Challenges in writing for the MMO as a medium - Player Identity

This is the first of a series of posts, examining the challenges of MMO writing, how Blizzard has in my view failed at this task, and what I feel they need to do to get things back on track.

During 2009’s Game Developers Conference in Austin, Steve Danuser, yes - that Steve Danuser, gave a talk on writing for MMOs. In it, he said something that’s stuck with me ever since I became aware of it. I’m going to reference the Gamasutra article that summarized the talk for reference. Quoting it:

"Danuser argued that this issue is additionally complicated by the importance and draw of player stories, tales that arise from the community itself.

Writers should “get over themselves”, [Danuser] stated plainly. Instead of trying to saddle any single player with an epic destiny, the gameworld itself should provide a backdrop for collaborative heroism. Framing the narrative to promote teamwork, and creating narrative events that challenge the playerbase as a whole, allows for the epic tales writers crave."

He’s partially right here - but the area where I think he’s wrong and where he demonstrates that he’s wrong is that last bit there - the one about ‘epic tales [that] writers crave’. The craving certainly is understandable, but as I hope to argue, it is one arena where MMO writers likewise need to “get over themselves”.

So first, let’s look at this article by itself, which is entitled " GDC Austin: Writing for MMOs: You’re Doing it Wrong" - which is again accessible on Gamasutra.

The article identifies the following challenges in writing for MMOs versus other video games:

  1. “The genre is a bad fit for classic storytelling. The strength of the MMO genre is that it is a social medium, a communal experience with a shared narrative.”
  2. “No one wants to read in MMOs. Because players are more interested in acting than reading.”
  3. “The ongoing, living nature of the gameworld requires many stories to be kicked off and threaded together, but actively fights against the concept of resolution.”
  4. " Completing a tale in a raid ensures that only a small percentage of the playerbase will know the full backstory to the game."
  5. “The lack of a single protagonist is another challenge faced by MMO writers. “Everyone is special” is another way of saying no-one is, after all.”
  6. “Another MMO strength is that they can be played out of order, as the player becomes interested in certain elements of the game. That asynchronous play makes it challenging to tell a cohesive story.”
  7. "The memorable nature of player stories is a huge strength of the genre, but also possibly the games writer’s biggest challenge. "

If I am to summarize these - the challenges come forth primarily in the medium’s persistence, the player’s ability to choose what content they engage with and when, and the fact that there is no “one” protagonist.

Let’s start with the last two of these.

Autonomy in identity

When you first open up WoW, the game presents you with the two most important decisions you will make in the game.

  1. What is your class?
  2. What is your race?

The first of these questions is more tied in to your preferred game mechanics versus the second one - but the second one, being the more visual of the two options, matters significantly in terms of your identity. A Night Elf warrior is a different concept from an Orcish warrior.

This matters in an RPG, and especially in an MMORPG (where customization and the presentation of your identity is a major selling point) because of a thing called the Mimesis effect. In the study that uncovered it, researchers found that players, given a role, subconsciously changed their behaviors to match that role. Even if they didn’t know they were doing it, they in some form “role played”. Now, this effect was slightly stronger in cases where players chose that role versus scenarios where the role was assigned - but I want to highlight the second point, especially if we view assignment in terms of things like people picking their races for gameplay reasons. It also demonstrates that while we can exert our identity in selecting the role we wish to play, the role itself exerts itself back.

It’s at this point that I normally tie this finding with Scott Rigby’s work concerning the question of why we play video games in the first place. According to Rigby, we do so in order to satisfy the following psychological needs:

  • Competence
  • Relatedness
  • Autonomy

Let’s focus on the last of these - because games are an interactive medium, and in that sense, the player is in their own right a writer.

The choices you made in how you addressed certain quests are a part of that creative experience. The way that you and four other strangers tackled your first dungeon is part of that creative experience. So is that awesome play you made in a battleground that you told your guildmates about. These experiences, which I will henceforth refer to as “emergent narrative” - often do not require a writer’s direct input. They simply require that the writer construct a compelling and immersive enough sandbox that you can have those experiences. Per the article, Danuser and his counterparts (in my view correctly) stated: “don’t try to fix that. In fact, good narrative designers should accept that reality and aim to create a living world in which great player stories can be told.”

