Choice, part 2

(Back to TOC)

5 December 2004

(Revised 13 December 2004)

by Mike Rozak

I had some more thoughts about my essay on Choice. The choices I discussed last time were choices that occurred within a quest. What about the choices that glue quests together? How are such high-level choices designed?

Weak choices

The standard MMORPG is topographically designed to be a large landscape with hills, mountains, rivers, and oceans. Within this landscape are gateways (aka: doors, dungeon entrances) to smaller, interior worlds. The interior worlds have walls and doors that restrict movement.

The "choice topography" for a MMORPG is similar to its terrain. At any point in the outdoor landscape, the player has the choice of moving NSEW. In the outdoors, players don't have many more "valid" choices beyond these four directions... Why?

Don't forget, valid choices are those that can significantly affect the outcome of the experience.

Other valid choices are occasionally available: For example, a player may choose to sit around and heal up. (Note: Healing rates in one region of the world are almost always identical to everywhere else, so healing is location-independent. Wouldn't the choice to sit and heal be more meaningful if certain parts of the world produced better healing? Maybe a character that sits in the shade by a pleasant stream would heal up quicker than on sitting out in the sun. A player would then have to chose where to heal, not just to heal.)

One would think that wandering monsters provided a choice about whether to attack them or not, but monsters (and other players), are location-dependent. They exist at a point in the 2-dimensional terrain, and only react to the player's character when he is a short distance away. Because monsters' AIs always seems to attack, you could claim that the choice of moving north towards a monster is the same as choosing to attack the monster. And, you could further argue that the choice of moving north to attack orc A, is essentially the same as moving east to attack orc B, except that at the end of the combat, the character has either moved north or east of his current location.

MMORPGs further limit choices by logically placing like monster species in the same region of the world. This means that the part of the virtual world populated exclusively by giant rats only allows players to move and avoid attacking a rat, or move and attack a rat. If there were giant hedgehogs, flying squirrels, and a handful of other nasties, the player would have more choices. (Assuming that attacking the other monsters actually took different skills and strategies.)

So, with a few exceptions, each point in the wilderness allows the player a choice of moving north, south, east, or west. Attacking a monster is implicit in a PC's movement, and healing really isn't that much of an issue.

A large world will be 100 km x 100km, or 100,000m x 100,000m. Realistically, every 10m x 10m section is a choice of location, so a wilderness map has 10,000 x 10,000 choice nodes where the player can chose to go NSEW. Even though a player only has four choices at each node, with 100 million nodes, they still have a lot of choices.

I claim there aren't really that many choices though. Let me postulate a rule:

A choice whose consequence is easily and reliably undoable is not a choice.

Since the character can quickly walk east, and then just as quickly return to the same spot by going west, moving east does not count as a choice. If a monster were east of the player, or even if a monster might be east of the player, the choice might matter. However, in the wilderness, a player can see the monsters long before they're forced into combat, so there is no chance that the monster "might be east of the player". A player almost always choses to engage or not engage a monster.

Of course, if the player walked 1 km to the east, that would be a significant choice because walking 1 km east and then undoing it by walking 1 km west is a lengthy process. If this is the case, which eastward-step was the one that was the choice? (Aka: Which straw broke the camel's back?)

Oops... I'll rewrite my rule:

A choice whose consequence is easily and reliably undoable is a weak choice.

Therefore, while the MMORPG wilderness provides players with billions of choices, they are all weak choices, and don't count for much.

Interior exploration is slightly better though, because a monster could be hiding around the corner, and doors might only let players pass through one way. Still, the choices are still fairly weak.

As a general rule, any place in a contemporary MMORPG that can be gotten into can easily and reliably gotten out of. Unless, of course, the user makes an exceptionally stupid decision and runs head-long into a dungeon that's labelled as "very dangerous". Chris Crawford argued that providing players obviously stupid choices don't count either, since no one will ever choose them. (Incredibly stupid choices also lead to instant death and an end to the story, which likewise invalidates the choice.) I tend to agree.

Just as an aside, MMORPGs also weaken other choices beyond just movement:

• Choice of race and class - Most MMORPG races are nothing more than different 3D models with slightly different attributes. Similarly, classes are not always orthogonal, and even those aspects of classes that are unique (such as magic user's inability to wear armour) can be easily overcome with the right magic item.
  
  
• Large carrying capacity - If players can carry four suits of armour and 16 weapons, then their choice of armaments to use is weakened because they can easily switch to another suit of armour or weapon.
  
