next »

[FatHat]

How do we tell a complex story while allowing the player to exercise meaningful choices?

The standard approach right now is this: the story is what it is, but we'll give you the choice of how you go about completing the objectives. e.g. you can figure out how you're going to get to the castle, but in the end you're going to the castle whether you like it or not, because the story won't progress otherwise.

There are some good things about this.

• As a designer, you get to tell a complex story without worrying about the player fucking it up
• As a player, you don't have to think too hard

This has terrible consequences for the gameplay though. Story limits gameplay options by its very nature. There are characters that can't be killed, and things that can't be done because doing so would break the game. If I kill the mayor and he's in a cut scene later, I've broken the story. Better not let me do that.

As games get more realistic, this has become more of a problem. Everything looks very real, but it doesn't act real. I can shoot a locked wood door with a rocket launcher and nothing happens. The problem isn't a technical one -- writing some code to break the door would be pretty easy. It's a design problem. If I can break into any room without talking to so-and-so to getting the key, the designer cant control how the game progresses. Freedom is a bitch as a designer.

Conventional wisdom offers a common prescription: branch the story. Have two different scenarios -- one for if I break the door, and another for if I don't. Sounds reasonable, but this is impractical for anything other than short form games, because the possible outcomes increase exponentially.

So what to do?

I'm not sure if I've convinced anyone of this, but I genuinely think that gameplay and conventional story clash in unresolvable ways.

Here's the root of the problem: we're trying to force-feed players a manufactured story. Why? No seriously: why? Nobody has a good answer for this. It's just what we do. What do we gain by this? We didn't always make games this way.

Here's what I think we should do: allow players to create the story. Give the players goals to pursue, definitely, but the story should be something created as the player progresses towards those goals, not something the player consumes in order to attain a goal.

This isn't even a very revolutionary idea. A lot of the most popular games of all time follow this model: Civilization, for instance, or The Sims. Or dwarf fortress.

I think games should work like improv comedy. Improv comedy is fascinating to me, because it's essentially compressing the creative process into a very short time frame. It's able to do this because it has some important rules that make doing that possible.  The most important rule is this: "Yes, And...".

The idea is this: if an actor creates a frame, you never negate it. You go along with it and then add something. If I say "Gosh, my hitler mustache sure is growing in nicely." you don't say "You don't have a hitler mustache". Even if you don't like my frame, it doesn't matter -- negating it ruins the scene. You have to add to it. Hopefully in a funny way, but at the very least in a constructive way.

Consider the game and the player as the two actors in an improv scene. They have to create a story collaboratively. If I say "fuck it, I'm shooting the mayor", the game story can't say "no you don't, because... he has an invincibility forcefield!" It ruins the scene. The game should say "Yes, and... now the police are after you!!! FUCKING RUN!".

The thing is, if you do that, the story can't be prescribed. You can't plan it ahead of time. It has to evolve from the gameplay. It's a scary thought. It requires creating worlds more than storylines. It's hard, I'll admit, but its better than telling players how to live.

[gunmaggot]

I dunno, I'm gay-gay for gameplay but irresolvable clashes with story are fine ... if you design the game right.  Whatever 'right' means, I don't know.  Get off my goddamn back!
Like, some gameplay design choices clash with other gameplay design choices - never mind story! - but I never heard anyone talk about how gameplay needs to be designed according to some mystic 7-point system.  Well, I guess some people think it does.  Like Chris Crawford.  But he's awful.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think the way story and gameplay compromise each other is any more of a challenging or notable issue than ... any other design aspect of a game.  
People talk a lot about how much stories in games suck and rightly point out the way gameplay and story can intersect in retarded ways, and they're totally right (I think most of the 'successful' attempts like Bioshock and Braid are balls-out shitty, never mind Final Fantasy X) , but I don't think stories are a particularly interesting weak link.  A LOT of things about games suck.  GAMEPLAY in games sucks.  Stories in movies suck!  Music in music sucks!
So basically what I am saying is:  Don't suck.  I did a year of high school drama and I can tell you that whatever interesting things might come out of your proposal, the sour reek of saltwater suck is sure to come with it, and it is going to come hard.

[Captain_404]

we're trying to force-feed players a manufactured story. Why?

Stories help to give a game an overarching sense of place. They tie it to reality.