From a heavier “role-playing” experience, this also should dictate ultimately the kind of person that your character is. Want to play a villain? The living world should give you avenues to effect that through your character and your actions. Want to play the hero? Same thing. But the other matter here is because there are various other players as well - the game world needs to give them their preferred experiences as well. Tying back to the desire to customize and express one’s identity - it must afford autonomy in presenting that identity - at least to the extent that the game mechanics will allow. (For example - if you want to be evil but you’re level 1, you have some growing to do before you can turn that evil on other players - who have a chance to stop your fun from impinging on theirs through their ability to play the game in comparison to your own.) In WoW particularly, it’s important to note as well that there are various competing interests, and the balance between them has to be fair, lest they impinge on autonomy.

This autonomy is an important thing to respect, and the example of Mass Effect 3 shows us just what happens when you don’t. As Rigby noted in his 2017 GDC Session entitled “The Freedom Fallacy” (accessible via Youtube) - this wasn’t a matter of just having a bad moment - it was seen as a betrayal because people put hundreds of hours into making choices that weren’t, in the end, respected.

So, to sum up so far:

The MMO’s promise and central challenge is that there is no “one” protagonist because the player selects from a competing roster of roles through which they choose the identity through which they wish to be understood. That identity affects their game experience through the mimesis effect - or the natural tendency to consciously or unconsciously role-play. That identity must be respected because autonomy is one of the three main psychological needs that explain why people play games.

We’ll stop there for today. I want to pause to capture any feedback or critiques so far.

7 Likes

This was a great read! And it’s a lot to unpack. I’m gonna go down bit-by-bit and just talk on a few things.

My first thought is, “Man, he sure has changed his tone in the last 11 years”, but at the same time… I don’t necessarily know if that’s a bad thing.

In my mind, there are two kinds of stories in an MMO - or really, any video game: those told by the game, and those created in a response to the game. You’ve touched on both of these. For WoW, these have recently fallen into one of two areas of game design: narrative and mechanics, respectively.

I’m going to draw my my hay day of when I actually played WoW (I just roleplay these days, with some light PvP). I remember one fight against Lady Deathwhisper in Icecrown Citadel. We got the boss to 0.5% HP. She had killed all by one player (a hunter), and had a few DoTs still up but clearing fast. She fires a shadowbolt, hunter fires an arcane shot. The two cross each other and strike the opponent down. We won the fight a millisecond before we wiped.

Now, the story team designs Lady Deathwhisper’s backstory. They also dictate that she is defeated. Those are all things written into the lore. That a hunter managed to fire a heroic final shot before they both went down? That’s non canon, but a story nonetheless. Up until now, I’d never really thought of that as a story.

So, I think it’s important to distinguish between those two kinds of “story”. An MMO, I think, can get both, but that falls on entirely different teams. Because, in terms of story, the story told by the game affects all players, but the story told in response to the game only affects individuals.

Now, the mechanics team can affect how frequently players tell their own great stories. In truth, I think those are likely to be the most powerful, because the players basically told that story. They’re the main character. So, certainly in terms of player-satisfaction, that’s a pretty important component.

However, that doesn’t exactly take the narrative team off the hook. The other day, I was offering advice to a new guildie who just started the game. They were asking what expansion to level through. I broke down each zone’s story, and in-doing so, I noted a shift in what quests are for.

I think the shift really started in Cata, but didn’t hit full swing until WoD. From Vanilla to WotLK, quests weren’t really there to be markers for a single story. They were there to showcase the lore of the zone. More than following from one point of the story to the next, quests were mostly “fix the problems in this local area”. In Cata, there was a lot more focus on zone-wide stories, like we see today. Where you’re following a single plot across an entire zone.

I personally prefer the latter style, wherein narrative is delivered intentionally. The former style makes me feel like I’m exploring a giant world, which is great, but it feels… Ambling. Meandering. My personal preference is the more focused narrative, even if it feels less like exploring a big world, and more like riding a roller coaster at a theme park.

All of those decisions, the specific story that everyone sees, that’s the narrative I typically focus on, but separating both “stories” is certainly an interesting way to look at MMO design.

These two together are a big problem for storytelling. Stories follow a pretty prescribed structure. Though different cultures and people have given it different names, the three-act structure is pretty ubiquitous in good stories. Though that’s typically a western thing, but, from my very limited understanding, Japanese plays use a five-part structure that resolves to some form of “beginning, middle, end”.

Really, the structure is supposed to help pace different emotional beats that a hero must believably go through on their journey to change (or fail to do so). So, when the hero is a player that can have any number of experiences… Virtually impossible.

Still, though we might not be able to get the same emotional heights, we can still fall in love with the characters, as anyone consuming fiction would. My current favorite is Tyrande, so everytime she’s on screen, I’m captivated.

