Story! - the long-overdue part 3 of the prototype analysis

A long time ago, I started a series of posts to analyze and record the things I learned from a playtest of the prototype of my game. However, I never finished the third post, which was meant to analyze the story of the game, and more importantly how the story was told and how people perceived it. This is that post.

I want Micro Missions to be able to tell stories in a very abstract, symbolic way, without using too many words or specific details about the story. This both helps the "controlled chaos" feeling of the game and makes generating dynamic stories much more feasible. But can I make stories abstract yet still basically understandable? Judging by the playtest, the answer seems to be: Yes, if I'm careful, and reinforce the right points of the stories in the right ways.

The last question on the playtest survey asked the respondents to "Describe what the game is about(story-wise)." I left this question intentionally vague to see not only how much people understood about the story, but how much they cared about it and wanted to write about it. The answers ranged from 3-word sentences starting with "idk" and mentioning a few prominent features like stick figures or chases to long, comical narratives which extrapolated the simple story into a true RPG epic. Most people, though, seemed to be content with understanding the gist of the story - chasing, defeating, finding treasure. This is exactly the kind of spread that I had hoped for, so I'm pretty happy with it.

I'm also extremely happy that more than one person was inspired to write down extrapolated stories. This shows not only that people's minds are working to actively fill in the details I left out, but also that people are having fun with the story aspect of the game.

Throughout playtesting different versions of the game, the most common points of confusion about the story surrounded the role of the mini-games themselves: why am I currently doing this thing? what did I just accomplish. So, the most important thing in terms of the story is to make sure the mini-games are book-ended by context: for most mini-games, there needs to be a cutscene that describes what's about to happen before the game, and another cutscene at the end that describes the outcome. The more these cutscenes are connected to the mini-game, the better.

For example, after defeating the bandit, the player is presented with a cutscene of a letter which gives clues as to the location of the leader. This confused some people, probably because not everyone is used to the somewhat typical RPG sequence of "defeat bad guy" -> "gain information(by looting his body for clues/letters)." Instead of implying that the letter was found on the bandit, it would have probably been better to show the bandit "dead" (or knocked out) explicitly before showing the letter.

When looking through the survey answers, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who identified the guy you fight as a "bandit." Pretty soon I realized that this was not because I was so great at drawing stick-figure bandits, but rather because I identified him as a bandit in the letter cutscene. Before this discovery, my goal for storytelling in Micro Missions was to use as few words as possible, to make the game more abstract and symbolic. But now I realize that words are very powerful symbols themselves, and being able to cause the player to associated a graphical symbol with a word is extremely useful for forming connections to the player's previous experiences. So now my goal is to use words in conjunction with visual symbols, and instead I'm going to try to avoid full sentences longer than 2-3 words.

"Dynamic" story?

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called 'research', would it?"

-commonly attributed to Einstein

"[A story] is nothing more than a sequence of events that someone relates to someone else."

-Jesse Schell, The Art of Game Design

It's pretty easy to define what a "dynamic story" is not. It's not a static, pre-determined, pre-written, pre-recorded, unchangeable story.

It becomes harder to define and agree on what a "dynamic story" is, should be, or can be. I think that's why there also tends to be a lack of agreement on whether such a thing is possible and/or desirable. Does generating "dynamic stories" imply giving up authorship and leaving the story to chance, the computer, and (maybe, sometimes) the player? Can "dynamic story" mean defining a game world and rules, letting the player loose, and assuming the player will create his own stories out of the events that transpire as a result of the rules? If a computer generates a story, is it already dynamic by virtue of not being pre-written before the game shipped?


For me, in the scope of this project, "dynamic story" means the following (in dimishing order of importance):

• The story is told by the game to the player

I have encountered, several times, the point of view that all games are "storytelling machines" in that they enable players to later tell stories about events that transpired during the game ("we were almost losing but then I stole the ball and made the goal right before the game ended!"). However, I see a huge difference between storytelling (the game tells a story to the player) and story enabling (the player tells stories about the game). I'm interested in the first one. As the player, I want to be told a story.

• The player has agency in relation to the story and its progression

Specifically, the player has agency over how his character acts within the context of the story, and the character's actions are acknowledged by the story and world in a sensible manner, much like a Game Master in a pen and paper RPG must constantly adjust to the players' actions. Ideally, the player has a constrained but flexible vocabulary of actions that enable him to react to the events of the story the way he sees fit. The story, in turn, can react reasonably and believably to the player's reaction.

• The story is engaging and interesting

'Cause boring stories are boring.

• The story mimics the typical RPG story style and storytelling conventions.

The familiar story structure would give the player comfortable, easy to understand stories. This could be especially important in such an abstract, strange setting as a story-based microgames game. On the other hand, it also provides a large, easy to understand and abstract basis for a story system. Thus, to answer the question of "how will a computer tell a story, and how will it decide what story to tell?" we can first answer, "how do computer games usually tell stories, and what stories do they tell?"

These constraints are guided by introspection: what is it that I find so appealing about a dynamic story system? What do I really want to achieve or fix with such a system?

Primarily, it is the frustration of running into what I would call the "invisible walls" of on-rails storytelling: "But I don't wanna walk into the trap!" "This escape plan is stupid, I have a better one" "I want to disagree with that guy but all the dialog options agree with him!" "Can't we just kill him or take the doohickey by force?" "I'm pretty sure I could have talked my way out of this" "What am I supposed to do to make the auxilary character finish his 'research' and progress the story?" "Oh, so this guy dies whether or not I choose to kill him?" and so on. 

It would be impossible to anticipate and address all the ways a player's idea of what his character should do next will disagree with the prescribed story, let alone create viable alternatives to the story for all of them! The usual solution is to not let the player make those choices. But is there a way to instead react to those choices as they happen?

My secondary motivation is a fascination with game worlds as models. I personally feel the most engaged and connected to a game world when that world is an understandable, internally consistent model. On the other hand, I often find myself get bored of games quickly if they don't engage me with their story, even if they have good gameplay. Why not try to create a model of an engaging story?