Story and plot vs. freedom in virtual reality

Story and plot vs. freedom in virtual reality

1 June 2004

by Mike Rozak

Computer generated virtual realities seem to have a dilemma which has been bothering me for some time: If you allow players to do anything they want, the world will be devoid of story and plot, feeling intellectually empty. If you enforce a story and plot, players will feel trapped.

I have a potential solution to this problem, which I'll get to later. First, let me build a foundation on which to base my solution.

Space-time - It's not just a tree

As everyone who has watched Star Trek (or any science fiction) knows, contemporary space-time theories propose that time is not linear, but a series of branches. A branch occurs whenever a decision is made, such as flipping a coin. If the coin comes up heads, one reality comes into existence. If tails, another. Every time a new decision is made a new branch appears, ad infinitum. (And as anyone who watches Star Trek knows, one of the branches includes an evil Captain Picard.)

I subscribe to this somewhat... The problem with the theory is that there are an infinite number of decisions happening all of the time (not just when coins are flipped), and most of the decisions result in more-or-less the same reality.

For example, if I were to flip a coin and then put it in my pocket without looking at it the result of the flip wouldn't change the future detectably either way. There might be some subtle changes, but they would be very minor. Under such circumstances I wouldn't view this as a branch, more as a splitting of the timeline and then rejoining. Although, the two timelines (heads or tails) might not strictly rejoin, but they'd be so close together they could be thought of as the same. To use another Star Trek example, if a mad scientist were to knock me from the heads reality to the tails reality, I'd never notice the realities change. (Maybe this is why pens and keys always go missing.)

So, instead of the timeline being a pure tree, it allows realities to reconnect. Technically this is called a "rhizome".

My other contention is that decisions are made all the time. In some realities I may have flipped the coin 1 microsecond earlier. Furthermore, the probability of some events is more likely than others. The infinite possibilities change the nature of the rhizome. The branches of rhizome become fuzzy from subtle variations of the same reality, and vary in brightness due to the probabilities of a path being taken.

In fact, the tree isn't really a rhizome, it's an infinitely dimensional space (which I'll discuss shortly) filled with varying densities. Most of the space is empty, or nearly empty. Thinking in 3 dimensions, it looks mostly like a rhizome (or cob-webs), except that a real rhizome (or cob-web) can't get thin enough to represent the really unlikely events.

Space-time - Infinitely dimensional

Contemporary thought assumes that space is three dimensional and time is one dimensional (except for the alternate realities part, which is someplace between one and two dimensions - called a fractal.)

In simplified terms, the three dimensions of space define a relation between objects (molecules, atoms, etc.). This is called a "spatial" relationship, since it says how far apart two objects are, along with their directions.

Other relationships exist between objects, such as whether object A has ever been "near" object B. Or, to make a more extreme example, whether object A (let's call it Frank) is in love with object B (Jenny).

Interestingly, while physics are interested in special relationships between objects, stories are interested in less quantifiable relationships (like love). I'll discuss this in a bit.

There are practically an infinite number of ways that any objects can be related since a new type of relationship (distance, love, colour, speed, etc.) can be invented at any moment. To compound this, in a universe there are practically infinite number of objects

You can use this (practically) infinite number of relationships to create an infinitely dimensional space, using one dimension per relationship. A snapshot of the universe can be boiled down to one point in this infinitely dimensional description of the universe.

In the likely event that you can't imagine infinitely dimensional space, just pretend it's a 3d-dimensional volume in the shape of a cube. One axis is "How much Frank loves Jenny", the other is "How far away Frank is from Jenny", and the third is "Time." You can use a point to represent the current state of the universe at any time.

Now, imagine that Frank is sitting in his room at 1 PM, at which point he doesn't love Jenny at all. The state of the universe is (0 love, 1 km, 1 PM). He spends half an hour walking to Jenny so he can talk to her. If you trace the point it will create a line from (0 love, 1 km, 1 PM) to (0 love, 0 km, 1:30 PM). Frank then spends half an hour talking to Jenny, and falling in love. The line now traces to (1 love, 0 km, 2:00 PM). Frank walks back to his room over the next half hour, tracing the line to (1 love, 1 km, 2:30 PM).

