Multiplayer Interactive-Fiction Game-Design Blog

Fractured reality

13 September 2005

by Mike Rozak

I've mentioned fractured reality before, but I thought I'd put all my current thoughts in one place...

The problem with a monolithic reality

In the real world, we assume (rightly or wrongly) that there is one reality that we all live in. If our individual perceptions of reality are different, it's because we are misperceiving reality, not that reality is different for each of us.

A monolithic reality doesn't work well for virtual worlds (in my opinion). The problem was noticed from the very beginning of text MUDs, since in a monolithic reality, if one player changes the world, it remains changed for all players. This means that if a player kills the the evil overlord, then for all players thereafter the evil overlord is dead, which is a bit of a bummer for all the other players who wanted their chance at defeating the evil overlord.

Some workable solutions exist:

• 
  Re-boot the entire world every night - Thus, the evil overlord can be killed once a day.
  
• 
  Periodically re-boot sections of the world, usually on demand - The evil overlord is magically reborn when someone begins the quest to kill the evil overlord.
  
• 
  Periodically respawn and reset small areas - Players can kill the evil overlord, but he is resurrected in ten minutes. As long as a player isn't in the area when he respawns, the player can pretend that they actually killed him.
  
• 
  Spatial separation - Once the player has slain the evil overlord, they pass through a door and can never return to the lands once ruled by the overlord. That way, players can continue to believe the overlord is dead since they never hear anything to the contrary. Unfortunately, segregating the world in such a way makes it difficult for players to meet up with their friends, who haven't yet slain the evil overlord.
  
• 
  Don't have NPCs and other fixed content - Most of the problems associated with monolithic reality in a virtual world exist because the same NPC, traps, or other content keeps getting respawned so the developer's investment in the content isn't wasted. If the developer never invests in content, he doesn't care if it isn't respawned, and fractured-reality is a non-issue.
  

Some solutions exist that "fracture" reality, creating a different reality for every player.

• 
  Custom generated content - Every player has his own evil overlord created when the player's character is created. Each evil overlord is visible to the other players (if the other players look through the immensely huge world for him), but can only be killed by the player for whom he was created. The approach doesn't work well with evil overlords, but is great for NPCs whose cat needs rescuing.
  
• 
  Instancing - When the player enters the evil overlord's castle, a private instance is created that only the player and his friends can access. When the evil overlord is killed, or the players leave for more than 10 minutes, the instance is deleted.
  
• 
  Delusional - An evil overlord is created for each player. When the player kills the evil overlord, the player character's perception of the world is as if the overlord were killed. The world descriptions to other players (who have not killed the evil overlord), still mention the evil overlord. This approach gets highly confusing, since two players could be in the same room, one seeing the evil overlord and the other an empty throne.
  
• 
  Layered maps - Players that walk into the evil overlord's castle can be sent to one of two places: If they haven't yet killed the evil overlord, they are sent to a version where the overlord still lives. If they have killed the overlord, they get sent to a different version.
  
• 
  Private worlds - Each player has his own private version of the entire world where adventuring is done. However, whenever the player walks into town, they're suddenly transported into a shared world where they can meet up with other players. If several players join into a party, they play in one of the players' private worlds. Unfortunately, if a group of friends slay the evil overlord in on player's world, they'll need to slay the same overlord in each others' worlds.
  

The reason why fractures are important is that players want to be able to change the world. Even if they don't control exactly how the world changes, they still want their actions to have an effect. (See Choice and consequences.)

In all of the monolithic realities, except the content-free one, players have no real effect on the world. The next time they log on, the world is exactly the same as before. Players can and do turn a blind eye to this, but ultimately the inability to change the world diminishes the experience.

I am not a big of content-free worlds either. Players can change the world in the content-free monolithic-reality, but only in small ways. After all, if there are 1000 players in the world, their ability to change the world must be (approximately) 1/1000th of what can be changed. Furthermore, with so many "cooks in the kitchen", the world tends to be a chaotic place.

The fracturing techniques I described make it easier for players to "suspend their disbelief" and pretend their actions impact the world. Unfortunately, each technique has its drawbacks, some of which are psychologically disturbing.

Sympathetic goals

13 September 2005

by Mike Rozak

In Choice and consequences I claimed that quests and goals were just about the same thing, and that it might be better to think of handing out quests to players as handing out goals. Following this idea reveals an important issue: You can't give a player a goal; You can tell them about a goal, but they must decide that a goal is important (to them) before they really accept it.

Thus, a game needs to package the goal so that the player takes up the goal. How can a game produce such packaging?

Standard ways of creating sympathetic goals

• 
  Because the game says to do the quest - This is, by far, the weakest excuse for a quest, but it's commonly used. "You must slay the evil overlord" is a common example. Most CRPGs begin with this line and assume its enough to keep players motivated.
  
