MESTRADO MULTIMÉDIA - ESPECIALIZAÇÃO EM TECNOLOGIAS
Exploring the Game Master- Player relationship in video games
Abel Neto
M 2016
FACULDADES PARTICIPANTES:
FACULDADE DE ENGENHARIA FACULDADE DE BELAS ARTES FACULDADE DE CIÊNCIAS FACULDADE DE ECONOMIA FACULDADE DE LETRAS
Exploring the Game Master-Player relationship in video games
Abel Neto
Mestrado em Multimédia da Universidade do Porto
Orientador: Miguel Carvalhais (Professor Auxiliar)
Coorientador: Pedro Cardoso (Assistente convidado)
Junho de 2016
Resumo
O objectivo deste estudo é explorar a relação entre os participantes de jogo que assumem o papel de Game Master e os que assumem o de jogador nos videojogos. Esta relação, escassamente explorada em jogos de computador, existe há décadas em jogos de tabuleiro, um dos primeiros exemplos sendo o Dungeons & Dragons, no qual um participante assume o papel de árbitro e contador de histórias, controlando todos os aspectos do jogo excepto as acções dos jogadores. Através do desenvolvimento de um protótipo de jogo, descobrimos que existe valor na inclusão desta assimetria em jogos de computador, e avaliamos a sua viabilidade e vantagens/desvantagens.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Videojogos, Game Master, Gameplay, Assimétrico
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to explore the relationship between game participants that assume the role of Game Master and those that have that of Player in videogames. This relationship, barely explored in computer games, has existed in board games for decades, one of the first examples being Dungeons & Dragons, in which a game participant acts both as a referee and as a storyteller, controlling all aspects of the game, except for the actions of the players. Through the development of a game prototype, we found that there’s value in including this asymmetry in computer games, and evaluated its viability and benefits/disadvantages.
KEYWORDS: Video Games, Game Master, Asymmetric, Gameplay
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been finished without the guidance and insight provided by my advisors Pedro Cardoso and Miguel Carvalhais. I would like to thank them for the continuous help and patience during my work on this dissertation. I would also like to thank my family for their understanding and support throughout my academic journey, as well as my friends, for keeping me sane.
Abel Neto
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Problems, hypotheses and research goals ...... 1 1.2 Research methodology and work plan ...... 4
2. The Game Master ...... 5 2.1 Early History ...... 5 2.2 Functions of the Game Master ...... 6 2.2.1 The role of the Game Master ...... 9 2.2.2 Current Game Master functions in computer games ...... 14 2.3 Motivations of Play ...... 16 2.4 Asymmetric Gameplay ...... 19 2.4.1 Symmetric and asymmetric games ...... 20 2.4.2 Strong asymmetry vs. weak asymmetry ...... 20 2.4.3 Benefits of asymmetric gameplay ...... 22 2.4.4 Challenges of asymmetric gameplay ...... 23
3. Defining Game Master Action...... 27 3.1 Game Master Mechanics ...... 27 3.1.1 Aesthetics...... 27 3.1.2 Player relationships ...... 29 3.1.3 Actor management ...... 31 3.1.4 Rules ...... 36 3.2 Game Master Action ...... 40 3.2.1 Preemptive action ...... 40 3.2.2 Intervenient action ...... 41 3.2.3 Scopes of direct influence ...... 42 3.3 Summary ...... 44
4. Project ...... 45 4.1 Prototype ...... 45 4.1.1 Concept ...... 45 4.1.2 Mechanics ...... 45 4.2 Testing ...... 47 4.3 Results...... 47 4.4 Discussion ...... 49
5. Conclusions ...... 51 5.1 Summary ...... 51 5.2 Limitations ...... 52 5.3 Future work ...... 52
References ...... 54
Cited works ...... 56
Appendix A — Form ...... 58 Core Module ...... 58 Social Presence Module ...... 59 Post-Game Module ...... 60 Game Master Module ...... 61
ix
Introduction
1. Introduction
In board games, the existence of a game participant whose role is not to play but to oversee and shape the players’ experience was popularized by the 1974 board game Dungeons & Dragons. In this role-playing game, the player that takes the role of Dungeon Master (DM) is the participant in charge of creating the details and challenges of a game session, while maintaining a realistic continuity of events. In effect, the DM controls all aspects of the game, except for the actions of the players’ characters, describing what they are supposed to see and hear. With the advent of computer games, these functions were delegated to the game system. While this is useful for single-player games, it also takes away a role that thousands enjoy in the board game. With this in mind, the inclusion of a similar role in computer games has great potential. While there are few examples of videogames where the role of DM has been implemented, more titles currently in development1 are planning to rediscover and explore this in computer games, therefore being a subject that beckons study in order to ascertain its viability and its benefits/disadvantages.
