Multiplayer Interactive-Fiction Game-Design Blog

The end

17 November 2004

by Mike Rozak

(Continued from The anti-MMORPG.)

Creating a virtual world (an anti-MMORPG) where players will only stay around for 100 hours introduces a new problem that contemporary 1000-hour virtual worlds (MMORPG) don't have: How does the player's virtual-world experience end?

In a MMORPG, the experience ends for the player when they get bored. Since MMORPGs want players to stay around as long possible, and since some players do, MMORPGs don't have official endings.

However, an anti-MMORPG would run out of content for some (perhaps most) players. Of course, when all the content is used up and no more will be added, the virtual world could tell the player "That's all folks."

This is unsatisfying for the player, however. Ideally, the "end" is the point at which the player finally completes something monumental in the world, like killing the evil overlord.

There are problems with such an ending in a virtual world; I'll get to this in a bit. But first, I'll discuss how stories deal with endings.

Story endings

Of course, everyone knows how stories end... "And they lived happily ever after." Well, not quite all stories.

A story ends when the protagonists major objective is fulfilled, or shortly thereafter. The major objective is a goal that the protagonist has throughout the entire story. The protagonist is usually given this goal near the beginning of the story, and it doesn't change unless there's a plot twist. (If you have never read any books on story-writing then I suggest you do so.)

Furthermore, the major objective is a unifying device. While the world in which the story takes place may be huge, the author only includes narratives that lead to the major objective being accomplished, or which somehow elucidate important aspects of the objective, characters, or world. In some ways, the end determines what happens in the story.

This brings up an important question for virtual worlds: How does the author determine what content gets into the virtual world? MMORPGs, because they have a very limited number of sub-games (see Stop the buffet) and because quests (the content) are only a small part of the experience, don't really worry about what gets in. As a general rule, any half-way decent quest-idea is implemented. However, when a world is smaller and there is more potential variety in quests/content, determining what gets in is more difficult. The ending may help filter out some content ideas that do not lead to the end.

The end of the story is met when the character "defeats the evil overlord", or whatever the plot may be. All the content of the stories is affected by this ending.

A virtual world could have an end-point of "defeat the evil overlord", but then problems arise in a multiplayer world. If player A defeats the evil overload, does the whole world shut down? Of course not, that would result in every world shutting down within a week of its inauguration. Instead, the evil overload somehow reappears just in time for player B to defeat him.

In the case of defeating the evil overload, infinite resurrection isn't such a bad problem because players leave soon after the overlord's demise and never notice the fact that he hasn't really died. (Of course, players know on an intellectual level that he can't die, but it's nice to have the illusion.)

The problem arises in the more mundane victories, such as when the player rescues NPC Sally's cat from the tree in which it's stuck. After player A rescues the cat, it suddenly manages to get itself stuck in the tree again so player B can rescue it, ad infinitum. This loop is fine so longer as player A never visits Sally again. However, if player A does see sally again, one of the following things happens:

• 
  Sally again bemoans that her cat is stuck up in the tree and needs rescuing, all in the same language originally used.
  
• 
  Sally thanks player A for saving her cat, but when player B walks up next to player A, player B is asked to rescue her cat. This could momentarily seen by player A as an insult until player A realises it's an artefact of the game.
  
• 
  As per above, but Sally just ignores player A because the Sally's AI doesn't know how to handle player A approaching her a second time.
  

The problem with (most) virtual worlds is that they don't change. They can't change because change would ruin the experience for other players.

Change in virtual worlds

Inquiring how a virtual world can end has led to the problem of change, since often the act of getting to the end requires change. Most virtual worlds cannot change though. What's the solution?

Stories, of course, are based around change. No matter how good the writing and plot are, if there's no change in the story, it feels unsatisfying. In a story, change occurs in several places: The protagonist, major characters, the world, and the reader. For a discussion about change in the reader, see Junk food entertainment.

For example: In most stories, the protagonist "finds himself". Major characters will be affected and emotionally changed by the protagonists actions. The world will be saved from an evil overlord (in a fantasy setting at least). And, in a really good book, the reader will walk away slightly changed by the experience.