What I have just described to you is a "narrative", a linear description of what happened (or what will happen).

If Frank (and Jenny) have free will then in comes coin flipping (and probability). Maybe Frank decides to stay in his room between 1:00 PM and 2:30 PM, never talking to Jenny. You could add another line to the universe, running from (0 love, 1 km, 1:00 PM) to (0 love, 1 km, 2:30PM). Or, Frank may spontaneously fall in love with Jenny even though he never meets here, creating a line from (0 love, 1 km, 1:00 PM) to (1 love, 1 km, 2:30 PM). This scenario is extremely unlikely, so create only a very dim line.

Note that Frank cannot suddenly teleport to Jenny, so there is no line from (0 love, 1 km, 1:00 PM) to (0 love, 0 km, 1:01 PM). This is called "physics"; there are just certain things that can't be done in a universe, or at least which are extremely unlikely. (The evil Captain Picard could suddenly get the urge to teleport Frank to Jenny though.)

Repeating the process produces another rhizome, with paths (in infinitely dimensional space) connecting possible realities. (While this description of the Frank's universe is uninteresting, it simplifies the infinitely dimensional universe down enough that the Human mind can imagine it.)

So what does all this mean?

1. 
   A narrative (linear description of what happened or will happen) is produced by picking a starting point on the rhizome and following it, usually through positive time.
   
2. 
   A virtual reality (freedom of choice) exists when the user can choose which paths of the rhizome to follow. Usually, the user will be forced to follow positive time, but in virtual reality, going back in time to alternate realities is also possible.
   
3. 
   The holes in the rhizome are known as the "physics" (or logic, self-consistency, etc.) of the world. Some states cannot exist.
   

Infinitely dimensional universes are all fun and games (until someone loses their mind), but what does this have to do with story and plot vs. freedom in virtual worlds?

As a stated above, a narrative is what happens when you follow a path in the rhizome.

Of course, given a universe, there are an infinite number of narratives because you can traverse the rhizome in an infinite number of ways. Most of these are not well suited for a story. Either they are boring (see "An evolutionary explanation for entertainment" for my definition of boring) or they lack plot (discussion follows).

What is a narrative's plot? If you ask 100 people you'll get about 200 different answers.

Here are my two answers:

1. 
   A narrative with a plot is one in which all of the elements of the narrative lead in the same direction. Conversely, a narrative without a plot has elements that wander around aimlessly.
   
2. 
   Or, for a stricter definition: A plot is the shortest path between the starting state of the narrative (in the infinitely dimensional rhizome space) and the ending state.
   

For some reason, people like to feel that there's a purpose to life, and hence, everything that happens (or at least most things) somehow leads towards that purpose. When we reach the purpose, the story should end. If elements of narrative do not serve to reach the purpose, they're seen as distracting and uninteresting.

The most purposeful movement is a straight line. In this case, from the point representing the start of the story to the point representing the end of the story. This has two problems:

1. 
   It would probably make for a short and very boring narrative. Not only is a straight line is the shortest (and quickest) distance between two points, but travelling in a straight line is pretty boring. (How many people take scenic drives on long straight roads? They usually take the windy ones.)
   
2. 
   The physics of the universe won't allow it. For example: Perhaps the "plot" of the story is for Jerry to fall in love with Susan. The straightest line is from (0 love, 1 km, 1:00 PM) to (1 love, 1 km, 2:30 PM). While this is possible, it is highly improbable.
   

Conversely, if the path wanders to far away from the straight line, this also bothers readers.

For example: If Jerry, for no particular reason, first took a short walk away from Jenny, this would disrupt the plot because it lengthens the path though the rhizome even though the physics of the universe would allow for a shorter path.

The reader's need for entertainment (interest) is at odds with the plot. The plot wants to get from point A to B as quickly as possible (assuming it doesn't break the physics of the universe). The reader's desire for entertainment wants a car chase and a fight scene thrown in.

