village?

Fair enough. But then what if your 2 characters are not enough to stop the plan or get themselves killed in the process or your remaining group of 4 isn't enough to stop the village attack? In reality splitting forces might be the best course of action but this I think would add way too much complexity to the game and would be beyond the scope of what could be done with Kickstarter funding. Better to keep the group as a whole for the sake of ease of programming/resource conservation.

[DocDoomII]

I just wanted to spice up the conversation

[Keyrock]

I just wanted to spice up the conversation

And you did.

 

Your point is definitely a valid one and were it within the means of what could reasonably be done, I'd be all for it. It would definitely add another layer of tactical depth to the game. Do you concentrate your forces to maximize your chances of achieving one goal or do you split your forces and risk losing both (as well as your lives), but with the possibility of attaining both goals? That would be really cool. My concern is that adding in dynamic events events to make the world "living" may already be beyond the scope of what Obsidian can reasonably do with Kickstarter funding without having to make major sacrifices in other parts of the game. Adding another layer of complexity on top of that by allowing you to split up your party and tackle multiple tasks simultaneously in a dynamic world I fear would definitely put it beyond the scope of what can be done with this limited funding.

[Silver6986]

Apologies if this has been brought up already. I went about 6 pages back and didn't see anything.

 

There will of course be events centered around the player, that is necessary to have a deep and personal narrative. However I would also like to see events that will happen at a certain time with or without the player.

 

Keep in mind that I certainly wouldn't expect each and every one of these options to be present in the same scenario, that would be really complex and go beyond even The Witcher 2 levels of branching storylines. I'm just spitballing here. What I'm saying is I'd like to see events that transpire with or without the player. If the player is in the right place at the right time then he can choose to influence the event. If the player is not in the right place at the right time, or if he chooses not to intervene, the event will still take place.

 

You pretty much stated what I would love to see happen within the world of PE. Actually it reminds me of the older Fallout games whereby sometimes by leaving things alone there would be consequences and so forth. Big wall of text though, so I just quoted the interesting bits )

 

 

[Savvy30039]

The completionist control freak in me would be... dissatisfied.

 

I've enjoyed clockwork game worlds in games like Majora's Mask, where if I miss an important even I can just reset time to catch it the next go around, but if I have to meticulously follow a walkthrough to make sure I catch everything in a game without starting over entirely, I'm not going to have much fun. Part of the impact of big events in games is experiencing it, it wouldn't really be the same if it happened off screen. Obviously you can still harvest a good bit of drama from arriving too late to save the day, but if it isn't totally necessary that the player is there, then is it that important in the first place?

[Keyrock]

The completionist control freak in me would be... dissatisfied.

 

I've enjoyed clockwork game worlds in games like Majora's Mask, where if I miss an important even I can just reset time to catch it the next go around, but if I have to meticulously follow a walkthrough to make sure I catch everything in a game without starting over entirely, I'm not going to have much fun. Part of the impact of big events in games is experiencing it, it wouldn't really be the same if it happened off screen. Obviously you can still harvest a good bit of drama from arriving too late to save the day, but if it isn't totally necessary that the player is there, then is it that important in the first place?

Well the major, plot-centric events would be scripted and dependent on the character, you couldn't miss those. What I mean is having some events that just happen whether you intervene or not. These events would not be essential for the main quest, though they may alter some small aspects of the main storyline here or there. And yeah, the completionist in you would really hate what I'm suggesting since I'm suggesting it would likely be straight up impossible to do everything in the game on a single playthrough. That would definitely lend itself to replayability though.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Keyrock