Raph Koster's _A Theory of Fun_ available for pre-order

[SirBruce]

Since Raph would never toot his own horn here, I'll do it for him. :)

Raph gave this great keynote talk at Austin Game Conference in 2003, entitled A Theory of Fun, complete with all these charming little illustrations he drew the night before.  It was such a great talk that he expanded it and made it into a book, which is now available for pre-order via Amazon.com:

US:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932111972/103-1049858-4876667
UK:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932111972/qid%3D1097607009/026-7687653-9827658

Highly recommended.

Bruce

[Ardent]

Playing in several beta tests lately, I've been re-examining my own notion of what is "fun".

Am I playing MMORPGs to "have fun", or am I just lured by the carrot on that damn stick that is eternally out of reach?

Are my fantasy accomplishments a way of masking disappointments in failing my real-life goals?

I guess I've been feeling rather philosophical since seeing "I Heart Huckabees".

[WayAbvPar]

Interesting. I will slap it on my Wish list and reexamine my need for it when it is published =)

Thanks for the heads up!

[Krakrok]

Is it a "fun" read?

[schild]

I guess I'm in a position that I should read it. Or I can pander for a signed copy. Raph?

[Ezdaar]

Oh good idea. Raph is in San Diego right? Perhaps if I sit outside his office I can get him to sign my copy....

[Riggswolfe]

Will the book have pages that go from left to right and up to down written in a recognizable human language or will he seek to innovate and make the book all but unreadable until some promised fix that may never come?

[Ironwood]

All he needs to do now is write 'A Practice of Fun' and then apply it to SWG to stop it from sucking the very marrow of the Earth.

[SirBruce]

Well, I think Raph's initial thrust was that games are really about solving problems/exploring possibilities within a possibility space.  The current crop of computer gamers, unfortunately, tend to be the type that are so driven to sovle problems that they attack these problems with such methodicalness and sometimes inventiveness (cheating, min/maxing, optimizing, etc.) that they eventually "solve" the game, and it becomes boring to them.

The only solution is to come up with extremely complex games that offer so many varied possibilities that the gamers will never get bored; we'll always have stuff to explore and enjoy and solve.  You have to do this in a way that isn't arbitrary, though (you can't just change the rules all the time to the point where there's no predictability), and you have to do it in a way that's still fun for the player to play.  Eventually this is where game becomes art, because art is really about possibility spaces that are so complex that each person who tackles the problem comes up with something different.

There's a connection here with Earnest Adams' talk about how we're all crazy anyway because we're trying to apply logical people and logical techniques, Newtonian and Industrial and 20th century ideas, to create, as well as play in, spaces that are supposed to be fantastic, magical, mythical, creative, and meaningful in that more "artistic" way.  That sort-of "stuff between the stuff" that makes these things greater than the sum of their parts.

Bruce

[Arcadian Del Sol]

MMORPGS are not fun.

[Shannow]

The only solution is to come up with extremely complex games that offer so many varied possibilities that the gamers will never get bored;

Its called a human opponent.

[AlteredOne]

The only solution is to come up with extremely complex games that offer so many varied possibilities that the gamers will never get bored; we'll always have stuff to explore and enjoy and solve.

This is indeed the Holy Grail of MMORPG gaming.  Unfortunately it seems the genre is moving more toward lowering the barriers of entry (complexity), in pursuit of the fabled untapped audience of "casual gamers" who could take the genre to a new level of popularity.  An ideal MMO could have both a low learning curve for beginners, and an enormously complex game to discover at one's own pace...  

Do any of today's MMO games begin to approach this ideal?  I would argue no.  EQ2 and WoW are the next generation, and if anything they are moving more toward a lowest common denominator approach.  

If a true next-generation game did push the MMO genre into the "art" space, I wonder how this would intersect with the economic space...  Would in-game creations and inventions gain significant real-world value, comparable to account sales on E-bay?  

