The hero's journey... kind of

The hero's journey... kind of

20 September 2006

by Mike Rozak

Discuss on www.mXac.net/forums

Once in awhile, I sit down and write down all the reasons why I think people play (multiplayer) games. I purposely start with a blank page to maximise my creativity. This time around, I scribbled down the following items:

• 
  Want to not fail, but to succeed - Too much of life is about failures.
  
• 
  Want friends, either NPC or real
  
• 
  Want to be famous
  
• 
  Want to explore - Understand something new and meaningful.
  
• 
  Want to impact/beat other people - Perhaps making them miserable (griefing) or happy.
  
• 
  Want excitement
  
• 
  Want to create or change the word - "I did that!"
  
• 
  Want to be a "fireman", some sort of archetypical profession.
  
• 
  Want to be someone/something different - Roleplayers, for example.
  
• 
  Want to own a house or business.
  
• 
  Want to be a leader.
  
• 
  Want to travel to expensive or impossible places, such as space or "Middle Earth".
  
• 
  Want to have pets or children.
  

• 
  The trouble with explorers - I want to make a game targeted at explorers, but there don't seem to be many explorers to target.
  
• 
  The family restaurant problem - My thought experiments (as well as real life) imply that a virtual world needs to target a variety of player types. One that just targets explorers, and not achievers, socialisers, and griefers, is doomed to a very small player base.
  
• 
  The Hero's Journey applied to MMORPGs - As described by Richard Bartle in Designing Virtual Worlds.
  

All these ideas were intermingling in my brain when a subtle (or illusory?) pattern suddenly emerged...

Several of the reasons why people play games come down to a simple statement, "I exist!" These are:

• 
  Making choices
  
• 
  Excitement - As people say about adrenalin activities, "It makes you feel alive!"
  
• 
  Creating or changing the (virtual) world
  
  • 
    Owning a house/business (to an extent)
    
• 
  Impacting other players, through griefing, socialising, or pestering
  

I rapidly had another epiphany: "The terrible twos" are all about "I exist!" Two year olds are continually defying parental authority (aka: making decisions), looking for excitement, creating (with crayon scribbles on the walls), and impacting other players (seeking attention by being cute, as well as the less-desirable temper tantrums).

I am a success!

Another collection of reasons for play can be seen as ways that players prove that they're a success:

• 
  Sub-games that don't allow failure, such as the combat grind. These games have the moral: "If you try hard enough, you will eventually succeed."
  
• 
  Being famous.
  
• 
  Publicly displayed levels and wealth let players brag about how successful they are.
  
• 
  Owning a house or business is often about success.
  
• 
  Being a leader and running a guild can also be seen as a status symbol.
  

Consider this:

1. 
   Children (up to their teens, and sometimes beyond) are often concerned with "proving their existence". They may not be as obnoxious about it as two-year olds, but much of what they do is similar.
   
2. 
   Once a child has proven to himself and the world that he exists, sometime before age ten, he notices that everyone else has known this all along, and they all exist too. Furthermore, other people "exist" better than the child; Adults and older children are more skilled at just about everything: being better at basketball, able to ride their bicycle faster, standing several inches taller, etc.
   
3. 
   The next logical step is for children to improve how well they exist. Children do this by being competitive... by being a success! (For those of you than don't remember being ten, just about everyone in the world is better at everything you try to do. If this fact weren't obvious enough, school reinforces the impression by continually handing you grades informing you how incompetent you are!)

   Children quickly realise that they can't be a success at everything, so they target a few niches and work to be the best; they join the baseball team and are almost immediately better than 90% of their classmates... only because their classmates haven't joined the baseball team. They then work their way up the team, trying to become MVP; if that fails, they try their lot at hockey, volleyball, or swimming. Children eventually find something they can be best at, even if it is something obscure like discus, the chess club, or WoW battlefields.

