Game design: Story driven versus freedom of action
by Kyrah Abattoir · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 04/12/2009 (4:51 pm) · 11 replies
All of us that where or still are gamers remember at least one of those games that where like embarking on a mad train, those kind of games that push you violently along a dramatic storyline, build up the pressure on you, make you think you just escaped this trap right on time (the typical indana jones movie example would be how he always manage to roll past the stone door, right before it crushes him).
Those storytelling systems are very powerful and heart pounding for the player, however they have a really hard time (in my opinion) working in an online setting.
Sure it might still work in a solo or a cooperative game, but the high replayability required by persistent online worlds kind of kill those scripted yet thrilling events.
Now here is my question, the more you give freedome to the players to shape the universe they play in, the less triggered events seems possible. But can players create by themselve a storyline as entertaining as one written for them?
A lot of peoples seems not to immerse themselve enough into the game to see past the feel that "this player fucked up my character! i hate him"
There seems to be a certain detachment in many players who refuse to put their head into the game, instead of being a mere pupetter.
Maybe it's only my feeling but when the game backstab them to make the story bounce back they seems to accept it and enjoy it in a way (emotions, hate against the evil arch nemesis who killed the woman their character love) and kind of use it as a way to drive them into the path for revenge (that we have setup as part of the storyline).
Hell, i know i caught myself crying on a good epic story with a dramatic resolution.
But can the players create this by themselve? Does anybody has some experience in the domain of "players spontaneously create an epic storyline" ?
Those storytelling systems are very powerful and heart pounding for the player, however they have a really hard time (in my opinion) working in an online setting.
Sure it might still work in a solo or a cooperative game, but the high replayability required by persistent online worlds kind of kill those scripted yet thrilling events.
Now here is my question, the more you give freedome to the players to shape the universe they play in, the less triggered events seems possible. But can players create by themselve a storyline as entertaining as one written for them?
A lot of peoples seems not to immerse themselve enough into the game to see past the feel that "this player fucked up my character! i hate him"
There seems to be a certain detachment in many players who refuse to put their head into the game, instead of being a mere pupetter.
Maybe it's only my feeling but when the game backstab them to make the story bounce back they seems to accept it and enjoy it in a way (emotions, hate against the evil arch nemesis who killed the woman their character love) and kind of use it as a way to drive them into the path for revenge (that we have setup as part of the storyline).
Hell, i know i caught myself crying on a good epic story with a dramatic resolution.
But can the players create this by themselve? Does anybody has some experience in the domain of "players spontaneously create an epic storyline" ?
About the author
3D artist, programmer, game designer, jack of all trades, master of none.
#2
Greater pressures against you reaching your goal. The open world game would need a goal shared by the character and player, and as the game progressed the pressures would have to become greater--forcing the player to go to greater lengths or more daring lengths to overcome them. What worked last time won't work this time...
Sounds possible.
04/13/2009 (12:07 am)
Irreversible change. That is one thing that makes a story dramatic, concept of events making irreversible change. An open world game would need that.Greater pressures against you reaching your goal. The open world game would need a goal shared by the character and player, and as the game progressed the pressures would have to become greater--forcing the player to go to greater lengths or more daring lengths to overcome them. What worked last time won't work this time...
Sounds possible.
#3
With the current state of MMOs, you're never going to have events or characters of any significance, because nothing is really happening. The worlds are essentially static and no lasting history is being created -- they are all like the movie Groundhog Day: The same exact quests, the same exact NPCs, the same exact locations, over and over. Nothing ever changes, so what's there to tell about? I.e. no story.
I'd like to see locations that don't instantly repopulate, unique items are that actually unique (and can be lost, stolen, destroyed, etc.), characters that can age and die (permanently*), towns and cities that grow (or shrink), etc. etc.
* In particular, many of our best stories revolve around death and/or loss. But when these are reduced to mere inconveniences, as in most MMOs, there's not really anything worth telling.
