Re: [Adonthell-general] Plot Guidelines Part 1

[Benjamin Walther-Franks]

At Monday 02.09.2002 22:44, you wrote:
> I've just finished a first draft of the first part of the plot design
> guidelines. The second part (which should follow soon) will deal with
> the ways to document the plot, including a short intro to the dot tool.
> But since that part is going to be less controversial than the actual
> design guidelines (at least that is what I hope), I thought I could
> leave it away for now.
>
> So please have a look at the doc and tell me what you think? Anything
> missing that we discussed at the meeting? Anything in there you don't
> agree with? Anything unclear? Typos? Grammar?


Wow! Very good writing Kai, a great read. If our plotters will follow that 
document in some way we're in for big-time sizzling plots!

All in all, I think you get the message across very well, and basically 
everything we said at the meeting found it's way in the document.

I'm just going to nag at the details a bit ;) :

-Main Plot: The graphic you use could be a little misleading, and maybe the 
text could illuminate this a little more: The way you describe keypoints 
could be understood as that the every player has to pass through it in the 
same way, with no options or different ways. So two players with different 
styles of playing (to polarize - the "good" and the "bad") would go 
seperate ways, join at the keypoint, then go seperate ways again, join at 
the next keypoint, split up again, etc. As I can remember from the meet we 
defined a keypoint more as a group of plot nodes that have basically the 
same action/meaning/location, translated to the different plot lines the 
player is following. Ergo the same events, but the good player would have a 
different version than the evil player. ANd depending on how good/eveil he 
was he can't at this point choose to  take the evil way or vice versa. What 
I'm trying to say is that a keypoint shouldn'tbe a place where everybody 
arrives in different states but leaves with having the same options as 
everybody else. Some should of course be bundeld, and sometimes maybe could 
have the opportunity to chjange the way they follow the plot (maybe without 
knowing).
Rant, rant. What it comes down to, is that at any point the actions I have 
taken afore arriving at a certain node should have an influence on the 
choices I have to carry on at that node. If I've chosen a very evil way, I 
wouldn't really be able to go the good way anymore, even at a keypoint. See 
keypoints not as a railstation, but as cluster of... daarrgh, can't think 
of the english word... [Weichen] in one place. (Sprechen Sie Deutsch? 
Someone translate please...)
All my talk above can probably be incorporated into your document with a 
few lines and perhaps a tweak to the graph: Kinda not have one box for the 
keypoint but many (or something).

-Sidequests: I think sidequests shouldn't be discarneable as such, i.e. The 
player shouldn't be able to go "Oh, that's just a bloody sidequest - bugger 
that, I'll carry on with the plot" (At least not always). They should 
appear in a similiar fashion than any part of the plot. If yozu agree, 
maybe this should be stressed a little more in the guideline.
Also, there is that in-between type of quest that isn't necessary for the 
plot, but can help you a lot or gives you a shortcut in the plot (like Some 
suggestions you've just made on the plot list). You mention these in the 
document, but could maybe do so more explicit.

-NPC's: You forgot one category: Fun NPCs! I can't really think of a good 
example, but I'm sure James could :) I guess you could group those under 
No-use characters, but then that's such a degrading name -why not change it 
to... diversion characters? Because that's in the end what these characters 
could be useful for! YOu dont want eevery character having something useful 
to say/sell/do - why not have one to crack jokes or just plain mislead you? 
With that said I don't agree with that they should be avoided where 
possible - rather use sparingly, so as not to annoy the player (In some 
places even that can be fun...).
Talking about that I also think that not every NPC needs to have 
occupation. The rare chap could just sit somewhere all day or wander around 
all the time (Like some loony you could meet everywhere - back to the 
annoying NPCs ;)

On idea I had of a sentence on could add somewhere when talikng about 
alignment and interactivity: "In the most extreme case, a NPC could become 
your best friend in one game and your utter enemy in the next, depending on 
your style of play"


Just beacause I wrote that much dosn't mean I'm critiscizing much, it's 
just that what I'm critizising takes so long to explain...

Sorry for the partly sloppy writing


BEN