A traditional author's job is to find the best narrative, the one which is most interesting and with the best plot. (They need to do lots of other stuff too, such as inventing the universe and actually writing the words.) Obviously, this is a difficult job because there are so many possible narratives, 99.999% of which are either boring or have a lousy plot.

Virtual reality freedoms

A virtual reality uses the same universe as the author, but instead of the author choosing the narrative, the player does.

The good thing about letting a player choose his/her path along the rhizome is that the choice is itself interesting, improving the player's experience.

The bad thing is that the player will inevitably choose the paths that lead to uninteresting narrative or narrative that veers away from the plot. They choose the wrong paths, not because they want to be bored, but because they don't have a complete vision of the world and its physics. Since they can't accurately predict what will happen if they take an action, they can't predict if it will result in an good narrative. And if they could predict which path was best, it wouldn't make for a very interesting experience since they would already know what will happen.

This poses a bit of a problem. Free choice makes the experience more interesting, but it is more likely to destroy the experience because the player will make all of the wrong choices.

Let me abandon Frank and Jenny, and go to a rich world that everyone knows about, Tolkien's Middle Earth. What would happen if the player were to take on Frodo's role? What would the player do?

Here's an extreme example: The scene is just after Gandalf tells Frodo that his ring is the one ring. Frodo offers the ring to Gandalf, but then Gandalf refuses. So what does the player, as Frodo, do? Muster up his bravery and offer to take the ring to Mordor? Maybe, but...

At least one player will flush the ring down the toilet. After all, if the wring wraiths can't find the ring then Sauron won't do as well in his battles. Unfortunately, this makes for a rather poor story, both uninteresting and one that veers away from the plot. (Which is the destruction of Sauron and the writing of another tail for Middle Earth's history.)

I think most people would agree that flushing the ring is a bad idea, but what are the solutions to this problem:

• 
  Don't have a toilet - This works, but at some point in time players will try to do equally stupid things.
  

• 
  Don't have a toilet that flushes - Again, players will always find other stupid things to do.
  

• 
  Let the player flush unimportant objects down the toilet, but not the ring - This will work, but it breaks the physics of the world. The player will get frustrated either because the world is being inconsistent, or because they perceive they're being railroaded down one (and only one) path of the rhizome.
  

• 
  Have the ring reappear - If the ring is flushed down the toilet, then a NPC will walk up to Frodo and say, "I found this in the sewers. I think it's yours." Of course, this breaks the laws of probability.
  

• 
  Let the game continue even though the any future story will be unsatisfying - Let the player flush the ring down the toilet. He'll be awfully disappointed 30 hours of game-play later when he finds that Frodo gets to Mt. Doom and realises that it would be a good time to throw the ring in.
  

• 
  End the game right there - Since the narrative without the ring is untenable, just display "Game over" or come up with an excuse like, "The ring blows up. Game over." If the universe does this the player will certainly feel constrained.
  

• 
  Warn the player not to flush the ring - Either come up with a line "That's not such a smart idea. Are you sure you want to do that?" or hide the warning within the story, "Gandalf yells, 'I wouldn't do that if I were you.'" (Premonitions also work.) If the player still decides to flush the ring down the toilet, it's his/her fault. They will still be upset 30 hours of game-play later, but they will blame themselves more than they blame the game.
  

• 
  Take a detour in the plot - Let the player flush the ring, but then force them to travel through the sewers of Hobbitton to find it. Who knows, wandering around the sewers might actually be interesting (monsters and ilk), but it would take the user away from the intended plot. The player's feeling of freedom will probably counteract the plot failure. Unfortunately, the author would then need to design the "Sewers of Hobbitton" segment of the game, which would only be seen by 0.001% of all players. This seems like a waste.
  

• 
  Redirect the plot - When the player drops the ring into the ceramic Mt. Doom change the plot of the game so it no longer needs the ring. Maybe the plot is not to kill Sauron, but to just escape with your life.
  

Both solutions are both very difficult, time-consuming, and basically impossible. Kind of... they're impossible for a pre-programmed virtual world. They're entirely possible if a human is monitoring the player's actions and tweaking the world in response.

