Multiplayer in Ren'Py

[eyerouge]

What I miss is the ability to play a story through the internet/network together with a friend. It would work just like it does already in the standard novels, but, each player would be assigned/choose different character roles. So, if you play a date game for example, one would control what the guy said and the other what the girl said (if they're hetero ; ). This is of course a trivial example, but hopefully you get the point. [In more complex games with several characters each player would control some of them, exactly which ones would either be set on a per player basis by the novel author or however the author chooses to let the players decide.]

The goal is to share the novel experience through indirect interaction with the other players, as described above. This would bring a totally new life into the graphical novels and also add a never seen(?) dimension to gaming. What I speak of doesn't really exist anywhere from what I have seen: A mmorpg/chatroom/mud/mush relies on the players having to make up the story and type the dialog as they play, on the fly and in real time. This is also why graphical novels are usually an ultimate choice: While the alternative play forms offer interactivity with other players, they lack what the graphical novels bring in structure and good story telling. Also, the graphical novel only relies on the competence of the author as a good story teller, one that invites the players and gives them the options, but not the power to destroy the gaming experience, in contrast to the traditional multiplayer forms that are currently available.

The problem with mmorpgs/mud/mushes and player interaction are numerous if you want to focus on the text and story telling aspects. Whoever has played World of Warcraft or whichever mmorpg and compare the possibilities in there with what I speak of in the above would know exactly what I mean. Those game aren't novels. They don't focus on good storytelling or dialog in the same sense a novel does. It's a totally different thing. Once we accept that, it should be easy to see the potential in my suggestion.

My belief if that multiplayer support would be a reasonable step for Ren'Py. I don't see any reasons for why not to implement it and allow those who want to write those kind of stories to do so. I still maintain that it can be a fantastic thing and that it will promote graphical novels as a genre, both multiplayer & singleplayer ones, and evolve it.


On another note: My suggestion is of course also of my private interest, even if I think that it's equally great in either case: I want to write such a novel. I want to let the reader read/play it with a co-reader on the other side of the city/world. I want to see two people interact in a shared story where they are in character and where the options for the interactions are pre-defined and a part of the story, all written by the author.

The greatest tool in the world that I've seen for novels is Ren'Py, but, I can't use it for this purpose since it lacks support if I've understood things correctly.

My question is if support for this is coming, is of interest, or is something that you know you wont support the nearest 1-2 years. I'm sad to say I only know PHP and can't help you with coding it in python since I don't know the language. However, if you know you wont support it and dislike the idea, please tell me, because in such cases I'd be forced to write an engine in some crappy language like PHP/AJAX or VB, in order to see this become real. Surely there must already exist plenty of networking classes that are available for Python and that would at least contribute with at lest 30% of the work.

[Spiralbunny]

I don't really understand. Wouldn't multiplayer visual novel just become much like the 'roleplaying' people do in forums?
I-I'm not being negative or anything, I just don't see the point. Maybe if you had a better example of your idea..?

[PyTom]

We've talked about this before, and I'm still not really sure what the multiplayer aspect brings to the table. It also has a number of downsides... you'd have to find someone willing to play the game with you, and you'd have to make a network connection to him, and if you read at different speeds one player will have to wait for the other to catch up.

So right now, I see a multiplayer VN as a gimmick at best, and probably not on the list of features I'll spend time implementing. Now, it would be possible to convince me otherwise, but you'd have to show me that you have a story that benefits greatly from this. (That was what eventually got hard pauses into Ren'Py... someone came up with a really compelling use case for them.)

Technically, much of the infrastructure is there. We ship the python socket library, so what you'd probably want to do is poll the server to find out if the other user has made his choice, renpy.pause()ing between polls.

(A similar concept, that would probably work better, would be a nonlinear version of Cell Phone Love Letter, where choices made in the first path could have repercussions in the second.)

[eyerouge]

We've talked about this before, and I'm still not really sure what the multiplayer aspect brings to the table.

[First of all, it's a joy seeing the developer in action and taking care of his baby like you do. I almost think I've said it before but in any case I'd say it again - in most projects developers hardly find time and/or energy to actually have a dialog with the community. Personally I think it's important that the developer has a presence. Don't read this like it being equal to reading & answering every topic. It's more about being around and answering when no other does if the question is reasonable and there seems to be the need. So, I'm pleased you took the time to read & answer.]

Now back to the topic.

I believe your question s probably the most fundamental and important one, not only in this case but overall for development of anything. I'll be honest and give you two answers:

The first answer is that it brings nothing essential for the graphic novel as we know it today. This answer gives itself if one asks the question and at the same time takes the current shape & ways of the graphic novel for granted. To put it bluntly, if I'm a person that is only interested in playing graphic novels by myself and don't see the value of doing it together with another person, then the answer is nothing. So, if I'm happy with the way things are, I seldom have the motivation to change anything or make the alternatives available.

To be frank, Ren'Py already does what can be expected of a novel engine and then some! There is of course always room for improvement and more features and deluxing, but, it's safe to say that it already is, and has been for a long time, an overly sufficient tool for what it was designed for - the visual novels. I know you probably have a lot of ideas about future functions and also an itch to resolve some issues etc and that you're not a god, that you have limited time and resources and so forth and that you need prioritize. So, unless you can't find a way to justify giving the idea priority, it wouldn't fly.


This brings me to the second answer: While it's true that Ren'Py works wonders as it is and that the world of visual novels wouldn't become less desirable or in any other way hurt if multiplayer support was never to be implemented, it is also true that there is really nothing that speaks for why a visual novel should be experienced single player only. I'll reason for this by answering your worries soon enough, but first, let me point out what the multiplayer brings that the current visual novel doesn't.

In essence, it brings more human "life" to the novel since there'd be another person (I imagine it beeing 2 player as standard) participating with/against you. This means that the outcome of the story and that for example branching is never only the result of yourself, a random generator and/or the author, but also the result of a human being you know where there with you.

Let's not underestimate what this means. While many multiplayer games are multiplayer because they lack a reasonable AI, it's also a fact that many that have a good AI support multiplayer modes. Why is that? The answer is simply because of the human interaction. One might of course argue that this depends on competing etc and that wouldn't be the case in a graphic novel. a) It might be the case that competition is the key, in many games and to some degree. b) However, why would humans want to compete with each other and not the computers - after all AI:s can be "humanized" and programmed to be beatable, make errors etc etc? Again, it's because it's a human and you interact in a world with her. Hence the conclusion about human interaction stands however the interaction is done. [c) One might discuss the term "compete", isn't reading a story and trying to accomplish a goal while at the same time your co-player/opponent does the same a competition? I guess it's a matter of perspective. Luckily it doesn't matter for the conclusion.]