• 
  The quest is needed to complete another quest - Next weakest is the game that provides the master goal/quest of "slaying the evil overlord" and lots of sub-quests that must be completed to finish the final quest... "To slay the evil overlord you must collect the sands of time, mists of freedom, and waters of love." This approach works if the master goal/quest is compelling, however a weak motivation for a master quest results in weak motivation for sub-quests.
  
• 
  When the quest is completed, the player is allowed into a new region of the world - This is just about the same as "the quest is needed to complete another quest", above. If the new region of the world also includes new eye candy or features, the motivation has more weight; See below.
  
• 
  The player character (not the player) has the goal - Dungeon Siege began with the PC's father being killed by monsters. This is the impetus for the player character to undertake the quest of slaying the evil overlord. Since the father was killed within 10 second of me (as a player) meeting him, I (as a player) didn't really care about my character's father's death.
  
• 
  XP/loot - The player is offered XP/loot as a reward. They know that XP/loot can be turned into more power/skill. This, in turn, allows the player to complete other goals they might have. The new skills introduces new game-mechanics (like the ability to fly), which reintroduce some fun into the game. And, some people just like to collect power, especially in MMORPGs, where PC power translates to power over other players.
  
  World of Warcraft uses XP/loot more effectively than Everquest II. In WoW, players are told up front what their XP/loot reward will be. Everquest II doesn't announce the reward until after the quest has been completed. Thus, if a player is driven by XP/loot, they'll enjoy WoW's quests more because they can judge them ahead of time.
  
• 
  The act of completing the quest is actually fun - I suppose I'm stating the obvious, but if the player knows that the act of completing the quest (finding a solution and acting on it) is going to be fun, they'll sign up. If they expect it to be boring (aka: the grind) then the design needs to use some of the other techniques I mention to maintain the player's interest. See Evolutionary explanation for entertainment for some thoughts on fun.
  
• 
  I just paid $50 for the game and want to get my money's worth - Don't underestimate the value of this motivation. As a teenager, my friends and I rented a video that was really-really horrible, but we watched it all the same because we wanted to get our hard-earned three-dollar's worth. The same goes for games. Games that can be trialed for free, especially if they're small downlands, cannot rely on this motivation to see the player through the boring parts of a game.
  

• 
  "If I spend just another hour, I'll get the ability to fly, and flight might actually make the game fun for another 10 minutes."
  
• 
  "Defeating the evil overlord by dive-bombing him with my flying ability was sure fun. I'm sick of flying now; what else can I do?"
  
• 
  "I just spent $50 on this game, damn it! I'm going to enjoy it."
  
• 
  "There's nothing on TV, and I have nothing better to do." - I didn't mention this above, but it's a common reason for playing.
  

Now that I've written down the most common techniques for creating sympathetic goals, it's easy to see how inane quest design is in most games.

Here are some better solutions I've seen or heard of. Notice how they involve the player internalising the goal handed out by the game:

• 
  The NPC quest giver is sympathetic/likeable - If a player likes the NPC that hands out the quest, they're more likely to internalise the goal.
  
  WoW accomplishes this by making the quest givers members of the player's starting village or clan/race. They are friendly, and explain why the important quest needs to be completed. EQII hands out most quests from random city dwellers who want quests for inconsequential items (like perfume) and they're often rude to the player; The quality voice acting, which WoW doesn't have, only emphasises the rudeness. One quest in EQII particularly annoyed me, since it was handed out by a rude fop who wanted some ingredients for his perfume; I would have found the quest more enjoyable if I could have sabotaged the perfume ingredients and made the fop's life miserable.
  
• 
  The quest helps a NPC (or group of NPCs) that are sympathetic/likeable - If the player likes the NPCs that are affected by the quest, they'll internalise the goal more. However, for this trick to work, the player must actually see that the NPCs are helped when they complete the quest. Thus, multiplayer games require Fractured reality.
  
  Myst IV uses this technique well. The very first character a player meets in Myst IV is an amiable girl who guides the player into the world through a rather long video sequence. The player also encounters her throughout the first part of the game. When she is later kidnapped, the player (not just the PC) is motivated to rescue her. If the girl had died, revenge of a liked NPC would have been an excellent motive.
  
• 
  The quest is against a disliked/hated NPC - If the game can get the player (not just the PC) to dislike the NPC, then quests against the NPC are more gladly undertaken by players.
  
  WoW uses this technique. In one instance, players come upon a burning wagon with smashed crates strewn about. Nasty enemies are hanging around the destruction, presumably looting. I don't think WoW had any dead bodies lying around, but they would have added to the effect. Players can't help but dislike the enemies. Unfortunately, most encounters with the enemies are in their hideous, where they're just wandering around, minding their own business, and not causing any harm; these enemies aren't disliked by the player.
  
