World Theme and Backstory

[SuperSnark]

Cervator edit: Added header, moved to Incubator
Skaldarnar edit: Added related thread

Name: World Theme and Backstory
Summary: Putting some consistent flavor and style into the world, possibly specific to a game mode ("Untrue Tao" primarily in this thread)
Scope: Core Content
Current Goal: Further maturation of the world / game itself, Creature Definitions, more models, etc
Phase: Design
Curator: SuperSnark ? Or even most the project, very communal
Related: World Lore Archive, Lore by SuperSnark

Hey everyone!

As Terasology starts to form itself into an actual "game" I started thinking about ways we might want to distinguish ourselves from Minecraft and really make Terasology unique. Obviously technical aspects are a huge component of this; but our "world" itself and its theme should also be unique. Part of what got me thinking about this was checking out the cool 3D modeling and art discussions when designing the "dwarf" character.

Part of what any good game needs is a consistent vision for what the "world" is from a gameplay/story perspective. What exactly is Terasology? Is it a random planet in space populated by gelatinous cubes? Is it a lost continent of dinosaurs? Did green, space bunnies colonize it? What exactly do we want it to be? We know we have a Minecraft / blocky look and feel to our world. We know we want it to include elements of resource gathering / harvesting and building and destroying. And we will probably include some type of "enemy" that attacks us at some point.

There are billions of ways we could go about this, but I think we should all rally around one idea before we go too much farther in terms of what our world looks like, and what populates it. If we decide we all want to be knights fighting dark elves, then we probably don't want to worry about creating cars and jet planes (although horse-carts and dragons might fill those kinds of gaps). This will really help out our Artists; maybe inspire them or get everyone on the same page about what our "universe" consists of.

One idea that keeps popping back into my mind is that Terasology is sort of this random, mysterious land right now. It's like an undiscovered continent full of new and exciting creatures. We're looking at sort of this 8-bit world that's got a "primitive" type of feel and that may be why I partly like the idea of setting Terasology in the past; during an Age of Exploration in an alternate Earth of sorts. A steam-punk-esque time period where swords are still common, but firearms have been developed. A time when the colonies of America may have begun being settled, but there are still unknown lands to be discovered. I can see a team of intrepid explorers, setting off in some kind of steam-powered dirigible; braving the airways for all manner of reasons; fame, fortune, adventure. Charting unknown territory, exploiting the wealth of the land and fighting off hordes of native beasts, pirates, and other less scrupulous adventurers. Disaster strikes! In thick fog the dirigible carrying the adventurers crashes into the peak of a soaring mountain. The player is stranded in a strange new world and has to survive impending hunger, find shelter from unpredictable storms, and survive waves of nocturnal workahn. A strange wolf-ape hybrid that attacks in packs.

Eventually the player or players could advance from survival to city and fortress building. Creating cannons (rail gun tech!) to blow apart other NPC or rival-player cities. Ordering their steam-powered warriors and war-wagons to battle. Forging alliances with fellow players. Crafting new dirigibles to explore new portions of land or deploy troops.

So what direction would we like to go with Terasology? What should our theme be? Does anyone like the "Age of Exploration" / Steampunk type setting? I thought maybe it'd be a little different than the usual "swords and sorcery" and "zombie infestation" survival themes that are popular now. Not that those are incompatible with the steampunk-esque universe (hey zombie apocalypses can happen anytime!). I like the sort of "primitive technology" that fits with our 8-bit look. I can see trains, "cowboys", steam-based power plants ... who knows! I thought that genre might give us the flexibility of "have fun with swords" plus "have fun with weird tech we can invent ourselves". We can invent all manner of crazy contraptions in this way.

Thoughts?

 

[Cervator]

In case anybody is wondering, Marc here has been working behind the scenes now and then on the social angles and is also into story stuff as you can tell

Steampunk has come up before, several have expressed interest, and it meshes well with the sort of mechanics systems I look forward to seeing (distinct from both redstone and the mechanics in DF)

Also, can totally do Steampunk and zombies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boneshaker_%28novel%29

Not that it has to overwhelm anything else. Old world / classic fantasy can exist alongside this with or without zombies/steampunk. Just talking potential and direction here

And yes, this would probably be a field that meshes closely with the artists around here, so speak up!