As we will detail later, some study has already been done on these matters. However, most of those efforts were directed towards implementing the role of a Game Master (GM) in Computer Role Playing Games (CRPGs). The work presented in this dissertation will not be restricted to a videogame genre in particular, aiming to explore the GM-Player relationship in various contexts.
1.1 Problems, hypotheses and research goals
The problem under research is the exploration of the asymmetries found between player and GM in computer games. This encompasses a variety of questions to consider:
1 We will discuss these titles in chapter 2, under “Current Game Master functions in computer games”.
1
How much freedom can be granted to the Game Master? In traditional board games, while the GM has to follow a certain set of rules, she has complete freedom over a lot of other aspects of the game. She can describe the surrounding environment to the players in any way she chooses and is only constrained by her will to keep the game fair and fun for the remaining players. Videogames with this role will invariably need to set some constraints on the GM’s level of agency.2
What differentiates the Game Master’s experience in this type of game from the one she would get from playing a god game or a game featuring a level editor? God Games are games in which the player acts as a deity with limited powers, and is able to affect the game environment at a large scale, indirectly influencing a population of simulated subjects (Adams, 2013a). This kind of agency is somewhat similar to the one we have been discussing, although the major difference here is that in the latter we are no longer dealing with subjects whose behaviour is defined by an artificial intelligence (AI) agent, but with real people who are being subjected to the experience. It is possible that, in theory, these people are capable of reacting to the challenges and interacting with each other in ways that are more entertaining for the GM to observe and moderate through dynamic feedback. The question here is: how would the fact that the GM is playing against real people affect her judgement and the way she views and interacts with the environment she is influencing? The difference between the use of a level editor to configure a level to be later experienced by another player and the role of the GM, is that the latter involves a more reactive approach, due to the fact that the game is being moderated as it’s taking place. For example, the actions of the players may require the GM to change her plans in order to keep the game session as entertaining as possible. The role of the GM, as we will discuss later, includes being able to react to the actions of the players taking place at a certain moment, while planning the next events to be presented to the players.
How can the game be kept as fair as possible for everyone? In cases where the GM is moderating a competitive match, be it a free-for-all or a team based one, and not a Players vs. Environment game, it is important to ensure that it is a fair contest in which the GM isn’t favoring one particular side over the others. There are some hypotheses we can consider in order to make this possible. One strategy may involve omitting some information from the GM, such as the players’ identification, so that she does not know which person or team she is favoring. This is a very simple example, and one that may not be very effective, but the idea here is to make it so that
2 Agency is defined by Janet H. Murray (1997) as an aesthetic pleasure characteristic of digital environments, due to their procedural and participatory properties. When the behavior of the computer is coherent and the results of the player’s participation are clear and well motivated, he experiences the pleasure of agency, of making something happen in a dynamically responsive world.
2 Introduction the effects of the GM’s actions on the environment aren’t too predictable, and may not be exactly what she intended. Another strategy would be to make it so that there are several GMs instead of just one. There are some ways we can accommodate for this. For example, the moderation of the environment could be made democratic (e.g., actions on the map have to pass a vote) or be divided into different tasks, entrusting each GM with an aspect of the environment to moderate. A reward system for GM’s could be allow players to evaluate their experience and reward good moderation.
How effective would a Game Master be at maintaining the players’ state of flow? According to Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (1990), the state of flow — a state of concentration or complete absorption with the activity at hand — is achieved when balance is struck between the challenge of the task and the skill of the performer. While there have been relatively successful implementations of dynamic game difficulty balancing, the question remains whether or not granting the role of difficulty management to a human game participant would be an improvement over automated systems. If it in fact results in an improvement, achieving the state of flow in computer games could become potentially more accessible.
Should the role of the Game Master be reserved to certain players? In games with multiple players and only one GM, it seems possible that the appeal of playing as a GM could lead to an undesirable ratio of players vs GMs. This could potentially result in a hinderance in online matchmaking, where GMs wait for a long time for players to be assigned to them. The more apparent solution to this issue would be to reserve that role to certain players (e.g., players that have attained a predetermined experience level). This also acts as a mechanism that makes certain that the GMs have enough knowledge about the game’s mechanics and dynamics in order to provide a more coherent experience to the players.