Two forms of stories do not involve change. The way that they manage not to change is interesting:

• 
  TV serials (such as sitcoms) don't involve change. Every episode begins with exactly the same characters and world as the previous episode, and every character is exactly the same as they were the last episode. TV serials get around this lack of change by allowing the characters and world to change slightly over the course of the 30-60 minute show, but undoing the changes over the week between episodes, hoping the viewers won't notice the discrepancy too much. For example, in a typical sitcom a character may do something stupid that gets him into trouble. By the end of the episode, he learns not to be so stupid. Then, four episodes later (or even the next one) he does something stupid again. As far as worldly changed; everyone knows that if a character gets a new car at the beginning of an episode, the car will be gotten rid of by the end.
  
• 
  Soap operas involve constant change. The characters and world change from day to day, week to week. However, watching a soap opera is like watching a lava lamp. If you watch it long enough, you realise that while characters change, the overall scheme doesn't. One character will convert from evil to good, but just as surely, another must convert from good to evil, balancing things out. So, while a soap opera may change from week to week, from year to year there is no change except the names and other specifics of the evil character, the good one, the temptress, etc.
  

Change in the protagonist (and the player)

In a virtual world, the protagonist is almost always the player. Some players will role play and understand the difference between the two, but they are very rare. Game designers are aware of this and don't force players to role play. Occasionally, a game will force the protagonist to be a distinct personality, but the effect is jarring. (I have played a few adventure games where the protagonist has a self that changes like it would in a story; to me, it feels like control is being wrenched from my hands.)

Because the protagonist is the player, and the protagonist has no mind of his own, the virtual-world protagonist cannot be changed mentally, a key aspect of change in a story. Instead, change must be funnelled into physical differences, or the character's relationship in the world. CRPGs and MMORPGs go overboard with these two kinds of changes; as the player character advances from level 1 to level 100, they become infinitely more powerful and wealthy. Perhaps MMORPGs overcompensate for physical change because mental change is impossible?

It's not exactly true that the character can't be mentally changed; the player can be. If the players emotions and outlook on life are changed, then so to are the characters. This line of thought leads back to Junk food entertainment.

Change in major characters (other than the protagonist)

In a story, major characters also change, often as a result of the protagonist's actions.

How about in a virtual world?

In a multiplayer virtual-world, there are two types of "major characters". There are other players characters that are important to the player, and there are non-player characters (NPCs).

The other player characters can change just as the protagonist can change. Problem solved.

The NPCs, on the other hand, are a tricky matter, which gets back to Sally (whose cat is always stuck in the tree):

1. 
   If a NPC is mentally or physically changed by the player's actions, then the change would logically be apparent to every other player. This effectively means that Sally's cat can only be rescued once, by only one player, making content creation very expensive.
   
2. 
   NPCs are usually written to be static. More sophisticated change would require AI that includes memory, goals, and emotions. Contemporary MMORPGs do not support such AI.
   
3. 
   Even if NPCs were given AI, their intelligence and emotional complexity would pale compared to the illusion of intelligence and emotion conveyed in stories, let alone real life. Changing an AI that's obviously a bunch of algorithms isn't very satisfying.
   

Later, I'll discuss some tricks that can allow NPCs to change. They are only tricks though.

Changing the world

If a virtual world doesn't allow for important NPCs to change, then how is the world supposed to change from the start of the player's experience to the end? In a single-player game, changing the world over time is easy for the developer (relatively speaking).

MMORPGs, however, can't allow the world to change as the player works his way towards "the end" of his experience. The evil overlord can't burn down a village and kill all its inhabitants part way through to "the end". Either the village has always be burned down, or it never will be, since some players won't have gotten to the village-burns-down content while others have.

A work-around that I've seen used is to have villages closer to the evil overlord's castle be burnt down, still smouldering as though the destruction had just happened. The physical distance between the player character's starting point and the evil overlord's castle (the ending point) correlates to the player's progress towards the ultimate goal. The further east the player moves (towards the overlord's castle), the closer to the goal he is. To hide this simple rule, some games, like Dungeon Siege (single-player CRPG), make the path look more like an intestinal tract. The disguise is easy to see through. While the correlation between space and progress does often work, it isn't a great solution.

