Monday, March 31, 2008
Game Design: Is "Non-Linear" a Bad Thing?
"So what do you do?"
Running "Pen and Paper" roleplaying games, I've found this particular question asked by the game-master has a tendency to cause frustration and deer-in-the-headlights stares from many players. It could be used as a really great stalling technique on my part, because it has the tendency to bring the entire game to a screeching halt for anywhere from fifteen minutes to two hours.
Folks generally have the feeling that being "on rails" is a bad thing. Shamus Young lampooned the whole "railroad" RPG campaign thing in DM of the Rings. After all, the fun of interactive games is in it being interactive - you can make choices and affect the outcome with your skills (or lack thereof). Computer and videogames often go this route. The developers can't possibly create all the content and assets necessary for players to literally go anywhere and do anything. So they constrain the breadth of the player's actions pretty tightly. Players balk at this, and claim they want "non-linear" or "open" gameplay.
Hey, I'm one of 'em. There's a reason the Elder Scrolls games are amongst my favorite RPGs, and why I get horrendously sucked into big 'ol sandbox games. I like charting my own course. Even in Pen & Paper RPGs, which sometimes causes the game master to start turning purple and ignoring me as I start wandering around talking to people I was never meant to talk to.
But I think there's a very solid case for having "too much of a good thing." To some players, the true open-world sandbox-ish games are a nightmare. Some players - and I may even go so far as to say that most players - want to know what they are "supposed" to do next, and the open environment just confuses them. Yes, they claim to want to be off the rails --- but what they really want is the option to depart the rails once in a while.
In general, I think it might be safe to say that too much open-endedness with too little feedback or guidance in a game is a Bad Thing. True "non-linear" gameplay shouldn't be a goal for most games... just the ones that have a design that revolves around that level of freedom (which I love and will continue to play, thank you very much). But for other games, just give us some wiggle room and interesting choices along the way - don't lock us onto the rails, but don't plan on us moving out of sight of it either.
Agree? Disagree? Figure out what it is I'm smoking on the Forum.
(Vaguely) related ascensions to the heights of Mount Obvious:
* Stop the Long-Winded Intros!
* RPG Design: Why Can't I Get Past the Stupid Door?
* Roleplaying and Computer Roleplaying Games
* Mistakes in Game Design
.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:00 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I think you're right about people's different preferences. I wonder how much of it has to do with the difference between gameplay and story. I've been talking about that issue recently on my own blog (original subject, I know, but one of my favorites).
I tend to prefer more directed gameplay. Branches are fine -- even lots of branches -- but I want them in the context of interesting, compelling characters in dramatic situations, and that means things need to be fairly scripted.
User-generated content has taken the internet by storm, and it's a very liberating thing, but let's face it: most of that content isn't worth much. By the same token, I might be able to choose my own way and create my own "story" in the Elder Scrolls games, but is there any lasting narrative value there?
When I play a game, I want to step into a story that's somehow bigger than me, where characters can interact with each other to overcome mutual obstacles. I haven't played very many truly open-ended games have an emphasis on character. And free reign doesn't amount to much in a world full of robots. Sometimes after a while I start to feel like one of them.
I tend to prefer more directed gameplay. Branches are fine -- even lots of branches -- but I want them in the context of interesting, compelling characters in dramatic situations, and that means things need to be fairly scripted.
User-generated content has taken the internet by storm, and it's a very liberating thing, but let's face it: most of that content isn't worth much. By the same token, I might be able to choose my own way and create my own "story" in the Elder Scrolls games, but is there any lasting narrative value there?
When I play a game, I want to step into a story that's somehow bigger than me, where characters can interact with each other to overcome mutual obstacles. I haven't played very many truly open-ended games have an emphasis on character. And free reign doesn't amount to much in a world full of robots. Sometimes after a while I start to feel like one of them.
The thing about user-generated and procedurally-generated content is that so much of it is crap. I once read - and I agree - that Diablo isn't a game of procedurally generated dungeons... it's a game of procedurally-generated loot tables. And in that respect, it does well. But nobody EXPLORES the Diablo dungeons. There's nothing to find there... except the procedurally generated loot.
User-created content... well, there's the problem than 98% of everything is crap. I played several user-created Neverwinter Nights modules, and stuck with the top-rated modules... and still had to slog through some lame mods to find the gems.
I'm not saying procedural generation of content or user-created content is a bad thing - far from it. But they aren't cure-alls.