For me, for WoW, I’m not really looking for a well-structured story, because it can’t happen. I want to see my favorite characters go through something similar to a normal character arch. I want to meet a character, fall in love with their personality, sympathize with their struggles, watch them go through the ringer, gain new power or emotional insight, and come out the back end. And you know, that’s not really impossible with modern WoW storytelling. And…

Having typed all that out, my mind’s kinda changed. An MMO might not be the ideal way to tell a story, but with the linear levelling experience they have, they could certainly get close. But, when they use existing characters, they’re rolling the dice on whether or not I care about that character, which has problems, like… The Night Fae campaign having Horde characters help Tyrande and Alliance characters help Bwomsandi. Still, that doesn’t stop them from making new characters and having us go on a new journey with them.

Circling back here for a final thought.

I mostly RP, and I’ve been doing a lot of DMing recently. Basically, writing stories and planning RPs for others to participate in. After a recent session, I asked a player for some feedback, and they remarked, “You know, you can set up all the generic bad guys you want, but they won’t be event a tenth as fun and engaging as conflict between the players.”

And that rang true. How, the best thing a DM can do is tell a story that forces the players to make interesting and hard decisions. That, if we can build a realistic world, and get the right players, each character vying for what they want most will tell a story that the players love far more than anything I can make. And, I saw a lot of parallels to that thought as I read this.

Still, very nice read! That’s my rambling thoughts. Thanks for posting!

3 Likes

First off - thanks! I’ll try to respond as best I can to some of your replies here.

Regarding Danuser’s stance - I don’t think it changed that much. Modern WoW doesn’t do much with the player for all of its focus on the “champion”. The narrative is wrapped up in major characters who create the context in which we play. That’s well in line with Danuser’s past philosophy.

Regarding Cata, yes, there absolutely was a shift. We went from quests that existed to tell us about the region’s usual conflicts that shifted to those that were on-rails, and existed to advance Cataclysm’s story. This defeated Vanilla’s more timeless approach in my mind, and seriously “dated” the world. I also think it shrank it, and while I could probably admit that too many of the breadcrumb quests appeared to serve no apparent purpose, I still prefer that to the other extreme.


Regarding the three act structure - there are a number of ways of looking at that. I think that WoW’s writers are trying to apply said structure to the game as a whole. I argue that they should instead tell many stories from the player to choose from. Past that, the structure may be maintained, especially in quest content that allows us to say, follow a character from the beginning of their arc to the end.

However, regarding characters like Tyrande, I think this is problematic because of their representation of the playable race as a whole, especially as they are tied into this overall narrative where people are cheerleading their champions who are, unfortunately, slotted into their given roles.


I think your last block there is your most pertinent. The story should force the players to make interesting and hard decisions, yes. This is how I think, for example, “moral greyness” is best expressed.

3 Likes

I do appreciate the effort you put forward - you did really give it forethought.

I think that, yes, Danuser got it right a little bit, in that the developer shouldn’t saddle this grand destiny for players. That said, I think the premise this thought comes from is flawed. It comes from a place where he mistakes the story of wild stuff happening (and, reading through Falothorin’s post, he provides a great example: a mechanical situation going down in the game itself being played) and not the actual backdrop of the story. I could see it being more applicable if he meant it in the context of “keep enough gaps in the narrative that the player can fill the blanks with how they interact with the game” but I don’t think that’s something that’s going to really click with the established product of this current age and that it’s something we’ll see almost exclusively in older versions of the game. Leveling through Classic again was a treat in that regard.

The team operates with a very liquid foundation, in which there is no interest in actually keeping a consistent story that forms its own trail, from Sean Copeland’s “Continuity is a shackle on our creativity” (which, by the way, yes, that’s the point.) statement to Danuser’s “Warcraft’s story is a matter of perspective” statement following 8.2.5’s poor reception, to destroying their own canon bible with an unreliable narrator bomb, the story is effectively a theatre experience in which they just put something on screen and it’s the story to play with, with its own rules and walls to contain it and define its reality, until suddenly it isn’t (which we can see with drastic shifts in character identity, such as Tyrande going from punk rebel “Only Elune can tell me what to do!” to a character that sort of sways back and forth between “angry priestess” and “thoughtful wife”, or more recent examples like Sylvanas’ shift from pragmatic sociopath who did bad things for good reasons into un-apologetic mustache twirling evil, and Saurfang, from spine-bearing, level-headed, lion-hearted warrior to old soldier who wouldn’t stand for his beliefs and merely moped along until cajoled into action to showcase another character’s plot point of being charismatic. Or in books, with BtS outright destroying parts of the Forsaken story by introducing a Thought Police that opposes the ideological core of the Forsaken society) and want to move on to the next hip, happening thing.

