Multiplayer Interactive-Fiction Game-Design Blog

The four pillars

2 October 2005

by Mike Rozak

The writeup for my Grand unified theory begins at the smallest components of avatar games, the sub-games available, and works its way up into quests and goals. While refining the writeup, I considered whether it was possible to start with a large view of the world and work down, and whether the same results occurred.

Working from goals on down

Imagine that you create a world...

• 
  Where: A virtual world.
  

• 
  What: They could, for example, run around and kill monsters.
  

• 
  Why: Why do players want to run around and kill monsters?
  

It would be easy for me to write an Eliza-like problem that asks players what goal they would like to fulfil and then display, "Poof! You fulfilled your goal." Technically, my "world" lets players fulfil their goals. However, there are some technicalities:

• 
  Players' goals should be fulfilled in ways they don't expect. See We don't always get what we want.
  
• 
  The amount of time and effort required to fulfil a goal should be approximately the amount of time and effort the player expects to spend fulfilling it. If a goal is too easy, such as the "Poof!" example, then players won't find the experience fun. If it's too difficult or tedious, players will likewise find fault.
  
• 
  Players should fulfil the goal in a means similar to how they expect. You can't kill the evil overlord by doing a jig, but combat or magic will work; everyone "knows" this. Of course, players in a science fiction setting will expect to fulfil goals in different ways than if they were in a fantasy setting; science fiction players will be upset if their ultimate goal is fulfilled with a bit of magic.
  
• 
  Players should be able to chose how they fulfil their goals, another reason why the "Poof!" example fails.
  
• 
  The game should ensure that players always have a few goals left to complete, otherwise they leave the world.
  

• 
  There should be a variety of actions that players can take. One could write a game where players could defeat the evil overlord merely by walking around, but repeatedly doing the same action over and over gets boring. Early computer games realised this and added jumping as another action, creating platformers. Adding shooting to a walking-and-jumping game produces a FPS.
  
• 
  Corollary: To complete a goal, players should be forced/encouraged to use a variety of actions. If a game can be completed entirely by walking, many players will only walk. They'll finish the game and say it was boring, even though hundreds of other fun actions were possible.
  
• 
  The actions should vary over time. See Sub-games with variation.
  
• 
  The actions should be synergistic, allowing them to be combined into even more varieties... such as a running long-jump.
  

Mix all the ingredients together, and behold: The same "grand unified theory" reappears... Except, approaching from this direction reveals that players don't have to be lead through sub-games by the nose, as my other GUT paper described.

• 
  Players can perform any actions (sub-games) they want to complete a goal. However, to prevent players from limiting themselves to just one activity and to adhere to the player's sense of realism, specific goals are easier to accomplish using specific actions and/or in a specific order. Almost any action or combination of actions could be used to complete the goal, but the they may take considerably more work.

  For example: To get the dragon's treasure, the players could (as expected) kill the dragon and then safely loot the treasure. Or, players could spend weeks digging a long hole into the back of the dragon's treasure hoard. Or, very patient players could wait for the dragon to die of old age.

  
  
• 
  Consequently, my "quest DNA" visualisation only shows the optimum paths. There are infinite ways to skin a cat (or dragon), a few are more efficient and quicker than others.
  

The four pillars

Now that I have clarified that point, keep "goals" and "sub-games" in mind, while I discuss a marketing topic.

At the moment, there are two commonly accepted "rules" for making a successful MMORPG:

• 
  Eye candy - The more eye candy (and new features) a MMORPG has, the more likely it is to be a success. Eye candy doesn't guarantee success, but it's strongly correlated. Any designer with the budget adds eye candy and a few new features.
  
• 
  Socialisation - Studies have shown that the more friends a player has in a virtual world, the less likely they are to leave, and (theoretically) the more successful the world. Designers spend great effort encouraging players to group together into parties and guilds.
  

I think that two other "rules" for a successful MMORPG exist. I've read/heard books/people discussing these other rules only in vague terms, while "eye candy" and "socialisation" are clearly articulated, perhaps because the other rules are understood on an intuitive level. Despite being unspoken, successful MMORPGs clearly follow these two rules:

• 
  Sub-games - A successful virtual world must have a large variety of sub-games that form synergies. Blah blah blah. This one is obvious enough; if the "game" part of a virtual world isn't good, eye candy and socialisation don't amount to much.

  I think virtual-world designers (as a group) have incorporated a successful set of sub-games through trial and error. They play other designers' games, parrot the sub-games that "work", and experiment with a few new ones. Most designers don't seem to be consciously trying to understand why the sub-games work together, although intuition obviously plays a role in their designs.

  
  
• 
  Goals - A successful virtual world allows players to either accomplish their personal goals, or gives players goals that are internalised (as I discussed in Sympathetic goals). World-like MMORPGs tend to rely on goals that players bring to the table, such as "I want to be the most powerful person in the world." Richard Bartle's and Nick Yee's player models are all about these goals. Game-like worlds provide goals for the players and use story-like techniques to help players internalise the goals.

  Most virtual-world designers are vehemently against "story", claiming that it's just window dressing. Many are anti-quest too, assuming that players will eventually grow out of them. I suspect most virtual-world designers include quests because players ask for them, but don't really understand why players like them; the players certainly don't. Failure to understand the problem is perilous since quests and "story" are both connected to goals, which (I feel) are critical for a player's enjoyment of the world. Quests and "story" can be avoided, but goals are a must, and if a world doesn't have quests and "story", it must work that much harder to help players create their own goals.