Alright, so this concept has been lightly discussed on this forum before. It is a more advanced method of procedural content generation. Now, if you all want to discuss the concept itself, I'd be happy to, but I'm mostly interested in whether or not you would enjoy it as a player. So, here's the summary of the concept: This concept is (initially) for a single player RPG. Your actions will have an impact, much like in a standard RPG. However, you don't have to do specific things to move the plot forward. The plot will go on without you having to kill x of this, or enter a certain area. The reason this happens, is that your actions, and the actions of the NPCs have an effect on things like the economy, ecology, and other NPCs. Effects generate events, which cause NPCs to do more actions. Thus, the actions of the bad guy will keep driving the plot forward, even if you do nothing. Ok, so that is how it works. I know it's confusing but I didn't want to discuss how it works yet, just how it figures into the big picture. The game progresses toward a fixed ending. Without the player, the game will pretty much always progress the same way. With the player, you can probably reach the ending faster, or stall the ending, or change the course you take to get to the ending, but that fixed ending will come.So, here is my question: Would you, as a player, be alright with this 'predestination'? Keep in mind that most RPGs have a completely linear plot, and this would keep the beginning and end linear, but how you get there is up to you. After I get some feedback on this question, I'd be happy to discuss how the system of effect-based event generation works. -Humble Hobo

This idea has always entertained me and I would very much like to build it. As for play it, that would be slightly different. For example, it would kind of suck if you got distracted doing some side quest and another hero rises out from the peasants and saves the day. I like the idea of the bad guys being able to progress the story. It is stupid that everyone is always scared of impending doom, but hey, there's no rush.

I think for it to work, I think it would have to advance at quite a slow rate, so people didn't feel pressurised in to rushing the game. Also, make it clear to the player that the story has advanced, so that they are not one step behind the actual game. As for one ending, I think that wouldn't fit with the completely open ended middle. For example, if the bad guys can progress the story, surely they would not progress it towards their own death, or the player his?

One thing I do like, is the changing economy and ecology. Another thing I thought would be quite cool is if all the NPC's were more real. Any by that I mean, if you don't deal with the trolls around their house, they might give up waiting and do it themselves; and die.

Quote:

So, here is my question: Would you, as a player, be alright with this 'predestination'?

Judging by overwhelming success of Space Rangers 1&2 - people are quite alright with this kind of setup.

Personally, its totally OK with me, because i am not an agressive player, and this way it allows me to choose my own pace. I.E. i know i HAVE to take action, but i dont have to take action RIGHT NOW, i can wait it out a little bit, gear up, level up and so on, and join the action in the critical moment, where my part will actually matter most. And leave the small tasks and cleanup to AI players.

And you can always kill off a competitor "hero", if he rises too high above you.

Hi.
There is one drawback in this kind of approach. The game length. Say the final ending will be triggered somewhere after 8-9 hours of play. But what if the player love to kill monsters trying to get powerful weapons for the final struggle? They are getting new sword, new armor and whoops in the middle of the fight somewhere the main evil character decided to destroy the world, and he succeeded. The end. No more play.

That's a good question, streamer. I hadn't considered that.

There are definitely people who enjoy maxing out every possible skill, and accomplishing every single side-quest. So, what should we do for those who like to take their sweet time?

Well, this is where I don’t have a solution that satisfies everyone.

- Even though the story moves along at a steady pace without you, the pace should be slow enough to let you obtain most of what you want in a reasonable timeframe. There will still be those who feel rushed.
- A player wishing to draw out the experience should probably do everything they can to fight against the evil. (The game ends when the ‘evil’ takes over).
- Also, we’re not restricted in how the gameplay works. It doesn’t have to be just quests, side-quests, and boss battles.
- You progress by gaining abilities, and gaining limited stats. The importance of items and gear will be seriously downplayed in this RPG. Instead, it takes a good knowledge of the mechanics and some skill to be successful.

But here's an idea:
What if you could copy your character from one play through the game, into the next?
Or perhaps you could unlock an 'elite' character with high stats after one play through.

These have their own problems, but I'm just throwing out possible solutions.

Any suggestions on how to manage this?
Is it alright to have only a set amount of time to accomplish the game, or will that only detract?


-Humble Hobo

Star Control II operated with the basic concept. The Ur-Quan are enslaving or recruiting all of the galaxy, one alien race at a time, and will reach earth by the year 2XXX. The Ur-Quan actually do everything in real time to reach the end, and the player can postpone the end by years by doing certain things in the game, such as fooling some of the Ur-Quan's allies into fighting each other.

No one else can trigger the same plot developments that the player can, though, so the galaxy is screwed if the player does nothing. Once the time is up, the game is lost.

Personally, I don't like time limits. But if I'm aware of the time limit, and there is a certain repeatable action that I can perform to push the date farther back, then I would enjoy it all the same. In a way, pushing back the date of annihilation would be just as meaningful and fun to work for as money and experience points.

Well, I would like it, but I hated The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask for the time limit. I mean, I don't like to be rushed in order to complete a game. I like exploring, finding secrets and whatnot. So, in order for it to work with me, there should be clear indicators of what is going on in the game world. By example, I'm in a special dungeon trying to find an artifact that would help me destroy the main vilain. As soon as I get it, by example, a message pops telling me that X city has been taken over by the enemy. That would help me determine a) if I'm going to go and free the city or 2) if I don't care and move on.

