Define Decisions

I've written in the past about the importance of character voice regarding silent protagonists, characters that are to exist as quiet portals in which players step into the game's world. However, what about the other side of that coin, characters with a voice in the worlds they inhabit but whose words and actions are still controlled by the player? I bring this up now as I had done some thinking on the subject between when I wrote that last piece and this one, spurred by Yahtzee Crowshaw's take on the subject in one of his dev diaries. To summarize his point, dialogue trees break the narrative flow and create stilted scenes. I agree that when used poorly, dialogue trees do nothing but exposit information or say the same thing in four different ways, with little change in the outcome, making for a poor narrative experience. Yet, I believe they still have a place in gaming if used correctly; and using them properly starts with detaching the DnD mindset from narrative-driven games.

I have a common problem with games that attempt to create a multifaceted and spawling narrative wherein players are free to make any decision. It begins by believing it works the same as in a DnD module but fails when you remember a DnD module has infinite possibilities. The only limit at the table is the player's imagination; what's more, they also have complete control over how their characters act in that setting. So to transfer all of that to a game system would be a monumental task that games like Divinity 2 and Disco Elysium have taken on but not mastered. There are too many possibilities to fit into a single game. The dialogue tree-centered systems we've been getting are the middle-ground answer people have accepted over the years. While not as in-depth as a tabletop session, the wheel allows players to weave between various responses to best react to a given situation.

However, now the problem is how those responses build the player's character and how those choices are reflected in-game. Think of the Witcher 3 as an excellent example of this. CD Project Red did not do away with dialogue trees for Garret's spoken scenes; they instead used them to characterize Geralt further. Each option on the tree leaned further into an aspect of Geralt's personality; his cynicism, his wit, his stoicism, his fears or insecurities, letting the player pick which one they wanted to lean in on. Meaning that Geralt could act differently between two scenes and still be a character undergoing growth.

I think back to the Triss and Yennefer quests where Geralt has to escort both of them to parties. In Triss', I had Geralt comply but complain a little, eventually tucking away his complaints as the night went on and he grew closer to Triss. Yennefer, on the other hand, I did the same but didn't simmer down and chose to drink and be merry with the Skelagans, to Yennefer's dismay. Here my choices had meaning both in furthering the quest and filling out Garelts character. With these choices, Geralt had come out of his shell a little, realized that he was in love with the wrong woman, and later made it clear to Jenifer that she does not control him. See, here, the game establishes who the characters are, what they want, and how they can achieve it before the player arrives, giving them the power to affect the how part. This way, players can still make significant story-changing effects on the plot while also crafting a character that grows along with their choices.

Similarly, my roommate played the game, picking the choices that made Geralt as snarky and horny as possible, and got an entirely different outcome from the more reserved manner in which I played Geralt. Geralt, in the end, is a man caught between worlds, between his duty as a Witcher and a father, between two possible lovers and multiple seats of power vying for control. So I played Geralt like he was looking for answers like he wasn't ready to commit to anything aside from what he knew was important. And the game followed up with this decision by making good on my choices by changing the narrative to fit my choices. I will never forget watching Tress go, having decided not to let Geralt say he loves her so's not to tie her down and then get called out by Dijkstra for being a coward. Then later, when Geralt sees her again, Yen kisses him, saying he doesn't want to see her anymore, creating tension between the three of them immediately and prompting a more annoyed or confused response from Geralt.

To bring that tirade back on point: definition is the name of the game when it comes to writing these moments in a game. A player's actions and decisions should have some overall effects on the character they're playing and build those characters up so they can make bigger, more interesting decisions later. Not just in terms of what new story paths and gameplay bonuses they unlock, but how this influences how their character acts in this new scene. Or better yet, what does this action mean for the character.

A game might give a wide range of tones to use when responding to a prompt, but how does that affect characters overall? For example, how does picking the stoic response say something different about the confused response if I get the same information either way, only with another character mildly annoyed? How does that inform new decisions down the line? What does siding with the Mages over the Templars say about the Inquisitor in Dragon Age Inquisition? What does choosing to attack Embar over defending Fargus in Fire Emblem Three Houses say about Byleth; nothing much. Meanwhile, a choice as simple as refusing to change armor says volumes about Geralt's relationship with Yennefer, feeding into later quests and storylines and playing into an arc the player is crafting, whether they see it or not.

Sticking to this idea that players need a swath of choices to engage in a story is a notion we need to remove when developing branching narratives. It is a thought rooted in a genre that can not be replicated in a virtual play space, and the attempts to do so have limited what writers can do with the stories being told. Instead, the focus should be on creating distinct characters for players to inhabit, whether from their own design or a developer. As long as they can play and grow as that character, measured by their effect on the world and other characters and how different of a character they are from the start of the game.