Main plot: MUST there be one?

[Color Blotch]

A hard-wired Main Quest makes it a greater likelihood of having unscripted situations to arise.

The Main Quest (or any kind of quest) actually serves as a way to narrow down the scope of possible events. Trying to script all situations that can happen in the world without the Main Quest would be even worse in that regard. So much worse it's probably not even worth trying.

[deus]

A hard-wired Main Quest makes it a greater likelihood of having unscripted situations to arise.

The Main Quest (or any kind of quest) actually serves as a way to narrow down the scope of possible events. Trying to script all situations that can happen in the world without the Main Quest would be even worse in that regard. So much worse it's probably not even worth trying.

Which is why i say, fuck having a mainplot which every piece of narrative has to bow down to.

Give the writers the tools needed through setting and world mechanics and then get out of the way.
Global flags can be used to tie the world together so not every quest you do is unrelated, faction system is such an example.

I want loads of scenarios to pit against my characters and their builds, not a story nor quality thereof.

The story should form after the fact.

[Drool]

it can be an experience that allows players to get a feel for what it would be like to actually live in that environment as they actually roleplay the character they've developed.

Can you give an example of this kind of game? I'm drawing a blank on a sandbox game (let alone an RPG) where there's no end/plot. As I've mentioned before, even the ultimate sandbox game, Minecraft, has an endgame now.

[CaptainPatch]

Can you give an example of this kind of game? I'm drawing a blank on a sandbox game (let alone an RPG) where there's no end/plot. As I've mentioned before, even the ultimate sandbox game, Minecraft, has an endgame now.

That's because you are most likely thinking ONLY of computer RPGs. What those most often were/still are RPG _adventures_. The equivalent of a paper-and-pencil RPG module. Pretty much all PnP RPGs were "open environments" where players could head off in most any direction. All it took was the DM/Gm to stay one step ahead of them. With computer assistance, designers can create an entire world and drop in umpteen hundred quests to give players specific tasks with the ability of accomplishing short term goals. I've never played it myself, but I gather that the World of Warcraft MMO is an example of an open environment where the operators of the game keep dropping in more and more quests. [I've wanted to play WoW for a long time, but I absolutely despise playing MMOs: it seems every one I ever approached was ruined by Player-Killers.]

[Drool]

With computer assistance, designers can create an entire world and drop in umpteen hundred quests to give players specific tasks with the ability of accomplishing short term goals.

And eventually run out. A PnP game is a different environment than a computer game; the computer game is a closed system. Unless you expect inXile to come up with new quests from now until the end of time, you're either going to run out or have a world full of "Go to X and do Y" quests where X and Y are randomly pulled from a pool of choices (like Skyrim's side quests). The reason cRPGs have an ending is because they have to. If nothing else, you'll eventually run out of hard drive space.

[CaptainPatch]

If nothing else, you'll eventually run out of hard drive space.

Hence the online server system like WoW. (If only it wasn't a MMO.) But your point also applied to the PnPs as well. Sooner or later, the DM/GM tires of playing God and -- poof -- the world just vanishes. But even acknowledging that, I can't see why non-Main Quest game couldn't have every bit as much content as a Main Quest game. And if you get just as many hours of game play no matter which approach you use, what's the problem? Do you _need_ to do "something significant" like Save The World (again) to make you feel like the experience is worthwhile?

[Drool]

It's not a matter of if it's worthwhile or not. It's a matter of something tying it together (the why) and a sense of accomplishment. "Hey Bob, go have a look-see" isn't a sufficient "why". Imagine Wasteland without the Base Cochise over-plot. There wouldn't be much of a game. You fix a pump, you free a down, you kill some cultists, you blow up some robots, and...? Throw in a dozen more towns and a dozen more little things and you're still left with what feels like half a game.

Why are we going from town to town solving little problems? What are we accomplishing? What's the point? How does this effect anything outside the town's boarders? Where is this story going? Who gives a damn?

