Guild Wars 2

Hello community, I thought this might be a fun thing to do for aspiring ‘writers, game makers, programmers’. It would also be interesting to them in order to learn, and interesting for the general populous to recognize certain story telling ‘systems’ and or ‘implementations’ of them. Perhaps it might even help Anet along in their storytelling and implementation of it, now sure they will be thinking of this themselves, but like the skritt, the more minds working on it, the better and the more likely the right results will come from it.

So what is the goal of this thread?
Well, to collect story telling implements from writings, movie, or told. (situations, plot development, etc). And to supply them with a possible way on how these could be implemented/used in a game as an actual way to enrich the story telling. Or provide interesting experiences for us all …

Seeing a bunch of code is not within everybody’s grasp, I’ll kick off this thread with some examples, so that the level on which ‘I’ would deem it sufficient becomes clear… We should assume that the coders/implementers know what we are trying to accomplish, so that ‘they’ can make it happen…

ps. If you are a writer and you are unfamiliar with the logic/coding limitation that a gaming environment comes with, but you happen to think that a certain mechanic might be possible, or could be really interesting yet you have no idea on how to implement. Feel free to share, others may well be capable to work it out (or tell you if it could work), and thus we can all learn…

ps2 !! This thread does NOT take into account if anything would be viable in terms of resources, the goal is to come to interesting ways to implement story telling into a game, not the amount of work/money it would take to implement it.

The, set to fail, event
I’m not sure if I saw this in game already, but if anything, it wasn’t done in a way that it stuck in my mind. This story telling element is used to let the user make a choice that doesn’t matter, yet still offer an interesting choice at the moment it is taken.

Example:
We are set to find out what a certain enemy is up to, we find them in X location doing Y. ‘We have basically managed our initial goal’, but now we are at a possible split. Do we prevent what ever is being done (action) or do we let things develop because we have ‘bigger’ plans, or would rather evaluate what we learned (passive).

If we choose passive a couple of things could happen:
- as we ‘recede’ we are spotted and a fight breaks out. the key foes flee…
- as we recede ‘nothing happens’ the story will just unfold like it would.

If we take action the following could happen:
- The key foes order to stop us (skill sets are there to make sure of this), and the key foes escape.
- The key foes order to stop us, they ‘speak to us’ and supply us with more information. We learn more then we did initially, but of something unrelated to our ‘story goal’. Then the key foes leave and order to kill us, we fight we survive.

All these instances offer an interesting choice, offer an interesting story step, but they have no effect on the actual progress of the story.

The choice with-out consequences
We saw a little of this in part 2 of the LS2, we get the choice to take Rox or Braham with us to find X. When this choice is put b4 the player it seems like a valid and interesting consideration and choice, yet (well at least since I choose Rox and let Braham be with the larger group) in the unfolding of events nothing happened that made the choice matter.

Now obviously in this particular case it wasn’t ‘that’ well implemented, the map was to small and it was to obvious after the choice, that it didn’t matter. But this is an interesting choice non the less at the moment the player is confronted with it, and if the map would have been bigger, or the time of reuniting longer, it might not have even shown to be a choice of non importance.

The ‘minor’ set back
This is a story element that doesn’t have to do with choice necessarily, though there is a choice element playing in the background. Mainly, do you persevere and press on, come up with an alternative, or give up…

We saw a minor set-back recently in part 2 of LS2, when Belinda dies. Now sure the death of Belinda is tragic, but the actual implication is the set-back. We loose Marjory as an active member of our group…

But! I personally think that story step could have been made a lot more interesting? how? WE, as the boss, should have been able to choose the fate of Kasmeer. How?
- Go along with Marjory, and have Kasmeer stay with you.
- Go along with Kasmeer, and convince/order Marjory to let Kasmeer go with her. When <Racial trainer> died I would not have been able to go on if it wasn’t for Thraerne being there to keep me going. I can not let you go alone…

Now this choice, in our continuing story, does have it’s implications. But from my point of view these could have been easily dealt with, and at the same time offer some opportunity… also because most of the story steps are instanced, how?

-> Make it a choice with-out consequences; Because Kasmeer might be needed in a particular instance of the story that is to follow, Kasmeer could have been brought back at the moment she is needed. Simply with a ‘Hey, Marjory is safe with her Family, all her sisters came too, and after we discussed it we both concluded I be of better use with you. Because ’we’ are now heading for the pale tree, and it is unclear on what notice she can see us (well 2 weeks obviously for the next patch), nothing is gained nothing is lost.