04/16/2009 (5:09 pm)
"...Irreversible change..." Completely agree! In particular, the players must be able to directly affect change in the world and in turn be affected.With the current state of MMOs, you're never going to have events or characters of any significance, because nothing is really happening. The worlds are essentially static and no lasting history is being created -- they are all like the movie Groundhog Day: The same exact quests, the same exact NPCs, the same exact locations, over and over. Nothing ever changes, so what's there to tell about? I.e. no story.
I'd like to see locations that don't instantly repopulate, unique items are that actually unique (and can be lost, stolen, destroyed, etc.), characters that can age and die (permanently*), towns and cities that grow (or shrink), etc. etc.
* In particular, many of our best stories revolve around death and/or loss. But when these are reduced to mere inconveniences, as in most MMOs, there's not really anything worth telling.
#4
But for storytelling in an MMO to move forward, what needs to occur is an advancement in dynamic content generation. It's not good enough to simply spit out objects and cookie-cutter NPCs inside generated instances that don't affect the larger world because they aren't really part of it.
What needs to happen is that an MMO must be built from the ground up with the systems, data structures, and intent to provide this kind of thing. It's something I've been working at for years, and it's not getting any easier ;)
If the world acts more intelligently towards the player- and even towards the NPC, then it's two steps closer to meeting the goal. The next step would be to be able to spawn intelligent content in the context it's needed, which allows us developers to create "story management" features that provide players with props and actors that react to the situation we're in- they were created for it.
@Kevin: You're right. Death means nothing in current MMOs. Actually, it would be easier for developers to say "incapacitated" instead of "dead", and then they wouldn't have to explain away resurrection, because you'd simply wake up in an aid-station or hospital or shack somewhere.
The balance is lost when a player or NPC dies twenty times a day, but the solution to most quests is to kill. A good solution would be a voluntary permadeath (VPD) system.
Basically, you can set up super-rare achievements or quests that require the wager of a character's life. If a player wants to go for it, they actually agree to it, and if they die in the course of the quest or achievement attempt, then they lose their character.
The issue with this is that permadeath is usually something that runs players off, and making it voluntary for super-rare achievements won't really line anyone up. What can be done to sweeten the pot for players would be things like allowing certain items to "inherit" to the next character created, the increase of certain skills (proportionally?) on that next character, a monument to fallen players somewhere so that they're part of the world, and even (in my game's case) a way to integrate their "story" into the larger world. There's other things to do as well, but the point is that if you just make characters die without incentive, then players will walk.
But we don't want them to walk, because death is such a big part of story, and a great opportunity for them to become part of it forever...
04/16/2009 (10:20 pm)
I don't think that all changes should be irreversible- otherwise it's not truly as dynamic as everyone would like it to be. But I don't think you meant it as absolute as it came across either.But for storytelling in an MMO to move forward, what needs to occur is an advancement in dynamic content generation. It's not good enough to simply spit out objects and cookie-cutter NPCs inside generated instances that don't affect the larger world because they aren't really part of it.
What needs to happen is that an MMO must be built from the ground up with the systems, data structures, and intent to provide this kind of thing. It's something I've been working at for years, and it's not getting any easier ;)
If the world acts more intelligently towards the player- and even towards the NPC, then it's two steps closer to meeting the goal. The next step would be to be able to spawn intelligent content in the context it's needed, which allows us developers to create "story management" features that provide players with props and actors that react to the situation we're in- they were created for it.
@Kevin: You're right. Death means nothing in current MMOs. Actually, it would be easier for developers to say "incapacitated" instead of "dead", and then they wouldn't have to explain away resurrection, because you'd simply wake up in an aid-station or hospital or shack somewhere.
The balance is lost when a player or NPC dies twenty times a day, but the solution to most quests is to kill. A good solution would be a voluntary permadeath (VPD) system.
Basically, you can set up super-rare achievements or quests that require the wager of a character's life. If a player wants to go for it, they actually agree to it, and if they die in the course of the quest or achievement attempt, then they lose their character.
