Part 4: The StoryGUIDE Model
Designing a game as a series of missions, sub-missions and atomic challenges, composed of interactive choices that lead to an overall goal─ then aligning these missions and challenges with plot satellites and kernels─ form the basis for the StoryGUIDE model. In order to introduce this process, three diagrams are presented: a narrative flow diagram, a nonlinear interactive structure diagram, and a game events diagram. These three diagrams are then overlaid into a final StoryGUIDE diagram that illustrates the key idea of my thesis (see attachments below). Although story flow, game flow and decision points all move in a harmonious, overlapping direction, they represent three different structures that must be graphed independently before they can be combined. The game diagram is the more open, flowing model allowing for the “sandbox” feel of many games; atomic missions can be experienced in an open order, but alone they make no real story. The narrative diagram appears linear because plot and story events are linear─ the narrative graph is much more of a flow of events and happenings that can be seen or experienced, but when combined with the interactive diagram, only overlap at the key decision points. The interactive diagram is the one diagram that shows actual logic paths that are followed by the player and where the decisions lead.
Making these distinctions is important; otherwise, the designer might easily confuse the forward moving story logic of the narrative diagram with the way a level itself must be designed. This could easily lead to a linear level, when in fact the level can be quite open and nonlinear in its game events. The only real location where all diagrams must converge is at the kernels and key decision points. Thus a designer could make a level that was open in its game structure with lots of mobs to fight, NPC to talk to, or the like, but the eventual way might be barred by a gate that need a key to get through, and the key was part of a narrative where the opening of the gate aligned with a main kernel in the story.
This is a very simple application of this principle and designers can and should be much more clever and inventive. The important point here is that the model allows for very open ended game play that need only converge with story and interactive decision points in specific locations, and these locations do not need to be abundant to be successful.
The Process
The complete artistic implementation of the theory presents some problems based upon the current limitations of game engine technology and the sheer amount of effort and people needed to create a video game. Usually the actions are limited to fighting, healing, using “buffs”, collecting resources (pickups), or interacting with an NPC bot via a chat window, or listening to their pre-recorded dialogue. None of these really involve the social reasoning necessary for good story, but they can provide goals that can then be used for missions, sub-missions and atomic challenges, leading to a few meaningful choices for the player (and finally to several different endings).
There are several ways to approach the problem, but they all involve going back and forth amongst the elements of the system and refining the interactive story-game. You may want to start with the story in mind first. Look for key decision points along the way to use as plot kernels. Design the story so that the players make the decisions themselves to align with those goals. Use these to determine the possible outcomes (endings) of the story. Create plot satellites that point toward these multiple endings. Many of the satellites can point to multiple endings, while some will only point towards one of the endings. Try and account for the “probable” outcomes, which are probable because you have designed the interactive story that way, along with your missions, sub-missions and atomic challenges. Sometimes you may know the kernels and key decision points first; sometime you may have a few endings in mind. In any case, design the system going back and forth comparing the outcomes to the satellites and kernels to the decision points.
The gameplay options are the other half of the equation, and many designers may want to start with traditional game play elements. Either way, remember that the story must be integrated into the gameplay and that gameplay must always remain your priority. Design quests that give the player goals, and incorporate your satellites into them. This is done with dialogue, props or whatever you have available that follow narrative principles. You are setting things up so that as the player follows quest chains, he is developing his own goals and ideas about how he wants to solve the quests, missions, etc. The satellites are giving him these ideas, guiding and suggesting things, so that he thinks it is something he is entirely coming up with on his own (which he is with some guidance). Ideally then the flow of the game-play is: The player enters the world, sees the environment and the satellites. He then explores the world, and begins to develop goals and objectives and curiosities (“I wonder what’s in that dark tower, or if I can get in there?”) He may encounter atomic challenges, which he continues to experience all along the way. Then he encounters a quest-giver (this can be an NPC, a note or anything). The quest lets him choose if this is a goal he wants to do, or instead go on to develop new goals and find other objectives. The player eventually completes a sub-mission, and gets a reward that reinforces his behavior and his choice, and he begins to come up with new goals until he develops an overall long-term goal. All of this needs to be tested─ this is a second order design problem, and as such only testing will show how correct you were. Watch for emergent behavior and outcomes/endings the player expects or wants that you did not predict. Throw out extreme statistics either way in the case of improbable player outcomes; you are looking for the most probable outcomes. Try and determine what satellites led them down that path and why they may have missed or ignored your other satellites. You will also need to study whether or not players feel forced down a path, or if it seems there is an obvious “answer” everyone chooses. If so, try and balance things so that people choose a more even distribution. It is likely that there will always be a majority path, and that is fine. What you are looking for is to find any options that no one seems to ever choose, or ones that everyone chooses, and try and make the decisions tougher and more meaningful. If you do all of this well, once you are done players will almost always choose the goals you to which have guided them.