  
• Hit points - Because MMORPGs simplify all damage down to hit points, choosing one weapon over another is merely a choice of which does the most damage. Likewise, the choice of armour depends upon which absorbs the most damage. In real life, some weapons are better against some armours, and most amour is heavy and uncomfortable to wear.
  
  
• Language - MMORPGs generally don't have different languages. However, providing different languages in a world, and letting the player choose which ones to learn (at the expense of other skills) leads to more choices. Choosing which NPCs and PCs your character won't be able to talk to requires some thought, and has many consequences.
  
  
• Lack of permanent death - If death is not permanent, then choices that might lead to death are reversible, and hence weakened.

String of pearls

If you have read any books about adventure game or CRPG design, you'll have read about "the string of pearls" approach to design. They define a "pearl" as any region of the world that PCs can freely wander around.

My definition of a "pearl" is any region of space where the choices to move about are all weak. The "string" part occurs where the player makes a choice that cannot be easily undone.

An adventure game, such as Syberia, used the string of pearls approach. The first pearl of the game involved figuring out how to get a clockwork train to operate. When the player finally got on the working train she entered the string, which was a cut-scene that placed the player in a new pearl. This new pearl occurred at a university; there was no way for the player to go back, and (once again) to go forward the player needed to get the train moving again.

Pearls can have more than one exit; Syberia could have had an airplane that would also allow the player to leave the pearl. But if there are several exits from a pearl, do they end up in different locations?

If they wind up in different locations then content is wasted since the player cannot go back (except by replaying the game). If the strings all quickly end up in the same location then what's the point of the choice?

The laws of choices resurface... if there is more than one exit from a pearl then the multiple exits form a choice. Since it is a choice, it most be a valid choice. Strings leading to dead end pearls are not choices. Strings that quickly reconnect to the main path invalidate the choice. Etc. The strings must lead to significantly different experiences, even if they ultimately reconnect.

A choice which moves the player into a new pearl is a high-level choice because the choice results in the loss of significant amounts of content that the player will no longer be able to access. (Other types of high-level choices exist, which I'll discuss later.) The pearl is not always a physical location; sometimes it's as ephemeral as a choice of following the dark side or light side of Star Wars' "force".

Of MMORPGs, pearls, and other things

If you acknowledge that MMORPG geography is composed of weak choices, and that a pearl is a collection of weak choices, then contemporary MMORPG's are just a single pearl. They have no high-level choices in their topography.

Not quite...

MMORPGs do have high level choices. Most of their choices are mid to low-level however, like choosing to fight a monster of flee from it. Most high level choices in a MMORPG don't come from the content, but from the social relationships in the MMORPG. Saying or doing the wrong thing (or right thing) to another player could lead to irreversible changes in the player's experiences.

To use a fairy-tale example: Being rude to a needy low-level player could turn out to be a serious mistake when months later the low-level player is now the uber-player and looking for revenge. (Technically, this scenario presents an invalid choice because the player has no way of knowing that the beggar in front of him will become king. But that's life...)

Some other important choices that MMORPG players make are:

• Choice of race - This could be an important choice if a MMORPG were designed to care about race. Most treat race as little more than a new 3D model and some minor attribute tweaks, resulting in a choice that is little more than cosmetic. (Is it good for a MMORPG to make race an important choice if players must chose their character's race without ever having played the game, and consequently, without any idea what the ramifications of the choice might be?)
  
  
• Choice of class (and skills) - In most MMORPGs choosing a character's class has significant and unreversible effects... unless you're allowed to redistribute character points, or the classes are all effectively the same (such as mages being archers that use magic instead of bows). Players are usually forced to chose their class when they create their character. As with races, is it good for new players to make the choice blind?
  
  
• Choice of realm - Some MMORPGs have realms, or good vs. evil alignments. Players are usually forced to chose their realm when they create their character. As with races and classes, is forcing the choice in the beginning wise?
  
  
• Social relationships - As above.

Again, MMORPGs come up fairly weak in the choice department. Social relationships are obviously strong choices. A player's choice of race, class, and realm are also important, but they're invalidated because a player is forced to make them when they first start. Some MMORPGs solve these problems by allowing players to choose their class and realm later on in the game. One could also argue that players commonly toss out characters, allowing them to make reasonable choices on their second attempt.

Are there any other high-level choices that MMORPGs could present to players?

• Syberia's train ride - The linear train ride that Syberia uses doesn't work well for MMORPGs because if a player leaves a major section of the world and can no longer return, then any social relationships with players left in the old section of the world must be temporarily abandoned. However, it does force the player to make an important choice, whether to stick with his friends or explore more of the world.
  
