How to balance the story choice with characters development

[fsix]

@ViIsBae

That’s the thing, they have a defense no matter what they pick. They can argue their way to innocence regardless of what they choose to do beforehand.

For what’s worth, “I was following orders/i was afraid of my superior” has been, historically, a mixed bag as far as successful defense goes. That aside, if things do end up in the exact same place, and the player’s picks have no impact on state of things and events down the road, then the game is open to valid critique that the “choices” it presents are largely meaningless, as there’s no consequences to them. Some players may be okay with it (although probably won’t consider it a good thing) while some are likely to find it a serious flaw and the game worse for it.

@ViIsBae

I completely disagree on this point. It should not be up to the author to cater to the whims

If not the author, then who?

Like it or not, interactive fiction means that the author gives up some of their agency when it comes to shaping the plot (for any given playthrough) to their reader/player. That is the expectation from the “interactive” part of the deal. Ignoring it and forcing your players into corner simply so you can have a situation that matches a Vision that you put above all else, it’s likely you’ll just have your players resent the experience, rather than admire the precious Vision.

@ViIsBae

If a writer writes a game with themes about overcoming despair and tragedy in a grimdark setting, and a player complains that they can’t have their character go off and kill innocent people for supplies or join the side of evil, that’s on the player, not on the writer.

It’s on both. Why is it only on the player if it’s the writer who has potentially failed to present the matter in a way that’d make the player want to engage with in in the way the author deemed as the only one correct, or worthy of exploring?

It’s the writer who picks the theme and scope for their work, so finding yourself on different page from your players is very much something of a shared responsibility. “Joining the side of evil” in grimdark setting in particular is such common, if not obvious, desire from the players, that you’ll struggle with finding RPGs which don’t provide it as option when exploring these themes And if you’re aware of it but simply choose to ignore it… well, that is on you.

@batmansrobin

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Any written work will be bound by the creator’s vision because it’s quite literally their imagination, words, ideas, etc, on the page. Interactive fiction doesn’t mean “let me roleplay and do absolutely anything I want”.

It doesn’t make sense to you because it’s a strawman. No one said that IF should be about roleplaying “absolutely anything i want”. At the same time, it should take into account that its readers will have multiple ideas of what impact their actions should have on the plot, and try to accommodate at least some of them. It’s a difference between maintaining illusion of being able to shape your own story, and the lack of any sort of control over it being painfully obvious.

@ViIsBae

I think we have to accept the ideas we have for what constitutes as a CYOA game are wildly different. To me, if there’s a set main character, with a set backstory and set ending to the game, as long as I get to make different choices that determine how I get to that ending, that constitutes as a CYOA game to me.

We’re actually in agreement about this part. But we seem to disagree at whether simply being able to choose “how my character reacts to things” constitutes a choice that “determines how i get that single ending”. I have also difficulty squaring this definition of yours with simultaneously provided example where the choices the player gets to make don’t actually determine anything – like in provided example of “no matter what you pick, you end up court-martialed but then universally exonerated”.

@ViIsBae

No one. That’s the thing. There are tons of stories out there. There are tons of games and movies and shows of all different kinds that tell different stories. If someone doesn’t like how a story is being told, it’s not up to the writer to change it for them. Because there’s other people that do like how that story is told.

That’s convenient excuse for limiting the effort, but it’s also shooting yourself in the foot – limiting your audience doesn’t in any way guarantee that there will indeed be other people who do like how the story is told. A writer who isn’t interested in appealing to their players may very well end up with a story that generates little to no interest, and with their prospective players indeed migrating to other works. Of course, if the author is okay with such prospect, all is good.

[ViIsBae]

@fsix

the “choices” it presents are largely meaningless, as there’s no consequences to them.

I think we have to accept the ideas we have for what constitutes as a CYOA game are wildly different. To me, if there’s a set main character, with a set backstory and set ending to the game, as long as I get to make different choices that determine how I get to that ending, that constitutes as a CYOA game to me. Because I’m being allowed to craft my own path within the realms of the story the writer decides to write.