Multiplayer brings human life into the graphic novel and incorporats the other persons choices. It allows you to choose if you take that into consideration or if you ignore it. In either case another human mind will actually share the experience of the story with you.

Humans have been sharing the experiences of stories for ages. When you were a kid and grown ups told you fairy tales, when you go to the cinema and so on. Thus sharing experience and wanting to share it together with somebody isn't a new concept. Maybe it's not for everyone. I know a lot of people who enjoy watching a movie alone, but, I know at least as many that would rather watch the movie together with a friend. Why? I don't know since I'm not a psychologist, but, it clearly is psychology and it sure has to do with sharing something and being in it together.

At this point one might argue that a visual novel can already be shared in the same way as a movie can. This is true, but, let's not forget that I've already pointed out an additional factor and that it, in contrast to a movie or usual book, is one of the finer points in visual novels that really make them stand out from other media - the interactivity.

While we can share a visual novel that is single player by downloading it & playing it separately, and also experience the same interactivity as other players that have downloaded have experienced, we don't really share & experience it together. On a psychological note we are alone and are aware of it. It's us and the novel world. This is of course also the meaning and definition of a visual novel as it is today since the visual novel is a multimedia clone of a book among other things, that obviously isn't interactive.

At this point I must make a distinction between a) interactivity between a player and the fiction and b) interaction between players. As it currently is we already have interactivity in visual novels. However, since they're single player, this is limited and can't lead to interaction between players (unless we don't count the author of course, which we wont since he is equal to the interactivity with the novel world).

I'm not saying Ren'Py is not enough for what it was designed for - it is, since it's the core concept. I'm also very happy RenPy is around at all since it really is a power tool that delivers amazing results, not to mention it's open sourced (probably the part that makes me happiest). That said, it seems, and I believe that the multiplayer aspect of almost any game, even regular carbon board games, is a proof of something. It is that something I envision experiencing in a visual novel.

Why? Because it:

1. is doable.
2. as you write yourself, the framework is there.
3. it would bring interaction between players - interaction between humans seems enjoyable.
4. it is the only case where players can a) share an experience that it is b) on where they interact, as "opposed to" where they all sit down and play a visual novel solo. This point is important as it shows that it actually brings a new dimension that is not there in the current visual novels - today you can't share the experience of interaction with another player. This alone is a selling point. (Why has been discussed in my multiplayer ranting in the above text somewhere.) Clearly this brings something new to visual novels that seem to matter.

So, if I am right about some of the basic assumptions and if it's true that participation, interaction and experience are important psychological factors for many human then it follows that a multiplayer visual novel could be of interest. It should be since it offers something that many seem to value and strive to experience. This also brings me to my third answer, which is more of an ad-hoc and that isn't of any great importance: Integrating multiplayer support would undoubtfully widen the potential of the visual novels appeal to people. I'm not saying that visual novels will become a type of standard media in the world because of multiplayer support, but it sure seems reasonable to assume that a wider audience will find both the visual novel and Ren'Py more appealing and usable. At the same time it doesn't destroy or change anything at all that we currently associate with the visual novels of today. What type of novel the author writes (single/multi/both) would still be up to her.

It also has a number of downsides... you'd have to find someone willing to play the game with you, and you'd have to make a network connection to him, and if you read at different speeds one player will have to wait for the other to catch up.

1. Take any game you want, or even better, any activity you want, and then add to that the wrong person(s). As a result you'll maybe get a bad experience or at least not the experience you had as a goal. Since this is true for everything i life, it's also true for multiplayer visual novel (or, as it could be called: collaborative interactive fiction). This can all be summarized as the choice of player(s). As shown, it's not a real problem even if it could relate to the specific issues which you mention and it could be the cause of them. So, let us look at the issues and keep in mind that we don't have to play the game with somebody who reads in a speed that isn't near your own and/or a person that doesn't want to play to start with and/or a person who doesn't know how to connect to another via a network.

2. Finding a player: This is partially covered by #1 above since you'd need to find a player in all multiplayer games. In most cases people would probably, for various reasons, play a novel with somebody they knew somehow. I won't start speculating here, but it doesn't seem like playing visual novels together can be equated with connecting to a Counterstrike server for a Deathmatch hence my conclusion about the players probably have spoken before and "know" each other in most of the novels that will be played. In any case, I don't see the problem: You either know somebody that wants to play it with you, or you don't. If you don't you are at liberty to make friends in, for example, a writers community or a bunch of other communities, a role playing club or why not somebody from the Ren'Py forum? Again, this isn't really an issue since it's true for all games that lack a central server (and I'm against Ren'Py having one - connect by IP of the host will suffice by far). It's equally true that all those games exist and that the players who want to play them find a way to find other players.

3. Make a connection: Also partially covered in #1. Why would connecting to somebody be a problem? I can't imagine that it would be harder than entering the IP to the host novel and then clicking a "connect" button, from a players point of view. Yes, there will of course exist players who don't know what the words "host" or "ip" mean, but those aren't really an issue of apparent reasons. You create something for people who either know how to use it, can guess, or at least are interested enough to learn how to use it if they for some reason lacked the skills. Adding multiplayer support isn't the same as making all ren'py related stuff idiot proof

4. Read at different speeds & waiting for the other: There are many games that are turn based where the players take turns to play. One of the most famous ones ever is Civilization, a strategy game by Sid Meier. Since that genre, called 4x, exists and have done so for long time I can only conclude that people don't really mind waiting a little if that should occur. In strategy games like Civilization you have a shit load of info & statistics and also some text to evaluate every turn. If you have to wait or not would depend on the other players ability to read & make choices. As suggested before, in most cases you wouldn't pick a dyslexic (no offense all, I probably have it myself) to play with you or a person you know is a slow reader unless you of course share her troubles/pace yourself. However, a timer solution could be optional, just like in the turn based games. An example of how it could work is that every character on screen is counted and adds x time to it, for that screen. (Ehrm.. isn't this already implemented more or less? lol) Even if I wouldn't use it myself nor recommend it I don't see a problem with having it around for those who'd want it in multiplay. Lastly, while most people don't read exactly as fast as each other, they read in similar speed and come close to matching each other. Again, taking turns is no issue in any other game, why should it be in a visual novel?