  The separation doesn't need to be indefinite though. The new pearl might only connect to the normal game-world once a month, meaning that the choice can be undone in a month's time, which while a weaker choice, is still fairly significant.
  
  Alternatively, the tracks could split, only to re-merge sometime in the future. This is also a weaker choice.
  
  
• Single-run quests - Quests that can only be completed once are more of a choice than quests that can be replayed as often as a player wishes since the decision to complete the quest is irreversible. On the whole, single-run quests are not that much better than repeatable quests. MMORPGs, because they like reusing content as much as possible, often allow players to replay the same quest over and over.
  
  
• Single-run quests that preclude other quests - These are quests where the a player can choose to complete quest A or quest B, but not both.
  
  For example: A players character needs to get to a city on the other side of a lake. He can either take a boat or go around the lake. Each path results in a different experience. However, for the choice to be relevant either the player won't be returning from the city, or, due to some plausible explanation, the journey won't include either of the quests the 2nd or 3rd time around.
  
  
• Single-run quests with important choices - A quest that can only be played out once is relevant if the quest has two or more distinct and important endings.
  
  For example: Near the end of the quest to recover a stolen magical cloak of invisibility for House Drakis, the player is forced to decide if he will keep the recovered item or give it back. Keeping the cloak provides material reward at the expense of bad relationship with the rightful owner, while giving the cloak back results in lost opportunity but a good relationship. A future quest might make it obviously easier for player with a cloak of invisibility, while a different quest might benefit friends of House Drakis.
  
  
• NPC factions - The House Drakis example leads to another type of high-level choice: Provide various NPC factions and only allow the player to buddy up to one faction, making enemies with the rest. The more quests a player completes for one faction, the less able he is to make inroads with the other factions. To make the choice valid, players should receive plenty of warning that by aligning with one faction they are burning bridges with the others. (Factions have many similarities to realms, except that realms are selected at the beginning of gameplay and are associated with regions of the world where the player is allowed to visit.)

None of the ideas I presented are really new. I've seen them used in various places, but it's nice to see them written down.

Conclusion

Choices occur at many levels: Sub-games (like combat) are full of choices about what combat move to use, etc. These choices are bracketed by the mid-level choices in quests that I described in my last write-up, Choice. Mid-level choices are affected by high-level choices that I just discussed. And of course, high-level choices are affected by what game a player choses to play.

For a choice to be strong, it must include consequences that cannot easily be undone. For a choice to be high level, it must be based on major consequences that are very difficult to undo.

Ultimately, choice is about consequences, and a virtual world is limited to one or more of the following consequences:

• Loss of time - Having the player risk losing something they spent a lot of time on makes the decision important. This could be the loss of an important item, or permanent death. Unfortunately, most players complain bitterly about losing time, so character death and other penalties are usually whittled down to a 5-minute time loss.
  
  
• Delay in playing - A choice can result in a player being forced to wait (such as for healing), or to log off and not play for a few hours or days (such as travelling time).
  
  
• Loss of an enjoyable experience - If the virtual world knows that a given player likes combat and hates puzzles, then the risk of having to trudge through 10 minutes of puzzles instead of 10 minutes of combat, is a genuine threat.
  
  
• Loss of content - If a player's choice means that some content opens up while other content closes then players see the choice as valid, and are sometimes even seen as way that the world customises its experience to them. However, authors complain bitterly about losing content. (If players get content locked out from one character's experience, but can restart the game with a new character and replay the entire game, does loss of content equate to loss of time?)
  
  
• Loss of friendships - NPC AI isn't good enough for players to make friends with, so AI-friendship can't be lost. However, MMORPGs allow players to befriend one another. Choices in MMORPGs can and do include risking the loss of friendship, although these choices are all player driven.

Low and mid-level choices frequently result in small losses of time and less enjoyable experience.

High-level choices, to be important, have to threaten larger losses. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, none of the possible consequences get used. Losing 10's to 100's of hours of play would be unacceptable to most players. Likewise, if an "unenjoyable" consequence causes players to do 10 hours of math problems, many will leave. Developers don't like having large chunks of content lost to players since it costs money. And no developer will try and cause players to lose friends.

As a result, most MMORPGs don't have any high-level choices other than those created by social relationships in the world. Poor design doesn't help, either, since some of the few major choices a MMORPG provides, such as the character's race or class, are made by new players who don't have any inkling of the consequences of their choices.