Interactive Storytelling and Narrative in Open worlds - Part I

This article is my first attempt to explain the main differences between traditional storytelling and narrative (has seen in TV show, movies, novels) and interactive story telling especially in open world RPGs.

There are plenty of essays and theories, but since I’m both writer and game designer, I’d like to share some of my thoughts on this subject.

A quick introduction  : Traditional storytelling vs Interactive Storytelling

Traditional storytelling relies on keeping the reader or watcher hooked on the story. As a writer I know my classics. I abuse the 3 act Aristotle structure and all his siblings (Campbell's journey of the hero among them).  In a novel or in a movie, a  writer has a full control on the plot and on the way he tells it. Basically, he creates a flawed hero who craves for something (his goal), the author send him on a “dangerous” journey where he will have to fight, to strive and finally reach his goal (or not depending on the of story he wants to create), and most of all will learn about himself and will be able change and not be flawed anymore.

 

Hero's journey... a classic !

Interactive storytelling in open worlds is more about giving the player a world filled with opportunities for interesting interactions. In this environment, the player isn't constrained to a rail-like linear plot, but can interact with the world in any order he sees fit. And If the world is constructed correctly, a story-like experience should emerge. (see below outer story and inner story).

In traditional storytelling, a writer who knows his craft can engage emotionally the reader/watcher and makes him turn pages or keep chaining episodes like there is no tomorrow. In Open world storytelling the rythm, pacing is left to the player. We have few control on it.

And my question is :  how narrative and game designer can manage to create a compelling stories that will engage the players ? Can we borrow some tools from the other medium and create a specific experience that can compete emotionally with novels, movies, tv shows ?

I will not give you answers, but  below  you will find  some issues and questions to keep in mind when we approach the narrative in a  open world video game.

He versus  I

In a traditional story, there is no"I". Even  in a book, although written in first person, the point of view is almost always the main character's.  We know that the adhesion to a character is made  through empathy and projection; so it is crucial to be able to make the reader/watcher clearly  identify the character flaws and strengths. We have to make a reader care about a Character. Because without the ability for a reader to “impersonate” and , the story dies… So to achieves this goal, the "He"  must have a strong personality and a very high degree of definition.

 

Geralt of Rivia in Witcher 2, a strong and well designed Character

In interactive storytelling, we can see two trends. First we have, the "He" from which the player has to adopt the point of view. In this case I would say that the rule is the same than in a traditional storytelling. The character must  create an attachment (I will take as an example Geralt of Rivia in the Witcher saga as an example, or even Cloud from Final Fantasy VII)

Now about the "I".  When we associate "I" and "immersion" it sounds easy and it  should not be a problem right ?

Well it might not be so true...

Some players are able to create  and imagine their background and impersonate their characters( the role players) , some are not.

To illustrate this,  i'll take the two references well known among RPG players.

Baldur's Gate and Icewindale.

Baldur's Gate, Bioware, 1998

Icewind Dale, same Engine (Infinity) but a more action oriented RPG...

The former proposes to adopt an"I" point of view (we create our character from scratch), but the game attach a background and a backstory  to the character we create(Child of Baal,raised by a mentor who is killed ect ...). In the latter,  Character creation is done without particular background. I find it more difficult to create an attachment to an empty shell...

And from a narrative designer perspective, I find it more difficult to hook the player with a "Blank I" I don't say it’s not possible, but in this case it is necessary to think of the story  from an inner story point of view (see below for outer vs inner stories).

Inner stories vs Outer stories

In a game like Minecraft, there is no "real" story, yet the most imaginative players can create and build and live their own worlds with a vivid immersion. More than that, they  imagine the adventures they live and project them in their worlds. Minecraft in a sense,  wakes up  our inner child and makes our imagination shine. It is this ability to tell ourselves stories that  i call an inner story. And in my opinion,  Minecraft is somewhat the purest form of inner story in a game.

In Minecraft, Sky is a limit no more...

The outer story on the other hand,  is the narrative part of the game that is left  to the authors and designers. This is the main plot and its ramifications (and side quests in most Rpgs). The player has little impact on the events and discover characters and plot when he progress in the game.  

Rpg or not, most games with a narrative strucuture work with  a large amount of "outer story," but when properly built an open world game,  will let room for an inner story to fill the blanks.

As an example, the choices and decisions made by a player, who he decided to save or not, the faction he decided to join. All this can lead to interesting inner stories.

But to be honest, the best example i have in mind is the nemesis system from  Shadow of Mordor. The nemesis system creates a strong inner story in addition to  the main story. The actions of the players seems to weight, and the world seems unique to each player. I remember having more fun with my own procedural story than with the main plot.

 

Nemesis System in Shadow of Mordor. Very Clever !

Next part will be about : Characters, Linearity and my Ideal Open world Storytelling structure as a conclusion.