I must admit that I was reluctant to answer the above 1-4 since I really wanted to avoid touchin on specific implementation issues. Anyone in here can come with examples and counter examples and different solutions. I usually fear of discussing them since there are really many ways to solve problems and implement something in. This means that whatever I wrote in the above there is probably at least 10 other ways of solving the same thing, hence my exact solutions aren't really that interesting until it comes to a stage where it's interesting to discuss implementation. Meanwhile, this is a moment 22, since it's hard to know if one wants to go with an idea or take a closer look at it if one doesn't consider how it is actually going to be implemented. In the end the discussion about the implementation specifics is really important, but, as with many other things the coder would usually have a far greater understanding of how to implement something and why he chooses that specific solution than the people asking him to do so (Not saying I won't try to answer further problems, just that there isn't one solution to most of them & that I don't want to be read as a person who claims that he/she has "the" solution...)

So right now, I see a multiplayer VN as a gimmick at best, and probably not on the list of features I'll spend time implementing. Now, it would be possible to convince me otherwise, but you'd have to show me that you have a story that benefits greatly from this. (That was what eventually got hard pauses into Ren'Py... someone came up with a really compelling use case for them.)

I believe I, in the massive amount of text above, have shown that there are other aspects to be gained and that they sound reasonable enough. I think they are the main reasons for why it should be implemented.

However, I'm aware that it didn't answer your original question, so I'll do that now instead.

Coming up with an example of a story that benefits greatly from being multiplayer won't be easy for me since benefiting-a-story isn't the reason I thought it should be implemented. Instead I was going for benefiting experience of story x, due to sharing and interacting cross-player. Most examples could of course be played single player, but, then we'd miss out on the whole point with multiplayer according to me, and it's not playing something that wouldn't be playable in single player - it's how you perceive it and why what you perceive happens to begin with.

An example would be a dating game where 2 guys compete about a girls interest by talking to her. I'm aware an "opponent" can be simulated in single play, but it's not the same thing, is it? My rants on multiplay shows that. Another example would be a married couple arguing about if they should get a divorce or not - having the argument with a real human on the other side sure sounds like something totally different to me.

A maybe far more interesting case where we'd really use the function is a murder mystery novel. Think of the possibilities offered in a classic setting of who-did-it, dinner at the castle of count Reichman, suddenly the maid shouts and finds x dead.

Now, since we have two players one could be the detective (+ whatever characters) and the other could be the murderer (+ whatever other characters). Because the novel runs on 2 computers we could even give some types of information to the detective player (player 1) and some other to the murderer (player 2). Player 2 knows who the murderer is, why he killed his victim etc, and tries to control the situation and avoid getting caught. At the same time, the novel never showed all this to player 1, so the detective must do his best to interrogate the people in the room in order to find out who the murderer is. There are a million variations on this and/or other types like Wolf/Mafia, a psychological game where you try to locate someone by interaction and votes etc.

This shows that even if the novel could be played solo, multiplay brings something to it. It also shows that an old type of novels that have the different-info-structure, like the murder mystery, would become way more interesting and arguably more intelligent.


And we've arrived at the end. *breathes* Since the project is open sourced I'd be willing to donate €100 to see the feature implemented, given it remains open source & works in a manner that has been discussed and that would be discussed even more so. From what I can see there isn't anywhere to donate to so I'm not even sure you accept donations to begin with or how it would look like. I'm sorry I can't contribute to the code myself as I don't know the language & also that I haven't got more funds (student), but I'd be happy to chip in since it would mean that the best became even better (from my pow) and also that I wouldn't have to code an engine myself.

I don't really understand. Wouldn't multiplayer visual novel just become much like the 'roleplaying' people do in forums?

I'll try to explain it a little bit better:

No, it would differ in a very important aspect: The roleplaying people do is done by the players. Imagine I role play a detective in a forum/mmorpg/mud/mush: If I want the detective to say something I must 1) figure out what he will say and 2) write it. The consequence is that you always get lag in all of those games because the user must input and think of the text. (That is of course also the point with those games, hence I'm not saying they miss their target. What I'm saying is that my suggestions aims at a totally different.)

My suggestions differs a lot since the users play the visual novel exactly like they already do - by making pre-defined choices.

They choose prewritten text that the novel author offers them. This 1) reduces input lag since nobody has to type anything 2) offers richer story since people that type often type short and compressed in order to cut down on input lag (it also gets rid of bad language, lack of imagination, inconsistent language styles and out of character crap) 3) the most important aspect of all since the previous two aren't my real reasons for suggesting it is that both players are a part of an already set story that has been defined by the author: Whatever the players do, it's already in the novel. You always get a great gaming experience & story if the author has done his job. The same can't be said about traditional "freeform" roleplay no matter how it's done.

Also, all such games require a game master and what not. This wouldn't - once the author has created the novel it can be replayed by any number of people, and depending on the story and branching, they'd all get the same or very similar experience.

You'd get the idea if you imagine that you are in front of your computer with a friend. You start up your favorite visual novel that has a couple of choices in it and perhaps where some are made by one character and some by another. Now, imagine that you make the choices for character x, and that your friend makes the choices of character y. If so, you'd be affecting the storys outcome together, and, both of you would know that whatever the other does could possible effect you or the story.

[bloodywyvern]

You do realize the chances of anyone doing anything except skim over that post is almost nonexistant, if it was allowed you'd get a lot of tl;dr

Anyway, essentially I see a multi player visual novel in one of two forms (which may or may not go in to the realm of your post...hopefully it does, and just shortens it -.-.

1.) A VN/RPG hybrid, in which the world that it takes place in can has both players playing an important part of the story. It can in a way benefit the genre in the sense that the ending you get is based off not just your choices, but theirs as well. That adds a tremendous replay ability if any writer was brave enough to tackle a project with that much in terms of branching. You may end up fighting against your friend, or on the same side. Your choices may be to kill him from the game (or try to), or to let yourself be killed. Maybe your choices would turn in to different kinds of attacks, so if the second player picks one that beats it you lose. It's a rough idea but I see a problem with this...

No writer with any form of sanity would take on a project requiring that much depth and branching works, to actually make a game long enough to make the multi player worth something.

Most people here are working for free on projects they just want to have fun with, the amount of work going in to something like that would hardly be worth it. It just requires far too many variables. It's good in concept, bad in production.

Anyway though, as for the idea of how fast the other play is reading you could always keep the text on auto, and force it to stay that way. (Or to really make a bang, make the slow readers be considered an *indecisive* player, and suffer for it by the text they are shown.)

The second way...

2.) Minigames- This is a much more practical if not entirely needed function, after you play a mini game or level inside the game itself you could be given the option to play it outside the story with another player. This can be useful in the sense you can boast about beating your friend, they then play more to try and beat you, and so on...suddenly it's less a forgotten mini game and now something a community can turn in to a tiny sport.

