[Game Design] Will Wright on Story and Game

[Kestrel]

I want to run a player-directed game, but usually when I start to, they tend to stare at me with blank looks.

GM: "So...what do you want to do?"
Players: "Um, we're waiting for the train. Even got a ticket."

 

[LordVyreth]

As a hopeful game designer, I think the idea of making the Wright style of game-design the standard bothers me, and it makes as much sense as the occasional claim that all games in the future should be MMOs. I enjoy Wright games and am chomping at the bit for Spore, but I wouldn't want to give up more plot-intensive games like Final Fantasy for it, either. It was one of the reasons I didn't get that into Neverwinter Nights, for example. Yes, there was a plot, but my character had nothing to do with it, because the role had to be filled by everyone from the story-intensive player to the guy playing a Sephiroth clone. Yes, you could create an elaborate backstory and motivation for your hero, but aside from the general alignment branches, it doesn't really affect the game. Your enemies will react to you in the same way.

As for tabletop RPGs, it's theoretically possible to do so. In current D&D, I don't see it, because while you can simply take monsters out of the various monster books, it takes time to advance them, create NPCs, prepare encounters, or otherwise establish events beforehand. Even if it was possible, I wouldn't run it, though. Frankly, I don't see how it would be fun for the DM, at least for me. If the system was that perfected, why do I even have to be there? A computer could run the game just as well.

 

[Celebrim]

If the system was that perfected, why do I even have to be there? A computer could run the game just as well.

Right.

In which case, why would you go to the trouble of separating yourself from your friends, doing all sorts of work, and dealing with all the grief that comes with being 'the DM' when you could just play along side your friends as a fellow player?

 

[mmu1]

Will Wright's style of game design doesn't appeal to me at all. His games - especially the later ones - have hardly any content, and despite all his talk about open-ended gameplay, they're incredibly shallow and limiting.

He likes to talk about people creating their own stories - hundreds of thousands of them - but neglects to mention that, for the most part, the players have no ability to really live out those stories in-game. (or if they do, it's because those stories are limited to the rather narrow circle of activities the games permit)

Hmm... What would I rather play, a game with a linear story that lets me live out - at least in small part - some kind of fantastic, larger than life story, or a game that lets me non-linearly play out some of the parts of boring old everyday life? (or I should say, lets my character play them out, since when you character - for example - watches TV, you don't actually experience anything of interest.)

As for players getting to drive gameplay in RPGs - that's a fine idea, certainly, but it can be taken too far. There are already RPGs out there - stuff like Burning Wheel or Burning Empires come to mind - in which the players are encouraged to create the world together. I've played them, and in my opinion, that sort of game - while ostensibly encouraging player involvement - actually leads to a much more shallow gaming experience. (and kills off any sense of wonder and exploration, since you've seen it all come together) I want to play (or run) RPGs, not engage in "Collaborative Storytelling"...
If for no other reason, then because it's hard enough to find a single person who can tell a really good story - finding a committee capable of doing the same is almost impossible.

 

[dcas]

By the same token, site based, classic adventures might resonate so well because the group and the DM simply use them as the set for the stories they want to experience.

Yes! Like, say, B2.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What about when he says "If you took control away from the DM, the world would become quite narrow, and would lack a true sense of independent existence."?

That's what I said, actually. And the idea as I see it isn't to divorce a DM (or a computer interface) from the game, but to make the DM's influence less of a guiding force and more of a building force. The players provide a guidance, tell you what to create, you create it (putting in your own ingredients) and bring it back to them, letting them mess with it and tell you what to create next.

A good example seems to be that elfin asian kingdom. Even though it went against two prohibitions in the campaign, the DM allowed it and it enriched the game for years to come, because the player provided the direction and inspiration for it. The player said "I'm going to make this elf ninja!" and instead of saying "No," the DM said "Okay, but tell me his story." It opened up a communication, instead of a simple adherence to a rules-railroad.

In Wright's line of work, this means making the computer recognize what a player wants to do and then address the needs of that player within the game. You want your Sims to fall in love, they can. You want them to hate each other, they can. You want them to determine what they do in a totally random fashion and just watch, you can. You want to kill them in hilarious and painful ways, you can. At no point does the game say "No, that's not allowed." But at the same time, you might not control every facet of that. The game says "Okay, you try to fall in love, but your flirting isn't appreciated. Are you going to keep trying?"