More interesting:
-> Due to us now lacking Kasmeer and Marjory in our party, ‘Rox’ brings in an old member of her group in the Fahrar along. You know, obviously Braham is injured, and realy, it feels like just the thing Rox would do in this situation…
-> Due to us now lacking Kasmeer and Marjory in our Party, Braham talks to the seraph there, as word of the events there DID manage to reach the Capital (making Belinda’s death not totally in vane) more troops were send there. The seraph commander in charge, agrees to give 2 volunteers a chance to come along with us.
(aka. New characters get introduced that may only be used for a couple of story bits now, but increase the pool of potential additions or story angles later on). He does this because he knows Rox by now, while he is convinced he is ok, without some extra people around Rox might have never agreed to press on, which would mean it would be ‘just you and the kid’, and the smaller the pack of wolves the less likely success is achieved…

Kasmeer can still return for her dialog, given it is not already there in the first bit of the story, and we can adventure with these ‘tag a longs’. Nothing else would have changed about the whole story, and we would be at ‘full strength’ to deal with the situations.

The ‘major’ setback
This can be presented as a ‘set to fail’ event, but can also be presented as a ‘deal with it’ event. It’s mostly to surprise us with an experience, not all things work out as planned.

It isn’t major if it doesn’t at first feel like it’s the only way to reach an important goal. So for example, we learn that there is a Seer somewhere that might know how the dragons were defeated last time. Or some reference to some document, or ‘you know’ something important.

Obviously we set to go find this person/object, but upon our arrival we are ‘to late’. Now obviously there are implications here, that need to be taken into account. Most noticeably: ‘There is a spy amongst us…’

→ Now this can be made clear instantly. A certain character that is with us at the time isn’t with us ‘the next day’. Or possibly multiple… and we have to figure out whom…

→ It is left to fester, but is taken into account from then onwards, until the spy/mole is identified and dealt with.

→ It is left to fester, but it is never cleared, it is left in the middle on whether it was a mere coincidence.

Dealing with the ‘major’ setback
It can be that the only persuit is in the direction of the setback. Thus we need to find a new way to attain the unknown. We need to find alternatives, or now that this option as an alternative is a dead end, our hand is forced and we are left with no other alternative, the choice is set.

Due to the consequences a ‘major’ setback can turn out into a hump in the road (f/e finding documents in the location of the person, that instruct us with what to do.) Or it can be a major plot twister…

one of the things i am interested in, is to show a living world, be it in the game or the living story, this ‘mechanic’ hopes to show a way to reflect change based upon actions of the player

The selective slaughter, reflecting change
When opposed with different groups of foes, that band up to fight against the PC’s that in itself may offer a way to reflect change to the experienced events/story by using the action of the player to reflect change. Quite possibly this change can be automated so that resources can be concerned with new content, and based upon the time the selective slaughter is left to run, the outcome of the fight could be reflected in the rest of the story…

How could that work/be implemented?
this example runs off of the invasions we experienced during the Scarlet events, without mentioning it specifically, i will deem Anet more then capable to judge whether or not it can be used in different setups
1. A map is set with spawn points for the fights to take place.
2. A script is used to assign a certain foe-type to each spawn point. (based upon equal chances, and a none set initially at 0%)
3. A counter is used to keep track of the points ‘completed’, likely linked to the key foe (a champ or elite) of a certain type. This type is then counted…
4. A script runs at the completion of the entire event, ranks the amount of foes types slaughtered, and adjusts the chances of spawn based upon the outcome (by something like: most slain 1st. -0.2% , 2nd. +0.0% 3rd. +0.1% none: +0.1%) into the original generation script.
5. The next time the event runs, the spawns are set based upon the new chances.
6. The whole thing runs a new.
7. Over the course of 500 runs, roughly only 50% of the locations show a foe spawn, while slowly, but surely, preference ‘might’ start to also show…
it be interesting to see how this works out, will difference show, or will it gravitate to equilibrium? If anything the ‘none’ will show that an impact is being made

Another way of doing this, depending on the way that foes are spawned:
1. Locations are set for each foe type to spawn in said location.
2. A script runs to determine if a spawn will be set. (100% yes, 0% no)
3. If a location is compromised a script would note the change and set (yes -0.01%, no +0.01%)
4. To further the impact, a second script (or all in one) would run at the completion of the event, ranking the foe types slaughtered, and adding multipliers to the chances based upon the ranking, most slaughtered: 1st. x5 2nd. x3 3rd. x1
5. The events are left to run, and as the foes get slaughtered it becomes less and less likely that a foe will actually spawn. If a certain route or foe type becomes preferred, the spawning will reflect the changes.
6. The ‘no’ could also be represented by spawning an entirely different creature type in the location, for example a boar. Which would not change the chances, but might be different from just an empty spot…

