We all like a good 'plot', apparently. So let's talk specifics.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Planescape: Torment leads the poll (Which game hook brought you to Project Eternity and interests you the most?) as to the single game which inspired the most pledges and I'm guessing makes up a big chunk of the people voting 'multiple'. The big selling point of Torment wasn't its combat (pretty lackluster to be honest) or its huge game world (fairly small), but the fact that its plotline left its competitors in the dust. Over and over, on this board, the impression left is that people like a really good story, want to see one in an RPG again, and are hoping P:E will supply it.

 

But that's pretty general. Talking specifics, what do you think are the most important elements in a good CRPG story? What works and what doesn't? What have past games done right and what have they done wrong? Is there a difference between what makes a CRPG story work and what makes a movie or novel or comic or whatever story work?

[Coincidence]

I like a story that I think involves of "grey" characters and factions instead of too many "all good" or "all evil" ones. It makes the world, its politics, and choices you make much more complicated than "Side with X if you're good, side with Y if you're evil."

[Teuthida]

This is a great idea for a thread!

 

Writing for games is my biggest interest/hobby/obsession, so just from my experience - the best thing that sets game stories apart from movies/comics/novels is that games are interactive. If you're not taking advantage of player interactivity, why are you making a game in the first place? In story-driven RPGs, player choice is one of the most important ways to make the plot compelling. Lots of options, clever ways to solve problems, and most of all the game acknowledging your choices and changing the story or world around you to reflect it.

 

For me, characters are another big part of the package. In a movie or a novel you never get the opportunity to pause mid-action and ask the characters, "Can you tell me about yourself?" In games you have the option to ask your companions who they are and to get to know them. Making the players care about the characters they're surrounded by leads to them investing themselves more emotionally into the story, which provides writers more opportunity to mess with their emotions.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

One major thing that always bugs me: plot consistency. Writers need to figure out what happened when and to whom, remember what they wrote previously, and if they plan on changing it provide some rational explanation for why what the player was given to understand earlier is not true.

 

The treatment of the relationship between Gorion and Charname's mother in the Baldur's Gate series came under discussion on the BG:EE forums for this reason. In the first game, Gorion leaves a letter talking about how Charname's mother was his friend (and, on occasion, lover....ick) for many a season when she was impregnated by Bhaal and died in childbirth. Fine.

 

Then the writers of Throne of Bhaal apparently completely forgot this letter, did not bother to check up on what was written before them about Charname's mother, and instead portrayed mommy as a vicious, child-sacrificing Priestess of Bhaal who Gorion saved you from. There is not even the slightest effort to reconcile these wildly diverging accounts.

 

The end result? ToB's plotting comes across as some pretty lazy, half-assed stuff. There were valiant attempts to reconcile these stories via Fan Wank, but such attempts should not have been necessary. The ToB writers should have checked on what was written before, acknowledged the confusion it could produce, and (if they still intended on going with the new story) attempted to explain it in-game in some fashion.

 

So yes. A good plot involves getting your story straight. How many years ago did something happen? Why did it happen? Who was involved? Why were they involved? And so forth. Remember it. If you can't remember it, store it somewhere where you can check it. Ignore what you have already written in the hopes no one else remembers at your own peril, especially in the age of the internet.

[lordgizka]

I like a story that I think involves of "grey" characters and factions instead of too many "all good" or "all evil" ones. It makes the world, its politics, and choices you make much more complicated than "Side with X if you're good, side with Y if you're evil."

 

This argument always gets made, but I don't understand it, really. If the player recognizes for himself what the concepts of good/evil are, he is capable of judging ANY character according to those values. "Grey" characters are therefore either neutral and don't do extreme things that would make them either good or evil, or possess both evil and good traits, such as a terrorist that would attempt to, say, save his oppressed people by slaughtering the oppressors. Is the latter case what people want?