   
   

Behold! A matrix:

What happens (in real life) when someone finally is a success (at discus, or whatever)?:

1. 
   Many people don't ever become a success, but keep striving for their entire lives. If your definition of being success is being the richest person in the world, you are unlikely to succeed.
   
2. 
   Many people succeed and immediately choose another goal to succeed at, and then another, and another. How many sports stars become top of their game and then "retire" only to take up another sport or to become a coach?
   
3. 
   Most people eventually succeed at something, coming to the following conclusion: I succeeded at being a discus player; I am the best in the world, or at least in my home town. That's pretty good. I could try to succeed at something else, but, in a sense, "I've been there and done that." I know how much work it will take, I know what it will feel like to succeed, and I know I'll have the same "What's next?" dilemma when I'm a success at my new endeavour.
   
4. 
   If I am a success and I don't care to repeat the experience, what do I do with my life? Of course, I need to put food on the table and provide shelter, but that still leaves a lot of spare time. What now?
   
5. 
   What do famous sports figures do after they retire? Some coach, but not necessarily to prove they're a success. Some start up tennis schools. Some donate their time to charity. Some become politicians. Some just drink themselves to death... Ignoring the alcoholism alternative, the answer is that, "People who have been successful become mentors," or take on similar sorts of altruistic roles.

   Introverted people, whom you usually don't hear about, often go back to university, or read every book in the library, or spend all their time watching daytime soaps.

   
   

First of all, the transition from "I exist!" to "I am a success!" to "Meaning of life?" sounds suspiciously like Maslow's pyramid of human needs, with "physiological" needs at the base, followed by "security and safety", "love, and feelings of belonging", "competence, prestige, and esteem", "self-fulfilment", and finishing up with "curiosity and the need to understand."

The path also mimic's Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey to an extent. "I exist!" is the "departure" portion of the journey, "I am a success!" the "initiation", and "Meaning of life?" is the "return".

It likewise vaguely resembles Richard Bartle's "development tracks" from Designing Virtual Worlds, of which there are two common paths:

• 
  Griefer -> Networker -> Politician -> Friend - This path roughly corresponds to the "extroverted" path from "I exist!" to "Meaning of life?"
  
• 
  Opportunist -> Scientist -> Planner -> Hacker - Roughly corresponds to the "introverted" path.
  

I do have something new to say; Let me first discuss a few more observations:

1. 
   All people exhibit "I exist!", "I am a success!", and "Meaning of life?" behaviours at various times, and often simultaneously. I am painting is very broad strokes.
   
2. 
   In real life, children (ages 2 - 16) tend to have "I exist!" behaviours. Adults do too, but the tendency is more prevalent in children.
   
3. 
   Teenagers and 20/30-something adults (10 - 40) tend to have "I am a success!" behaviours, beginning with school grades and sports, and finishing with corporate ladder climbing and expensive houses.
   
4. 
   On a tangential note: Between ages 20 and 25, most people's brains develop a genuine sense of empathy, which barely exists for children under 15.

   To use an everyday example, teenagers (in particular) play incredibly loud music and selfishly impose it on the neighbourhood. Teenagers know that other people don't like them playing loud music, but they don't care. By age 25, loud music playing tends to stop because (IMHO) the culprits can now empathise with their neighbours, who have complaining about the music's volume for years.

   
   
   The introduction of empathy has an effect on games. As a teenager, I'd happily spend hours slaying orcs in fantasy games. As an adult, I wonder why all orcs are an enemies, and if the virtual orcs have virtual mothers who cry over their childrens' virtual graves. This effect really struck home when I was playing World of Warcraft and a quest requested "10 bear gall-bladders"; in the real world, real bear species are nearly extinct because of the real bear gall-bladder trade! The same goes for shark fin, rhino horns, etc. I found myself empathising with virtual bears.
   
5. 
   30-something adults and older (30 +) tend to have "Meaning of life?" behaviours. By the time people hit 40-50, you often hear them asking, "Why do I have such a large house?" and "Why am I working 60 hours a week?"
   