Here's a pretty sparse example: say we have a game where you are a green dot and you fire a red line at a black dot. This action is not very interesting. However, if we add just a tiny bit of text before this action, something like, "Shoot the mayor!" the game becomes slightly more engaging. The player now is not only thinking about the game on a literal level (red line, black dot), but also on a metaphorical level, thus stimulating more levels of their brain at a time. I believe this principle holds true for any game, no matter how detailed the graphics or gameplay.

[Parthon]

gunmaggot: your entire contribution is "don't suck"? Thanks for the advice.

The problem with open ended designs is that either they are boring, or they are hard. There are the rare few games which are neither, like sim city, dwarf fortress and, to a lesser extent, GTA.

If you are in a situation where you can do anything, then everything becomes boring because there's no purpose. Jump off a bridge? Okay! Why? Who knows!!! The story gets thrown out in favour of a simulation, or a sandbox, and people LIKE stories. If they didn't like stories, novels would have died years ago in favour of non-fiction, as well as TV shows and movies without stories.

Is the major issue not with the story though, but in the illusion breaking way the story is forced on the player? The "indestructible wooden door" is a good example. If it were solid 4" steel, perhaps we wouldn't be so suprised by it. Perhaps if it required a 10 digit door code instead of a dinky little key, then it would be more suitable.

So if you want to tell a story, tell it, but tell it well, and don't get in the player's way. If you absolutely have to get in the player's way, do it properly and realistically. If you can kill the Mayor and he's needed later, game over or a billion cops. The player might not like it, but it's more reasonable.

It's mighty hard to make a good game that creates the story dynamically as the player plays. Even the best of them get boring after a while, and there's not really a story after all. The story is created by the player as they play the game, not by the game itself. Dwarf Fortress, Sim City, Civilisation etc don't have stories in them at all, just events. The player can turn those events into a story, but it's not intrinsic.

As for "The Ultimate Game" that's 100% emergent where players make their own stories as they play: Life. Life is 100% emergent with dynamic gameplay and infinite choices. Notice how we tend to play computer games to get away from that freedom?

[gunmaggot]

gunmaggot: your entire contribution is "don't suck"? Thanks for the advice.

Helping is good.

[Alex Vostrov]

Are you familiar with Chris Crawford's work?  He's done quite a bit of thinking on the very problem that you describe.  Here are a few links to get you started:

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Lilan/inimical.html
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Lilan/plot.html
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Lilan/interactivizing.html

In general, his library is a treasure trove of game design wisdom.  I'd suggest to just go to  http://www.erasmatazz.com/Library.html and start reading.

[Parthon]

I just browsed Chris Crawford's stuff, and it's quite interesting.

I would summise it as: it's not the stories that are the problem, but how they are told within the construct of a game. The railroading/limiting/restrictive aspect of story-games is a BAD form of storytelling. Like FatHat said, it comes from a need for a story writer to tell the story.

If we dissect a story though, you have setting, characters, plot and themes. Only the plot, and perhaps the characters, requires railroading. The setting and theme of a story should already be expressed throughout the game. Characters can also be placed in a game without much of a problem. It's plot that's the irritating factor. The requirement for plot to go a certain way is what's restrictive. We end up with the  game | plot | game | plot  segmentation. Honestly, a game for a player is all about creating their own plot. As much as they want to experience a story, they also want to participate in the creation of the plot. Otherwise they'd just go watch TV, it's a lot cheaper.

So the question then becomes: How do we enable the player to be active participants of creating the plot? Games are the only medium that the viewer can actively participate in, and that's what makes it so powerful.

So instead of seeing games as a bunch of game mechanics with a story draped over it, look at it more like a device that allows the player to make his own plot from your story.

ps. Life still is the best plot creator in terms of depth, but the plots that it can make are still quite boring, compared to the things that we could come up with for games.

[Alex Vostrov]

Speaking of plot.  I recently read Stephen King's "On Writing", and he considers plot to be the bluntest instrument in the writer's arsenal.  It's much more subtle and natural to let the characters' interactions create a story rather then impose a series of events top-down.

This suggests that offering plot to the storytelling gods might not be that great of a sacrifice.

[gunmaggot]

I just browsed Chris Crawford's stuff, and it's quite interesting.

I would summise it as: it's not the stories that are the problem, but how they are told within the construct of a game. The railroading/limiting/restrictive aspect of story-games is a BAD form of storytelling. Like FatHat said, it comes from a need for a story writer to tell the story.