[Ieo]

Dragon Age: Origins --- completely forgettable plot because from the beginning that antagonist guy Loghain simply did not make any sense to me. Or at least, his presentation was very shallow and unconvincing to me. AND he was so obviously "evil" in a Disney way within the very first cinematic thing you see of him. And Darkspawn? Sooooo boooooring usual horde menace. So, uh, that's what not to do. Bad guys take over/destroy world for no particularly good reason is one of the most overdone basic plots ever. Mini-bad guy betrays his best friend and gets him killed over... I dunno what.... really... wth?

 

PS:T --- Surprise! Layers and layers of truths that end up coloring other truths that uncover not only more of the story but the "nature" of the player character. Moreover, the plot presents some hard questions, some with no good answers. Interestingly, there wasn't an "antagonist" in the traditional sense. This was a real thinker's plot that didn't treat the player stupidly at all. Dodecahedron!

 

Baldur's Gate 1 --- There were some interesting twists starting from the initial mystery that kept uncovering clues all the way to the various antagonists at the end, and the counter-relationship between the PC and end antagonist. So, again--not so obvious from the outset.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 --- Irenicus wasn't a run-of-the-mill antagonist in that his revenge was very specific, and he actually didn't have anything against the PC, interestingly. ToB, though. People have complained about the whole Bhaalspawn weirdness, and I agree it wasn't the best treatment. The whole Gorion part--oh, I see Death Machine Miyagi just posted about that. Yeah. Consistency.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Ieo

[Coincidence]

I like a story that I think involves of "grey" characters and factions instead of too many "all good" or "all evil" ones. It makes the world, its politics, and choices you make much more complicated than "Side with X if you're good, side with Y if you're evil."

 

This argument always gets made, but I don't understand it, really. If the player recognizes for himself what the concepts of good/evil are, he is capable of judging ANY character according to those values. "Grey" characters are therefore either neutral and don't do extreme things that would make them either good or evil, or possess both evil and good traits, such as a terrorist that would attempt to, say, save his oppressed people by slaughtering the oppressors. Is the latter case what people want?

 

Make me need to judge who the good and evil people (or who is most good and evil) are, don't make the game make it so obvious for me. Different factions have different pros and cons, and you determine which pros are the best, and it can be dependent on your own personal values.

[Ieo]

So yes. A good plot involves getting your story straight. How many years ago did something happen? Why did it happen? Who was involved? Why were they involved? And so forth. Remember it. If you can't remember it, store it somewhere where you can check it. Ignore what you have already written in the hopes no one else remembers at your own peril, especially in the age of the internet.

 

Or, you know, in the case of BG1/BG2----maybe play the first game?

[Zu Long]

I hate to sound like M. Night Shamamalama-sama, but the best cRPGs always have a twist, where the main character is forced to define who they really are. Final Fantasy 7 had one of the best I've seen in any medium ever with Cloud's memory sequence. My favorite part of KOTOR II will always be the conversation with Atris after you crash land on her arctic base. (I played through it multiple times my first run through because it was so awesome). There was a moment like that in Jade Empire. There was one in the first KOTOR...

 

Most good stories are about conflict both external to the main character and within the main character as well. The main character's journey should be in part about self-discovery, and most good RPG's have a moment (some have more than one) where the main character is forced to question themselves and come up with an answer relevant to major storyline.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Zu Long

[Pshaw]

For me it comes down to the characters. I love character driven stories, not only in games but books and movies as well. If you give me an interesting cast of characters that I care about I'm going to enjoy the game based on that alone.

 

I mostly feel this way because many of the over arching stories in RPGs go either 2 ways. One is that the main story gets lost in all the sidequests and various adventuring you're doing. The other is that they either keep you on a strict path or beat you over the head with main 'threat' no matter what you're doing in the world. You can strike a happy medium to be sure but I find most games do not. A key part of it, I feel, is to have a villain you hate enough to carry you through all the unrelated sidequests so you don't lose sight of them as your goal.

 

I will say that I think BG2 did a terrific job of balancing this. You established a very good reason to hate Irenicus in the first dungeon. Then your goal to pursue him is to gather up gold doing side missions so things aren't always focused on him but you're still working towards that ultimate goal even while doing entirely unrelated things. Then every so often they drop in a little reminder via cut scene or bad dream just to remind you why you hate this guy so much.

