The best storytelling...

[Gromnir]

 

 

Most of the games that have been brought up as examples here, such as IWD2, the narrator has not in fact been there just to bridge the gaps, however, but is understood to be telling the entire story even if they're not actually narrating everything. This is a basic technique that was adopted to games from movies, and it's fine in movies but absolutely sucks for RPGs, since because of it the player won't actually know what happened and what the narrator just says happened, which diminishes the meaningfulness of all the choices you make. The options I gave were how this could be done properly, and what difficulties that would entail.

 

I don't understand why the narration for IWD 1 sucks. I thought it was great. I also liked the narration for the BG games as well.

 

the narration for iwd were excellent. as we noted above, iwd and the david ogden stiers narration managed to avoid much o' the tedious character exposition you see in other games. a few minutes o' narration at start of game, between chapters and for epilogue... well-drawn storybook slides were added to enhance the narration.  done. simple and stream-lined and no expensive animation. we prefer even less narration, but am understanding the urge to provide context. folks unfamiliar with d&d and the forgotten realms could be mighty confused when playing a game such as bg or iwd. writers know to minimize, but is difficult to do so.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we see more straw man from panda. really. what is point of the hobbit example? tell us what is bad from a movie and say it happens in games... not any games we is talking about, and is no suggestion that such an approach would occur in pillars as there is no protagonist such as bilbo in pillars... we can't have such a defined protagonist in a crpg such as pillars. nevertheless, you say that how they did in hobbit was bad and future hobbits will be bad too. okie dokie. why you wanna beat the stuffing outta bilbo? 

Edited April 17, 2014 by Gromnir

[teknoman2]

As a writer myself, I really have to say there are some serious hurdles to clear if you want to do the whole character-narrator thing right. There's basically three paths you can go down:

 

1, The narrator never ever leaves the side of the main character (in this case the PC). I'm sure you can see how this might present a problem, unless you make the narrator some kind of a spirit or a talking hamster or whatever that you can have following the PC around without actually interfering with gameplay. Still, the narrator's point of view will be limited; they can't for example ever know what's really going on inside the protagonist's head, which is admittedly less of a restriction in an RPG than in a written story.

 

2. Flat-out admit that since the narrator doesn't always know how things went down for sure, their account isn't reliable. Dragon Age 2 recently did this, and it can actually work as a neat gameplay mechanic, since you can explain e.g. loading up a save as the narrator going, "No, wait, I remembered wrong." The problem with this approach, and the character-narrator approach in general, is that the player won't in the end know what actually happened, either. This is IMO a fairly important point role-playing-wise.

 

3. Make the narrator omniscient or at least clairvoyant. This option is the easiest one to pull off, but unless you have some concrete reason for why the narrator is only ever observing and never intervening, it's going to severely restrict the story paths you can take. One option is to limit the narrator's knowledge to the protagonist, specifically, or give them no means of helping or warning the heroes. Alternatively, you can make this, too, a gameplay mechanic: When you die, or meet some other unfavourable result of your choices that may make you reach for the load button, that was just the narrator showing you what might happen in the future.

 

So in conclusion, having the entire story narrated by anyone other than the PC is tricky as hell -- to pull it off properly you have to integrate to the whole affair pretty deeply into core gameplay. A lot of RPGs -- Witcher 2 most recently, I think -- have done this half-assedly, and it's at least to me always been detrimental to the story. Having an NPC narrate something that goes on "between the chapters" is fine, but unless you're going to go all out, I think it's best just to have the player as the narrator: You determine how the story unfolds. To me that's the bulk of the appeal of RPGs right there, anyhow.

at least witcher 2 only used it to give some style to the journal, unlike some other games that went for the 1st aproach

the naration between chapters in IWD2 was nice. it spoke from another person's point of view about the general setting of the chapter and not of the character's and their actions

[Jarmo]

Two things I want from the narration.

 

One is to elaborate on what the new area is like.

The visuals is one thing, but it's another to know the 8 trees we see on the area edge is the vast forest we just crossed,

or that the cliff is the beginning of a mountain range. Or that this nice field of flowers was once a site of a vast massacre.

 

To remind why we are here and later to tell why we were here and what we accomplished.

 

Because really, after fighting a few hours and then continuing the next day I'm all foggy on what I'm actually trying to accomplish beside clearing the big mob in the next room. It's half to do with bad writing on many RPG's and half with just being adhd. But games just do work in a way of blah blah blah blah.. next dungeon. 