If we dissect a story though, you have setting, characters, plot and themes. Only the plot, and perhaps the characters, requires railroading. The setting and theme of a story should already be expressed throughout the game. Characters can also be placed in a game without much of a problem. It's plot that's the irritating factor. The requirement for plot to go a certain way is what's restrictive. We end up with the  game | plot | game | plot  segmentation. Honestly, a game for a player is all about creating their own plot. As much as they want to experience a story, they also want to participate in the creation of the plot. Otherwise they'd just go watch TV, it's a lot cheaper.

So the question then becomes: How do we enable the player to be active participants of creating the plot? Games are the only medium that the viewer can actively participate in, and that's what makes it so powerful.

So instead of seeing games as a bunch of game mechanics with a story draped over it, look at it more like a device that allows the player to make his own plot from your story.

ps. Life still is the best plot creator in terms of depth, but the plots that it can make are still quite boring, compared to the things that we could come up with for games.

So basically you are saying 'Don't suck'.

I wanted to just leave that as a pithy, one-sentence reply but I actually liked your post and thought it was pretty well considered so here is a second sentence.

[Parthon]

Pretty much "Don't Suck!", but that always applies.

I'd prefer to explore the more interesting arena of "How to not suck."

In this case: Design the game around allowing the player to create the plot.

How to do that is an entire series of subjects by themselves.

[FatHat]

If we dissect a story though, you have setting, characters, plot and themes. Only the plot, and perhaps the characters, requires railroading. The setting and theme of a story should already be expressed throughout the game. Characters can also be placed in a game without much of a problem. It's plot that's the irritating factor. The requirement for plot to go a certain way is what's restrictive. We end up with the  game | plot | game | plot  segmentation. Honestly, a game for a player is all about creating their own plot. As much as they want to experience a story, they also want to participate in the creation of the plot. Otherwise they'd just go watch TV, it's a lot cheaper.

So the question then becomes: How do we enable the player to be active participants of creating the plot? Games are the only medium that the viewer can actively participate in, and that's what makes it so powerful.

So instead of seeing games as a bunch of game mechanics with a story draped over it, look at it more like a device that allows the player to make his own plot from your story.

Thanks. This is what I was trying to say, but you put it a lot more succinctly.

[FatHat]

we're trying to force-feed players a manufactured story. Why?

Stories help to give a game an overarching sense of place. They tie it to reality.

Here's a pretty sparse example: say we have a game where you are a green dot and you fire a red line at a black dot. This action is not very interesting. However, if we add just a tiny bit of text before this action, something like, "Shoot the mayor!" the game becomes slightly more engaging. The player now is not only thinking about the game on a literal level (red line, black dot), but also on a metaphorical level, thus stimulating more levels of their brain at a time. I believe this principle holds true for any game, no matter how detailed the graphics or gameplay.

I don't disagree with anything you said, other than the implication that those elements make it a story based game. I'm not suggesting the gaming equivalent of formalist paintings, I just mean we shouldn't be tied to having very specific plot points. Setting/characters/themes and goals (to a point) should be supplied by the designer, but plot should be created by the player's actions.

[s0]

The game ArmA (Armed Assault) has a "dynamic" campaign where a failed mission doesn't mean "Game Over". Instead, a new mission is procedurally generated based on your current situation within the war that the game simulates, which, in turn, is based on the specific outcome of your missions. There is a very loose overarching story and certain "givens", but pretty much all the specifics are completely emergent. Some military flight sims do this too.

Unfortunately, these hardcore simulation type games are rarely looked to for inspiration by developers working outside of the simulation genre, even though there's a lot of things that could be implemented in less "hardcore" games.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

my thought on this subject is i don't really like when games try to make choices "meaningful". every time it's been tried it's resulted in ridiculous games, usually with a moral way to play the game and an immoral way (fallout series, baldur's gate, advent rising, ogre battle, etc.). perhaps the game that seems to have done it best (though i haven't finished the game yet) is fable 2. but even there, all the choices result in is some points on some meta karma reputation system. how is that meaningful, to move a number up and down a karma slider? who cares? the choice of what class you play as in baldur's gate 2 is more "meaningful" than all the moral choices in the entire game.

so my advice would be to just give up the conceit that players want meaningful choices or that meaningful choices will make games better or more artistic. they won't, they've been tried to death and trying them some more won't work.

instead, i think it's better to focus on meaningful experiences, not meaningful choices.