The issue with this is that permadeath is usually something that runs players off, and making it voluntary for super-rare achievements won't really line anyone up. What can be done to sweeten the pot for players would be things like allowing certain items to "inherit" to the next character created, the increase of certain skills (proportionally?) on that next character, a monument to fallen players somewhere so that they're part of the world, and even (in my game's case) a way to integrate their "story" into the larger world. There's other things to do as well, but the point is that if you just make characters die without incentive, then players will walk.
But we don't want them to walk, because death is such a big part of story, and a great opportunity for them to become part of it forever...
#5
So the question would be, why do MMO's shut down? Limited storylines? Static environments and enemies that can't adapt to a new generation? I mean, Star Wars had, what...3...4 main enemies including the emperor.
I'd say that one of the most important elements of today's MMO's should be dynamic storylines and enemies. It was great that Darth Mal was defaeted, keep it going, Darth Vader was in line to take his place. One problem relaces another, some problems take years (real-time)to solve, main enemies are defeated and replaced by their son, daughter, someone they went to "Evil Academy" with, a character that the player's never expected to turn evil, SOMETHING to keep the story going. I don't know, maybe the world got nuked, changing the look of the environment but players can do things that will gradually improve the environment and see the results. That might be one of many elements in an MMO. As I said, I'm not much of an MMO player but it sounds like they have the potential to be the long-lasting finacial provider an indie team would need.
P.S.
All of the ideas posted here are good ideas.
04/17/2009 (3:02 am)
Quote:...and why are the servers being shut down? MMO creators/designers need to find a way to make the stories so dynamic, so immersive, so adapting-to-the-times that this never happens. If I start an MMO, I want my grandkids to continue building on it and there's as well. If Hollywood can bring GI.Joe, Transformers, and Star Wars back to life, the fashion industry can bring bell-bottoms and butterfly collars back to life, and the music industry can remake old songs, why can't MMO creators/designers find a way to not only capture today's gamer, but tommorow's gamer as well? I'm not much of an MMO player but I ain't goin' into business expectin' to be out-o-business 5 - 10 yrs later. Whats the point of goin' into business in the first place?
An MMO is a business with a continuing life from the time the designer first thinks up a fuzzy idea for the gameworld until five or ten years down the line when the last server is shut down.
So the question would be, why do MMO's shut down? Limited storylines? Static environments and enemies that can't adapt to a new generation? I mean, Star Wars had, what...3...4 main enemies including the emperor.
I'd say that one of the most important elements of today's MMO's should be dynamic storylines and enemies. It was great that Darth Mal was defaeted, keep it going, Darth Vader was in line to take his place. One problem relaces another, some problems take years (real-time)to solve, main enemies are defeated and replaced by their son, daughter, someone they went to "Evil Academy" with, a character that the player's never expected to turn evil, SOMETHING to keep the story going. I don't know, maybe the world got nuked, changing the look of the environment but players can do things that will gradually improve the environment and see the results. That might be one of many elements in an MMO. As I said, I'm not much of an MMO player but it sounds like they have the potential to be the long-lasting finacial provider an indie team would need.
P.S.
All of the ideas posted here are good ideas.
#6
Of course you can't just design a classic game and toss permanent death into it, it has to be considered for every added feature of the game, for every 100 players that will use it wisely there is one a**hole that will try to abuse it and it only take that much to make it suddently less enjoyable.
Current charater building systems are mostly uncompatible with a perma death for many reasons:
-It takes weeks to months to build a character that can survive in PVP
-Ancient players are usually always the most powerfull characters (ageism).
-Players expect most advantages they get ingame to be permanent (levels, items, special powers)
The problem i believe is also that current MMORPGs tend to try to cater to the singleplayer rpg players aswell as the multiplayer fanatics. The problem to me lay in the fact that singleplayer games usually involve a deep and twisted story where the player in the centerpiece.
In a multiplayer setting it doesn't really make much sense, okay we can understand that every single player of the AoC game is a former slave, we can also understand that then they got the mark of acheron.