That's my analysis of it, though I'm not sure how helpful it is. If anything at all, I'd go for #2...I hardly think Ren'Py would benefit much from it, but it's the most practical.

[Spiralbunny]

Haha, like bloodywyvern said... just a bit TL;DR. Especially since it's 5 a.m., hahaha. I read some parts though. (I did read your answer to my question - understand the difference now, but don't find it all that useful.) But I wanted to comment on this -

Now, since we have two players one could be the detective (+ whatever characters) and the other could be the murderer (+ whatever other characters). Because the novel runs on 2 computers we could even give some types of information to the detective player (player 1) and some other to the murderer (player 2). Player 2 knows who the murderer is, why he killed his victim etc, and tries to control the situation and avoid getting caught. At the same time, the novel never showed all this to player 1, so the detective must do his best to interrogate the people in the room in order to find out who the murderer is. There are a million variations on this and/or other types like Wolf/Mafia, a psychological game where you try to locate someone by interaction and votes etc.

While I still don't really find the multiplayer idea really useful for most things, I think the detective idea was good! *3* Mystery games might work out really well as multiplayer visual novels. Wolf/mafia... I love those.
But still... I don't know how many people would care to spend the amount of time a game like that takes to make.

[Counter Arts]

I think the only way you could pull of decently a multiplayer VN is to do a play-by-email style of game. Every week everyone plays a pre-written portion of the VN from a randomly selected point of view. Then they rotate areas the next week and do it again. What the previous play has done in that area affects what the current player can do in that area. Things like items left behind or certain NPCs that may or may not survive.

Think of either sliders or Tsubasa world traveling.

[PyTom]

First, let me just lightly chastise the tl;dr crowd... that abbreviation has some negative connotations to it, when applied to other peoples posts. It's okay to admit to skimming, but you shouldn't insult someone for writing a thought out post.

In essence, it brings more human "life" to the novel since there'd be another person (I imagine it beeing 2 player as standard) participating with/against you. This means that the outcome of the story and that for example branching is never only the result of yourself, a random generator and/or the author, but also the result of a human being you know where there with you.

Hm... I think my fundamental question is with this. When I'm playing a multiplayer game against somebody, he's contributing something... strategy, skill, whatever. I'm not sure that simply picking a choice off a menu is enough for multiplayer to add something to the experience.

it is the only case where players can a) share an experience that it is b) on where they interact, as "opposed to" where they all sit down and play a visual novel solo. This point is important as it shows that it actually brings a new dimension that is not there in the current visual novels - today you can't share the experience of interaction with another player. This alone is a selling point. (Why has been discussed in my multiplayer ranting in the above text somewhere.) Clearly this brings something new to visual novels that seem to matter.

Hm... I agree that it would bring something of difference to VNs. I think the question is if the benefits (which I frankly think are arguable), outweigh the drawbacks (which I think are many).

It also has a number of downsides... you'd have to find someone willing to play the game with you

2. Finding a player: This is partially covered by #1 above since you'd need to find a player in all multiplayer games. In most cases people would probably, for various reasons, play a novel with somebody they knew somehow.

My feeling is that the LSF works because on the internet, people can get together from around the world. How many people have IRL friends they can play/discuss VNs with? I know I don't.

Online matching isn't much better. The RAA game that got the most downloads in February had 518 downloads. (Most games had < 100, which makes this calculation even worse.) There were 696 hours in February, so we're talking about 1.3 hours per download... that's a long way to wait before starting to play the game.

If you don't you are at liberty to make friends in, for example, a writers community or a bunch of other communities, a role playing club or why not somebody from the Ren'Py forum? Again, this isn't really an issue since it's true for all games that lack a central server (and I'm against Ren'Py having one - connect by IP of the host will suffice by far). It's equally true that all those games exist and that the players who want to play them find a way to find other players.

On a technical level, you'd probably want a server. Otherwise, you'd have to tunnel ports through firewalls, something that's at least marginally difficult to do.

Lastly, while most people don't read exactly as fast as each other, they read in similar speed and come close to matching each other. Again, taking turns is no issue in any other game, why should it be in a visual novel?

According to http://classiclit.about.com/od/howtorea ... espeed.htm reading speed varies from 200 to 350 wpm. In large visual novels, choices can be tens of minutes apart... which translates into 5-10 minute pauses.

There's also a problem that VNs can be very long... it's one thing to play a game that takes an hour or two, and another if it takes a longer amount of time.

Coming up with an example of a story that benefits greatly from being multiplayer won't be easy for me since benefiting-a-story isn't the reason I thought it should be implemented. Instead I was going for benefiting experience of story x, due to sharing and interacting cross-player. Most examples could of course be played single player, but, then we'd miss out on the whole point with multiplayer according to me, and it's not playing something that wouldn't be playable in single player - it's how you perceive it and why what you perceive happens to begin with.

I like to think in specifics when possible... so giving me a specific use case would tend to help me wrap my head around a problem like this. That's what let me realize there actually was a good use case for, say, hard pauses... and convinced me to implement them.

An example would be a dating game where 2 guys compete about a girls interest by talking to her.

This is, IMO, not a really good use case. I mean, who wants to synchronize your calendar with a friend, to play a game, knowing that one of you has to lose. In something like Civ or Quake, you get a series of "little victories", even if you lose overall... I'm not sure that's properly there in a VN.

And we've arrived at the end. *breathes* Since the project is open sourced I'd be willing to donate €100 to see the feature implemented, given it remains open source & works in a manner that has been discussed and that would be discussed even more so. From what I can see there isn't anywhere to donate to so I'm not even sure you accept donations to begin with or how it would look like.

Hm... I am willing to accept money to give priority to things I wouldn't normally. (want a port to a new platform? Pay me!) But I'm not sure I want to accept money to implement a feature I don't believe in... and as it's described, I'm not buying into it.

Frankly, right now, I see it as a way to make games less playable, since the requirement for a second player (which limits the times you can play, and makes the time spent to play longer, and so on) makes it hard for people to experience the story. And a story locked away in a form that makes it hard to experience is, IMO, a shame... the whole reason for me making Ren'Py is to be told stories I otherwise might not get to see.

[bloodywyvern]

First, let me just lightly chastise the tl;dr crowd... that abbreviation has some negative connotations to it, when applied to other peoples posts. It's okay to admit to skimming, but you shouldn't insult someone for writing a thought out post.

Ah I didn't mean it like that ^_^ just that most people tend to avoid reading posts of such length, and that limits the amount of opinions and ideas that usually can help flush out a more unique perspective. It wasn't an insult at all, just my prediction for how people might see it. The only one who can decide of it has negative connotations is eyerouge, it's a matter of perspective.

