Explaining Non-Linearity

1. The Origins of the Problem

Tim begins by referencing his 2016 Reboot talk where he listed "forced linearity" as mistake number five in RPG design. His core philosophy: RPGs are not movies. If two players make the same character and have the same experience, something has gone wrong. Players should be able to visit towns in different orders, complete quests in any sequence, and have the game react to their character and choices.

This was answering a viewer question from Mr. Lars about how this philosophy conflicted with the views of team members throughout Tim's career.

2. The Mid-90s: Explaining Fallout's Open Design

During Fallout 1's development at Interplay in the mid-1990s, Tim found it genuinely hard to explain open-ended game design even to experienced game industry professionals. The prevailing model at Interplay — exemplified by games like Stonekeep with its predefined protagonist — was fundamentally different from what Fallout was attempting.

2.1. Resistance From Designers

Some designers on the Fallout team understood immediately, especially those who had played Tim's tabletop RPG campaigns. Others kept falling into linear thinking patterns, suggesting things like "what if the player does this, and then I make them do this." Tim's constant refrain: you can never make them do anything.

2.2. QA and Strategy Guides

QA initially asked for a walkthrough. The answer was "it depends" — on character build, quest order, and prior decisions. The strategy guide writer reportedly struggled enormously, repeatedly asking "what's the right way to do this?" There was no right way. There was only a way.

2.3. Player Reactions

Some players in certain regions reportedly disliked Fallout because there was no correct path. They wanted to know what they were supposed to do. Tim found this puzzling — he never played tabletop games that way. But players conditioned by linear CRPGs expected to be told what to do, or at least telegraphed toward the correct solution.

Even Interplay colleagues who took the game home to play would call Tim asking "what am I supposed to do here?" His answer always required counter-questions: what character did you make? What skills do you have? What have you already done? Some found this liberating. Others found it frustrating.

3. The "You Don't Have to Be Good" Problem

A related conceptual hurdle: explaining that Fallout didn't require the player to be good.

People heard "you don't have to be good" and assumed the game wanted them to be evil. Tim's actual point was different: play however you want, and the game will react accordingly. Act like a jerk and people won't like you. Kill people and others will come after you. The game doesn't push you either way — it just responds.

This concept clicked instantly for players with good tabletop RPG experience. Those who had only played linear CRPGs often couldn't escape the "but what am I supposed to do?" loop.

4. Modern Times: Still Fighting the Same Battles

Things have improved dramatically. Non-linear, choice-and-consequence games are now well-established. Tim no longer has to justify the concept of non-linearity. But the specific fights continue in new forms.

4.1. The Locked Room Designer

On a recent project, Tim worked with a narrative designer who became very angry that their linear scenario couldn't be forced on the player. The designer kept proposing increasingly absurd constraints: "the door shuts and locks, it can't be picked, you can't get out the window, you can't leave until you do the thing." Tim's response: "What if they don't ever do the thing? Then they're in the room forever?"

4.2. The "Wasted Work" Argument

A producer above Tim objected that work was being done that "some or even most players would never see." Tim tried to explain this was an inherent and necessary consequence of non-linear design. If someone does a pacifist playthrough, they'll never see death animations. If someone never talks to certain NPCs, they'll never see those dialogues. That's not waste — that's the point.

4.3. The Outer Worlds Companion Compromise

This "wasted work" argument directly affected The Outer Worlds. Tim originally wanted companions to be more deeply tied to choice and consequence — requiring minimum Leadership skill to recruit, limiting companion count through perks or skill unlocks. He was talked out of it because "we're doing a lot of work on these companions and it would be awful if someone made a character who couldn't experience it."

Tim still regrets this compromise. Big consequences for player choices make games more replayable, especially when players compare experiences online and discover that companions like Parvati wouldn't join — or would leave — based on specific player actions.

5. The "What Other Game Does That?" Problem

Even with non-linearity now accepted, any truly novel feature faces the same pattern of resistance. The first pushback Tim hears is always: "what other game does that?" If he can't name one, people don't want to do it.

Tim's counter-argument: you're the same person asking me for unique hooks. How can a game have a unique hook if every feature must already exist in another game?

Some colleagues have gone further, arguing that if no other game has done it, "there must be a reason — it must be a bad idea." Tim has found a workaround: citing movies or other media that used similar concepts. Somehow, if a movie did it, it suddenly becomes a viable game idea again.

6. The Core Lesson

Non-linearity has graduated from "radical idea that must be defended" to "accepted design approach." But the underlying dynamic — resistance to anything unfamiliar — persists. Every novel idea will face an uphill battle. The only difference is that non-linearity has enough successful precedents that it no longer needs to be one of them.

7. References

• Tim Cain. YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MsQItsj-qc