If then the next or the 2nd next event would be a story step that is set to take into account the result of this fighting, then the events and the noted changes would be put into the frame work of the story. This could be done by using the event that is to follow as a hint…

for example:
- A spy notes that you brought down the numbers of group Y considerably, and suggest to strike their base…
- A deflector could turn to you and tell you that group Y are now so weak, besides what the antagonists proposes now is not what (s)he signed up for. He is willing to save his friends (and not betray them) by revealing the base of ‘Y’ so they may be less likely to proceed, and you may stop this horrid plan in it’s tracks. Besides he never liked… (might also be used to set a trap, by pitting against the strongest)
- Some other story step could reveal the location of the main base of the weakest link…
-> Do note the actual foe types could easily be interchanged based upon the chosen type of delivery.

result
- In the time that the assault on the base is being pre-paired a pre-build base can be decorated to appeal to the foe that is the result (or X bases could be build to represent each type, where the other bases are already planned to be used in other story steps)
- The foes are defeated, and done with…
- For the rest of the story group Y is not part of the story…

replay
Obviously such an open world fight can not be repeated in a replay. But perhaps an instance can be devised that simulates something similar. For example, a map where you are left to cull the numbers, foes spawn in locations, and after every 3rd group of foes, or perhaps certain key locations, foes re-spawn. All set on a timer…

The result wouldn’t be kept dynamic, but the ‘living story’ result will be reflected in the rest of the story.

The split up groups, leaving true choice in our wake
this is a work in progress, I am trying to device a way (or ways) on how ‘we’ can play through the LS, and leave a true choice for the replay through our LS experience

Using a split up group has been a movies/writing way of taking us along the choices made within the story (btw. never split up, it will get somebody killed … but anyways). It should somehow be possible for us as players now, to live through the story as the movie or book would. You would go with each of both groups separately, and as long as you have time and a sensible way to join the other group during the LS, as they go through their part of the story. You would create 2 storylines …

These than could be build in alternating fashion (on a two week period), one step for one group for 2 week, one step for group two for the next two weeks, etc… In the end one would theoretically be able to offer at least parts of this content as a ‘true choice’ for the replay. You would choose a course of action, and only see that side of the story, offering the other side for another replay.

The best would be if you could somehow offer sensible choices at various interfalls, so that a alternations become possible. But how to do this so that the LS and the replay still make sense… and offer roughly the same choice(s)!

Would it be enough to just set out to find the same thing from a different angle, come together, discuss options, maybe have a shared step, to then split up again to again find the same answer with a different approach, again? How many times could you do this b4 it starts to become too obvious…

Addition to Split up Group
I have been thinking a bit more about how the ‘split up group’ could work, as to provide interesting choices for a replay, as well as provide the LS participants with an interesting story to follow…

The answer was actually real simple, use the angles that the Orders Provide for the choices put forth the player. Looking at (at least the current) team members of DE2.0, it seems to me that Rox & Braham are more vigil, Marjory & Kasmeer are more Whispers, and Taimi would make a good Priory member. So ‘discussion’ about which course of action to take could be made interesting by having the group pitch in their views as well…

Then it would work somewhat like this:
1. A part of the story is lived as a whole group, this is the ‘base line’ of the story.
2. At some point something has be answered or action has to be taken. This leads to a question to the player as to whom to follow.
3A. This will lead to an answer by following approach A. (say Whispers)
3B. This will lead to an answer by following approach B. (say Priory)
The LS participants will go through both of these and don’t have a choice
4. The group comes together to discuss what has been learned or is the result of the actions. And proceed accordingly in another ‘base line’ part of the story.
5. At some point the story leads to another question/choice.
6A. This would be the course of action according to ‘whispers’
6B. This would be the course of action according to ‘vigil’
7. The group comes together to discuss…
etc… and so on…

As I read this over I think this would well work, now only the ‘endings’ of the stories would have to be changed, which is a bit of end dialog. For the LS obviously there is no choice, but a cinematic cliff-hanger like ending would do. The same can be done at the end of choice A. (leading into. Then the baseline would have a dialog inserted at the end, and the choice would lead to both these cinematics, to then proceed onwards. That way there is actually no content being thrown away, and only a tiny bit of content added, to create the choice feature for replay.

As long as the choices differ from approach each time that would be interesting. Now because there are only 3 approaches it would feel like there is always on approach that has already been taken (perhaps?), though the baseline in between might well obscure that enough. Also, as long as a Priory approach isn’t always going to a Library or Crypt, or any other place with a lot of dust, then these can be kept fresh.

So anyways, sounds like a viable approach to have the LS create choice driven replay value for alts and for new players. The whole would also make more sense as in relation to how the PS was experienced…

You have obviously thought a great deal about this. I applaud the effort, but I’m afraid I lost interest when I realised what a massive amount of text I would have to plow through.

@Ashandar, start with the bolded headlines, almost each post deals with a singular ‘topic’ or ‘solution’ (if you will). It’s also not going anywhere, so you can read it all in your own time