Would a "creative powergamer" archetype emerge, where intelligence and creativity are rewarded just as much as time online?  Such in-game support for creativity would have to be complex and robust indeed, to defeat the proliferation of web-sites offering walk-throughs.  As soon as something was invented, you would likely see a "recipe" available within days.  Anyway, I've babbled enough...

[Krakrok]

Do any of today's MMO games begin to approach this ideal?  I would argue no.

I think Second Life does this. You can either "play(simple)" or "design(complex)". Granted it's much more of a MUSH than an actual MMORPG but it does have plenty of player made content like pod races and EQ clones built into it by players.

ATITD also offers this in that you can do simple tasks and work your way up into complex tasks. But again it is more of a MU* than a MMORPG. Nevermind the fact that it is a clickfest in the early game.

[AlteredOne]

Can't say I've tried Second Life, but I've heard about it and I've messed with the free trial of ATITD.  

ATITD has an interesting model, with its "trials" which are mini-games within the game.  The crafting system is enormously complex, and it is possible for players to extend the laws of the world, possibly even create unique items.  However, it's obvious that neither SL nor ATITD will become blockbuster MMO titles.  They are niche titles oriented toward an audience of academics and purists.  Of course, guys like Raph will be designing the next generation of MMORPG titles, and these gaming intellectuals could revolutionize the genre...

The ideal MMO would allow your non-creative gamers to participate in the "micro" game of treadmill dinging/monster killing/etc...  Simultaneously your advanced players would be playing the "macro" game, leading while others follow.  They could potentially create micro games for other players, or even change the goals of the existing games, if not the rules.

Politics, crafting, trading... All of these are "games."  Politics should mean more in a game than "which guild gets to camp the uber boss mob."  Crafting should be more than "how much time and cash does it cost to macro my way to 1100 spellcrafting."  Trading should be more than "what's the going rate for a quality 100 arcanite BP" or "how much can I sell my account for on Ebay?"

Why not have something like a stock market in a game?  Place financial bets on game events, and see whether you win...  Why not have a material/crafting system that allows for invention of new recipes?  Why not include mechanics for a political system of alliances and intrigue?  All of these could co-exist with your basic level treadmill.

[MrHat]

He's right.  Raph is right.

I've lately come to the realization that I only enjoy games to the point that I can figure them out.  Then (unless it's multiplayer or coop, or on the rare occasion an engaging story) I usually stop playing.

[Venkman]

Communities can hold off the boredom, but the boredom is preordained. The key is not to focus on when you'll eventually quit, but rather make the most of the time you have.

Of course, that smacks of mysticism :)

Personally, I advocate players manage their own expectations, independent of artificial constructs like "but my guild needs me!" or "but I'm so well known!" If those are the only reasons left to play, then the game has become work and the likelihood of some really long,.ranty, and nigh-irrelevant Exit Statement(tm) that much greater.

[Rasix]

Personally, I advocate players manage their own expectations, independent of artificial constructs like "but my guild needs me!" or "but I'm so well known!" If those are the only reasons left to play, then the game has become work and the likelihood of some really long,.ranty, and nigh-irrelevant Exit Statement(tm) that much greater.

Quit describing my SWG experience. I would have been much better off mentally if I had quit that game when the fun meter ran out instead of sticking around for Tian Bay.  Instead I got bitter and ranty towards the end, ohh well.  It was still a cool experience to behold.

[MrHat]

Personally, I advocate players manage their own expectations, independent of artificial constructs like "but my guild needs me!" or "but I'm so well known!" If those are the only reasons left to play, then the game has become work and the likelihood of some really long,ranty, and nigh-irrelevant Exit Statement(tm) that much greater.

Heh /agree.

[Soukyan]

Engaging story is big. Many people like to be told fun and interesting stories through movies and books. The same goes for games.

[Riggswolfe]

Engaging story is big. Many people like to be told fun and interesting stories through movies and books. The same goes for games.

Nah, if that were true KOTR would've been a big seller. Oh...wait.