It's like the Kids in the Hall sketch about the director making a movie with no beginning and no end. It was absurd, pointless, and ultimately unsatisfying. The journey may be fun, but journeys still have destinations. In fact, without a destination, you can't have a journey in the first place; you have meandering.

[CaptainPatch]

It's not a matter of if it's worthwhile or not. It's a matter of something tying it together (the why) and a sense of accomplishment. "Hey Bob, go have a look-see" isn't a sufficient "why". Imagine Wasteland without the Base Cochise over-plot. There wouldn't be much of a game. You fix a pump, you free a down, you kill some cultists, you blow up some robots, and...? Throw in a dozen more towns and a dozen more little things and you're still left with what feels like half a game.

Why are we going from town to town solving little problems? What are we accomplishing? What's the point? How does this effect anything outside the town's boarders? Where is this story going? Who gives a damn?

It's a matter of fulfilled expectations: You expect a Main Quest; ergo if you don't get one, you feel disappointment. If your taste buds are saying, "A juicy steak would be great right about now," but what they get is "just" an apple, does that make the apple any less tasty? Yes, it does, because you were programming yourself for the steak. If you pause long enough to recall just how much you also like apples, the disappointment is significantly less and you may actually find yourself enjoying the apple.

As for Base Cochise, going into the game, I had NO awareness that it existed, nor that there were waves of killer robots threatening all life in the Wasteland. Yet, somehow, I managed to be enjoying the game all the way up to where I first got to Vegas and ran into them for the first time. Was I supposed to have been disappointed about not having interacted with any robots up to that point? If the answer is, "No, it was okay to enjoy the game until then," then why would I be disappointed by their absence after that point? No knowledge of what to expect means no disappointment about the absence of anything that you never see. What you don't know, can't affect you. (Once it _does_ affect you, you then know what it is.) Take out the entire "Save the Wasteland!" plot and just fill the void with an equivalent amount of adventures and quests and the game would have been just as satisfying to me.

[Oktobermensch]

I don't think that having a main plot is bad, as long as youare free to complete it at your own pace (Remember the water chip?) and that there are things to do beyond it. More importantly, it would be nice to know that once you complete it, end of the main plot should not mean the end of the game.

I for one would like to see the further evolution of the world based on the outcome of the main quest and that you can participate in that post end-game world.

It would also be interesting to see the main quest have relation to sidequests and vice-versa. If for example you completed a certain sidequest, the main quest would either get easier or harder/longer, becase of the impact you have made.

One thing to be wary of is that while its inevitable if you get locked out of certain quests because of the choices you make, main plot should not do that. Only your choices should do that, not the progress of the story.

[Color Blotch]

Which is why i say, fuck having a mainplot which every piece of narrative has to bow down to.

Give the writers the tools needed through setting and world mechanics and then get out of the way.
Global flags can be used to tie the world together so not every quest you do is unrelated, faction system is such an example.

I want loads of scenarios to pit against my characters and their builds, not a story nor quality thereof.

The story should form after the fact.

Global flags is such a rough tool and there's only so much you can get out of faction system outside of simple like/hate reaction. You want something more than store discounts and possibility of being attacked, you need to script it in. I'm all for complex worlds evolving on their own, but that would require a system in which NPCs have understanding of resources, interests and methods. Nobody knows how to make that yet.

Of all the attempts at implementing something similar in a computer game, none that I personally experienced worked particularly well or even just worked. Some combat simulators (primarily flight simulators) attempted at modeling dynamic campaign (making opposing sides move their stuff around the map in a believable fashion). Not a single one I played with managed to avoid being fundamentally flawed, bugged, or broken. And implementing a dynamic campaign is admittedly much simpler task than implementing a full scale self aware RPG world.

[Lucius]

[I've wanted to play WoW for a long time, but I absolutely despise playing MMOs: it seems every one I ever approached was ruined by Player-Killers.]

There is essentially no more PKs in MMOs. I was a player killer in UO for years. I miss it.

[Ronin73]

While I'm not close minded to the concept of no main plot I'm struggling to recall too many CRPG that did not have one. With that in mind I'm not sure how it could be implemented and I mean that from a keep the player interested in the game world standpoint.