Now they ALL have been chosen by King conan to defeat his arch enemy... UMM WHAT?
It actually baffle me today that back then this storytelling didn't shock me.
On the other end of the spectrum of MMORPG examples is "Wurm online", for what i've been reading there is basically no story made by developpers, and servers are being released virtually empty of any buildings or cities, only wild islands that the players are free to conquer, shape (yeah shovels actually have a persistent effect there) and well basically everything seems player driven, there is only a few basic quests in the form of a tutorial for the new players.
Another problem i see, even if players are the actual "creators" of the history of the game world, if nobody write down what happen or keep a record of events, then it's as good as no storyline at all.
It should be possible to encourage players to keep track of events in some way (Sociolotron had a system where players could run a printing press to basically design and print newspapers)
04/17/2009 (3:35 am)
Actually i think players aren't too "soft" to endure a permanent character death, i think current games tend to "teach" them to react this way.Of course you can't just design a classic game and toss permanent death into it, it has to be considered for every added feature of the game, for every 100 players that will use it wisely there is one a**hole that will try to abuse it and it only take that much to make it suddently less enjoyable.
Current charater building systems are mostly uncompatible with a perma death for many reasons:
-It takes weeks to months to build a character that can survive in PVP
-Ancient players are usually always the most powerfull characters (ageism).
-Players expect most advantages they get ingame to be permanent (levels, items, special powers)
The problem i believe is also that current MMORPGs tend to try to cater to the singleplayer rpg players aswell as the multiplayer fanatics. The problem to me lay in the fact that singleplayer games usually involve a deep and twisted story where the player in the centerpiece.
In a multiplayer setting it doesn't really make much sense, okay we can understand that every single player of the AoC game is a former slave, we can also understand that then they got the mark of acheron.
Now they ALL have been chosen by King conan to defeat his arch enemy... UMM WHAT?
It actually baffle me today that back then this storytelling didn't shock me.
On the other end of the spectrum of MMORPG examples is "Wurm online", for what i've been reading there is basically no story made by developpers, and servers are being released virtually empty of any buildings or cities, only wild islands that the players are free to conquer, shape (yeah shovels actually have a persistent effect there) and well basically everything seems player driven, there is only a few basic quests in the form of a tutorial for the new players.
Another problem i see, even if players are the actual "creators" of the history of the game world, if nobody write down what happen or keep a record of events, then it's as good as no storyline at all.
It should be possible to encourage players to keep track of events in some way (Sociolotron had a system where players could run a printing press to basically design and print newspapers)
#7
04/17/2009 (3:42 am)
Soap Operas!!!! If MMO's had storylines similar to Soap Operas, they'd last longer. How long has All My Childre or As The World Turns been around? Hell, I don't watch them and even I've heard of them. Creative writers with ever-changing/new characters and situations.
#8
04/17/2009 (5:07 am)
Well creating more of the same isn't just going to cut it, players can consume content at an absolutely rabid pace, so we need to find ways to make them produce more content by themselve.
#9
Sure, lets say the user can create a character/army, improve and change the character/army, embark on missions/adventures within the MMO that will dynamically create the history (for players 5 yrs from now to read about ie character profile) of their character/army, or even have other players as their enemies based on certain goals or objectives (maybe player A controls "Realm of the Doodlebugs" and you want it for whatever reason. Might be where the profile comes into play. You read the profile of character/army A and discover that they've been playing for n yrs with stats/capabilities you can't touch). Wheres the original plot? Why ,as the "top dog" player of the MMO, should I continue to play? Where are MY worthy opponents/mission/objectives?