Solutions to change

Simply put, virtual worlds with multiple players and hand-created content cannot change. There are some tricks to work around this, and even allow the illusion of change.

First, I'll list some tricks that I've seen MMORPGs and single-player games use:

• 
  Ignore the problem - Pretend it doesn't exist. Don't mention to the user that it's a problem; Hopefully they won't notice. (This is the TV-series approach.)
  
• 
  Physical distance away from starting point = closer to the end - As I discussed above.
  
• 
  Get rid of all NPCs except for monsters - Monsters, of course, can be "changed" by killing them.
  
• 
  Automated content - One reason that players are not allowed to change the world is because doing so would invalidate hand-created content, which is expensive to produce, and not readily thrown out. Automated content, however, has no such problems. In fact, monsters are usually automated content, so if one player kills a monster, another just like it can easily be created. Automated content would be a great solution, except that automated content tends to produce an experience far-inferior to human-created content.

  Populating the world with thousands of intelligent NPCs who do their own scheming could be seen as an automated-content solution. It will work better than thousands of stupid NPCs (monsters), but since even the best AI is inferior to human intelligence, it is only ever a partial solution.

  
  
• 
  Live-team induced change - Introduce change to the world (and NPCs) slowly over time, not as a direct result of the player's actions, but by having the live team rewrite the content. This technique allows a village to be burnt, but it will be burnt for all players at once.
  
• 
  Single-player game - Single-player games can allow the world to change. Multiple-player games where the players work together (such as a traditional D&D game) can also allow change in the world.
  
• 
  Private dungeons/regions - Since a small group of players own a shard, the content within the private region can change. While this works, private regions must be limited to a specific location (usually a dungeon) and their data is discarded after the private region is completed. A private region is a single-player game (or group-game) within a multiplayer world.
  
• 
  Make the virtual world 100% PvP - In a 100% PvP world, there are no NPCs other than human-shaped vending machines. The world is just scenery in which the PvP conflict (combat or economic) occurs. With a bit of UI work, you could even allow players to build and destroy structures. While this technique works for MMORPGs, it will, by definition, fail for the 100-hour anti-MMORPG because most players won't be around long enough to become enemies.
  

• 
  Shape-shifting quests - Once Sally's cat is rescued, have her fade back into the general population and have Jill suddenly appear with a different cat (or pet squirrel) that needs rescue. In order to minimise embarrassment, put Jill in a different spot in the world, and make sure that Jill won't make herself obvious to any players that already rescued her previous incarnation's cat. (This is the soap-opera approach. It is also a more complex version of automated content.)

  To make the players feel like they have accomplished something, you may wish them to occasionally run into Sally and have Sally thank them. However, despite the appearance, the players haven't really changed the world.

  
  
• 
  Fragmented space/time - This one is a bit difficult to explain, and most people I described it to don't like the idea.

  Let me explain using an example: In the example of the burned village, players that haven't yet experienced the burning will walk into an unburnt village, while those that have experienced the burning will walk into a burnt one. This can be achieved two ways: The first does a test on the player's history when they walk into the village, "teleporting" players into one of two versions of the village. The second way is to keep the locations the same, but display them differently for each player. Both solutions cause problems: In the first case, a group of travelling companions may suddenly be split up, while in the second case the group of travelling companions will be seeing different things even though they're in the same place.

  The fragmented space/time solution would drive any player who thinks too deeply about it crazy, which is why it might work for a psychological virtual world. In some ways, it isn't all that far from reality: Just ask two people about an event the both witnessed; you'll discover that their versions of the event can differ markedly, perhaps not so much as the burned-out village example though.

  Fragmented space/time, as a solution, is distantly related to private regions. It tries to combine the best of single player games and multiplayer games.

  
  

The reason I digressed from my discussion about the "end" of the game and talked about change, is that the two are interlocked. If the NPCs and world cannot change, then any ending will be unsatisfactory because when the player reaches the end he won't feel like he has accomplished anything. Even when being entertained, people like to feel as if they (or the character they're watching) have accomplished something.

To make an overly-simple heuristic: To figure out what quests/content should be in a virtual world, first determine what "the end" will involve. How should the player's character have change? How should the NPCs change? How should the world change? And how should the player himself change?

