I’m not sure if I should write this. I don’t even like The Pause. With maybe one exception.
In the world of branching dialogue, there are a few theories as to how to design and write dialogue choices for players. This blog isn’t about any of them. It’s about something undefined, as far as I can tell. A narrative design verb that’s usually bad that I’ve been forced to acknowledge can have value.
The Pause
In The Pause, a player is invited to choose between 2-3 dialogue options that are meaningless in the larger game. If you’ve played games for as long as I have, and as far afield into different genres, you’ve seen this.
“How are you feeling? You took a nasty fall back there.”
- Not great.
- Ow! My head!
- Where am I?
Seen one of those? That’s The Pause. I made up the name. The Pause™. Maybe you know what it is called elsewhere. Leave a comment.
The Pause is not Rails
The method I’ve experienced and worked inside the most is “Rails.” The Telltale diaspora (former Telltale Games writers) develops 2-3 major character themes or motivations, which become the backbone of the major choices the player faces. A rail tends to be primal and motivational, stuff like “I will fight to protect my family” versus “I will run to stay ahead of the decay rotting the world.” Rails pull for drama, inviting a player to roleplay their character along a few (hopefully) interesting paths.
My memories of Rails games are largely positive, though Rails pull for a certain level of drama that I’m not sure is the single absolute best way to deliver interactive story. The Pause uses roleplaying intent for its choices, but Pauses don’t have the branching feedback or larger macro branching Rails get you. In the example above, if you chose “Not great.” for your response, you might get a line or two max for that branch before you’re back to the main dialogue.
Fun fact: apparently internet search will struggle to find you much info about Rails. Better sign up for that newsletter. Anyway, this blog is not about Rails.
The Pause is not CRPG Trees
The other major dialogue choice model we see today is the Computer RPG model from the 80s and 90s. You’re probably most familiar with this model because of franchises evolved from that space, like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Outer Worlds, and Baldur’s Gate.
CRPG dialogue choice trees tend to be more branch-y and explore-y. A tree of 5 dialogue options, each with four dialogue options, and there are some skill checks and quest updates tucked in there. You navigate it like exploring a cave, just like a conversation you might have with a real human. That was sarcasm, but there are things to like in trees. When it’s an interesting character, they’re genuinely engaging. Finding treasure in a tree can be fun, whether it’s a special conditional option, a passed skill check, or a fun dialogue path where the writer was really feeling it.
The Pause might get you some of the informational mining available in a CRPG tree, but again, it’s its own thing.
By the way, CRPG trees are not off the hook over here. It’s an antiquated model that is effective primarily because of the sheer force of will of developers. But this blog is not about trees.
The Pause is usually not very good
If you’ve encountered it, you know what doesn’t work about the Pause. It’s irrelevant. No expressiveness, no branching to offer the player feedback. It doesn’t leave much with the player’s possibility space except a flash of choice and a button press, and the flash of choice quickly becomes irrelevant once a player gets used to it. It’s barely a tick above a flashing “click to advance dialogue” icon, basically a speed bump.
Look, the dialogue choice models above are old and in need of a refresh. Arguably, both CRPG trees and Rails can be guilty of Pauses within their structures. Not every Rail choice gets to be a dramatic banger, and Telltale games are full of choices.
But The Pause is uniquely clunky, because it doesn’t have any of the upsides of other systems.
The Pause has a sibling you already hate
The truth is, even before our current genAI trash era, we’ve been getting Pauses force fed to us by SaaS, mobile operating systems, and social media platforms. Look at this junk choice array from a popular business networking platform:
Vile. I would love to meet the designer of this interaction. I have some questions about their larger worldview.
What if The Pause was good?
The Pause’s failings are all in its bland choices and feedback-free execution. It doesn’t have to be this way.
You can do a Pause well; look at Nintendo! I have a favorite example from Pokémon Sun and Moon. Once you’ve picked your starter, your mom freaks out. Paraphrased from memory:
“Look at this adorable little guy! Why did you pick him?”
- Because it’s cute.
- Because it’s cool.
Magnificent. That’s fun and expressive, and it’s sort of a joke if you look at it sideways. Even if Mom never brings it up again, the choice knows why we choose our starter Pokémon.
You could even pull this off if each of the choices expressed the same underlying thing. If all your dialogue options are smart enough to know we ALL hate the NPC and desperately want to tell him to fuck off, put ’em in The Pause.
Likewise, a Pause where a player gets to participate in a joke can work. This one requires that someone funny is on the team, and that they have the time to actually implement it. This is why it rarely happens. Send examples if you know of any.
I don’t actually love how Rails pull for weighty, divisive choices where you have to choose to be either a whimsical adventurer or a stoic wife guy. Every choice being either information mining in a conversation or expressing your “homestead” or “horizon” rails is clunky in its own way. Pauses can be expressive without the melodrama. No one gets eaten by zombies after a Pause choice.
The Pause is gameplay
There are also literal ludic qualities to The Pause that we have to acknowledge. I recently had a conversation where a game writer pointed out that The Pause isn’t devoid of player experience. It does literally engage the player as part of a game. You see the interface. You read the choices. You have the internal reaction to the prompt (if you aren’t just clicking something to advance). You have to press a button.
Maybe: The Pause as validation
I have this theory that games need more validation choices. That is, the player needs not only to have the illusion of choice inside narrative and game design; they also need opportunities to explain themselves and evaluate how things went. A way, in essence, to tell the story of their gameplay. This is what we do in real life. Things happen, we decide what they mean, and we tell stories about them until we die, for better and worse. I think if we crack this one, people will be less obsessed with min-maxing and save scumming.
Inside that human experience, a Pause is an opportunity to check in with the player. It’s a low stakes choice that lets you express an opinion about what’s happening.
Of course, it still has to be relevant and interesting to work. Yeah, sorry about that. There’s no secret here, just doing the work, testing, leaving some space for the system to surprise the player.
Comments
Join the conversation on Bluesky
What wonders of technology; will this insightful comment show up on the blog? (this is a test)