 

[glasz]

We can have some retro sci fi theme (that works with steam punk) : i 'm thinking since the world generation seems more apt at generating "natural" kind of landscape (can we generate cities? ), we could have 19th century retro sci fi (like in some books of conan doyle and E R Burroughs) explorers puting foot on a strange planet (wich doesnt need to be that different from earth). Maybe they'll need some kind of space suit because of the atmosphere, or do some terraforming to not have to use space suit.

Just some random thoughts

 

[woodspeople]

My big problem with Minecraft is that it says it is a "sandbox" game, but only the physical elements of the game are open to exploration. The story aspects of the game are fixed. Zombies are always exactly zombies, and slimes are always exactly slimes. I've tried to "play with" these elements by adding my own overlay rules to the game, as have many others, but you essentially have to fight the game to play it in any way other than the way the creators thought of it. For example I have played MC in a sort of reverse hardcore mode, where you lose not when you die but when you kill. I found out that this is perfectly possible, and far more fun, than the "normal" game play. You just have to play a few tricks on the game engine to do it. That is about one percent of the territory I would LIKE to explore with such a game, but it's probably as far as MC can go, which is why I rate it as pitiful in terms of imaginative capacity.

In my view a true sandbox game, a sandbox through and through, would have no fixed set of assumptions about the theme or goals or motivations of the game or players or NPCs. No premise would be built in, even as simple a one as "there has to be an enemy." What if you want to play where the enemy is your own addiction to some very appealing thing? Or you want to move past simple antagonism into more complex challenges like treaties and trade associations and cold wars and cultural taboos and things like that? Also a true sandbox game would have no theme, or rather it could have any theme. It could be steampunk and/or ancient and/or space and/or anything else.

It sounds like I'm advocating building nothing at all, but that can't be true. Look at the way D&D was set up back in the 70s when I used to play it. They had the basic setup of a character, and they had the books with information on all the monsters and things, but within that (maybe in spite of that?) the flexibility was HUGE. First of all, any character or monster could be good/neutral/evil, but they could also vary on the second dimension of predictability: lawful/neutral/chaotic. That meant you could meet an orc who would shower you with gifts, THEN kill you (or the reverse). Also, each dungeon master could make massive changes in how NPCs behaved, like an orc who showered you with gifts but only if you first gave them a single red rose. The possibilities were endless. Is this doable in a computer game? ABSOLUTELY. It just has to do with making the base engine complex enough to support lots of layers on top of it. The problem is that people tend to build critically limiting yet unnecessary assumptions into the base engine that reduce what can be done with the game.

So that's what I'd argue for super flexible base, supporting many visions of what a challenge should be.

 

[Cervator]

Fully agreed! Actually with Stuthulhu (who is an official anthropologist! He's got a degree and everything to prove it!) I've discussed how to define races in term of fundamental traits like ethical tendencies and such. There's a little bit of that in DF (cannibalism being the prime example), but it is hard-set in the game config so you have to change the config to change the game.

I'd like to see races defined with a base set of trends, but a supporting system strong enough to buck said trends if a situation calls for it. So in creature definition file for "elves" you might have a reluctance to harm trees and a refusal to consume the flesh of sentient creatures, possibly also trigger outright anger against the observation of others doing those activities. However, if a tribe of elves are hit by famine and get desperate enough they might resolve to eating the flesh of sentient species, even each other if pushed hard enough (say if a player is outright trying to starve them or otherwise influence them). This wouldn't necessarily happen automatically if pushed sufficiently, they might choose to "perish honorably" in some outcomes and not in others.

Likewise orcs might start very aggressive, but if they run low on a resource that a player has in abundance nearby, but so well fortified there's no way they can take it by force, they might resort to trading rather than killing their neighbors. Especially after trying to kill said neighbors a few times with horrible results.

 

[Stuthulhu]

I enjoy sandbox myself, and I do like there to be flexibility in the experience. That being said, I do think too much sandbox runs the very real risk of watering down the experience.

If it is entirely flexible, that is, there are no predefined natures for any npcs, my fear would be that such a setup would deflate the potential 'character' of the realized game world. That is to say, by rendering all of the various units into blank slates to be filled in by rolls of the die, letting any unit fulfill potentially any role, in essence you have turned them all into the same nebulous character, with palette swaps.

This is not something I have seen in practice mind you, so I can only theorize. But to me it does seem like a basic level, perhaps as Cervator says, initial tendencies, being predefined could be useful in that it does imbue a certain character into the world.