@fsix

If not the author, then who?

No one. That’s the thing. There are tons of stories out there. There are tons of games and movies and shows of all different kinds that tell different stories. If someone doesn’t like how a story is being told, it’s not up to the writer to change it for them. Because there’s other people that do like how that story is told.

@fsix

interactive fiction means that the author gives up some of their agency when it comes to shaping the plot (for any given playthrough) to their reader/player.

Also untrue imo. A writer of IF can go into a story with multiple ways to tell a story, and have all those ways be how they wanted to tell the story. A writer does not have to ‘give up’ anything, because for a lot of people who don’t do this as a job (and probably even some that do), if they don’t like what they’re writing then they won’t write it. If something doesn’t fit the story they want to tell; they won’t write it.

@fsix

the way the author deemed as the only one correct, or worthy of exploring?

An author writing a story that’s theirs doesn’t mean this at all. I don’t think hardly anyone would be arrogant enough to say that their way of telling a story is the only way of telling a story. It just means that’s the story they want to tell, personally. There are lots of different ways to tell war stories, and have been in the past. And there will be even more. It’s not about what way is right or wrong, it’s about what way fits what they’re going for for their project. I don’t think another writer would go to someone and say ‘you’re telling this story wrong’ unless it was based on objective fact and they’re, in bad faith, telling it in a way that’s contrary to what really happened.

[Eiwynn]

It seems to me that @fsix is speaking to what I call the “third step” in balancing the project.

The third step for my process is getting and acting upon feedback from a set of readers/testers.

By this point, I have decided what is essential to have within my MC development to realize my vision and I also have written enough of my narrative to communicate these essential elements to the reader.

So, this is when I canvas my testers to see if any of these things need reworking. I do this by listening to feedback, no matter how harsh it is, and by asking initial questions and follow through questions regarding received feedback.

Once elements that are not working are identified, I break down “why” they are not working and try to identify solutions to implement a fix.

Again I will illustrate what I mean by an example in my project.

For my narrative to go forward at a certain point in the story, I need the MC to lose a hand. There are multiple plot points that are opened up after this relating to losing a hand, so refusal simply was not a valid choice for my vision to be told in the story I am writing.

Nevertheless, when I originally wrote the scene, I wanted to offer the choice of refusal as a means to enable agency.

It turns out that this choice not only was the wrong call to make, but the result of including it was to actually reinforce the fact that the reader did not, in fact, have that agency to begin with.

I have since reworked this choice out of the narrative, because the necessary event (losing a hand) with the choice included flat out failed to achieve its goal, and actively worked against the necessary event being accepted by the readers.

As a writer wanting to tell a story, it is up to me to find the best way I can to tell that story. Sometimes that means not offering a choice, while at other times it means doing so.

[LiliArch]

@Cat-Toes

I think almost all of the complaints I’ve seen about railroading come from the narrative forcing the MC to feel a certain way rather than a lack of affect on the narrative.

Or giving an option to do A and then forcing B instead of A anyway.

[batmansrobin]

@fsix

At the same time, it should take into account that its readers will have multiple ideas of what impact their actions should have on the plot, and try to accommodate at least some of them. It’s a difference between maintaining illusion of being able to shape your own story, and the lack of any sort of control over it being painfully obvious.

So then we agree that there will be some unavoidable situations and the narrative will always be confined by the author’s vision and scope

@ViIsBae

I don’t think hardly anyone would be arrogant enough to say that their way of telling a story is the only way of telling a story. It just means that’s the story they want to tell, personally.

Wish I could like this entire post multiple times. The reason we have so many great stories at all is because every creative is different and has their own unique ideas. Something they personally want to realize, otherwise how could they have the motivation to sit there and pour years of work and effort into it.

Ultimately any IF I’ve truly enjoyed (and I’ve enjoyed more linear and static ones along with the more wildly branching) it’s because it was memorable, interesting and/or fun to play through. The Golden Rose, for example, is pretty static in terms of plot but it was such a unique and fun experience that I genuinely could never forget it.