Once you know the ending, you can filter all your potential content/quest ideas through these requirements. Does getting Sally's cat out of the tree really lead to the overthrow of the evil overlord? If it doesn't, then get rid of it or change it so it does; maybe Sally rewards the player with an important item or tidbit. Maybe Sally's cat has a magical collar that the player can pilfer, or go back later an ask to borrow from Sally. Maybe Sally's cat shows up at the end and pushes the evil overlord over the cliff into a pit of boiling lava. (... I don't think so.)

While such filtration of content/quests is necessary, it is not sufficient. If the player doesn't see the world changing as they complete their quests then they will feel impotent. If the evil overlord doesn't wreak havoc on the world in front of the player's eyes then the evil overlord will feel impotent. To prevent this impotency, the NPCs and world must change. Since, in a multiplayer world, the NPCs and world cannot fundamentally change, some clever tricks must be used to hide the static nature of the world.

Back to "the beginning"

Stories spend the first part of the book introducing the protagonist and setting up the situation so that the protagonist wants to reach "the end". The beginning of the story must answer the question: Why does the protagonist want to overthrow the evil overlord?

A virtual world with an ending must likewise answer this question.

As we all know, the author of a story choses (or designs) a character whose motivations include a desire to reach "the end". Frodo Baggins wanted to defeat the evil overlord Sauron because he was a nice guy who wanted to protect the shire, and because he was forced into to... no one else wanted to carry the ring except Boromir.

In a 10-hour virtual world, the player's character will be given a specific identity and reason for being the protagonist, such as a choice between playing Batman, Robin, Bat-girl, or Cat-woman.

A 1000-hour virtual world (a MMORPG) lets the user choose their own identity and customise it to the Nth-degree. After all, the player will be stuck with that character for an awfully long time (unless there is permanent character death).

A 100-hour virtual world (an anti-MMORPG) will be in-between. The player may be given a choice of character templates who might wish to defeat the evil overlord, and reasons for their disliking him. The player will have enough choice in his character so that he will be able to choose abilities that he likes (some people like fighters, other thieves, etc.) while still having a character with motivation and ability to go after the evil overlord. Characters must also have enough variety that when two players meet they won't be twins.

Players don't need to limit themselves to one character though. Most MMORPGs already have a tradition of several characters per player, so the same is possible in an anti-MMORPG.

Multiple characters might even be desirable... they could be used in a "karmic" manner. Perhaps the first character the player creates is limited to a peasant. Once the character has completed a set of quests specific for the peasant "class", the player is informed that he can create a "freeman" character. The whole virtual-world experience could be a series of "reincarnations" from peasant, to freeman, to noble, to the overlord himself. Maybe the peasant will think the overlord is evil, while the overlord will think himself good. This would make for an interesting plot twist. Stories use the related approach of jumping into different characters' heads, but a virtual world could do a much better job by having the player live each of the characters' lives.

Conclusion

If a virtual world is only 100 hours long, it will have an ending. If it has an ending (and even if it doesn't), the NPCs and world must change to be satisfying. Traditionally, MMORPGs have neither endings nor change, while single-player computer games have both endings and change.

Ultimately, a 100-hour virtual world starts looking a lot like a single-player adventure of CRPG game except that players will encounter other players wandering around inside the world. They will be able to chat and team up with other players, but are unlikely to enter into PvP conflicts.

Is this viable? I don't know.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Maybe the solution is to copy what's already being done: Those players that want a responsive world or 100-hour experience should play single-player games (adventure or CRPG), while those wishing a longer 1000-hour experience should play a MMORPG. Maybe any attempt at an in-between is futile.

There are some advantages to an "in-between" solution though:

• 
  The popularity of a single-player game.
  
• 
  But with...
  
  • 
    The piracy protection provided by a MMORPG.
    
    • 
      Which, in turn, allows a company to avoid the retail-channel bottle-neck.
      
  • 
    The ability for players to meet one another and socialise.
    
  • 
    The ability for the author to see how players interact with the world and fine-tune it, even after it has "shipped".
    
  • 
    Ad-supported business model that offline games cannot provide.