(A theory of massively single-player games)

(A theory of massively single-player games)

10 January 2006

by Mike Rozak

This article includes continuing thoughts from Storylines II. Of course, it's just one more thought experiment to add to the list; who knows if the idea will actually work.

Linear narrative, linear avatar games, and sandboxes

I am continually refining my thoughts about the difference between a linear narrative and game. For this article, I need to define them a bit more clearly than I have in the past, in order to make a point:

• 
  Linear narrative - This is what you traditionally think of as a story. The reader/player has no control over what happens in the story. A linear narrative can be seen as a string of pearls where the pearls are very-very small and the string very long. (See below.)
  
• 
  Linear avatar game - Linear avatar games allow players to make choices (as with all games), but the choices don't affect the overall flow of the experience. Traditional models for linear games are strings of pearls, or pearls with some branching. Basically, the player's experience is placed within the framework of a linear narrative; they have a large number of small choices while in a "pearl". At several points in the game, players' choices are narrowed as they pass through to the next pearl. They don't have much choice about the pearls though. All adventure games, and many CRPGs (such as Fable), are linear avatar games.
  
• 
  Sandbox avatar game - Sandboxes provide a world and let players do whatever they wish within the world. You can think of them as a string of pearls with only one, very large pearl. Some CRPGs (Morrowind and Oblivion) are sandboxes, as well as most MMORPGs.
  

Each category (narrative, linear, and sandbox) has strengths and weaknesses, which I've written below. Green items are strengths, red are weaknesses, and yellow are in between.

Of course, you can modify this list however you see fit. The point of the table is that it shows that linear narration, linear avatar games, and sandboxes have their own strengths and weaknesses. Some players will prefer linear narration, others linear games, and others sandboxes. Individual preferences will also change over time. There is no "right" answer.

Ultimately, when designing a game, the designer needs to decide how linear the experience will be. A very linear experience will have certain strengths and attract one sort of player, while an open-ended sandbox will have other strengths and attract different players. (Note: People don't seem to like to watch totally linear experiences on their computers; they prefer TVs for that.)

Visualisation

In A tangle I tried to visualise what was happening in an avatar game. Here's another way to visualise what is happening...

In a linear narrative, the protagonist moves about and "does stuff", all the while time slowly advances. If you graph the protagonist's movement through space in X and Y, and time in Z, then what you get is a thin squiggly line that traces the character's movement (and actions) through time.

Now, forget what I said about X and Y being the protagonist's location in space, and Z being time. X, Y, and Z (and any other dimensions) merely represent the "location" of the character in arbitrary dimensions. Some of the dimensions might be locations, but many could be based on choices, such as how good or evil the character is. Even though the XYZ dimensions no longer have a specific meaning, the character's actions and "story" are still represented by a thin squiggly line in arbitrarily dimensional space.

Then, imagine the story becoming less linear until it turns into a linear avatar game. In the visualisation, the thin squiggly line thickens up, but still remains squiggly. The thickness of the line represents the number/frequency of "small" choices a player has. When the player is allowed to make major choices, the squiggling line branches, forming a tree; if the branches recombine then a rhizome is created. If you squint hard enough you'll even see the string or pearls formed by points where the player's small choices are narrowed into a thin line.

As the experience turns into a sandbox, players are presented with many more minor and major choices; The the squiggle thickens and produces abundant branches. It becomes so thick and so laden with branches that the squiggle becomes a complete tangle. This tangle is the visualisation of the sandbox, where players can do anything they wish.

Visualising storylines

If you have ever read a novel (which you probably have), then you've noticed that novels don't just provide the story of the protagonist. They also include other characters; Often, half the chapters of the novel will follow the story of other secondary characters. Some novels even include several protagonists.

If a thin squiggle represents one character's story, then a novel is a collection of squiggles. Because books and movies are inherently linear, an author will first narrate a bit of the protagonist's squiggle, then jump over to another character's squiggle and narrate a portion of that, then back to the protagonist's squiggle, etc.

By convention, novels only narrate characters' stories where the stories (a) are interesting to the reader, and (b) significantly and repeatedly affect the protagonist. For purposes of visualisation, if a character meets or somehow affects another character's story, then their squiggles touch. This means that a novel is a collection of thin squiggles (each representing a single character's story), all of which touch one another at one or more points.

Therefore, a linear avatar game is a collection of thick squiggles that occasionally touch. Most avatar games only follow the protagonist, so the game only includes one squiggle. However, some allow players to control different characters in different parts of the same instance of the world, resulting in the same basic structure as a novel (containing multiple squiggles, albeit thicker.)

Extending the idea to sandboxes produces several highly tangled squiggles that intersect one another. This tangle of tangles is almost impossible to visualise in detail. I don't think I've ever played a single-player sandbox game that had the player controlling several different characters in the same instance of the world. Single-player sandbox games do allow players to create several characters, but they each have their own world instance. Providing a sandbox with several characters (in the same instance) doesn't make much sense, since a sandbox provides so much flexibility that a single character is all the player needs to experience the game's instance.

However, I have played a multiplayer sandbox, where each player has their own character in the same world. A multiplayer sandbox is known as a world-like MMORPG.

A multiplayer linear avatar game is like a game-like MMORPG, but not quite. I haven't actually seen any multiplayer linear avatar games as I've described. I have seen game-like MMORPGs, such as World of Warcraft, that are part way between a linear avatar game and a sandbox. WoW isn't a pure linear avatar game because the storylines aren't well defined. Guild Wars comes closer, but it only has one storyline.