[FatHat]

my thought on this subject is i don't really like when games try to make choices "meaningful". every time it's been tried it's resulted in ridiculous games, usually with a moral way to play the game and an immoral way (fallout series, baldur's gate, advent rising, ogre battle, etc.). perhaps the game that seems to have done it best (though i haven't finished the game yet) is fable 2. but even there, all the choices result in is some points on some meta karma reputation system. how is that meaningful, to move a number up and down a karma slider? who cares? the choice of what class you play as in baldur's gate 2 is more "meaningful" than all the moral choices in the entire game.

so my advice would be to just give up the conceit that players want meaningful choices or that meaningful choices will make games better or more artistic. they won't, they've been tried to death and trying them some more won't work.

instead, i think it's better to focus on meaningful experiences, not meaningful choices.

Well, by "meaningful" I don't mean the moral sense of this is life or death and it defines you as a person. I'm using meaningful in the sense that the choice actually has some measurable impact on the game world, and the characters within it. In that sense a meaningful choice could be whether you throw a birthday party for someone or not.

And agreed that things like karma sliders are dumb.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

ah, understandable. i still think such things aren't easy to do and attempts at them usually do more harm than good. to me the best meaningful choices are the choices that happen at the start of the game which affect the rest of the game. party selection in rpgs. weapon selection in shmups. character selection in fighting games. difficulty mode selection. which path you take in starfox (there were three). those are really the most meaningful choices in games that i've come across, they define how the rest of the game will play out. and those don't really affect the storyline at all, they're usually independent of it.

[Alex Vostrov]

Perhaps the problem is not attempting to create meaningful choices, but failing to back them up croperly.  In other words, the depth of the simulation that say KoTOR afforded to combat is not present in the moral system.

I don't think that we should stay away from meaningful choices, only that we shouldn't try to artificially inject meaning into something meaningless.  The problem with moral sliders is that at some level they're disingenuous.

[Aik]

The way simulation games like Dwarf Fortress create 'story' doesn't result in anything near the type of experience that you get with a narrative game. Neither is superior - you can tell a nonlinear story well and that's a great gaming experience. You can simulate the world well and something like a story will emerge from that. It's not like we overall have to choose one or the other.

Your examples of what's bad about attempts at nonlinear story show it being done poorly. Invisible forcefields don't exist in games like Fallout or Arcanum - you can kill whoever the hell you please and still reach the end of the game just fine. Hell, with Fallout you can skip 95% of the gameplay/story and finish the game in ten minutes - it does a very good job at nonlinear interactive storytelling.

The best solution to the storytelling problem is good design, not throwing out the entire genre in favour of simulation games. I don't find the stories that simulation games produce to be satisfying except in retrospect, after I've imposed some narrative on what's just happened in the game. That's great and all, but it's not what I want out of a game when 'story' is a factor in the experience.

[Dacke]

For me, linearity is often a very, very good thing.

If a game lacks a clear final goal (for example, getting to experience the ending) I very quickly grow frustrated with it. Do I keep playing the game for five minutes, hours, days or years? When do I know when it's "over" and time to move on.

If you have games with identical gameplay, one with a clear ending and one that is endless/sandbox. I will probably play the endless game less than an hour. The limited game I will likely play to the very end, even if the game is mediocre.

I get presented a challenge (this is why I play games, instead of watching TV) and get rewarded when completing it. If the game is completely linear I know that I have truly mastered the challenge when completing the game. I also know that I have gotten the full experience. I get a feeling of accomplishment, rather than a feeling of missing out on some of the experience and challenge ("What if I had kicked in that door?").

Add to this, that story-snippets are by far the most interesting reward you can be given.

Now, I have proven that linear story-driven games are the only that games should ever be made

[s0]

I get a feeling of accomplishment, rather than a feeling of missing out on some of the experience and challenge ("What if I had kicked in that door?").

Prime example of gaming OCD. I have a friend who's exactly like that. She says she can't play nonlinear games (and much less open-ended ones) because she absolutely has to see/complete 100% of the game.

I'm rather different in that respect, I like it when games force me to make permanent decisions, not even necessarily story-related, it can be something as simple as choosing which attack to unlearn in favor of a new one in Pokemon.

Also, I agree that an "emergent" plot can't possibly match a written one in terms of literary quality or the "interestingness" of the events that unfold (even though Dwarf Fortress comes pretty close in that respect), but just the fact that you, the player influence every aspect of the "story" through your actions makes it worthwhile. Besides, most written game stories suck anyway.