[TrashMan]

So someone explain to me why are you so utterly convinced certain types of narrations are objectively and categorically bad?

 

 

Does it really matter if the narrator is omniscent and omnipresent or not?

 

The Bilbo/Varric variant works well, just as the "unknown narrator".

It doesn't matter that one doesn't get a "this is 100% genuine and not just that guy misremembering" stamp. You don't have certainty either way.

 

And "immersion" is not irrelevant or useless. Not any more than any other word in the dictionary anyway.

[Silent Winter]

I said this in another thread on a similar topic:

 

I don't mind who tells the story (though I prefer the disembodied narrator')(IWD was well done - but for that, you didn't know who was telling it until the end)

What I dislike is the "long long ago" or "This is what I think happened" type - it removes the sense that I'm (my PC) having any input or making meaningful choices.

I vastly prefer (in an rpg - I'm not talking about movies or other kinds of narratives) to have the present tense "You awaken to the realisation that last night was not just a horrible dream…"

[Elerond]

I would like to see that story of PoE is just god's of PoE playing P&P RPG, where loading is explained by god (which means that player is actually that playing god playing pc) playing pc that was not what s/he intended to do and direct interactions from gods in PoE world would be explained by them buying favors from GM or GM causing havoc for players' plans.

 

Which would cause that games narration is such that narrators themselves don't even know what will happen and it could give insight how things happen in world of PoE only because their god want to have fun and they see world only as their playing ground.

 

At least I think that it could be very interesting concept.

[Gromnir]

 

 

And "immersion" is not irrelevant or useless. Not any more than any other word in the dictionary anyway.

insofar as feedback on a game development board is concerned, "immersion" is as useful as is "interesting."

 

"i like it because it is interesting."

 

"i hate it because it ruins immersion."

 

helpful?

 

ask 10 people on these boards what is qualities that make a game immersive and Why those qualities make immersive. you get such a hodge-podge o' gibberish and contradictions that it is painful to read. 

 

as for a god doing narrating... well, at least you cover panda's seeming preference for omniscience that way.  personally, Gromnir likes our gods to be remote, but that is an issue for another thread.

 

if narration is kept minimal like in fallout, then making the narrator a character of import is almost pointless, no? if all you had were some fragment o' narration at start and end of game, would there be a point in making the narrator a character? am understanding that if you is gonna have a feature in a game, you want the feature to be kewl. as between some kinda interesting concept narrator and a nameless & faceless minimal narrator, the  faceless narrator is gonna seem dull by comparison.  tougher sell. the thing is that jakk were largely correct when he identified the purpose o' a crpg narrator. the narrator is Not telling the story in a crpg. the narrator is  existing to, "sum up or skim over events." less is more. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[teknoman2]

So someone explain to me why are you so utterly convinced certain types of narrations are objectively and categorically bad?

 

 

Does it really matter if the narrator is omniscent and omnipresent or not?

 

The Bilbo/Varric variant works well, just as the "unknown narrator".

It doesn't matter that one doesn't get a "this is 100% genuine and not just that guy misremembering" stamp. You don't have certainty either way.

 

And "immersion" is not irrelevant or useless. Not any more than any other word in the dictionary anyway.

they are not inherently bad... it's just that certain types have always been implemented badly. so it's better to avoid them

[nikolokolus]

Frankly, to hell with narration and "storytelling" in games. I'll read a good book for that. The story (such as it is) should emerge from player choices, snippets of dialogue and environmental cues. Leaving me to come up with my own interpretation.

 

Too many frustrated novelists making "games" and not enough game designers.

[Gromnir]

Frankly, to hell with narration and "storytelling" in games. I'll read a good book for that. The story (such as it is) should emerge from player choices, snippets of dialogue and environmental cues. Leaving me to come up with my own interpretation.

 

Too many frustrated novelists making "games" and not enough game designers.

 

got a good example o' such a single-player crpg? you know, with no storytelling save for what you interpret from killing goblins and opening chests? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lephys]

Plus, it would be fun if the narrator was heavily biased against the heroes, portraying them as the evil antagonists of the story.

It wasn't specifically narration, so much, but the general story-telling of the original Guild Wars lore was pretty much from the Humans' perspective, and it made them out to be the "good guys," taking out the horrible, monstrous Charr (who were only attacking because the Humans, who are basically a feral species on that world, moved in, took over grounds sacred to the Charr, and built a bunch of crap on them -- the Charr were even quite intelligent and technologically/industrially advanced.)