6. 
   People tend NOT to change from introvert to extrovert over their lifetime, and vice versa.
   

• 
  While a single game might include "I exist!", "I am a success!", and "Meaning of life?" components, I don't expect players' mental maturity to advance in sync with the game. I expect players to "mature" over many years of playing different games.
  
• 
  Games oriented at young children should emphasise "I exist!" behaviours, since that's what children will find the most fun. (Aka: "Animal Crossing") The games might include an "I am a success!" end-game, but most young children won't be enthralled by the achievement grind.
  
• 
  Games targeting teenagers to 30-something's begin with an "I exist!" phase that allows players to prove their character's freedom, but quickly move into "I am a success!" mode that involves steady doses of achievement. A "Meaning of life?" end-game is possible, but many teenagers won't get it. (Notice that in MUD I & II, Richard Bartle's end-game corresponded to the "Meaning of life?" phase.)
  
• 
  Due to their empathy, players 25 and up will be attracted to less violent games. Violence is still possible, but it needs to be justified. Teenagers, on the other hand, can be told, "The orcs are evil. Exterminate them all!" and they will happily do so for hours and hours.
  
• 
  Games targeting adults 30+ might begin with a short "I am a success!" achievement mode, but they quickly move into "Meaning of life?" mode.
  
• 
  Introverted players don't need to play multiplayer games. If you want them to play online, the "multiplayer" mode needs to be as painless as possible. (Note: As with anything, people only have tendencies towards introversion or extroversion.)
  
• 
  Again, The trouble with explorers proves true. Richard Bartle's "explorers" are both introverted and in the "Meaning of life?" stage. Being introverts, they aren't attracted to multiplayer games. And since most game players are (physically/mentally) 35 and younger, the percentage of players concerned with "Meaning of life?" is significantly smaller that those interested in "I am a success!". (Hence the popularity of achiever-based games like Everquest and World of Warcraft that target the currently-larger "I am a success!" market.)
  
• 
  The "family restaurant problem" is less of a barrier to explorer-only worlds than I expected because it is possible to stereotype based on age (since people's friends are usually the same age as they are, and more likely to be in the same "Meaning of life?" phrase).

  This implies that a world targeted at explorers needs to be targeted at not just Richard Bartle's "hackers" (a specific form of "explorer"), but also "friends" (a form of "socialiser"). Such a game could be an adventure game with plenty of mysteries to solve, places to explore, reasons for "friends" to help other players out, all combined with a chat room. Levels, wealth, player-owned housing, and other standard achiever-based MMORPG features don't matter. Unfortunately, adventure game content is very expensive to produce, though, and the target market is still small.

  
  
• 
  Another solution would be to create a massive world that includes content targeted at all three stages: "I exist!", "I am a success!", and "Meaning of life?" Such an arrangement would be particularly beneficial for players interested in teaching, mentoring, and philanthropy.
  

I'm not sure I entirely believe these conclusions. They seem a bit too simplistic to be real, and I can readily poke a number of holes in the theory. However, the theory provides some conclusions that need to be explored.

Furthermore, the model doesn't "explain away" all the reasons why people want to play games, such as:

• 
  Friends - Many/most people play MMORPGs to bond with their friends, or to meet new ones. Richard Bartle would include these players in his "socialisers". Friendship doesn't fit so neatly in my model.
  
• 
  "Firemen" - Young children want to be firemen, policemen, etc. because they are easily understood professions and seen as important (aka: "I exist!"). Many adults also want to be firemen, policemen, assassins, secret agents, ninjas, etc. Do they want to take on this role because it fulfils an adult need for "I exist!" or "I am a success!", or because the roles resonate with goals imprinted on the adults' brain by their younger selves?
  
• 
  Be someone/something/somewhere different - Many people want to escape their ordinary lives, not just fulfil their need for existence/success/meaning. Games still needs to feature some form of escape