 

Add good characters to a story where you really want to beat the antagonist and you've got the winning formula. So long as the ending is good (there's another topic about this already so I won't go into here) then you're pretty much all set.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Pshaw

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I like a story that I think involves of "grey" characters and factions instead of too many "all good" or "all evil" ones. It makes the world, its politics, and choices you make much more complicated than "Side with X if you're good, side with Y if you're evil."

 

I don't think its necessary to have all grey, since even in the Real World there are groups that are pretty much unambiguously a bunch of douchebags. Its why Nazis have been staple villains since the 1930s to today.

 

But for the most part I agree.

 

In particular, give me hard choices. Choices that make me think and reflect on what I (or, at least, my character) really believe.

 

Mask of the Betrayer did a very good job of this. *SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED IT*

 

 

 

 

 

My first playthrough of it was with a Paladin, sworn to a god...and then suddenly, that Paladin was presented with the choice of supporting his god or standing against the suffering of countless people whose greatest 'crime' was not worshipping a god. On the one hand, the argument from the gods that the Wall of the Faithless was absolutely crucial to sustaining existence as a whole, a 'necessary evil' even for the good deities. On the other, the raw gut reaction that mass torture of innocent people can never be justified, and the urge of any decent person to stand against it.

 

I loved that my character was challenged in such a way. When I chose to support the Betrayer's Crusade and stand beside a fallen angel and a demilich even against other paladins, that character felt more like an actual character facing actual conflict than he had at any other point in NWN2. Standing between what was Lawful and what was Good, he chose Good. Its really one of the moments that made the expansion for me.

 

Of course, I think MotB also suffered its own share of plot inconsistencies: if the Wall of the Faithless is necessary to make people worship the gods, why is it that it isn't portrayed as common knowledge for everyone in the realms? Its like the Doomsday Device in Dr. Strangelove; a deterring threat only works if people know its there and how to avoid it. Moreover, if it was made by Myrkul as I seem to recall, then how can it be so pivotal to existence? Myrkul had a definitive start to his reign as God of the Dead; what did they do before then?

 

And so forth.

[Tale]

I'm trying very hard to separate "things I like in a plot" from "things that plots I hate did not have." I'm sure there's a lot of overlap, but it can be deceptive.

 

I like a plot make sense. I like characters to have understandable, even if not relateable, motives. I want there to be choices that I want to take. I want the outcome of those choices to be connected to why I took them.

 

I like characters to develop. I would like antagonists to have their development as well as the protagonists. It's not necessary, but it's nice to have. And this development needs to be understandable.

 

I want thematic consistency. I want the plot teach me things and expose me to ideas, then reinforce or smoothly develop those ideas as the narrative continues.

 

I am essentially asking that the events of the plot be a culmination of what comes before it. Which sounds probably simpler than it really is. I want to see the foundation for victory laid out in the beginnings. I want to witness how and why the characters change over the course of time, I don't want that to be background information. I want all the little victories to contribute to the greater victories. I want the character development to contribute to the challenges and victories along the way.

[Pshaw]

PS:T --- Surprise! Layers and layers of truths that end up coloring other truths that uncover not only more of the story but the "nature" of the player character. Moreover, the plot presents some hard questions, some with no good answers. Interestingly, there wasn't an "antagonist" in the traditional sense. This was a real thinker's plot that didn't treat the player stupidly at all. Dodecahedron!

 

That's a good point. I haven't played through torment in years at this point and I had kind of forgotten it's almost complete lack of an antagonist to drive the story. So in addition to my previous post I'd have to say mystery is another great motivator. If you can make us want to know what will happen next and have us guessing what might be going on we will get sucked into the story. It's not something I think about much with RPGs since there's usually a villain but a good mystery plot works very well. I really enjoyed the first Resident Evil, Heavy Rain and Alan Wake because I really wanted to what the hell was going on as much as I wanted to beat an antagonist.

[Coincidence]

I like a story that I think involves of "grey" characters and factions instead of too many "all good" or "all evil" ones. It makes the world, its politics, and choices you make much more complicated than "Side with X if you're good, side with Y if you're evil."