There are a few reasons why I suspect pure multiplayer linear avatar games don't exist at the moment:

1. 
   No one has seriously tried the idea. Most games are clones of other games with small evolutionary modifications.
   
2. 
   Existing game-like MMORPGs evolved from world-like MMORPGs, and haven't made a complete transition. As a rule, existing MMORPG players do not like linear games, since MMORPG players are attracted to world-like MMORPGs because of the other players, by the open ended gameplay (sandbox), and/or by the extended gameplay. A multiplayer linear game won't have the open-ended gameplay, nor will it take 500 hours to complete.
   
3. 
   It's a lot of work to make a game-like MMORPG with multiple storylines. Since storylines are inherently linear (with occasional branching), if there's only one storyline in a world then you and your closest 100,000 friends will experience the same storyline in the same world, making you feel like you're on an amusement park ride, not in a world. Therefore, a world must have many (4 to 20) storylines. This many storylines is not only a lot of work, but it is "wasted" content that most players won't ever see; Bean counters will strenuously object.
   
4. 
   "Multiplayer stories" don't make any sense since the experience is akin to sitting in a darkened movie theatre with thousands of other well-behaved people; they have no effect on the experience. As any die-hard sandboxer will tell you, multiplayer sandboxes make the most sense. A multiplayer linear game, often derided by sandboxers as a "massively single-player game", is some place in-between multiplayer stories, which are pointless, and multiplayer sandboxes, an obviously-successful application. Thus, it's unclear whether a multiplayer linear avatar game makes sense.
   

1. 
   Friends can help each other out on their storylines.
   
2. 
   Players can use the game world (and storylines) as a way to meet other people. See The dating game.
   
3. 
   Storylines can be designed to (occasionally?) require interaction with other players. Such interaction might include the buying and selling of items, teaming up with specialist player-characters from another storyline, or even some PvP. See The game loop.
   

Here are the challenges with multiplayer linear avatar games, as I see them:

1. 
   The world and its backstory must be rich enough to handle 4-20 storylines. The World of Warcraft's backstory explains why players want to go out and kill things, but not why a player would want to partake in a private eye or a town mayor storyline.
   
2. 
   The team must create enough content for 4-20 storylines. While this isn't nearly as much work as creating an equivalent number of single-player linear avatar games, it's probably 3x-10x as much content work. Don't forget that each storyline must include a few variations as well as a few major choices that require branching, requiring yet more content.

   To reduce costs and to make the world feel populated, some/most content should be shared between at least two of the storylines. For example: The same crypt that attracts a vampire-slayer (storyline) might also attract an archaeologist (storyline).

   
   
3. 
   The 4-20 storylines must all be individually interesting, at least to a portion of the game-playing population. If only 1% of the players elect to play a storyline then it probably isn't worth including. The most popular storylines in MMORPGs are (1) kill things, (2) kill other player characters, (3) trade, (4) explore, and (5) forget about playing the game and just socialise. That leaves 15 storylines, some of which might include being a detective, Don Juan, military commander, ship's captain, or mayor of the town. Only ten storylines to go! (I suspect there is a connection between successful storylines and The dream factory.)
   
4. 
   As with a novel, players with different storylines will cross paths...
   
   • 
     All the storylines must somehow interact with other storylines. An isolated storyline that includes no interaction with other players might as well be a single-player game. Likewise, if the storylines cluster into two disconnected subsets, then split the game into two or redesign the storylines.

     For example: If explorers only ever interact with archaeologists, and archaeologists only ever interact with explorers, then either re-design explorers and archaeologists to interact with other storylines (like merchants), or get rid of both of them.

     
     
   • 
     A specific interaction must make the game more fun for at least one of the players involved. Ideally, interactions will be fun for both players, but this won't always be the case.
     
   • 
     Corollary: Interactions that are neutral fun-wise should be gotten rid of. There is no point forcing player interaction unless it will make the experience more fun.
     
   • 
     Corollary: Players who like to play alone must be able to avoid interactions with other players. There might be a cost though, such as NPC merchants charging more than player merchants.
     
   • 
     While players may not enjoy some of their player-with-player interactions, on the whole, player interactions should make the player's experience more fun. Any storyline where player interactions end up being a net minus for the player should be removed, since players of that storyline would find a single-person version to be more fun. The Player pyramid may have effect though; Theoretically, some storylines could have a net negative player-with-player interaction if the player were allowed to play for free.
     
   • 
     Furthermore, any storyline which is a net negative to all other storylines should also be removed. However, if a player pay enough money and ends up subsidising other players then many sins can be forgiven.
     

At some point, the storyline of the thief might allow the thief to rob a player merchant (resulting in controlled PvP); obviously, the thief player will find the experience fun, while the merchant will dislike the experience. To counteract the merchant's negative experience with the thief player, the merchant will need a positive experience with another player, such as making a spectacular profit from another player, or perhaps having the pleasure of fingering the thief.

The thief storyline cannot be designed to cause grief every time the thief interacts with other players, since that would make the thief storyline a net negative. Consequently, some players will need to find encounters with the thief to be beneficial and pleasant, such as an archaeologist player that hires the thief to guide the archaeologist through a series of trapped tombs.

The thief is only allowed to rob other players when his storyline permits (which means only a couple of times). If the thief were given carte blanche, the storyline would not only be a net negative, but it would be an unknown negative, enabling a few particularly-successful thieves to ruin the experience for hundreds of players.

5. 
   At best, marketing will only be able to attract half of the current crop of MMORPG players. 50%-75% of them will intensely dislike the linearity and/or the relatively short gameplay of multiplayer linear avatar games. Consequently, marketing must convince players who like single-player linear avatar games that they'll like the multiplayer equivalent. This will prove difficult since most of these players will either dislike other players impinging upon their world and/or having to connect to the Internet while playing. They will also erroneously assume that all multiplayer games are time syncs and cost $15/month. See The law of new inventions.