In our line of work as DMs, it means recognizing what the players want and then addressing that need in the game. This often isn't the same thing as they say they want. Someone may say "I want to be a Beholder as a PC" when what they might really mean is "I want the challenge of making a bizarre, alien creature into a functional character." A DM could recognize what they're really saying, and adapt to it: "Okay, but you'll be a little Baby beholder and you have spidery legs you walk around on."

"Give them the challenge they're telling you they want," seems to be Wright's idea here.

We may select a general theme or style, but we don't expect when watching a movie or reading a book that the story conform to our wishes.

No, we do. What made Gili or Pluto Nash bad movies? They didn't do what we wanted them to do. They didn't act like we wanted them to act. They sucked because they didn't conform to our wishes.

The problem with giving the players more story control than they already have - and they already have alot - is that no two players are necessarily going to agree over what the story should be.

But all players generally agree to go along with other character's stories. I mean, as long as the Rogue gets time to explore his undercity contracts, he's happy to help the Wizard explore the world for arcane apocalypse devices.

A reactive DM's position seems to be like any DM: give equal spotlight time to all stories, to all characters. Weave them together if possible (to discover the apocalypse device, we'll need an illegal substance that only the rogues contacts can provide).

I mean, that's not even an issue.

 

[buzz]

I'm not sure I really understand why, when this subject comes up on ENWorld, there's this assumption that either the DM is large and in charge, or else it's:

GM: "So...what do you want to do?"
Players: "Um, we're waiting for the train. Even got a ticket."

I don't think any of the really good story-focused play I've ever experienced has been as a result of, "Okay, you're in a big sandbox. Go nuts." Being given free-reign in a vast simulation isn't story-gaming. It's aimless wandering that can possibly result in fun, but isn't guaranteed to.

It's not an issue of it either being the DM's story or the players' story. It's the group's story. And if everyone truly has input, at the end of the night, no matter where you started out, you should come away from the table thinking, "Wow, I had no idea we were going to end up there." The key is simply that you all know where it is you're starting out.

This is how story-focused play in "narrative sharing" games like Dogs in the Vineyard works. The GM's job isn't to create a story; it's to create a situation (and people) on the verge of disaster... right when the PCs ride into town. The situation isn't a sandbox. It's a pot starting to boil over. It constantly prods the players to decide what they're going to choose to do next. I.e., just because the GM hasn't plotted things out, it doesn't mean he's passive, waiting to react, and has no say. You don't get cool story that way.

And, there's no reason you can't do this sort of thing in D&D. Published adventures have done it.

As for what Will said... it's interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how applicable it is to tabletop RPGs. "Creating story" is a much bigger design challenge for video games; there's no human being across the table from you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

GM: "So...what do you want to do?"
Players: "Um, we're waiting for the train. Even got a ticket."

The problem begins when they don't KNOW what they want to do before you even ask them.

They don't have anything to act on to begin with. They don't have backgrounds? They don't have goals? They don't have stuff going on around them? They're waiting for the train, okay, the train arrives and it's filled with dead bodies. If they're not giving you something to act on, give them something they can't avoid (like what Dogs in the Vineyard does with a situation about to boil over).

 

[buzz]

The problem with giving the players more story control than they already have - and they already have alot -

Depends on the system.

...is that no two players are necessarily going to agree over what the story should be.

Ideally, the game started with people agreeing on what they wanted to play.

Not to mention, it's not like the end result we're striving for here is a coherent narrative that reads like a novel. The goal is shared input.

Only one player can really have the veto. Only one player of the game can really have full creative control. At the very least, someone has to break the ties.

Breaking the ties is pretty much what conflict resolution mechanics are all about.

 

[Reynard]

The problem begins when they don't KNOW what they want to do before you even ask them.

They don't have anything to act on to begin with. They don't have backgrounds? They don't have goals? They don't have stuff going on around them? They're waiting for the train, okay, the train arrives and it's filled with dead bodies. If they're not giving you something to act on, give them something they can't avoid (like what Dogs in the Vineyard does with a situation about to boil over).

I realize it is a little off topic, but this is also an issue when it comesto th mechanical aspects of character design. People complain a lot that 3e requires a huge time investment to create a character. I have found this to be only true when the person creating the character is doing so blindly. Of course it takes forever if all you're doing is flipping through the PHB hoping something catches your eye -- doubly so if you have more than the PHB at your disposal, and triply so if the character is starting at mid or high levels. One can hardly ask the players to have an idea of what kind of adventures they want if they don't have any idea what kind of adventurers they want, and vice versa.