Multiplayer Interactive-Fiction Game-Design Blog

Programmed intuition

10 January 2007

by Mike Rozak

Discuss on www.mXac.net/forums

In this article I will revisit a way to visualise choice and use the discussion to show how "intuition" can be a useful device.

Choice space, part 1

Imagine, if you will, a multidimensional volume of "choice space" that covers all the possible choices that players can make. Since visualising a highly-dimensional volume is too complex, try to imagine a piece of paper. X (left and right) represents choices, and Y (up and down) represents time.

1. 
   A story is a line, since players have no choices. It starts at the bottom of the page (the past) and works its way up. It may make jogs to the left or right, but it's still a line.
   
2. 
   A "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, with a set of choices, is a tree. It starts at the bottom of the page with the first page of the CYOA book. At each choice is a node with branches to the left or right. Technically, CYOA books aren't trees because branches sometimes recombine, but a tree is an easier concept to envision.
   
3. 
   If there are sub-games between the choices (aka: procedural choices), then the line segment between each choice becomes fuzzy, representing all the possible ways that individual players could complete each sub-game. If players always start and finish at a well-defined CYOA-choice then the fuzzy lines refocus into a point at the choices.
   
4. 
   If the procedural-choices are used to determine the CYOA choices, then the fuzzy lines DON'T refocus to a choice-dot, and remain fuzzy even at branches. For example: If the player's choice of whether to be good or evil is actually determined by their procedural choices, then the choice node isn't a dot, but a fuzzy ball.
   

Instead of viewing choices as a series of fuzzy lines, imagine that the two-dimensional sheet has a third dimension of topography added. Lines turn into steep gorges, while fuzzy areas are valleys.

However, in my current description, even the valleys are walled by steep cliffs, preventing players from climbing out.

What I describe is the typical configuration for contemporary adventure games and (most) CRPGs. Basically, players can wander around in the valleys, completing quests, but are prevented from ever climbing out of the valleys. For example: Players cannot decide to join the evil overlord, much less become his hairdresser.

Some choices are just not allowed:

1. 
   Some choices aren't possible due to limitations in the programming of the world's physics, such as becoming the evil overlord's hairdresser. There is no hairdressing skill, and only a few unstylish 3D hairstyles like Mohawks and mullets.

   Adventure games, which tend to have exceptions-based physics, commonly prevent any activities except those that advance the plot because such activities haven't been programmed in.

   
   
2. 
   Some choices will be be prevented by other design assumptions; even if the world allowed hair styling, the author may have pre-programmed the evil overlord to always be antagonistic towards the player character... meaning that he'd never show up for his hair appointment.
   
3. 
   Some choices haven't been developed because the author doesn't think players would be interested in them. The evil overlord might show up for his hair styling, sit patiently in the chair, and even pay the character, but nothing more would come of it; he'd be just another customer.
   
4. 
   Some choices are developed, but not as well as they could be. The overlord may become a regular customer, but the overall hair-stylist quest/plot is fairly boring. You can think of these as short valleys. The overlord might get a few haircuts throughout the game, but his hair wouldn't undergo a character arc or anything story-like.
   
5. 
   Some choices are disallowed because they would ruin the game's story and/or some pre-programmed quests. See below...
   

Some choices are disallowed because they would ruin the game's story and/or some pre-programmed quests. For example, the right haircut might make the evil overlord so happy that he stops his evil ways. Or, to get away from the hairdressing motif, what would happen if a player in a Lord of the Rings CRPG is given the one-ring for safe keeping but decides to flush it down the toilet? Game over.

In other words, if a game lets a player climb out of the valley then the player might not be allowed back in. Once the one ring is out of the player's hands, there's nothing the player can do except slay orcs. All the work that the authors spent digging out the valley to Mordor is lost on the player.

Given a choice, players will always (accidentally) climb out of the valley. Don't forget, they're wandering around in a thick fog and can't see where they're going. Even if they don't want to break the story by leaving the valley, they will do so.

Adventure games and CRPGs solve this problem in the following ways:

• 
  Players can't do anything that would harm any of the quests. This is an adventure game favourite; You simply cannot flush the one ring down the toilet, no matter how hard you try. Either the game won't have a toilet, or some excuse will be made when you try to flush the ring down. You may be able to flush a goldfish down, but not the one ring.
  
• 
  As soon as players do something to harm a quest, the game finds a way to kill the player's character. This forces the player to reload the game to a time before the harmful act was completed. For example: As soon as the one ring is flushed down the toilet, a ring-wraith hears the flushing, shows up, and kills the character.
  
• 
  Undo via "the grind". Flushed the one-ring down the loo? Don't worry, you can buy a replacement from "Bob the wandering ring merchant" for 10,000 gold pieces. Don't have 10,000 gold pieces? Don't worry, you can camp at the orc spawn-point and eventually earn it from loot.
  
• 
  Easy undo. Flush the ring down the toilet and Gandalf will magically bring the player a new one the next day.
  

There is another possibility, but it breaks the fourth wall!

If a player does something that would ruin the plot (or even a minor quest), warn them. Display a message, "Flushing the one ring down the toilet is a bad idea. Do you still want to pull the lever?"

Providing players with "intuition" warning has the following benefits:

1. 
   Players can do whatever they want (so long as the world's physics allow for it). This means that they aren't restricted (barring limits to the world's physics). In other words, they can climb out of the valley.
   
2. 
   A player that is told, "You can't flush the one-ring down the toilet," gets frustrated. If they get an intuition warning instead, they may be annoyed for having the fourth wall being violated, but they now know: "I can't flush the ring down the toilet for my own good."
   
3. 
   Despite the warning, players can still take quest-damaging actions. Oddly enough, this provides them with another choice; they can choose to rebel.
   

The plot / valley thickens

The topology analogy has some ramifications for a game's design:

• 
  The whole idea of "intuition" ties in nicely with full-spectrum content.
  
• 
  A game can keep track of intuition warnings. If a number of players consistently try to do something that's quest-breaking, maybe the quest should be modified so it's not broken by the action. If lots of players try to flush the one ring down the toilet, add some rat-filled sewers to Hobbitton.

  This follows the same philosophy that university grounds-keepers use; if students keep walking across one section of the grass, don't yell at them, build a sidewalk there.

  
  
• 
  A wide valley provides players with "space" to wander off "the chosen path", such as a few extra streets in the city, or a wilderness setting that is more than an intestine-shaped meander. However, novice players can easily get lost in wide-open spaces.
  
• 
  A deep valley is filled with detail (and perhaps extra eye candy). Given a choice, novice players will choose a deep but narrow valley, while experienced players will choose a wide but shallow valley; they'd go for the wide and deep valley too, but that's too expensive to build.
  
• 
  The more valleys, the more storyline choices a player has.
  
• 
  Adding more procedural content and extra world "physics" is equivalent to removing some of the topsoil from everywhere.
  
  Long-term multiplayer worlds tend to put their effort into "removing the topsoil from everywhere" since they often involve player-versus-player, or player-with-player, where stories are pointless. However, such worlds also need to attract new players, who often want the stories/quests; See The player pyramid.
  
• 
  Unfortunately, the analogy breaks when new quests (stories) are added. Since quests are independent of one another, each quest is on its own topography map.