The easiest programming/authoring solutions to the freedom problem either remove too many freedoms from the player, or result in an unsatisfying story.

A virtual world without interest or plot

Since maintaining plot and user's interest in a virtual world is extremely difficult, some categories of virtual worlds have found a way to be plot-less and uninteresting. These include virtual chats, computer RPGs, and MMORPGs.

Well, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh. They may have some plot and some areas of interest.

Virtual chats let are basically virtual worlds in which a player can wander around, build scenery, and talk to other players. What makes them interesting is the socialisation and the creativity of building. There is no overall plot, although individuals may have their own self-appointed sub-plots, such as trying to gain social dominance.

Computer RPGs are virtual worlds with a bit of plot (the player must kill the bad guy) and a very complex physics engine. A traditional story makes itself interesting by providing intricate webs of interactions (and relationships) between the characters and the world. The complex relationships allow for a complex rhizome, maximising the chance of creating an interesting and plot-filled narrative. This is far too difficult to program. Therefore, a RPG only allows for limited types of interactions between the player and computer-controlled characters, namely killing them. RPGs do provide thousands of different ways to kill though, which is part of what makes them interesting.

MMORPGs are a combination of a virtual chat and a computer RPG. MMORPGs find a plot virtually impossible to implement because not only is the player making choices that work against the plot, but there are thousands of them. After all, only one player can posses Sauron's ring.

These virtual worlds do exist without a plot and very little of interest. They survive because:

1. 
   They provide a challenge (killing monsters, find treasure, and going up levels).
   
2. 
   They include socialisation.
   
3. 
   The act of exploring the word, and the rules the govern the world, is in itself interesting. (At least to me.)
   

In the mid 1980's I ran an "Adventure BBS", which is basically an early version of a MMORPG. My experience with it went as follows:

1. 
   I first implemented a traditional BBS, which just allows people to chat. (Aka: Virtual chat).
   
2. 
   I decided to add the adventure part (RPG) because the programming interested me, and I thought people would like more types of interaction than just chatting. (Aka: Virtual chat + RPG = MMORPG)
   
3. 
   I created some content in the form of monsters and dungeons for players to explore.
   
4. 
   Players quickly worked their way through my content.
   
5. 
   The players then used the chat functionality to whinge about the lack of content.
   

RPGs (and MMORPG) rely heavily on automatic content generation. This is often why they become uninteresting.

Human-generated vs. automatic content

One aspect of narrative that I haven't explicitly talked about is "content". In general terms, it's what makes a book or virtual reality interesting, since it's the human contribution to the complexity of the world.

The content includes all the artwork, characters, objects, history, etc. It also includes the software, since software is human generated and can apply to the story, although people do not usually think of the software as content. Basically, it includes everything, except the mechanism used to express the world to the reader.

As a general rule, the more content the more an interactive fiction will hold the reader's interest. When the content runs out (has all been viewed or understood) by the reader the interest in the interactive fiction generally ends. Of course, not all content is created the same. Some people are very skilled in content creation and can do much with a paragraph, image, 3d model, or line of code than others.

In terms of the rhizome, the content is the collection of relationships (dimensions) and how the rhizome is arranged to maximise reader interest and sense of plot. How the world is expressed to the reader (though text or graphics) is not part of the content, although without it the content would not be accessible. (A book, by itself, is not interesting. The meaning of the words contained within the book is the interesting part.)

Why one rhizome is interesting and the other not is largely a human issue. That's why humans design the rhizome, and why it cannot be automatically generated.

My last statement is somewhat erroneous. Parts of the rhizome can and are automatically generated. For example, the physics of a virtual world is usually software, although the rules for the physics are human generated. Likewise, elements of the universe that are not important individually, but which may be important as a whole, do include some automatic generation. This includes details of landscaping and foliage placement. Many systems automatically generate characters. RPGs and MMORPG do this to create an unending supply of monsters to kill.