 

It's an interesting spin, it is.

[nikolokolus]

 

 

Frankly, to hell with narration and "storytelling" in games. I'll read a good book for that. The story (such as it is) should emerge from player choices, snippets of dialogue and environmental cues. Leaving me to come up with my own interpretation.

 

Too many frustrated novelists making "games" and not enough game designers.

got a good example o' such a single-player crpg? you know, with no storytelling save for what you interpret from killing goblins and opening chests?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Nethack

[Gromnir]

 

 

Frankly, to hell with narration and "storytelling" in games. I'll read a good book for that. The story (such as it is) should emerge from player choices, snippets of dialogue and environmental cues. Leaving me to come up with my own interpretation.

 

Too many frustrated novelists making "games" and not enough game designers.

got a good example o' such a single-player crpg? you know, with no storytelling save for what you interpret from killing goblins and opening chests?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Nethack

 

*eye roll*

 

sorry, but nethack has story same way does pong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps say that you don't need, care or want story elements. is fine. is honest. nevertheless, you mighta' noticed that pillars claims to be using the IE games as role-models, so... you is perhaps barking up the wrong tree if you want text based adventure game from the 80s. 

Edited April 18, 2014 by Gromnir

[Silent Winter]

Plus, it would be fun if the narrator was heavily biased against the heroes, portraying them as the evil antagonists of the story.

It would be interesting, perhaps, for a certain game but not something I'd like in PoE.

It wouldn't fit the IE-type game I'm after to have a biased narration telling it like it wasn't.  (Even IWD could have had that, but chose not to - then again, very little 'choice' for the PCs in that one).

Also, for this, you'd need 'evil' PCs to be portrayed as, for example, bungling idiots or something.

 

Narrator should be done like in BG or IWD (With a personal preference for BG as IWD had the past-tense 'it's in the book' style - worked fine for a dungeon crawler, less so for more open rpg, IMO)

[nikolokolus]

*eye roll*

 

 

sorry, but nethack has story same way does pong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps say that you don't need, care or want story elements. is fine. is honest. nevertheless, you mighta' noticed that pillars claims to be using the IE games as role-models, so... you is perhaps barking up the wrong tree if you want text based adventure game from the 80s. 

 

 

I'm fully aware PoE will be borrowing heavily from the IE games and that's fine, I just hope that the game is more "show" than "tell" in the way that it presents its conflicts/challenges and that the end-state is less about achieving some grand destiny and more about multiple paths to very different outcomes - In PnP terms, It's something like the difference between playing in a sandbox/hexcrawl vs. a railroad; player actions creating a story vs. player actions advancing a GM's predetermined narrative.

Edited April 18, 2014 by nikolokolus

[Gromnir]

 

*eye roll*

 

 

sorry, but nethack has story same way does pong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps say that you don't need, care or want story elements. is fine. is honest. nevertheless, you mighta' noticed that pillars claims to be using the IE games as role-models, so... you is perhaps barking up the wrong tree if you want text based adventure game from the 80s. 

 

 

In PnP terms

 

first mistake: is not pnp. am recalling when josh had to point that seeming obvious fact out to tim cain. in pnp, you sit around a table with a handful o' other folks and got a dm, all of whom is reactive.  gotta let go o' the notion that playing a single-player crpg is playing a pnp game in a computer environment.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[JFSOCC]

I'm very interested in the visual narrative PoE will have. I want to know how much of the story and world lore is being told by environment art and props.

[Calmar]

Don't know if this approach is the best, but I definitely like it, too. The hero narrating her or his own story sounds a bit too self-absorbed, so it's got to be someone who's trustworthy, but not too deply connected with the actual adventure.

[Silent Winter]

Other than a couple of first-person perspective novels, most of the great stories I've read didn't have an in-world narrator - the narrator was just a narrator.

I don't see why a crpg needs an in-world narrator either.  Most of the story should come from the actions in-game.  A few chapter breaks and the finale can be narrated by a narrator of no fixed personage.  Again I say: BG narration style FTW.

[Sad Panda]

I'll just leave this here...

 

[Lord Gorchnik]

Ladies and gentlemen, the best narrarator ever:

 

John Rhys-Davies:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axatre-T4xU&t=2m10s