And the fact I did put in my own opinion means I took the time to familiarize myself with the majority of it...(though yes, I did skim past some of the parts when it was plausible to do so).

[eyerouge]

You do realize the chances of anyone doing anything except skim over that post is almost nonexistant, if it was allowed you'd get a lot of tl;dr

Yes, I'm aware that the text is long, I mention it myself inside it It took that amount to not just explain what I envision, but also how I reason. I also answer some questions, again, trying to do so with arguments that can be followed. I could have posted as summarized version but I think the one I wrote is more explanatory and of better use, if somebody choses to read it Also, if it's my only shot to pitch the idea, I'd rather take the space while I have the opportunity as I don't see how anyone would follow my thoughts without what I wrote.

Anyway, essentially I see a multi player visual novel in one of two forms (which may or may not go in to the realm of your post...hopefully it does, and just shortens it -.-.

In my post I really don't want to give any examples (even if I do since PyTom requested them). I suggested that the primary strength of multiplayer is of another nature, at least from my point of view and from the fact that more or less all multiplayer games on a computer could as well have been single player instead or faked multi using AI:s.

To me it doesn't matter how people choose to utilize the multiplayer function and in what fashion they write their stories. It's a discussion about an option, and not some kind of legislation on how people must or must not use the option. I'm not saying that you are suggesting that, just making it overly clear that once a function is there, we would most likely see it being used in several ways into a story, some more creative than others. You came up with 2 such ways.

While I still don't really find the multiplayer idea really useful for most things, I think the detective idea was good! *3* Mystery games might work out really well as multiplayer visual novels. Wolf/mafia... I love those.
But still... I don't know how many people would care to spend the amount of time a game like that takes to make.

I'm not advocating multiplayer as a surrogate to the current form of visual novels nor because it will be found useful by a majority of the current authors. Due to branching & 1 player extra a multiplayer novel would require more work in most cases, that alone will make a number of people less interested, while others are happy with keeping their stuff single player.

I also haven't suggested that multiplayer will be usefull for most things - it will not. Then again, there will be authors that will use it. How many that use a function in Ren'Py doesn't seem to have any affect if it's implemented or not since Ren'Py is probably filled with "deluxe stuff" very few people actually use in an average visual novel, not to mention it's raw potential if you understand Python.

The same can be said about the time people will spend on making a novel. It's already true that novels vary in both length and quality. The only thing we know for sure is that a multiplayer would require more work from the author in most cases. So would a single player longer novel compared to a single player shorter. Hence I'm not certain I really follow the logic here: Authors either long write or short pieces. If somebody doesn't wish to write a longer multiplayer piece she wouldn't have to. I could counter-ask: Why does Ren'Py support having amazingly long novels when no author will ever write such a long novel? Answer wouldn't be "Ren'Py shouldn't extremely long novels because no human being will ever write them, so let's limit Ren'Py" All I want to show here is that the discussion about the number of users doing something compared with what the average user does seems a little bit skew.

I think the only way you could pull of decently a multiplayer VN is to do a play-by-email style of game.

My original suggestion was that it happens in realtime. I don't see why/how people can watch Lord of the Rings for 3h (climb the mountain, run in the forest, fight, rinse & repeat x 3 movies) and find the time to do that but not to play a visual novel together. Yes, most movies aren't 3h, but I know for fact that people who do read, say a book, or play games, can play 3h or more in a row without any problem once they get the chance. When will that happen? Whenever they create the opportunity. People prioritize. It's self-evident that people with little time in a streak would prefer to play by email compared to my original idea. However, this is an implementational issue. Coding wise there's nothing to stop both systems from co-existing, leaving it up to the players to decide. Personally I'd never play a multiplayer VN by email, but, it's all a matter of taste and time constraints, so it doesn't matter what I'd do or not. In a similar manner I also believe you are mistaken in your assessment that the only decent games would be those via play-by-mail: It all depends on how much time people are prepared and can spend on their VN experience. Some can, others can't.

Hm... I think my fundamental question is with this. When I'm playing a multiplayer game against somebody, he's contributing something... strategy, skill, whatever. I'm not sure that simply picking a choice off a menu is enough for multiplayer to add something to the experience.

It would be more fair to say that it would all depend on how "strategical" you make the choices in the VN. You write that players contribute with something when they play a multiplayer game, and then state that it's not the same in a VN.

I beg to differ: It could very well be equivalent. What do the players contribute withe in Civilization for example? They contribute with choices. Most games are all about choosing. The player actions are all just choices. Arguably in some games there are skills like reflexas etc at work. Luckily that isn't the case for more than some genres of games. In most games the player contributions and interactions are really just a couple of choices.

What do you do in a VN? You read & choose. That translates to get information, asses it, and react. Core elements of gaming. Can you be skillfull? Yes, if the author makes any sense in his story, you could, but it all depends on the story! Say for example it is a Sherlock Holmes type of game, then you'd try to use logic to solve a mystery. Logic is a real person player skill, you wouldn't get anywhere without it if the author doesn't want you to, and, you'd contribute by doing the choices that equal logic, in this specific example.

You're saying that a choice in a menu isn't enough for multiplayer to add to the experience. This could be true if the VN is badly written. At the same time it's also a fact that clicking menus and having graphical represenattion of some kind is the industry standard toda in games. The VN doesn't alter that: You'd have choices through menus/buttons, and you'd have graphical representation and even sound and what not if you want it. All normal games are just clicking in different areas on the screen. I agree that the clicking in itself isn't really that hot to account for why you should go with the multiplayer. It is the meaning of the clicking, what follows it, that accounts for it's worth. So I guess I agree with you, but at the same time I also point out that what makes mutliplayer interesting isn't the physically intensive part of VN:s - it's the story and how the players interact with it and each other via the story.

As a last example, if what you write is true, how would you explain a MUD/MUSH? The game form has been around since whenever and there are thousands of players, worlds, servers etc. Basically, in a mud/mush all a player sees is text, maybe in colour even at times. Every room is described with some text and the players interact by chatting and giving text commands. How would that be any more interesting from selecting among pre-written options in a Ren'Py multiplayer game? On the contrary, I believe that Ren'Py Multi would have an easier time of attracting a newcomer than a mud/mush has. Also, let's not forget all those mud/mush clients that create aliases for the commands and that put some of them in buttons and menus.

Hm... I agree that it would bring something of difference to VNs. I think the question is if the benefits (which I frankly think are arguable), outweigh the drawbacks (which I think are many).