Automatically generated content has a problem though:

Automated content is only as interesting as the work and thought involved in producing the code that automates it. Why? Because once a player has intuitively determined the underlying automation algorithm the system becomes predictable (even though it may be random) and is no longer interesting.

This statement is not true if the player becomes obsessed with the challenge of beating the system. For example: In RPGs/MMORPG the generation of monsters is obviously automated, yet some people will go on being entertained by them not because the automatically generated monsters are entertaining, but because the goal (high level/status) is so desirable.

Theoretically, an automated system could be build that's complicated enough to generate interesting content. This hasn't yet been done.

If it could be done, an automated system could solve some of the problems resulting from freedom in interactive fiction. One reason why freedom-of-choice is very difficult for an IF author is that the player can and will do anything, or go anywhere. When the player comes to the end of the content, the author is forced to create some sort of barrier. Ultimately, this breaks the physics of the universe and makes the player feel walled in.

One obvious use for automatic content creation is the edge of the world. Many authors simply put an impenetrable barrier (mountains) at the edge of the world, informing the player that they can't go any further. If the world is deemed large enough (by the player) then this isn't much of a problem. Unfortunately, creating a sufficiently large world requires a lot of content, even if much of the content doesn't pertain to the plot.

Automatic landscape generation can be used to easily and quickly create a sufficiently large world, or even to extend a world during game play. Because it's automated, the content isn't very interesting, but it's either uninteresting content or wall in the player.

The concept of automatic landscape generation could also be extended to include automatic city generation, along with the city's inhabitants.

Going even further, the universe could all be automatically generated and then peppered with human-generated content that then becomes the thrust of the narrative. If the player choses to avoid the human-generated content (and hence human-generated plot) then that's up to them.

The automatic content could be guided by some broad human strokes. Parts of the world could be marked as "swamp" and others as "mountains", letting the automated systems fill in the details.

Much of automation is a holy grail, and although desirable, largely unattainable.

"ThePlot" object... or a virtual God

Automated content can theoretically form an infinitely large universe that is at least somewhat interesting. If the algorithms are complex enough it will take a player a long time to intuitively figure out how they work. However, automated content generation does not lend itself well to a plot. The automated worlds that I have experience have been largely plot free.

A human mind is the best way to achieve a plot. Unfortunately, players have a way of messing up the plot (such as flushing the one ring down the toilet).

Can plot be automatically generated?

Some MMORPG have sub-plots called "quests". These are fairly simple goals for the player to achieve, such as recurring someone's cat, killing a troll that's charging people to cross a bridge, etc. A few even include automatically generated plots. I haven't been too impressed with the automatically generated plots, but the idea has potential.

Basically, an automatic plot generated modifies the content to create a plot. The system finds a helpless character that's standing next to a tree. It then places a cat in the tree and implants and idea into the character's mind that the cat is the character's own and needs to be rescued. The same concept can be used for the troll in the bridge.

Note that while the specifics of the plot are automatic, the code that generates the plots is written by a human. The plots are archetypal - with maybe only 20-50 types of plots available, but because bits and pieces are varied all the time they come in infinite varieties.

As described, it's easy to imagine the software that could create quests. These are only simple plots though. How could a much larger plot be created automatically?

I'm not really sure, but here's an idea.

When an author creates IF he/she creates code for all the objects (people, places, things) in the world. Each object has code associated with its own behaviour.

An author could also create a "ThePlot" object, or to be blasphemous, "God". The purpose of "ThePlot" object is to monitor what's going on in the world and make it as interesting and purposeful as possible for the player.

Using the Tolkien example, "ThePlot" would notice that the player had flushed the one ring down the toilet. Realising this, it would somehow modify the content (usually in subtle ways) so that either the player will eventually recover the ring, or play can continue without the ring.

Likewise, "ThePlot" could identify that the player has become bored (not playing the game for awhile) or stuck, and subtly modify the content to make things more interesting.

Sounds good? I haven't the faintest clue how to do it.

Reality?

Here's a deeply philosophical thought for you: A virtual world is, in part, a simulation of the real world. If automatic content generation and "ThePlot" need to exist for a virtual world to be successful, do they also exist for the real world?