Funnily enough I still think Wasteland came closest overall. Granted you found a main plot eventually, but at the start of the game there was literally no indication of what you were expected to do once you left the ranger center for the first time other than to explore and find out what's out there.

The early Elder scrolls games were like this some to extent (Arena and Daggerfall) Can anyone think of others?

[heartz]

I have thought about a more suitable way of introducing a main story to Wasteland2. I think it would be interesting to start with a smaller "main quest" from the Ranger HQ, which basically ask you to explore the world. Could be that you get orders from HQ to check out some new disturbing rumors( some kind of major development that fits the setting/lore) at important settlements/locations scattered all over the wasteland. This would give you as much freedom to explore the world/places of importance while still maintaining some kind of story to investigate and uncover. If you want the story to evolve you can pursue it and events will begin to happen. If not you can just explore and do side-quests. But the world still has some kind of story/narrative that makes the world more believable.

You could even take it a step forward and make the story happen without your direct involvement(to some point). The rumors change/evolve throughout the game. Major events suddenly happen(a town is destroyed, a new disease is spreading) giving your a feeling of a living persistent world where things happen around you, instead of the world adapting to every choice you make.

A good example is the game Gothic. The player takes control of an unnamed prisoner who has just been thrown inside a prison mining colony. Before being sent in, the player receives a letter which he is tasked to deliver to the Fire Mages of the Old Camp. This intro takes a couple of minutes, and then your left on your own with no gear free to explore, go anywhere, do quests, join factions and etc. The player can choose which camp to join but the quests get increasingly linear and the distinctions between the different factions wane in the latter parts of the game.

[paultakeda]

I think it would be interesting to start with a smaller "main quest" from the Ranger HQ, which basically ask you to explore the world. Could be that you get orders from HQ to check out some new disturbing rumors( some kind of major development that fits the setting/lore) at important settlements/locations scattered all over the wasteland. This would give you as much freedom to explore the world/places of importance while still maintaining some kind of story to investigate and uncover. If you want the story to evolve you can pursue it and events will begin to happen. If not you can just explore and do side-quests. But the world still has some kind of story/narrative that makes the world more believable.

So basically the way WL1 works.

You may not get it this time as Fargo's already hinted that the initial reason is that the Guardians are in California and your team is sent to investigate. That's a done deal.

[heartz]

I think it would be interesting to start with a smaller "main quest" from the Ranger HQ, which basically ask you to explore the world. Could be that you get orders from HQ to check out some new disturbing rumors( some kind of major development that fits the setting/lore) at important settlements/locations scattered all over the wasteland. This would give you as much freedom to explore the world/places of importance while still maintaining some kind of story to investigate and uncover. If you want the story to evolve you can pursue it and events will begin to happen. If not you can just explore and do side-quests. But the world still has some kind of story/narrative that makes the world more believable.

So basically the way WL1 works.

You may not get it this time as Fargo's already hinted that the initial reason is that the Guardians are in California and your team is sent to investigate. That's a done deal.

Yep pretty much.

[phimseto]

For me, I would like a chance to play beyond the main plot and have substantial content open up once the main plot was done. That would provide a more fulfilling experience, at least in my opinion. I wouldn't mind a game experimenting with no main plot. Just not Wasteland 2. There's a lot riding on this game, so I want it to stay within certain comfort zones in order to maximize out its impact.

[tuluse]

While I'm not close minded to the concept of no main plot I'm struggling to recall too many CRPG that did not have one. With that in mind I'm not sure how it could be implemented and I mean that from a keep the player interested in the game world standpoint.

Funnily enough I still think Wasteland came closest overall. Granted you found a main plot eventually, but at the start of the game there was literally no indication of what you were expected to do once you left the ranger center for the first time other than to explore and find out what's out there.

The early Elder scrolls games were like this some to extent (Arena and Daggerfall) Can anyone think of others?

While Bethesda games have a main plot you're actively encouraged to ignore it.