Actually one of my biggest issues with MMORPGs these days besides the whole mixing of PvP and Pve in the same game, is that they don't tell stories. Playing an MMORPG is closer to just playing with action figures as a kid than it is to experiencing a story. There MAY be some small story but for the most part you've made it up yourself.

WoW, and hopefully, EQ2, have some story in them through the quests offered.

[Soukyan]

Engaging story is big. Many people like to be told fun and interesting stories through movies and books. The same goes for games.

Nah, if that were true KOTR would've been a big seller. Oh...wait.

Actually one of my biggest issues with MMORPGs these days besides the whole mixing of PvP and Pve in the same game, is that they don't tell stories. Playing an MMORPG is closer to just playing with action figures as a kid than it is to experiencing a story. There MAY be some small story but for the most part you've made it up yourself.

WoW, and hopefully, EQ2, have some story in them through the quests offered.

Right. It's the difference between sandbox and... game? I might just have to pick up the book now because I've always thought that Raph was a huge sandbox proponent, but that can't be wholly true as there are games within his virtual worlds. Story goes a long way toward making a player feel immersed. The old "it's your story" is a copout for lack of writers. Granted, some things like SWG were meant to be "here's your shovel and bucket, now go play" experiences, but every game made should not become this. It's akin to an author leaving an unresolved ending to their novel because they want the reader to draw their own conclusions. That's an excuse for having no clue how your story ends. In the case of persistent games, the entire story doesn't have to end. You just need to constantly provide smaller stories within the context of your world to keep the player interested and immersed.

[Riggswolfe]

Right. It's the difference between sandbox and... game? I might just have to pick up the book now because I've always thought that Raph was a huge sandbox proponent, but that can't be wholly true as there are games within his virtual worlds. Story goes a long way toward making a player feel immersed. The old "it's your story" is a copout for lack of writers. Granted, some things like SWG were meant to be "here's your shovel and bucket, now go play" experiences, but every game made should not become this. It's akin to an author leaving an unresolved ending to their novel because they want the reader to draw their own conclusions. That's an excuse for having no clue how your story ends. In the case of persistent games, the entire story doesn't have to end. You just need to constantly provide smaller stories within the context of your world to keep the player interested and immersed.

I come from an RPG background, whether tabletop (DnD etc) or CRPG. I guess I am too used to having a story of some kind or another. I'd say lack of a story along with time invested play mechanics are my two biggest MMORPG issues. The only game that I can remember that felt like it had a story was AC1 because of their monthly content updates.

[AlteredOne]

In my experience, stories in quests seldom immerse me in the game.  DAOC had a *ton* of backstory if you bothered to read the many pages of text, but most people just skimmed the pages looking for the action text, i.e. [please help me by delivering this medicine to Sergeant Slaughter].

By contrast, if I recall the AC1 monthly updates sometimes dramatically changed the gameworld.  Wasn't there one update where a major city was destroyed?  It's hard to ignore that sort of story.

I never played "EQ Legends" but I believe they had fulltime staff devoted to moving some sort of story forward, if you were willing to pay some huge monthly fee.  I don't see why this cannot be done, without the huge fee.  If a game has 250k subscribers paying $15/month, why can't there be a *team* of developers and story-writers, constantly evolving a major story line?  Every week, the world could change in noticeable ways, players would be able to team up against the latest menace, and multiple plotlines could progress.

OK, I've been long-winded again, heh.

[Raph]

Well, and here I was just about to pimp it. :)

BoingBoing gave it a brief review today:

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/13/theory_of_fun_unders.html

The book IS somewhat innovative and weird--it's half cartoons, half essay. :) You can read just the thread of the cartoons, just the essay, or both together. BoingBoing posted one of the cartoons and an excerpt from the chapter "Different Fun for Different Folks."

On the story question, here's a brief excerpt from the chapter

Frankly, the commonest route into games these days is to graft a story onto them.

No, let’s be honest—when we look at most videogames, we’re not actually speaking of grafting a story onto the game. Rather, we’re talking about taking a (usually mediocre) story, and putting little game obstacles all through it. It’s as if we were requiring you to solve a crossword puzzle in order to turn the page to get more of the novel.