I concur that the question is if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks but have a problem: Many of the drawbacks been presented in here seem to be about the people not using the multiplayer function to begin with. If they don't use it and continue using Ren'Py as they do today, then it can hardly be any drawback for them, while it would be great for others.

The other drawbacks we're dealing with right now.

My feeling is that the LSF works because on the internet, people can get together from around the world. How many people have IRL friends they can play/discuss VNs with? I know I don't.

Online matching isn't much better. The RAA game that got the most downloads in February had 518 downloads. (Most games had < 100, which makes this calculation even worse.) There were 696 hours in February, so we're talking about 1.3 hours per download... that's a long way to wait before starting to play the game.

I'm afraid I got lost with the abbreviations (LSF ) and also the number of downloads of the games and the calculation, so I didn't quite understand your point As a result the following is probably not an answer to what you wrote: How and where people find who they play with isn't our concern really. It doesn't matter for us. All we need to know is that people seem to actually manage to find others if they want to play so badly. This goes for chess, civilization and complex board war games to mention 3, all of which take several hours to play and at least one additional player.

I didn't suggest any matching system, if you with that mean that two random people who want to play the same VN are matched up, but as I've stated elsewhere what is optional for me doesn't really bother me or give me a reason to oppose it. What would suffice is just the ability to host and connect directly to server. If you were to create fancier solutions I'm happy either way. Multiplayer is an option, not a necessity for people that want to play regular VN:s. Those who want to use the option will manage to find friends - heck, I'd volunteer to code a custom site in php/mysql if it really was an issue just to give them a meeting place if the forums here don't do and they lack IRL friends that share their passion for VN:s.

On a technical level, you'd probably want a server. Otherwise, you'd have to tunnel ports through firewalls, something that's at least marginally difficult to do.

I don't know the specifics behind the Python networking and can't really say anything constructive here. It just leaves me wondering why it should be any harder for two players of a Python VN to connect to each other by using one of them as host (host/client) for the game and the other one as client (just noticed it can be rather confusing here with the words...) than it would be for two players of any other game in any other language: Firewall and router issues are always a fact when people connect directly to each other if they can't handle their gear. Solution is for them to learn, not to build all the applications in the world to meet their cozyness and unwillingness to learn how to resolve their own internet issues.

Is there a reason for why the players wouldn't be able to choose custom ports? Even if people use firewalls there usually are some ports that are open, like the most common ones, some of which are seldom used by people

Usually when suggesting something to developers I try to keep it minimal and as small as possible to get it done. A central server is usually more work and also something central, which is bad news for many open source projects since it usually breaks down into an issue of resources, somebody running/paying the server etc etc. Maybe all that would be easy for you, I wouldn't know as I'm not familiar with the specifics here, but if it is complicated indeed why not use the traditional approach: Let the players be the resources, to let them connect to each other, let them host the games and let them fid players etc. You give them the tools - they do the work if they want to use them and enjoy the VN.

Once again, I'd be happy either way, whatever the case was. This is a technical issue and one where I really can't contribute. All I know is that half the world seems to be connected one way or the other, and that it shouldn't be much harder in Python. If it is, I apologize for my statements, as I've written earlier I'm not acquainted with the language and half of what I write will doubtlessly sound like madness

According to http://classiclit.about.com/od/howtorea ... espeed.htm reading speed varies from 200 to 350 wpm. In large visual novels, choices can be tens of minutes apart... which translates into 5-10 minute pauses.

Ah. Interesting. You clearly proved me wrong there when I stated that most people read about the same speed. You are of course right +- 150 words a minute makes a difference the longer the novel is.

Although you are correct, it still isn't a problem since turn based games exist and are a well established genre. Taking turns and having to wait a little, if it were to happen, doesn't seem like a real obstacle to the people playing the turn based games. Since a VN isn't an action packed genre where you sit down with the adrenaline pumping it would maybe be fairer to say that depending on players & story, there might arise delays, but that they wouldn't matter since they don't in any other turn based game? If what you say is truly a problem the genre wouldn't exist.

We also still have at least the options to 1) play with somebody who reads about the same pace as yourself 2) alter your own readspeed to match his/her if possible 3) vice versa 4) the timer I mentioned the last time. Ideally a VN player could do some simple tests in a VN, and it would calculate his readspeed for him, to give him an approximation. (If you were to use a centralized server that number could be seen next his nick in ( ) or in his profile... just thinking here...or you could do matchups based on that + other criteria)

The last argument here is that people who play turn based know that there will be some waiting time. It's a part of the game. Clearly they're a type of people that don't care. Since the pace of a VN is closer to that of Strategy game than one of a First Person Shooter game, it seems as there's more that suggests that the people who actually do read VN:s aren't really in any hurry and are more likely to accept it than, say, a Counter Strike (shooter) Player would.

There's also a problem that VNs can be very long... it's one thing to play a game that takes an hour or two, and another if it takes a longer amount of time.

Most turn based games take time, probably at least 1 h. Some up to several days. Most can be saved and continued. (If this was in context with the above quotation, which it probably was, disregard this answer).

This is, IMO, not a really good use case. I mean, who wants to synchronize your calendar with a friend, to play a game, knowing that one of you has to lose. In something like Civ or Quake, you get a series of "little victories", even if you lose overall... I'm not sure that's properly there in a VN.

[Here we speak about my 2 guys dating a girl example]

You are right that the date example wasn't that fly. My murder mystery example was better - what I suggest in it can't be done as it is today. It shows a more proper use of the multiplayer function.

As you point out yourself, most games actually have a winner and a loser, so nothing strange about it.

1. I have to disagree that there aren't "little victories" in a VN. They could easily exist, if the authors wishes for it. If a little victory in Civ is taking over a country or a frag in Quake, then a little victory could be obtaining an object to give to the girl or getting her to admit that she is interested in you. I'd say that a "little victory" is a very subjective thing and that it's up to the players & authors to relate to them. The story would tell us what was a little victory or not, but, whatever the story says it would ultimately be in the eyes of the beholder. If you on the other hand suggested that little victories keeps a player going on and the game interesting I'd agree with you once more and also add that they'd still be around in a VN if the story is well thought of, if it has goals etc.

2. You seem to suppose that the goal of every story in multiplayer mode would be to win or get the other to lose. While it would maybe be true for most VN:s that would be created for the multimode, it doesn't have to be like that: Players could actually co-operate instead of oppose each other. It's all up to the story and how the author writes it.

...I'm not sure I want to accept money to implement a feature I don't believe in... and as it's described, I'm not buying into it. /../ I see it as a way to make games less playable, since the requirement for a second player /../ makes it hard for people to experience the story.