Mount and Blade is an RPG that has no plot. It's just a sandbox game where you can do what you want. You could also look at Sid Meier's Pirates!, though most would argue it's not an RPG.

[Hasenklein]

This idea would divert from the original Wasteland _significantly_, so I don't doubt very much that it will most likely NOT be even considered. But it struck as something to contemplate.

It seems like nearly every RPG, Adventure, and Action game these days revolves around a "Save the world!" type of main quest. Masse Effect is about saving the galaxy from the Reapers. Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is about destroying Alduin before he destroys all life in Tamriel. Fallout: New Vegas was about defeating Caesar's Legion -- or helping it, before the NCR and every other faction gets absorbed by Caesar. Fallout 3 was about completing Project Purity and defeating the Enclave. The original WL was about saving the world from robots bent on destroying all human life. All of them, BIG objectives.

Here, we have an entire post-Apocalyptic setting where we can have fun exploring and interacting with people wherever we go. Do we actually _need_ yet another BIG objective RPG? Save the world _again_? Isn't it enough to jump into the Wasteland and simply roleplay being there? Fill up the Wasteland with quests of things that need to be done, by someone if not by you, but there would certainly be enough to keep us busy. Plus, for followup expansions, it would be quite simple to add several score more of quests to keep us going.

Wandering off to CA, our horizons will be seriously expanded. Why obscure those horizons with ONE huge looming threat -- that only YOU can neutralize?

Yes, there must be a main plot that all the player's experiences can refer to.

If there were no major plot, there would be just a series of independent and unconnected events and experiences made by the player. This series had an arbitrarily chosen starting point, and an equally arbitrarily chosen ending point. It would be a bit like Battlestar Galactica in the 80s (it had no ending, it simply ran out of episodes), and not like Battlestar Galactica in 2003+.

I think that with regards to a satisfying gaming experience, a main plot is a must: no main plot, no story, just an enumeration of independent short stories.

[CaptainPatch]

It would be a bit like Battlestar Galactica in the 80s (it had no ending, it simply ran out of episodes), and not like Battlestar Galactica in 2003+.

The end point for the original "Battlestar Galactica" was when the refugee fleet reached Earth -- which they did. But the show was so popular and the fan support so great, they needed to extend the series. In order to do so, they needed to establish that the first "Earth" they had reached was actually something like a "new Earth" that had been originally settled by colonists from Old Earth. So the series pushed ahead with a resumption of the stellar trek. However, there was so much of WTF happening, the fans melted away and the series quickly faded into oblivion.

[Zombra]

I agree with CaptainPatch that the trope of the "main bad guy" is overused. It's especially bad, as someone else mentioned, when a game is constantly reminding you about the villain.

I loved the first Mass Effect, and I felt very motivated to keep chasing the bad guy (Saren) - so motivated in fact that I pretty much ignored most side quests. There were whole planetary systems I never went to. This was all because I chose to role-play seriously and act as if the urgent stuff happening was actually urgent (whereas in meta I knew that it would all wait for me forever). It really made the main storyline much more fun to play when I took it seriously, but when it was over I felt somewhat cheated because I missed all the side material. I tried replaying the game but it didn't have the same magic the second time.

So I am in favor of a main storyline, if any, that doesn't kick your ass too hard to get it done ASAP. In fact it would be great if you completely lose the thread from time to time, with no clear road forward, to encourage you to follow other storylines for a while. I also hope that, as W2 is intended to be sandboxy, the game won't have a hard THE END. Note that I love games with definite endings, but it would feel inappropriate for W2.

I hope for motivations from the beginning, but not something overwhelming I have to carry throughout the game. I like what people are saying about motivational "vectors"; a good, solid story reason to get out there and engage in the world, but not a millstone you can never remove until the end.

I'm happy if I get sent out to find the General's lost cat, and on the way I pick up on other, bigger things. But it's OK if there are no Grand Master Planet Eaters.

I think we will be OK based on what the Vision Document says about constantly enticing us, making us want to investigate leads instead of just telling us to.