 

I don't think its necessary to have all grey, since even in the Real World there are groups that are pretty much unambiguously a bunch of douchebags. Its why Nazis have been staple villains since the 1930s to today.

 

But for the most part I agree.

 

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said "ALL", since yes there will be groups that are just evil. The main reason I want it is that I want to have to critically think about who my character would ally with or what they'd do based on what they think. Situations where I need to think about what the lesser evil is, and that it can vary from character to character.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Coincidence

[Brannart]

The reason I liked PS:T is it did not hold your hand at all really plotwise. You had to pay attention, gather the clues and solve the mystery. And even after many playthroughs I was still finding more things, heck it was probably 2007 that I found the Blind Archer in the Morgue. And that experience, for example, sort of leaves you wondering what was the deal with the Blind Archer and why did he follow TNO and you realize you will never know. And this was a guy who never actually appeared in the game really. So I guess it is a plot that really makes you think to puzzle it out, which gets you thinking of its implications and a desire to get to know and understand how that relates to the characters. Characters who have real darkness, melancholy, idealism, or righteousness, or whatever makes them decide to tag along with you that goes deeper than the 'daddy/mommy didn't love me' melodrama you run into alot.

 

In this game we seem to have something significant that haunts the main character and perhaps that will tie you to a bunch of places and characters and ideas that will be that sort of compelling. The kind of plot that makes you want to play the game again so you can appreciate it on a whole other level.

 

Another thing I enjoy are real choices that dramatically fork the game though I know some do not care so much for that. I know that most choices in cRPGs are just the illusion of choice or cosmetic choices and that is probably necessary and most of the choices in any game are going to be that. But I loved how in MOTB you would reach certain choke points where you had really big choices to be made that would have a big impact on the next part of the game. I would love a repeat of that but even more so. To the point that the plot, the places you go and the way the characters develope is significantly impacted by say a big choice you make at the end of chapter 1 or whatever. To where you want to go back and see what happens if you chose differently. And of course these choices would compound on top of each other at each choke point so there would not be many of them.

 

So basically look to PS:T and MOTB for inspiration is what I say.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Brannart

[Death Machine Miyagi]

And even after many playthroughs I was still finding more things, heck it was probably 2007 that I found the Blind Archer in the Morgue. And that experience, for example, sort of leaves you wondering what was the deal with the Blind Archer and why did he follow TNO and what was his deal and you realize you will never know.

 

Ah, yes, this reminds me of another critical point: allow some room for the player to use their imagination. You really, really don't have to explain everything. When you explain everything, you leave no room for mystery or wonder. What were the motivations of the Blind Archer? What did the First Incarnation do that was so terrible that a thousand thousand lifetimes of do-gooder stuff wouldn't be able to salvage his soul from damnation? What were the details of the grave crime Morte commited that landed him on the pillar of skulls? What is the TNO's name?

 

And so on, with any number of plot threads. They work best unexplained. Imagine if the game said, 'And now you remember your name was Bob.'

 

The best kind of fantasy/sci-fi, CRPG or no, is the kind that truly makes you believe that the story you're playing/reading/whatever is just one story among many in this world. There were any number of stories before yours, and there will probably be many after, of which you are likely to hear only the most cursory of details. The world did not begin when you rolled your character, nor will it end when the credits start.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Tamerlane]

For me, the big thing is that the story be personal. Torment's Nameless One wanted to discover his past: good! Mass Effect's Shepard wants to save the galaxy: bad. The Witcher 2's Geralt wants to clear his name: good! DAO's Warden wants to save his country: Bad. DA2's Champion wanted... actually, I really couldn't tell you. And much like the cursed frogurt, that's bad.

 

I vaguely recall reading something from Avellone or Sawyer or... yeah, one of those two, I think, where they more-or-less said the same thing. So I figure I'm in good hands on that front.

Dragon Age: Origins --- completely forgettable plot because from the beginning that antagonist guy Loghain simply did not make any sense to me. Or at least, his presentation was very shallow and unconvincing to me. AND he was so obviously "evil" in a Disney way within the very first cinematic thing you see of him. And Darkspawn? Sooooo boooooring usual horde menace. So, uh, that's what not to do. Bad guys take over/destroy world for no particularly good reason is one of the most overdone basic plots ever. Mini-bad guy betrays his best friend and gets him killed over... I dunno what.... really... wth?

