Mechanics… Design… Story..?

Corvus Elrod at Man Bytes Blog has recently posted about the development of his storytelling model, first proposed in the Games and Storytelling whitepaper (.pdf file). This felt like serendipitous timing for me as I have recently been thinking about his original model and more specifically it’s similarities to another design and analysis model, the Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics framework.

Both the MDA framework and Corvus’ storytelling model consider the final product to be as much about the experience as the content, that is to say games and stories are “as nothing” if they are not played with, or experienced by, an audience. Each of these two models also breaks down into three separate elements, which on examination feature an almost one to one relationship to each other.

Each of these elements exists at a higher level of abstraction that the one before, and in general define a flow of content and meaning from creator to audience.

Mechanics\Narrative:

The first element is that of Mechanics or Narrative. In terms of the MDA framework Mechanics are the core parts of the system the weapons, items, and basic rules defining the means by which objects interact with each other. This is very similar to the view of Narrative presented in the storytelling model. Narrative is all the individual parts of the system; in some sense the medium itself.

Considered together Narrative and Mechanics are the actual components than make up the product; they define the objects and their attributes. Often omponents are both part of the Narrative and part of the Mechanics. A specific weapon is a Mechanic itself but is also a Narrative element. What does this weapon do? (Mechanic) Why does this weapon exist? (Narrative) What does this weapon look like? (Narrative, and Mechanic, affordance).

Also part of this element are the Verbs, the things that the user can do; their means of interacting with the product.

Dynamics\Plot:

The second element of each model is more abstract and consists of a set of rules and guidelines defining What happens When, and Why. Plot is the “to do list” in can contain the objectives and goals of the story and all events that take place. How are these objectives and goals defined? Through algorithms, through Dynamics.

Plot and Dynamics are the conceptual, abstract rules defining the operating of the Mechanics and Narrative over time. They define the boundaries of the product, what is possible and what is not. I’ve talked previously about how feedback loops can create drama and that’s exactly what this element of the model is concerned with. The rules and systems that connect the Mechanics and Narrative, defining how they interact with each other on a specific rather than a general level; describing how the product functions.

Aesthetics\Story:

The final element of each model is concerned directly with the “user experience”. They exist only at “run-time” and cannot be directly controlled by the creator only shaped through the Dynamics and Plot, and Mechanics and Narrative. They are inherently subjective.

The Aesthetics are the reaction of the audience to the Mechanics as interacted with through the conduit of Dynamics; the Story is the reaction of the audience to the Narrative as defined by the Plot.

In this sense all stories are “user generated”.

Conclusion:

Does looking at games and stories in this fashion help to form any conclusions about how to design truely Participatory Stories, that is stories that are born of a shared authorship between creator and user? I think it does.

The first things to observe are that both the Aesthetics and the Story can only be indirectly manipulated by the creator, they are the domain of the user and as heavily influenced by what they bring to the equation as what the creator intended. A designer can define the Mechanics and Dynamics but once the game is in the hands of players almost anything can happen, emergent behaviour can lead to unpredicted results. A storyteller can define the Narrative and the Plot but when the audience experiences it, those elements will be seen through the distorting lens of the audiences own perceptions and becoming something unique.

Therefore as designers of Participatory Storytelling products we can’t look to the Story or Aesthetics when we want the story to adjust to the user, as to some extent they are already doing so. They are also out of our control.

The Mechanics and Narrative are the base components of the product and so are under the direct control of the creator. The user has little or no influence over these elements. Even in a game like Little Big Planet users cannot create something entirely new, it must exist within the components the creator has initially built into the system.

Because Mechanics and Narrative are outside the control of the user they too are the wrong place to look for Participatory Storytelling.

That leaves Dynamics and the Plot. Though generally under the control of the creator, in an interactive medium users are given some control over how these elements function. In a game players might take different routes and so miss certain story beats, or even complete gameplay systems. If they choose to rely solely on melee weapons in a role playing game, they’ll never experience the magic or ranged combat systems such a game might possess.

It is this ability for both the user and the creator to influence them that makes Dynamics and Plot the core of any Participatory Storytelling model. Changes to the Plot will cause a change in the perception of the Narrative; a change in the Story. Changes in the Dynamics will cause a change in the perception of the Mechanics; a change in the Aesthetics.

Three Step Plan:

Therefore a first step in Participatory Storytelling, specifically in games, is to create core components that serve both Mechanics and Narrative. A weapon that is as clear in it’s form as it’s function, whose operation says as much about the culture as it came from as it’s visual and aural form does. A level that is both a gameplay space and a consistent world.

Then the rules and systems defining the high level interactions between these objects need to be created in a way to provide both good Dynamics and Plot. This can be done through the use of feedback loops to create drama, level designs that envoke a sensation of tension and release, by the use of systems to motivate the player towards particular strategies or teach them about the game world, and many others.

The final step is to allow a degree of feedback from the end user that allows them to adjust the Dynamics, the Plot, through their actions. When the creator is still able to take an active role during the the user experience they have the ability to adjust both the Dynamics, Plot, and the Mechanics, Narrative, themselves. A good games master will change both the pacing and structure and of the game (Dynamics), as well as the specific items and enemies that appear (Mechanics) based on the experience and engagement of the players.

To achieve this when the creator is no longer part of the equation involves a form of games master who’s role is restricted to that of only changing the Dynamics and Plot in response to user actions. Using user action to adjust Dynamics and Plot without changing the core Mechanics or Narrative, effectively casting the user as editor, recomposing the core components in a different manner to lead to different Aesthetics and Story.

Suffice it to say, this is the hard part. I’m open to suggestions…