By and large, people don’t play the games because of the stories. The stories that wrap the games are usually side dishes for the brain. For one thing, it’s damn rare to see a game story written by an actual writer. As a result, they are usually around the high-school level of literary sophistication at best.

For another, since the games are generally about power, control, and those other primate-y things, the stories tend to be so as well. This means they tend to be power fantasies. That’s generally considered to be a pretty juvenile sort of story.

Story in most videogames serves the same purpose as calling the uber-checker a “king.” It adds interesting shading to the game, but the game at its core is unchanged.

Remember—my background is as a writer, so this actually pisses me off. Story deserves better treatment than that.
 
In the final analysis, though, I have to admit that games are not stories. It is interesting to make the comparison, though.

•   Games tend to be experiential teaching.
•   Stories teach vicariously.

•   Games are good at objectification.
•   Stories are good at empathy.

•   Games tend to quantize, to reduce, to classify.
•   Stories tend to blur, to deepen, to make subtle distinctions.

•   Games are external—they are about people’s actions.
•   Stories (good ones, anyway) are internal—they are about people’s emotions and thoughts.

In both cases, when they are good, you can come back to them repeatedly and keep learning something new. But we never speak of fully mastering a good story.

I don’t think anyone would quarrel with the notion that story is one of the chief teaching tools humanity employs. They might quarrel with the notion that play is the other, and that mere lecturing runs a distant third. I also don’t think that many would quarrel with the notion that story has achieved far greater artistic heights than games have, despite the fact that play probably predates story (after all, even animals play, whereas story demands language in some form).

Are stories superior? We often speak of wanting to make a game that makes players cry, but when we say that, we usually mean “by grafting a story on.” The classic example is the text adventure game Planetfall, where Floyd the robot sacrifices himself for you. Frankly, that wasn’t a game mechanic. It was not inherent to the formal abstract system. It happens outside of player control, so it isn’t a challenge to overcome. What does it say about games that the peak emotional moment usually cited is actually cheating and not pulling off the effect via games at all?

Games do better at emotions that relate to mastery: fiero and triumph and schadenfreude and so on. Stories can get these too, however. Getting emotional effects out of games may be the wrong approach—perhaps a better question is whether stories can be fun in the way games can?

[Shannow]

You can have buttloads of story like DaOC and it won't matter if , one, it never changes and two, players can't have an effect on it, if not create it themselves.

The 'here's your shovel and bucket go play' is not an excuse if the players can actually use that shovel and bucket to make changes in the world around them. Right now most MMOLG's dont allow that.

[Soukyan]

The 'here's your shovel and bucket go play' is not an excuse if the players can actually use that shovel and bucket to make changes in the world around them. Right now most MMOLG's dont allow that.

IF is the operative word there.

[Riggswolfe]

Raph,

that is an interesting viewpoint you have there and I'd say for the most part you are right, particularly when it comes to such genres as FPS. However, let's look at RPGs. Let's go further and look at RPGs by Bioware. I'd say some of their stories are very, very good. Same with Square. I know we can't put this kind of storytelling into an MMO really, but, some sort of compromise would be interesting. Much like AC1 did. Actual changes to the world, actual events that make the players feel important.

I know it'd be hard but maybe this is the innovation games need rather than changes in combat code and such?

[AlteredOne]

In the final analysis, though, I have to admit that games are not stories. It is interesting to make the comparison, though.

Indeed, games are not stories, but I think the MMO genre has much more narrative potential than most types of games.
1) AC certainly tried to have a developer-driven story, in which players participated.  Many players loved this, and stuck with the game.
2) I would argue that EQ and the "static" games developed quite an external storyline centered around politics.  The political feuds between the raid guilds were often epic, and you could find people with encyclopedic memories for the power dynamics on servers.  Yes, this is technically external to the game, but why should a next-gen game not build in an in-game political system for managing inevitable player conflicts?
3) How about the often bizarre world of fan fiction, based on these games?  Surely there are more ways that such creativity can be fostered in-game, by inventive developers.