Loghain actually was kinda interesting... in cut content and unexplored backstory.

 

It happens to Bioware too, folks.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

For me, the big thing is that the story be personal. Torment's Nameless One wanted to discover his past: good! Mass Effect's Shepard wants to save the galaxy: bad. The Witcher 2's Geralt wants to clear his name: good! DAO's Warden wants to save his country: Bad. DA2's Champion wanted... actually, I really couldn't tell you. And much like the cursed frogurt, that's bad.

 

Agree. Especially if the game gives you the option to play a selfish/evil character of some sort. Give the character a motivation...an understandable, personal motivation...for wanting to do all the quests and things the game offers, other than 'I get lots of loots and XP.' I shouldn't ever have to wonder why my Chaotic Evil (or equivalent) character gives a flying crap whether Neverwinter gets eaten up by the King of Shadows.

[Ieo]

I vaguely recall reading something from Avellone or Sawyer or... yeah, one of those two, I think, where they more-or-less said the same thing. So I figure I'm in good hands on that front.

 

We're definitely in good hands there, and judging by the very basic story intro for PE, it's all set.

 

Avellone @1UP:

1UP: Some games make the player's character the savior of an entire world. Others focus on a relatively restrained, personal conflict. Does either approach interest you more personally? Can you talk about the scale of the story that you hope to tell this time around?

 

Avellone: I like personal conflicts with large repercussions waiting ominously in the wings. Even though Torment was a personal journey, for example, the nature of the character's affliction was something that impacted Planescape as a whole.

[Brishingr]

I have to +1 this, Ill throw in New VAgas as an example, when I had to go hmm whihc side do I take, I started to tally up the facts. Althrough New Bagas is not much of a comparsion, but it did make me think, unlike DA:O when I went...wait wut at Loghan.

[Brannart]

I have always loved Avellone's style. He is the main reason I backed this project and plan on following its developement.

[Coincidence]

I have to +1 this, Ill throw in New VAgas as an example, when I had to go hmm whihc side do I take, I started to tally up the facts. Althrough New Bagas is not much of a comparsion, but it did make me think, unlike DA:O when I went...wait wut at Loghan.

 

There's an example. Four choices, although one is certainly more dark than the other three.

 

Do you:

 

A. Support the NCR, giving the Mojave the most security but putting them under the control of a government that really doesn't care and will just tax them?

 

B. Support Mr. House, who will keep indepence and order (to a lesser extent) but is basically a ruthless "enlightened" tyrant

 

C. Support Caesar's Leion, who are Darwinists that are very brutal with inhumane punishments and slavery, but who also have the most stable lands and little to no criminal activity and a strict ban on drugs and alcohol.

 

D. Support an independent Mojave free of House, the NCR, and the Legion, which may be the only ending with someone in power who is really doing it for selfless reasons (or not, depending on who you are) but then having to deal with the fact it will probably have the highest amount of anarchy.

 

Just between A. and D. alone is "Do I care about safety over freedom, or do I like freedom over safety?"

Edited October 18, 2012 by Coincidence

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I have to +1 this, Ill throw in New VAgas as an example, when I had to go hmm whihc side do I take, I started to tally up the facts. Althrough New Bagas is not much of a comparsion, but it did make me think, unlike DA:O when I went...wait wut at Loghan.

 

There's an example. Four choices, although one is certainly more dark than the other three.

 

Do you:

 

A. Support the NCR, giving the Mojave the most security but putting them under the control of a government that really doesn't care and will just tax them?

 

B. Support Mr. House, who will keep indepence and order (to a lesser extent) but is basically a ruthless "enlightened" tyrant

 

C. Support Caesar's Leion, who are Darwinists that are very brutal with inhumane punishments and slavery, but who also have the most stable lands and little to no criminal activity and a strict ban on drugs and alcohol.