This is where the MMO designers need to create ever-changing situations, introduce new, stronger, more challenging opponents tailored for the "top dogs". It's unfair to force the players to come up with their own characters/objectives foundation. I say give them a basis. Maybe let them create a character, drop them into an army as a peon, have them fight through the ranks of that army via objectives and battles VS other MMO players, have that army obliterated for what ever reason. New objective, seek out and recrute soldiers, scientists, assasins, scouts, or whatever for their own army. If successful, fight for domination of the realm/s. Add new weapons, capabilities, enemies (other than fellow MMO'ers fighting for the same realm/land), new-found realms/lands with a completely new set of all-of-thee-above. This is what will keep players playing, never knowing whats coming next.
Give them control over content...yes...to an extent. Make them responsible for creating insentive for continued play...no. Keep it creative, dynamic, and flexible.
Edit:
Please... no comments on the game idea. Again, I'm not an MMO player nor a story writer and it was off the top of my head so...
04/17/2009 (5:53 am)
I'm a fan of "putting control into the user's hands" as I am a web developer. However, the basis on which this content is created must be a common one ie "plot thickening" (...if thickening is a word). Sure, lets say the user can create a character/army, improve and change the character/army, embark on missions/adventures within the MMO that will dynamically create the history (for players 5 yrs from now to read about ie character profile) of their character/army, or even have other players as their enemies based on certain goals or objectives (maybe player A controls "Realm of the Doodlebugs" and you want it for whatever reason. Might be where the profile comes into play. You read the profile of character/army A and discover that they've been playing for n yrs with stats/capabilities you can't touch). Wheres the original plot? Why ,as the "top dog" player of the MMO, should I continue to play? Where are MY worthy opponents/mission/objectives?
This is where the MMO designers need to create ever-changing situations, introduce new, stronger, more challenging opponents tailored for the "top dogs". It's unfair to force the players to come up with their own characters/objectives foundation. I say give them a basis. Maybe let them create a character, drop them into an army as a peon, have them fight through the ranks of that army via objectives and battles VS other MMO players, have that army obliterated for what ever reason. New objective, seek out and recrute soldiers, scientists, assasins, scouts, or whatever for their own army. If successful, fight for domination of the realm/s. Add new weapons, capabilities, enemies (other than fellow MMO'ers fighting for the same realm/land), new-found realms/lands with a completely new set of all-of-thee-above. This is what will keep players playing, never knowing whats coming next.
Give them control over content...yes...to an extent. Make them responsible for creating insentive for continued play...no. Keep it creative, dynamic, and flexible.
Edit:
Please... no comments on the game idea. Again, I'm not an MMO player nor a story writer and it was off the top of my head so...
#10
Imagine an mmorpg where gamers aren't pitted against ai or npc's, (some is still good) but as a country they are divided into kingdoms and pitted against other players. The map is static, so castles and bridges and such can be stormed and claimed. Like the boardgame RISK.
The story evolves naturally in this way, with emotions not staged but genuine (The Red Kingdom has stolen Castle Keep! We must get it back!), and when any kingdom becomes overwhelmingly powerful the game developers can think of creative ways to tip the scales back (aligning new players to opposing forces, etc)
04/18/2009 (8:26 am)
Here's something that will generate continued interest in a storyless game: Imagine an mmorpg where gamers aren't pitted against ai or npc's, (some is still good) but as a country they are divided into kingdoms and pitted against other players. The map is static, so castles and bridges and such can be stormed and claimed. Like the boardgame RISK.
The story evolves naturally in this way, with emotions not staged but genuine (The Red Kingdom has stolen Castle Keep! We must get it back!), and when any kingdom becomes overwhelmingly powerful the game developers can think of creative ways to tip the scales back (aligning new players to opposing forces, etc)
#11
04/18/2009 (9:20 am)
Yeah it's an option, at the same time it's extrememly difficult to keep "working" because a dominant group of players tend to become more and more dominant, a fail story about this is on shadowbane where large groups declared ownership of leveling zones for newbies, asking for money to new players to have the "right" to progress in the game basically. 
Torque Owner Mike Rowley
Mike Rowley
From my own personal point of view, I never liked the side stories. I'm not a "story person". I like to explore and see all the eyecandy, so never really got involved as deeply.