We know that storytelling can work in MMOs in even a more firm presence than WoW’s because the competition - FF14 - is doing it and has done so by staying within its own rules and with great success. It doesn’t break them for the sake of rule of cool, they take the parts they’ve made and decide ‘how’ to make it cool, so it shouldn’t be difficult for a massive company like Activision-Blizzard to do something a lot more loose gripped, yet they struggle with it even now.

I think that problem is necessary to be tackled first. The foundation needs to exist as more than a liquid in order for the player experience to be consistent and the world to feel like a world and not a theatre. Identity is a byproduct of a consistent existence, otherwise you can’t really form the identity of the character when the rules sort of just change every now and then, with extreme conflict in which that character is created upon.

This doesn’t just apply to the character and their origins but even in the game sense, back when we saw sweeping, drastic changes to classes and specs that severely altered the purpose and function of those classes over night.

Or, a bigger example is: BFA. Imagine a core of a story that has developed from a point of villainy (much like the orc backstory of drinking of demon blood, to its departure, with a very firm lesson in the dangers it provides, from loss of self control, to destroying a home that was once their own and now living on another where its inhabitants have been grievously wronged and nothing will make up for them except the return of shackles, and then again when a heroic public figure takes on extreme stripes of authoritarianism, xenophobia and an inflated sense of superiority over the non-orcs, leading to an extremely bloody conflict the world hadn’t seen since the third war.) to a standing of its own and just… nonsensically doing it again, with all of the stops that’d prevent it from happening again suddenly becoming slack and inadequate to stop it.

That’s an extreme example of identity destruction that comes as a result of a lacking foundation.

4 Likes

It’s a four-stage structure and it’s used not only in Japan, but throughout the East as a whole. The structure itself may be so deeply rooted in the Eastern culture that it may be very well older than Japan itself.

It was used not only in plays and storytelling, but also everything it could be applied to, from picture panels to even game developing.

The Japanese name (the most known to us in the West) is kishotenketsu, and it’s comprised of introduction, development, twist, resolution.

Those who study cinema, for instance, learn very early on in the cinema classes that “all Western movies are the same”, or more importantly, “all American movies are the same story”. That’s because the three-stage story structure naturally evolved into the monomyth or the Hero’s Journey as identified and thoroughly researched by Joseph Campbell.

With that in mind, it’s common for westerners who study cinema and storytelling to graduate with the thought and strong desire to break that cycle of “same stories” and “same movies”, and rather make unique things, taking inspiration from other cultures that produce great works.

However, a cultural shift often meets a lot of resistance. You can see that it took 91 years for the Oscars to award a film not in English (Parasite) as Best Film. Parasite, being a South Korean production, notably employs the four stage structure with grace.

This is a video that provides good insight on the differences between the two storytelling structures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGiajG2g-Nc

The key takeaway is that western stories can’t exist if you take the conflict out of them, and in eastern stories if you remove the conflict, the story doesn’t fall apart because the core is elsewhere.

And that allows for great stories to be told, since conflict doesn’t need to be used as an excuse for the stories to work, and then if conflict is only applied when it makes sense, the chances of having mostly conflicts that have reasonable writing quality are higher.

Why is it so important to understand the existence of the eastern storytelling style? Because everybody that writes and studies writing is hella tired of the hero’s journey and the greek three-act structure. With the eastern style being the biggest inspiration around right now, it’s expected that writers slowly shift from the western one to the eastern one.

Keep in mind I’m saying all of this as a person graduated in communications who took several cinema classes and also DMs and builds D&D campaigns as a hobby. My PoV certainly is drastically different than the average player’s.

3 Likes

This was an incredible video! Thanks for posting! I’m not a literary guy by training, but by hobby. I’m also a DM and just love stories. So, I’ve read a ton about story structure, and spent a genuine amount of time learning how stories are written and how different tropes work.

However, being a western guy, I was mostly exposed to the three-act structure. I do think the four-part structure of kishotenketsu has its parallels to a western three-act structure (actually, even the three-act structure can be broken down into four parts that are more-or-less analogous to introduction, development, twist, and resolution.

But, as correctly identified by the video, there is no Western story without a conflict. I do think that Western stories do have some focus on internal conflict, but… Resolving the internal conflict is a tool for overcoming the greater external conflict, rather than the goal onto itself. You look at Western story structure, and its all about ramping up that initial conflict into something so insurmountable, that only a herculean figure can overcome it, so how does the protagonist become that figure?

So yeah! Very interesting! Thanks for the video, I learned a lot!

2 Likes