 

D. Support an independent Mojave free of House, the NCR, and the Legion, which may be the only ending with someone in power who is really doing it for selfless reasons (or not, depending on who you are) but then having to deal with the fact it will probably have the highest amount of anarchy.

 

Just between A. and D. alone is "Do I care about safety over freedom, or do I like freedom over safety?"

 

Yep. Basically, when P:E hits the proverbial shelves, I want to see some truly impassioned arguments on these forums about a bunch the choices people made over the game and which were the 'right' ones.

 

If New Vegas had fleshed out Caesar's Legion a little more, it would have been even better. As it stood, three of the choices had pros and cons to them, were arguably better or worse...and the fourth was just clearly bad, involving the Mojave being taken over by a group of misogynistic, slaving, mass murdering Luddites led by a hypocritical thug with delusions of grandeur...or, alternatively, his lieutenant who just likes killing everyone.

[smithereen]

I actually liked Logain quite a bit. He was a relatable character, it just wasn't shoved in your face. You had to look around a bit and read between the lines.

 

For me, a good cRPG has to have layered and dynamic characters, at least a few who are likable. But there's no accounting for taste, so it's not really worth getting into what I like in characters. Ashley Williams, Tali, Garrus, Kreia, Visas, HK-47, Heckt, the entire casts of Planescape: Torment and Mask of the Betrayer, etc - there are many to choose from. For characters, I mostly want to see real character development, and something I haven't seen before. I trust Obsidian to deliver in this regard.

 

As for the PC's story, I have to care about it somehow. I liked Commander Shepard as a PC, the Warden, the Bhaalspawn Hawke, Thornton, the Nameless One, Geralt - again, I'm not picky, there just has to be some personal conflict. I don't mind having the save the galaxy, I just have to know why I want to do it. For Shepard and Hawke (morso than the Warden, his story was carried by Allistair and Morrigan), I was happy, as Hawke had a stake in the city to pretect - whether he was an **** or not, he probably didn't want to see his house burn down and his friends and family killed, and Shepard was pre-established to be an elite commando - a millitary man. Same with Geralt - although he was quite pre-defined, you were given do warning, rather than being told - "K, you're gonna go save the kittens, right?"

 

For the rest of the plotting, the main this is to maintain internal consistancy, explain why the world rests on the PC's shoulder's, etc. A big turn-off for me is passing around the Idiot Ball - if somebody acts like a total moron or is unreasonably incompetent, it should be at least halfway explained. No strawmen if avoidable (I thought DA2 handled poiltics quite well, for example. DA1 was quite good as well), and I don't mean monsters. Reapers, Sith, Darkspawn are OK - no Leagues of Straw Conservatives or Evil Communists.

 

And finally, try to not divorce the gameplay from the setting. Combat should not be entirely abstract - characters should be heavily affected by their careers - if their job involves being set on fire twice and stabbed six times in an average day, this should leave some serious physical and emotional scarring. If my character is sixteen and the baddest mother****er in the kingdom, this should not have been an accident. In fact, being a prodigy should not really be a satisfactory explaination. And if there are bands of robbers every twenty feet down the highway, who's job is it to deal with them? Probably not the band of adventurers just passing through, or the nation's economy would have imploded before they got there.

 

Edit: And you have to use the medium's unique ability to build dramatic tention - bad things should happen, and there should be consequences for everthing. Including unforseen consequences. The Mass Effect and Dragon Age games (and Planescape: Torment) did this the best in video games, but there's still some room for improvement. See A Song of Ice and Fire - you get a LOT more invested in a story if you know everything can and will go to hell in a handbasket in five minuites - in a game, I think the Mass Effect got the closest. When it's YOUR fault somebody died, it hits even harder than Roose Bolton.

Edited October 18, 2012 by smithereen

[UncleBourbon]

I agree with those things said already - consistancy being a big MUST. I think companions should be involved - at least more than in NWN. That said, I like unintended consequences and the "no good choice" scenario. I recall DA:O's point where you basically decide who the next dwarf king is, but neither is really a good king - insomuch as ethics as simply good for the future of dwarfkind, the world, or their society.