For instance, if orcs tend to be evil, and you meet a good orc, well that's interesting and strange. If however, nothing is defined, then an orc has just as much chance to be good as an elf when the world is generated, and that really the only difference between and elf and an orc is what character model is in place for which. There are no 'types' to go against.

That's not to say I discard the notion of a flexible engine out of hand. However, I feel that the generating potential of a game engine is still no match for a real live GM, and that, to me at least, it seems probable that at least some degree of guiding hand might be necessary to actually colorize the world in a non-generic way, even if that degree can be optionally discarded by the player.

 

[woodspeople]

I didn't mean "rendering all of the various units into blank slates to be filled in by rolls of the die" - I meant rendering them blank slates to be filled in by people with huge imaginations ... who can't always write code. The types and the going against, if the thing is set up right, would all be part of what the "dungeon masters" would make happen. Not empty worlds, but worlds within worlds. It is this lack of capacity to nest worlds that makes things like Minecraft not sandbox-like in the ways that matter most.

Just read with huge interest an article called "The Most Dangerous Gamer" about Jonathon Blow, creator of Braid and The Witness, in the Atlantic Monthly that just came today. I have not seen these games and have no idea if I would like them, but what he said there was exactly what I was getting at: that games can be much, much deeper than they have been.

 

[Cervator]

That almost reminds me a bit of the hot topic of extensibility these days and "modding" from inside the game itself.

The "core" game would come prepared with a flavor (of whatever type and setting we pick for core), then there's a mode available (like "survival" but "DM mode" instead) where you can tweak creatures, the world, etc, and create some sort of setting you can save for later and share with your friends?

As opposed to being limited to changing creature config via an external mod?

Maybe you could even make those tweaks only to a local area, so you can create a dungeon within a world in your private castle and then send your friends on tour? It seems like there's a little of that in MC, but usually only by sharing entire worlds with your friends prepared with set constructions, and very limited without mods.

 

[glasz]

I'd say there are two things here : what is the game world, and how open it is. A pen and paper RPG is by definition very open since it is only limited by the GM brain. Yet D&D has a very defined, if very varied, world. I personnaly like the idea of a world that has some definition, a place you'de want to be part of. But then there are some players who will want to explore a world created for them, and others who will want to build their own world. I'll still insist that i think you can have a world with a strong identity, and a very open gameplay. Ideally for me the player should be as free as possible, with only the world's logic to limit that freedom and make it challenging : " how can i make that demonic space goat to behave the way i want". This is the case with a pen and paper D&D game, the GM being here to represent the world's logic : "no you cant do that". In a pen and paper game the number of things you still can do are infinite, on a computer game it will have a limit i guess, but the world will have a stronger, more immersive representation. So if i should sum up : chosing a game theme is not in itslef a limitation on the gaming experience, the limitations will come from the interactions the world allows : are they numerous enough, do they allow to a wide enough range of possible results, do they feel consistent with the world logic or does the player feel that an arbitrary limitations, even if justified technically, as been imposed on its possible interactions with the world?

 

[ironchefpython]

are they numerous enough, do they allow to a wide enough range of possible results, do they feel consistent with the world logic or does the player feel that an arbitrary limitations, even if justified technically, as been imposed on its possible interactions with the world?

Ideally, the limits of what you can accomplish within an extensible game engine are at the intersection of your imagination, your discipline, and your modding skills.

In practice, if it doesn't totally make you want to throw your computer though a window, I'll consider that an accomplishment.

 

[glasz]

But then are we making a game along with the game engine? If not we dont really need to put our thoughts into game content?

 

[SuperSnark]

D&D is set in a Tolkien inspired universe. It is, after all, Dungeons and Dragons. That's the premise. Right up front people know what they're getting into. You go spelunking, you have swords and mages and whatnot. You have quests. The thematic premise is that this is set in a "fantasy" universe. And why is it fun? For me, it's because we're sharing an adventure, a story, that the dungeon master creates for us and with us. Within those boundaries, I agree, there is flexibility (in terms of character creation especially) - and that's wonderful. What I'm hoping we can figure out is, what is our thematic universe? Is it fantasy / sci-fi / something we create on our own? If nothing else, it gives the art guys something to shoot for when creating creatures and objects in our "world". Otherwise it's sort of chaos isn't it?