In summary, the method (in no particular order) is to define the points that have to be experienced where critical story decision are made, create the desired multiple endings, and fill in the game with interesting narrative elements where desired along each story path and making sure that they reinforce that particular path. If done in an artful way, players can experience the story on multiple levels or and engaging only the key decision points and whatever else they choose along the way, and never even be aware of the subtleties of the plot. They might even later talk to other players and be amazed at what they missed, their experience seeming as if it was not even the same game.
A Sample Mission Designed with StoryGUIDE
The sample mission has been kept relatively simple and straightforward in order to illustrate multiple concepts, and so that its corresponding diagram can be more easily read. The Mission involves the ultimate goal of the recovery of a powerful necklace which is desired by two NPCs in the game. The NPCs, Maelis and Telari, are both in the starting village of Edis, a place in the Arcanoria world that is overrun with undead, its living inhabitants all fled or killed. Maelis and Telari have an old rivalry, and both know the other is meddling in their plans and seeks the necklace. The necklace is known to have the power to control the undead in the area, and Telari is sure that Maelis must have it and is responsible for the undead attacks in the area. Maelis however, knows that he does not have it, and suspects that it is in a nearby catacomb. Maelis isn’t going to bother telling Telari that he isn’t responsible for the undead, much less reveal the possible location of the necklace to her. Enter our traveling player hero, who comes to the small village in the middle of this turmoil.
The player starts off and is presented with several satellites that all indicate the grim situation. The villagers are gone, a few of the trees seem to be dying, angry wolves prowl the area in the opening view of the player and an undead can be seen near an open house. The player will find the house is empty except for some turned over furniture (common throughout the village) and may decide to engage the skeletons and wolves in combat. Eventually the player will head off, probably down the road, where at a fork in the road they may be able to see the tavern in one direction and a church with a graveyard in the other. The player will likely choose one of the two NPCs to speak with, entering the first kernel of the story. Diagram 5 illustrates the quest using the StoryGUIDE diagram. The player decision paths are indicated by the blue dotted lines, and the player can go back on the lines at any time, but once a decision point has been passed, the player cannot go back to anything previous to that decision from a narrative standpoint. Game-play activities can repeat over and over, but their context as satellites changes based on the advancement of the story.
Note that in the diagram, it is possible that either encounter can serve as the first kernel. At this point, the player will be given a sub-mission by whichever NPC they choose to speak with. They may choose to complete the quest or not, but will not advance to the next sub-mission until completing one of the given sub-missions. After speaking with one of the two, they may either complete the quest and speak with that same person again, or they may choose to go and speak with the other NPC to whom they have not yet spoken. In other words, the events can happen in any order, but the game has been programmed in such a way that it does not matter. Events can occur in a nonlinear manner and the dialogue will respond appropriately. For example, the first sub-mission that Telari gives is to go and kill some of the skeletal undead in the area. However, by the time the player speaks with Telari, they may have already chosen to go around the village and kill enough undead to meet the quest requirement. If this is the case, Telari will recognize this and thank them, and give them their first quest reward. The same goes for Maelis and his quest to kill some of the wolves (Maelis wants to keep the skeletons around if possible, and knows that Telari can speak with animals and is likely using them as spies).
Once the first quests are completed, the player, having earned a bit of the NPC(s) trust, will be given a second quest, in which they obtain more information concerning the story itself. Maelis will mention Telari and how she cannot be trusted, and Telari will reveal that she thinks Maelis is responsible for the undead. The goal of the mission they give is to obtain the necklace. In truth, the Orc Shaman in the catacombs has the necklace and is responsible for the undead attacks in the area. It will be up to the player to decide whom to give the necklace. Each NPC will give a reward in the form of skill ‘boons’ (a traditional advancement concept in RPGs), with the idea being that the decision the player has made has now put him on a future path towards advancement within the ranks of one set of skills and/or faction. In other words, the player by his own decision has chosen whether or not he will be an ally to the Necromancer Maelis and learn his skill set, or whether he will ally with the Healer Telari and choose her as a teacher. The game represents just the introductory new player level of a larger game such as an MMORPG. In this hypothetical larger game, the stage is now set for deeper story information to be revealed about the nature and history of the conflict between Telari and Maelis as well as the factions they represent.