• 
  The player feels responsible, as the only one who can solve the problem - Frodo dragged the ring to Mt. Doom because he was the only one who could do it. When players say they want to do "heroic" things, this is often what they mean. If a task could theoretically be done by the NPCs in the world, then the NPCs should do the task; Leave the player for tasks the NPCs can't do.

  Again, time to bash EQII, where too many of the quests are mundane like "go and get me some ale". Any Joe could do that. "Go and get me some medicine from the other side of the orc-infested mountains" is much more compelling, since obviously, ordinary NPCs couldn't complete such a heroic task.

  
  
• 
  The player feels responsible, since they caused the problem - If the player opens Pandora's box, they will willingly find a way to close it, even if they only opened it in a pre-rendered cut-scene that was destined to happen.
  
  Myst IV uses this technique: In adventure games, players click on everything. In Myst IV, the players will eventually click on is a jar with bugs, which releases the bugs. Later, the girl (that I mentioned previously) yells at the player for releasing her bug collection. At that point the player feels guilty and internalises the goal of putting the bugs back. If the girl had approached the player saying, "I lost my bugs. Can you get them back for me?" the quest would be much weaker.
  
• 
  Completing the quest reveals (a piece of) the solution to a mystery - For this to work, the player must actually want to learn what happens, and the player must know (or expect) that completing the quest will reveal the solution. If a NPC asks for some perfume ingredients and then unexpectedly reveals the solution to the most important mystery in the game, it's all for naught. Adventure games commonly rely on this hook.
  

Some goals are already held by the player, and only need to be reinforced by the game:

• 
  Completing the quest provides new eye candy - Again, this is another adventure game standard pioneered by Myst, and (again) the player should know (or expect) that completing the quest will reveal the new eye candy.
  
• 
  Completion of the goal teaches a real-world skill that the player wishes to learn - Players who want to learn Japanese will enjoy quests which teach some Japanese.
  
• 
  Simulating a real-world fantasy - If someone has always wanted to be a jet-fighter pilot, they will gladly undertake all quests that let them fly jet planes in combat.

  One of the reasons that Myst works is because it's on a tropical island; Most people fantasise about vacationing on a tropical island. Similarly, MMORPGs simulate a hunter/gatherer society, which (I suspect) many people would subconsciously like to live in because hunting and gathering are hard-wired into our brain. Those that don't play MMORPGs go fishing, bushwalking, or shopping at factory outlet malls.

  
  
• 
  Have an impact on the world - People like to help their community and make their mark on the world. If a quest promises to change the game world for the better, players are more likely to respond. Promises must be met, however, and players must see the world change, even if it's only in the players' fractured reality. A change that affects other players is even more compelling.
  
• 
  Completing the quest affects a real-world relationship with another player - If the quest provides the player with a Sword +5 that then allows him to defeat the jerk that attacked him the previous night, then the player will eagerly undertake the quest. Likewise, quests that allow friends to meet up are important. Only multiplayer games can use this motivation.
  
• 
  Friends are working on the quest - If your friends think a quest is important, you are more likely to undertake the quest and help your friends complete it. But, why are your friends working on the quest? Again, multiplayer games only.
  

You may have noticed that most of the techniques are also used by storytellers to keep readers interested. You might say that I'm "adding story to my game" using these techniques, but I wouldn't. The term "story" (as well as the term "game") is so overloaded with meaning that I prefer to avoid the words altogether. What I described herein is a component of a story, getting the player/reader to internalise the goals of the game's/story's characters.

Note: Some of the ideas I've listed in here were inspired by fiction writers who authored their own game-design books: Lee Sheldon's "Character development and storytelling for games", and David Freeman's "Creating emotion in games". I wouldn't add either book to my must-read list, but they may provide some more ideas.

Having said that...

• 
  Virtual worlds which rely upon the "standard" approaches for creating sympathetic goals are "game-like worlds," such as WoW and EQII.
  
• 
  Virtual worlds that rely on goals that already exist within the player's psyche are "world-like worlds," like Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies.
  
• 
  Virtual worlds that mainly use the "more ingenious ways of creating sympathetic goals" are "story-like worlds." I haven't seen any multiplayer games that are story-like, but many single-player adventures games rely on story.

  I use the term "story" here, because the usual approaches for creating likeable NPCs, mysteries, and whatnot involve narration, cut-scenes, or pre-programmed in-game animations, all three of which are story fragments. Furthermore, stories are often seen as being about characters (intelligent NPCs) and conflict, which are key ideas in the "more ingenious" list.