I think some level of story is crucial if you want to have a "game" with some level of depth. It doesn't have to be up front or blatant or reams of text. It can be sprinkled in bits and pieces as the game plays out; as your character grows. But it can be crucial in providing meaning or purpose to the whole adventure. Otherwise you have a toy. And maybe that's what Terasology should be; a toy to experiment with and play in. But that in itself becomes limiting, in my opinion, and less interesting than a "world" to explore. Even then you have certain behavioral rules for artificial intelligence (as Cervator pointed out). And if you have creatures with behaviors you have the potential for adding depth by giving them a backstory or history or something. Why do they behave that way? Who are they? What are they after? What is their purpose? What is the player's purpose?

So I guess the first question should be, do we want a world theme for Terasology?

Oh and I agree with glasz's post.

 

[SuperSnark]

But then are we making a game along with the game engine? If not we dont really need to put our thoughts into game content?

Right!

 

[Cervator]

Call me boring but I like the fantasy angle. Spiced with some steampunk here and there. I think something like Scifi or other radically different themes would be too far off the base - although pieces of it could easily make it in, and full-game content mods could take it wherever the engine supports

I don't know about a specific pre-defined storyline behind the world, other than some fitting (almost generic, but there's space for creativity) fantasy creation story if that works. The world is going to procedurally generate from wherever the first player spawns so it would be tricky to have static story elements, locations, etc embedded within such a blank slate world. I think it would be awkward if soandso castle of the dark lord whatshisname would exist somewhere in the world in the base flavor/theme. However! - I think we can draw inspiration from one of the extremely impressive bits of Dwarf Fortress here, the "global" world generator that you run before you actually start in a local area.

For those unfamiliar with DF world generation is a two-step process. First you run parameters for the whole world (think planet) which will generate a base world map, then fast forwards time x numbers of years (usually a few hundred). That in term changes the world based on events and civilizations sprouting, interacting with each other, flourishing, and possibly collapsing due to warfare or other factors. Or that's the idea, anyway, I don't know much about how detailed the algorithms get and have never actually played in adventure mode where you explore the "global" world

After that world is generated, to play in "fortress mode" you look around and find a small spot to plop down your seven starting dwarves. That area is absolutely miniscule compared to the global world and might compare to the number of chunks that load around the player in Terasology. At first you don't notice the greater world much, but some things like possible trading partners and invading "forgotten beasts" are based on what generated around you in the bigger world.

Now, in theory we could try to do something similar, especially with a finite world mode (we have something like that in the issue tracker - https://github.com/MovingBlocks/Terasology/issues/185). However, the player in Terasology will be able to access the entire world which would make any sort of accurate pre-world gen requirements immense (outright impossible in infinite world mode). But maybe we can generate a series of place names, civilizations, events, etc, based on what's available in the base game (and later mods) and place them in the world intelligently as appropriate spots appear. Then we'd have a back story unique to each world and something that would feel like more than a blank slate.

To start small we could just use static placeholder data, then work on the world history generation off to the side as the rest of the game progresses. Great area that could be segmented and worked on independently by a person or a small team.

Our immediate challenge then is picking the pieces we want to build said world on top of, which includes the overall feel (fantasy, etc), specific races, locations of various types (named mountains, rivers, chasms, caves, etc - matching terrain gen stuff), items, and so on. I think vanilla fantasy with some creative quirks would be a good starting fit for that, and there's a lot more exposure to dwarves, elves, humans, etc. Those may be generic but make a good easy base, then whenever somebody comes up with a good idea that tweaks something into an interesting direction, add it!

One alternative to this is picking a much more narrow goal for implementing initial gameplay in something more simple like a zombie survival mode (that's come up here and there). That won't be anything all that special but is more achievable as a stepping stone. And if it happens to mostly fit with the longer goal then great, reusability!

 

[glasz]

We could work from the most generic to the most specific by adding history layers :

prehistoric : define the wild flore and fauna, and the origins (wich dont need to be evolutionnist, like elves come from another planet etc...) of whatever intelligent species

antic : define the cosmology and birth of civilisations

middle age : define the origins of nations, the state of technology, etc...

modern age : -> possibility of steam punk world, intricated history

The idea being : we can stop at the prehistoric age and have a game, and if we want to go further we'll have to define this stage a bit anyway.

EDIT : When i say define, of course it doesnt need to be an encyclopedia article, it can be just the very least we need to start.

 

[Immortius]

But then are we making a game along with the game engine? If not we dont really need to put our thoughts into game content?

My understanding is the goal is certainly a game - it is stated right in the project description. I do feel we need something a bit more concrete and in depth describing the intended gameplay, to help focus discussion and then work. I might start putting something together over the weekend, people can rip it apart or whatever, as long as the discussion gets going.