Although, I think it would work better for a strategy game than an RPG. But the concept is good. The game could end if all the major towns are taken over, so you'd always know if you can go explore or you need to defend your allies. They could give you hints & tips about the next moves of your rivals with the help of their intelligence (that you could develop by investing money into it). Example : Lord Scyon's troops have been seen near the capital city of Qu'ja. Or : Lord Scyon's is preparing an assault on an unknown city. There could also be more general messages ; Dragon King awakened (meaning your one step closer to defeat).

What would be even more cool is, if you go to a city that was sieged, you would have to help reconstruct. You would have to manage armies, research, etc. ;)

I would definitely enjoy a fixed ending and a play-at-your-own-pace/sand box gooey center.

I can imagine a solution to your problem of having the villain accomplishing his goal while the player is off doing some side quest or preparing. I imagine a set number of things the villain (or villein's henchman) must accomplish in order to achieve dooms day/world domination/evil plan. These events, depending on the final goal, may or may not need to be accomplished in order. If the player keeps interrupting/foiling the villain's plan, then the end of the game is prolonged. There can also be hints during game play as to what the villain might do next.

If you increase the amount of villain idle time/preparation between his goals, you could essentially give the player enough time to do other stuff and still prolong the game.
(Villain's time between actions) - (players time to foil action) = remaining time for player to do whatever.

Here are some examples...

Linear Villain Progression
-------------
The evil death knight is trying to take over the world with his army of undead. To do this he needs to take his army from the swamp, through the jungle, over the mountains and into the caverns of time. Now this gives the player/hero the option of when he wants to confront the villain. If the player decides to confront the villain in the jungle, but still keep on playing, he can just defeat the undead army and allow the death knight to travel back one location (into the swamp) and raise another army. This linear villain progression allows the player to babysit a known area and tightly control how far the villain progresses.

Variable Villain Progression
--------------
Darth Vader needs to destroy the rebel base planet. In order to do this he needs to build a death star which can only be built using resources from 6 different planets. Darth Vader (or his storm troopers) will randomly select a planet and take it over. The player may or may not hear rumors of which planet depending on what they are doing. If the player chooses to hang out on one of the planets they can prolong the game by defeating Vader's forces but in doing so, Vader is only one step away from victory.

Dynamic Villain Progression
---------------
Pinky and the Brain try to take over the world. A random (generated or not) progression and final victory is devised and they begin their plan. The player first has to learn out what it is before they can prolong anything. If the player succeeds in finding out what the plan is and how to stop it, then Pinky and the Brain must devise a new plan, thus giving the player more time to play.

Does anyone see any issues from this?

I guess the key principle here, is the ability to prolong the ending indefinitely.

The only issue I see with this is that since the game ends when the enemy wins, you have to 'give up' in order to finish the game. I'm not sure if I'm OK with that.

It would probably help if I added some of the intended plot:

1) The main bad guy is a very cruel demon named Bahimlaj.
2) There are various organizations in the world, with different motives. Some want to actually summon Bahimlaj (with the promise of positions of power in the new reign of darkness). Some want to stop it, and some are oblivious.
3) Basically, without the player's influence, Bahimlaj will eventually come forth and there will be a thousand years of darkness or whatever.

The reason I would like evil to triumph, is that it keys into a larger, overarching plot that I've already developed.
The world Bahimlaj takes over eventually becomes a stage for future conflicts with other worlds, and thus other games.

(By the way, Bahimlaj is not the Ultimate villain, but just a part of a larger plan).

- If you do nothing the whole game but explore, you can still enjoy a really deep storyline and still witness it all.
- If you want to do everything there is to do, you can prolong the game indefinitely.

The overall issue with a set ending, is that you have a goal that is impossible to achieve.
What do you think?

-Humble Hobo

This kind of story is good, as I know never seen in any other game.
Main evil character is trying to conquer the world, destroy the kingdom, making hes evil plans...whatever. The good approach from player angle of view is that every action can be overriden by player. Player must always have a chance to do something ruining evil character plans. Always.
If player suddenly realizes that the end is coming an he can't do anything about it, he will be frustrated, and believe me nobody wants frustrated players.
Also while story is going on, players must have impact on it. And if player is doing anything, killing, exploring he will have impact on story. If player is killing a monsters, developing new skill, finding new and powerful weapons, main evil character will notice the player and try to destroy him (possible threat to his plans). So sooner or later they will met. This could be a good start of game.
Player found some artifact, weapon that gives him a little more power and villain (or some villain's minions) is coming for a fight. Player defeat the minions, and one of them while dying said: my master will kill you anyway...
Open door for more exploring. Who is his master? Why they want to kill me? etc.
But the story after this point must be cut in lot of smaller pieces. After every piece finished villain is getting stronger and stronger, but player can ruin these plans.
Off course story need to be developed in such manner that it runs on several location. For example villain is kidnapping wizards from land, trying to took they magic essence that will get him stronger with every wizard he kills. Player can free some of the wizards, kill his minions, making villain's progress slower, learning with every "quest" more and more.
These actions will also have an impact on villain, making him nervous, because there is someone that is always in bad time, on bad place (for villain).
So the player is his enemy no 1. More minions. More kills. And the player will be angry too. If he didn't want to fight the villain he will fight him sure after hundreds of villain's minions coming after him.
"Why can't I normally explore the dungeon in peace? There are always these boring minions screaming on me: die, die you *&#&#...".<br>