No, I don't think you should implement anything at all if you don't buy it, money or no money, it's your baby Even if it may sound as I'm trying to "convince" you it's not really my intention, I'm just used to discuss ideas and see where they go. many times people discover things about both their own the others arguments while discussing, it's developing, in a sense. If you should change your mind anytime soon, ehrm, while I still haven't wasted the money, don't hesitate to tell me.

Before I stop harassing you I'll give a short reply to the last worry you expressed.

It is true that multiplayer games would be less playable since they require a second player, but, isn't that the point with a multiplayer game - to be more than one? And isn't that true for all multiplayer games? How can it matter if there are still many single player player games and if most would still be single player games even if multiplayer was supported?

Besides, there's a solution if you really fear it would have the impact you suggest: A multiplayer game could be made to still be playable by a single player if no additional player would be connected. Exactly how would depend on the author, but if Ren'Py offered a check to see if there is another player present it could return TRUE / FALSE and that info could then be used to script "a simulated player 2". It could be done in sophisticated ways or in easy ones, or some game portions might even be excluded altogether. What we'd have in those cases is what we already have. And the opposite is also true: What we'd have in multiplayer cases is what we have now, but with some of the options / decisionmkaing assigned to another controller than yourself. Ultimately I wouldn't expect a game to be both single and multiplayer compatible, but, it sure wouldn't be hard to script one if it was that important. Else, the solution is self-evident, that multiplayer games are meant to be played multi, and single single. Nothing wicked about that.

[Vatina]

I admit that I am one of the people skimming the long posts here, so I probably shouldn't comment at all... but something just caught my eye:

My original suggestion was that it happens in realtime. I don't see why/how people can watch Lord of the Rings for 3h (climb the mountain, run in the forest, fight, rinse & repeat x 3 movies) and find the time to do that but not to play a visual novel together. Yes, most movies aren't 3h, but I know for fact that people who do read, say a book, or play games, can play 3h or more in a row without any problem once they get the chance. When will that happen? Whenever they create the opportunity. People prioritize. It's self-evident that people with little time in a streak would prefer to play by email compared to my original idea. However, this is an implementational issue. Coding wise there's nothing to stop both systems from co-existing, leaving it up to the players to decide. Personally I'd never play a multiplayer VN by email, but, it's all a matter of taste and time constraints, so it doesn't matter what I'd do or not. In a similar manner I also believe you are mistaken in your assessment that the only decent games would be those via play-by-mail: It all depends on how much time people are prepared and can spend on their VN experience. Some can, others can't.

I don't think it would work very well anyway. Everyone reads a book differently, and at different speeds as already pointed out - and having to stop in the middle of a 'book' all the time and then wait can be really frustrating. Take the game "Hourglass of Summer" as an example - a lot of people (including me) get annoyed by an otherwise great story, because you are forced to read so darn slowly by the system.
In the end I fear people will loose immersion, because they only read a little text and sit around and do other things while waiting. They never really get into it.

The argument with turnbased strategy games is good, but in those games people don't really stop playing I think. Even when you wait for the other player, you can sit and ponder your strategy and what you may want to do on your next turn. I don't think you can do that here.

I'm not trying to shoot your idea down, I just agree that there is a big problem here that need to be solved somehow.

I know some people were talking about running a forum-vn-roleplay... I fear that would have a higher chance of succeeding ^^;

[monele]

I did read the first looong post in whole, but I'm not ready to do that twice *whines*. Anyway, I read this because I think there is some hidden potential with multiplayer VNs... but I don't think it's really been reached yet. I think I was looking for some sort of cooperative experience (I'm really sick of competitive environments... why should *friends* be against each other all the time to have *fun*? @_@).
So I'm reminded of those gamebooks you could play with another person. You could cooperate or not... and actually pick choices that allowed you to trick the other one and stuff like that. But again, maybe it would ruin the experience if you played thinking "cooperative" and realized your friend thought it would be fun to betray you .
As for purely cooperative "gameplay", I'm thinking that the VN should be closer to a game than a VN. It would still be text and pictures, but more choices should be possible. Maybe a story like two young students trapped in a cave, somehow, during a field trip... and having to get out of there together? Each player would get his own choices and while some would lead to good results, others would be bad and have to be counterbalanced by the other player. For example, one character would be in charge of getting food, such as berries... and picking the wrong food would lead to light poisoning.
The problem with my example is that I'm thinking of choices that would require "skills"... either that or the choices would be very random.

[Jake]

I don't think it would work very well anyway. Everyone reads a book differently, and at different speeds as already pointed out - and having to stop in the middle of a 'book' all the time and then wait can be really frustrating.

I can only second that. I read fairly quickly, and I'm frustrated by nearly all games which have a fixed text-scrolling speed, for example. It's nearly always pitched slow enough to not make most people feel like they're a poor reader, which leaves those of us who have had possibly too much practice for our own good spending almost as much time waiting as reading. Quite often I stop playing those games because that's more frustrating than the enjoyment I would be getting from the game if I kept playing it.

Ah. Interesting. You clearly proved me wrong there when I stated that most people read about the same speed. You are of course right +- 150 words a minute makes a difference the longer the novel is.

Although you are correct, it still isn't a problem since turn based games exist and are a well established genre. Taking turns and having to wait a little, if it were to happen, doesn't seem like a real obstacle to the people playing the turn based games. Since a VN isn't an action packed genre where you sit down with the adrenaline pumping it would maybe be fairer to say that depending on players & story, there might arise delays, but that they wouldn't matter since they don't in any other turn based game? If what you say is truly a problem the genre wouldn't exist.

There's this assertion here that people are happy to wait while they play Civ, and therefore they would be happy to wait for another person to finish reading before making a choice from a menu. Now, I agree with the sentiment that this is not a good analogy at all, because you don't stop playing a Civ game just because your opponent's taking their turn; you carry on trying to guess their strategies, watching the things that they do unfold where they intersect with your view, and thinking about what you're going to do in response when it's your turn again. And, in my experience, shout across the room for them to hurry up because waiting is really frustrating. Now, in a VN, you're stripped of nearly all of those possibilities; you can't consider their strategy because you don't know their choices and it's probably irrelevant anyway; you can't watch what's going on because nothing is going on, from your point of view, so you're left to think about the story, which you've probably been adequately doing for some time already, and shout at them to hurry up.