User-created content... well, there's the problem than 98% of everything is crap. I played several user-created Neverwinter Nights modules, and stuck with the top-rated modules... and still had to slog through some lame mods to find the gems.
I'm not saying procedural generation of content or user-created content is a bad thing - far from it. But they aren't cure-alls.
IME, we learn "bad" lessons from the linear games and it takes time to adjust to non-linear play.
One of the worst gaming experiences I've ever had was when I tried DMing for a group which had recently lost their DM. I hadn't played with them before and, to get them started, I pulled out a classic module that I'd run for two other groups with great success. The disaster which followed was of epic proportions.
It was only after the fact, as I was talking to one of the players, that I figured out what had happened: Their previous DM was of the lead-them-by-the-nose variety, and his modus operandi was the all-powerful GMPC. So, first, the open-ended nature of the campaign was confusing all by itself. But, to make matters worse, a large chunk of this particular adventure was trying to figure out who the good guys and who the bad guys were. The problem? Every time someone told them they should be doing something, they assumed it was my GMPC, take it at face value, and run off to do it.
And I can sympathize with them, because I've frequently found myself doing a similar thing with computer games. After playing a game like God of War or Half-Life 2 -- both very linear games which do an excellent job of constantly communicating to you what you should be doing -- I catch myself becoming frustrated when I approach a game like Ultima VII or Thief or Deus Ex.
Having recognized this tendency in myself, I'm now able to quickly identify it and then consciously re-align the approach I'm taking to the game.
I'm someone who constantly preaches the virtues of open-ended gaming and player control, but I still end up falling into this trap. So I suspect that people who say they don't want to be boxed in are telling the truth... but that doesn't mean they won't get frustrated when flipping from one paradigm extreme to the other.
One of the worst gaming experiences I've ever had was when I tried DMing for a group which had recently lost their DM. I hadn't played with them before and, to get them started, I pulled out a classic module that I'd run for two other groups with great success. The disaster which followed was of epic proportions.
It was only after the fact, as I was talking to one of the players, that I figured out what had happened: Their previous DM was of the lead-them-by-the-nose variety, and his modus operandi was the all-powerful GMPC. So, first, the open-ended nature of the campaign was confusing all by itself. But, to make matters worse, a large chunk of this particular adventure was trying to figure out who the good guys and who the bad guys were. The problem? Every time someone told them they should be doing something, they assumed it was my GMPC, take it at face value, and run off to do it.
And I can sympathize with them, because I've frequently found myself doing a similar thing with computer games. After playing a game like God of War or Half-Life 2 -- both very linear games which do an excellent job of constantly communicating to you what you should be doing -- I catch myself becoming frustrated when I approach a game like Ultima VII or Thief or Deus Ex.
Having recognized this tendency in myself, I'm now able to quickly identify it and then consciously re-align the approach I'm taking to the game.
I'm someone who constantly preaches the virtues of open-ended gaming and player control, but I still end up falling into this trap. So I suspect that people who say they don't want to be boxed in are telling the truth... but that doesn't mean they won't get frustrated when flipping from one paradigm extreme to the other.
I also want to say that there is a difference between an open-ended game and a boring game, and I think a lot of open-ended games lose the distinction.
For example, I've never been able to get into the Elder Scrolls series because the extremely vast world also seems to be incredibly shallow. Infinite options, none of them holding any particular interest.
Pretty much all of Peter Molyneux's games, for example, are like this for me.
For example, I've never been able to get into the Elder Scrolls series because the extremely vast world also seems to be incredibly shallow. Infinite options, none of them holding any particular interest.
Pretty much all of Peter Molyneux's games, for example, are like this for me.
Fascinating observations, Justin. And the D&D story hits home pretty well.
I think people want choices. And I think they don't like being artificially constrained when they get it into their minds to do something - realizing there's an invisible barrier to leaving the valley to avoid the encounter with the boss alien, for example.
But aside from that, people tend to prefer a few, clear choices more than an infinite number of murky ones. Choice A or choice B.
Post a Comment
I think people want choices. And I think they don't like being artificially constrained when they get it into their minds to do something - realizing there's an invisible barrier to leaving the valley to avoid the encounter with the boss alien, for example.
But aside from that, people tend to prefer a few, clear choices more than an infinite number of murky ones. Choice A or choice B.
Links to this post:
<< Home
