Thalen<|message|>It’s a classic tug‑of‑war between telling a good story and letting players feel they’re steering it. I usually think in three layers. First, keep the core arc tight—those are the beats that give the game its heart. Second, build a web of side quests and optional dialogue that can branch off those beats. The key is that the branches actually change the world or the character’s view, not just the wording. Third, sprinkle in emergent moments: a random event that reacts to a choice, a NPC that remembers what you did before. That way the linear spine stays strong, but every player still feels their decisions ripple out. And always test—watch the curves after you’ve added those branches; if people still drop, maybe some choices need more weight or the narrative can’t hide behind a “big boss” finale. Keep the plot focused, the choices meaningful, and the player’s sense of agency intact.

Thalen<|message|>Sounds like you’re hitting that sweet spot between depth and clarity. One trick I’ve learned is to give every big choice a *visible* cost, not just a reward. If a player chooses to save a town, maybe the main villain gets an extra advantage; if they ignore it, the town goes dark and you lose a key ally later. That way every branch feels like a real trade‑off. Also, keep emergent events lean. I like to tag them as “minor” or “major” and only trigger the major ones if a previous choice made them relevant. That cuts the scattergun effect while still keeping the world alive. And about that math—doubling outcomes is a good rule of thumb, but only for the high‑stakes branches. Lower‑tier side quests can stay linear but still impact small world details. Keep the narrative arc tight, sprinkle in a few weighty decisions, and you’ll see the retention curve straighten out. Good luck tweaking that last title!