The other big difference, of course, is that a Civ game has literally billions of permutations - there are so many different ways that the game could go that it's - practically speaking - uncountable. You can't consider all of them, and more to the point the AI doesn't. A MUD or a MUSH works because again, the possibilities are practically speaking endless; human interaction brings an imagination to these games and environments which would not exist without them. Would the computer consider building a deliberately weak spur civilisation over there just to draw your military force into rolling over it and lull you into a false sense of security while he gathers just outside your visual range on this side to attack your capital? Would it press for peace then attack you as soon as you sign the treaty? Are you ever going to find networks of roads across the countryside spelling out his name? Sure, game AI is getting better and more unpredictable as time goes on, but fundamentally human interaction brings something magic and something new to the experience so that it's no longer mechanical, and that's why people are willing to wait for other people to finish their turns.

However, in a VN, all you see of the writing is what the VN writer gave you; selecting options from a menu only allows you to experience exactly as much of the writer's imagination as you would have seen anyway if the 'other person's choices were made randomly by a computer, or just written into the novel. The only thing that the player sees to definitely differentiate the online experience from the offline is the horrible waiting while the other person has wandered off to make a cup of coffee or recieved a phone call or something. Not to mention that you can't spontaneously go and do any of those things yourself, you're tied to the game for as long as it takes to finish.

You seem to be trying to argue that simply knowing that some of the prose you see stems broadly from choices made by another human being will somehow make it more enjoyable to read, but you're still reading the same lines of text as you would be if you were playing offline! The exact same lines! The multiplayer experience is still constrained to the same story that's already written, with the same prose, only that playing offline has the added benefit that you never have to wait for anyone else's slow reading and can drop it and resume it a day later as you please.


So in summary, the way I see it you would need hundreds of many-choice branches to make it actually worth playing with another player rather than single-player; hundreds such choices means millions of permutations, which means far more writing than you're likely to see in your average novel. So realistically, the better approach would be to tie it to some other kind of game; have VN interactions between players within the broader scope of some other kind of game which does actually have genuine benefits to the multiplayer mode. The thing that immediately springs to mind is treaty negotiations in Master of Orion, where you get a very VN-like interface and progress through a graph of multiple-choice questions to reach a conclusion... but it's not a game in itself, it's part of a larger thing.

Firewall and router issues are always a fact when people connect directly to each other if they can't handle their gear. Solution is for them to learn, not to build all the applications in the world to meet their cozyness and unwillingness to learn how to resolve their own internet issues.

That's naïve, and simply not an acceptable answer, from a technical point of view; you're assuming that all problems are potentially solved by the user, and in a lot of cases people are operating in conditions where it's simply not possible to allow direct connections from the outside world to their PC. For a couple of years, for example, I connected to the Internet via a satellite link, which was shared amongst several households in the local community via a wireless network. I had no control over the box the provider attached to the outside of our house, let alone the satellite part itself, and so despite knowing a fair bit about networking I wouldn't have been able to set it up to route incoming connections on a particular port to my PC with all the will in the world. I would have had to own my own satellite connection, which would have been prohibitively expensive.

It's an extreme case, but a large number of potential players will be living with other people - parents, maybe? Shared halls at universities? - where they don't have access to the networking equipment they get their connection on. One would have to implement a central server or bar a significant proportion of potential players, and when the number of potential players is as low as it already is it seems silly to reduce it further.

[monele]

Would the computer consider building a deliberately weak spur civilisation over there just to draw your military force into rolling over it and lull you into a false sense of security while he gathers just outside your visual range on this side to attack your capital? Would it press for peace then attack you as soon as you sign the treaty? Are you ever going to find networks of roads across the countryside spelling out his name?

Except for the obvious last one, I think you should try Galactic Civilizations II . Not saying it does exactly these things but the AI is very surprising.

For the rest, I think I'll have to agree that to work well, it'll need to be more than a VN. An investigation game could work like Myst and have the inspector (player 1) and his assistant (player 2) looking around the whole place, searching drawers, asking stuff to people... and maybe then reuniting and sharing their discoveries? It's very light multiplayer, I admit ^^;

[bloodywyvern]

Although you are correct, it still isn't a problem since turn based games exist and are a well established genre. Taking turns and having to wait a little, if it were to happen, doesn't seem like a real obstacle to the people playing the turn based games. Since a VN isn't an action packed genre where you sit down with the adrenaline pumping it would maybe be fairer to say that depending on players & story, there might arise delays, but that they wouldn't matter since they don't in any other turn based game? If what you say is truly a problem the genre wouldn't exist.

Well to add to the arguments against this already, since VN's are not an action packed genre for the most part it makes it even WORSE to wait. When all your doing is reading text, over and over...it's hard enough to keep someones attention anyway. Let's say your reading a novel, sitting there with your book...and your friend has the same book, would you want to wait for him to reach the part your on before continuing? No! You want to read ahead, and finish the damn thing. I think your overestimating how important the *randomness* of human interaction will be to people.

Firewall and router issues are always a fact when people connect directly to each other if they can't handle their gear. Solution is for them to learn, not to build all the applications in the world to meet their cozyness and unwillingness to learn how to resolve their own internet issues.

Even if it was as easy as saying 'figure it out yourself'. Even if all of the shared networks, and unique circumstances out there didn't exist...that's just plain cold. You can't build technology for a small group of people and tell everyone else outside that just to get used to it. Technology is supposed to be geared to be usable by anyone who has need of it. There are exceptions, but the more you ignore the less technically inclined the more people you leave out of your work. So if that's the case, why make it in the first place?

So in summary, the way I see it you would need hundreds of many-choice branches to make it actually worth playing with another player rather than single-player; hundreds such choices means millions of permutations, which means far more writing than you're likely to see in your average novel. So realistically, the better approach would be to tie it to some other kind of game; have VN interactions between players within the broader scope of some other kind of game which does actually have genuine benefits to the multiplayer mode. The thing that immediately springs to mind is treaty negotiations in Master of Orion, where you get a very VN-like interface and progress through a graph of multiple-choice questions to reach a conclusion... but it's not a game in itself, it's part of a larger thing.

That's a very good point to make, considering not to many writers would like to go down that many paths making up for every variable of connections could be made. You'd have all this interwoven text, and there would always be need for more. Now only does consistency become a problem, but most writers don't even HAVE that much endurance. You would need a lot of writers collaborating on all of the break offs to finish it in any realistic amount of time.

I still say a multi player mini game feature could work out, I'll use Raidaa no Asahi as an example. That fan game was made with the built in space battles, a fun concept. No how about when you finish going through the visual novel aspect of it? Connect with a friend and JUST fight the battles, no text needed. Obviously the battle system of it would require something different (ability to have the other player act as one of the ships independently, or something). It helps keep the VN and the multi player separate.