>>724057018
I think this may be a difference in what we want out of an RPG. FWIW I've replayed a bunch of games including some more freeform RPGs. Morrowind might be one of the more freeform ones because you can essentially ignore the main story and piss off to do whatever. But that's why it works, the storytelling mainly comes from your imagination and not the game. Daggerfall is an even more extreme example of that.
On the other hand, you have games that are telling a specific story. Sure you can have player choices influence it, but at the end of the day WOTR for instance will always have the same setting, premise, main characters, and themes.
I just don't see much value in "what if you can become a swarm" and telling a half-assed "Swarm version" of the story, beyond novelty value. As in "woah I can eat everybody I knew from the other playthrough", yeah it's neat but what storytelling value does this have? Now imagine if there was another RPG where you start out as a shambling swarm of worms and the whole story is built around that. It could be much more interesting I think.
But if your objective isn't to tell a specific story then that's another thing. I guess what you're looking for is more of a story the player makes by playing the game, which is not how most RPGs are at all. They want to pretend they are but they aren't. Games like that are, again stuff like Daggerfall, most people bounce off it because it's essentially playing pretend. Stories people write from Dwarf Fortress games are another example. Whereas the OP pic is more like "how can we add Player Choice(tm) to this predetermined story I already wrote".
>how would you design your ideal RPG?
Yeah that's what I mean, there isn't one. Maybe you're thinking of a "perfect game" that does everything all the time but I'd rather have several different games that tell different stories. Even though there is an appeal to the "you can do anything" type game, most RPGs aren't that