...

The setting for Terasology should be inside the digital landscape of a simulated ALife world. Where blades of byte-grass wave gently with the rising and falling of clock cycles, and flocks of boids circle the bones of monolithic TSR executables. ;P

(Not really)

 

[Cervator]

The setting for Terasology should be inside the digital landscape of a simulated ALife world. Where blades of byte-grass wave gently with the rising and falling of clock cycles, and flocks of boids circle the bones of monolithic TSR executables. ;P

Sounds like a great mod tho

 

[GoldenDragon]

As Terasology starts to form itself into an actual "game" I started thinking about ways we might want to distinguish ourselves from Minecraft and really make Terasology unique.

Read this: http://board.movingblocks.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=262 What do you think?

 

[metouto]

I am reading and keeping up with these ......

World Theme and Backstory &

Final stretch for milestone 3 + brief soft code freeze after &

Extensibility!


And two things have become clear to me (maybe 3 things)

a) I am not able to understand 99.5 % of what you all are saying :?

b) there is a lot more that goes into a game makeup than I ever dreamed but I am sure I only see a small portion of what is really happening behind the scenes

c) I am very happy I am working on blocks

 

[Mooncalf]

It's a general problem that the setting of a game defines the technological level that can be represented in it. As such, the setting needs to be chosen depending on the intended gameplay, or you run the risk of contradicting the setting (e.g. modern day computers in a 1940 Noir setting).

Since we wish to encourage user contribution, keeping the setting flexible and non-restrictive should help us in the long term, yet we also need to define it to set the mood, as otherwise we have what will look like a generic and random assortment of content that doesn't seem to fit together.

The Steampunk setting is an interesting one, as it combines aspects from modern technology, fantasy and science fiction. Since the core principles behind the technology are nonsensical to begin with, it is generally more lenient in what kind of effects it can produce when it comes to the suspension of disbelief. E.g. you can have steam powered sharks with lazers on their heads dropped from armored zeppelin fortresses without someone crying foul play.

An example setting is the game "Arcanum", which is a tolkienesque mix of magic and victorian style steam mechanisms during the equivalent of the industrial revolution (along with tea drinking working class orcs).

Still we might want to add elements from the more "advanced" Punk settings like Dieselpunk (1940-50 era, combustion engines) and Cyberpunk (Technomancer, Shadowrun; dystopian sci-fi; computers, cyberware, information warfare) to it, depending on where we want to go with the gameplay.

A problem with Steampunk is that its aesthetics somewhat depend on round surfaces and circles as well as intricate inlays, which could cause conflicts with our block based engine.

I would strongly advise against both the generic D&D setting and the RPG gameplay, as both are overdone and many of our competitors are using this approach already, including Minecraft itself, and are already vastly ahead of us in development.

In addition the Dwarf Fortress type of game might look nice on paper but you need to consider that Tarn Adams, the sole developer, has been working on this project since 2002 as a full time job (although not immediately) to get it to the level of complexity we can see today and yet the game is still far from something that resembles a finished product and this despite the advantage that all content can be represented through ASCII symbols, unlike our engine.

Especially the amount of work required to make randomly generated personalities interact with each other both on an individual level and a political meta-level while at the same time being able to understand and work with the player is going to be massive in my opinion. In addition it most likely will not be elaborate enough to be more than a random generator for "go there, kill that, return" quests, which we already have in pretty much any RPG ever and that are, to say it frankly, extremely dull and boring.

Giving our game a predefined story can limit us tremendously in regards to the content we can introduce and will create the need for us to provide a narrative, which will limit the path a player can take and thus contradict the strength of the engine, which is a vast world with free exploration.

We might want to keep the story vague and only provide an overall explanation for the setting to prevent us from maneuvering ourselves into a dead end with a more restrictive story similar to singleplayer games, as all these come with the fatal flaw of having to end eventually, which doesn't mix well with a sandbox setting (see the massive disappointment that was the Minecraft "story" ending).

My suggestion here would be to first get a gameplay going and once that is finished, we can see if we can build a story around it, or at least provide users the ability to create their own.

In general we should strive to make a fun game experience first and a sandbox experience later in order to attract as many people as possible to create a community that can provide its own content, which will most certainly include ambitious attempts at full conversion mods (you're pretty much bound to see someone start a Warhammer 40k mod, for example), which in return rely on a large and live community to get finished.