And yes, the stories in DAOC were completely static, you'll hear no arguments from me...  The only "story" was the narrative of RvR -- who controls which keeps and relics, and which realm is cleaning up in realm points?  A very limited story, no doubt.

Anyway, thanks for the quote Raph, hopefully there is a big audience for your quirky book.

[Riggswolfe]

I may have to pick his book up I admit. As much as I vent at Raph over SWG I find his thoughts fascinating.

[Shannow]

The point being is to stop thinking of story as developer driven...or trying to put a story into a game.

The real aim should be to 'have the game CREATE the story' or even better 'have the game BE the story'.

I can remember when I first started playing MUSE etc back in the day I was reading some history files on a Star Trek MU** and I commented to a player 'Thats pretty good story, who wrote it?' To which he replied 'Thats not a story thats what has actually happened in the game' at which point I was hooked. Even later on my character as he 'aged' would, as a roleplaying tool tell stories of past battles, adventures etc that we had actually expierenced in game

I mean lets face it who remembers stories of a EQ raid if your just gonna do the same one 10 times in a month.

[HaemishM]

In order to create stories in game, the developers have to think of the world as only a framework for stories, not a story in itself. Anarchy Online tried to make the whole game into a story, with pretty shitty results. You would have to have a sandbox world that can actually be effected, and let the players go in order to have them feel they were a part of the story. Without allowing players control over the world, including the world's NPC's, why would players feel a part of their story?

[Shannow]

thats exactly what I mean, that the devs give the players a framework and the players play within it. That framework is one in which the players have almost complete control of the direction of the game world and its happening within it (or again they ARE the happenings within it). I believe that a game like this by its very nature is overwhelmingly PVP (and by PVP I dont mean just combat I mean ALL game interaction whether it be social, economic , political or conflict).

[Nebu]

My question to Raph would be this: Do enough mmog players consider the storyline important to invest the resources in developing a storyline?  Another way of asking the same question would be to find out how many people missed the story were it not present in game at all.  

My personal experience in watching people interact with the storyline in MMOG's is often like the tired lab rat analogy: Most people that I have observed in mmogs are so interested in getting the treat/goal of a quest/story element that they never even read the text of quests, tasks, etc.  They simply click the highlighted words, say the pretext statements, or whatever task is involved and do what it takes to get teh shiny.  To take this one step further, I'd venture a guess that more than half of the people playing a given MMOG don't know much about the story behind the game.  I used to ask people story-related questions often when I played EQ and found most people had no idea what the underlying story was behind the game.

My anecdote both agrees and disagrees with what has been said above (and in other places).  It agrees in that story in mmog's has been so badly done that many people fail to even consider it a part of their gameplay experience (i.e. they are there to craft and/or whack foozles).  It disagrees in the fact that perhaps the story behind the world isn't even a consideration to a portion of the playerbase.  

The real aim should be to 'have the game CREATE the story' or even better 'have the game BE the story'.

I think this summarizes my feelings as well.  I think that games that place the protagonist (player) at the center of the world will find the most success. I think reducing the size of the world by zones and/or instances helps achieve this in that people feel like less of a grain of sand on the beach.

[Riggswolfe]

The real aim should be to 'have the game CREATE the story' or even better 'have the game BE the story'.

.

Sadly enough the only game I've ever played that comes close to that would be Sims2.

[Venkman]

Hehe, funny that story excerpt. Been a particular favorite topic of mine for a few months, though I'm certainly not stupid enough to think I'm the only one wondering about it :)

MMORPGs emphasize game, expecting players to bring the rest. Trouble is, players aren't bringing the rest, as they'd rather have the game lead them. So we've got five years of games that have become more refined at controlling the players. This isn't wrong or evil, but is seen through those games deemed "successful" (or at least successful enough to spawn derivatives). Nobody's emulating Second Life.

I like the writing style from that excerpt though. Refreshing to read a book (which is pre-ordered) that reads like a forum post. Not sure why I like that style though...