With this research, we intend to explore the role of a GM in computer games, including its functions and motivations. In order to study this asymmetry in videogames, we will subsequently produce a prototype Game Master-Player game, exposing this asymmetry to players and acquiring some insight into this emerging style of asymmetric gameplay.
3
1.2 Research methodology and work plan
This research was composed by an implementation component and a data analysis component. For the former, a functional game prototype was developed using the Unity game engine. This prototype is highly experimental and aims to make use of some of the GM mechanics we will discuss later. During the development phase of the prototype, strategies were devised in order to provide solutions to the problems discussed previously. Predictions were made concerning the degree of effectiveness of different mechanics present in the prototype in addressing those issues.
In later stages, the prototype was playtested by us. This resulted in adaptations made to the prototypes in order to test different approaches to the problems at hand, as well as the role of the GM in the game. We then exposed the prototype to playtesters and inquired them about the experiences they had.
Through this method, we hoped to achieve a better understanding of this type of asymmetry, in order to pave the way for future projects.
4 The Game Master
2. The Game Master
2.1 Early History
During the second half of the twentieth century, a new form of popular entertainment emerged: games of simulation.3 The first commercial format of these games, board wargames, reached a small but devoted audience during the 1950s. Two decades later, growing interest in fantasy genre fiction, combined with the principles of wargaming, gave birth to the new category of role-playing games, which began with the hugely successful Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) in 1974 (Peterson 2012). D&D departs from traditional wargaming and assigns each player a specific character to play instead of a military formation. These characters embark upon imaginary adventures within a fantasy setting. A Dungeon Master (DM) serves as the game's referee and storyteller, while maintaining the setting in which the adventures occur and playing the role of the inhabitants. The characters form a party that interacts with the setting's inhabitants (and each other). Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and gather treasure and knowledge (Williams, Hendricks, and Winkler 2006).
These new games matured simultaneously with the personal computer revolution, and the principles of simulation pioneered by role-playing games laid the groundwork for much of the multi-billion-dollar computer gaming industry. (Peterson 2012)
In the D&D role-playing game, the DM is the game participant in charge of creating and organizing the details and challenges of a given adventure, while maintaining a realistic continuity of events (La Farge 2006). In effect, the DM controls all aspects of the game, apart from the the actions of the players’ characters (PCs), as well as some random factors, determined by dice throws. The DM describes to other players what is intended for them to perceive in this imaginary world, and what effects their actions have. The game is played primarily in the players’
3 Simulation games are games that attempt to model actual events or situations.
5
imaginations, using graph paper maps to represent environments, figurines to represent the characters, dice to determine probability, and rulebooks for reference (Kushner 2008). The title of DM was invented for the Dungeons & Dragons RPG and was introduced in the second supplement to the game rules, Blackmoor (1975). To avoid trademark infringement and to describe the role in role-playing genres other than sword and sorcery, other gaming companies use more generic terms, like Game Master, Judge, or Storyteller.4 We will be using the term Game Master (GM) throughout this dissertation.
2.2 Functions of the Game Master
The areas for which a GM can be responsible vary from game to game as well as across platforms. A GM in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) generally has different responsibilities than a GM in a traditional Pen and Paper RPG (PnPRPG). These differences can be attributed to a number of variables, as we will discuss later. According to Tychsen et al. (2005), the full range of possible responsibilities of GMs can be subdivided into the following five categories:
1) Narrative flow
This encompasses creating the scenario, delivering narrative control by interacting with players, introducing new elements and resolving events. The GM is in charge of providing dynamic feedback to the actions of the players’ avatars.
The content and format of an RPG scenario varies substantially across RPG genres. For example, in a PnPRPG the scenario can provide a blueprint for creating a highly controlled, linear narrative, or be merely a few NPCs tied together in an environment. Live Action Role Playing Games (LARPG) scenarios can likewise vary from detailed scripts of each PC and any events that will take place during the game, to a loose association of GM-controlled NPCs in a fictional world setting. In Computer RPGs, the scenario is typically strictly pre-planned with few actual player choices. However, the GM-control option included in Neverwinter Nights (2002) allows for a more unrestrained approaching in which a DM can control, non-player characters, create objects, and otherwise manipulate the virtual reality in which the game is played.
4 The Storyteller System used in White Wolf Game Studio's storytelling games calls its GM the "storyteller", while the Marvel Super Heroes (1992) role-playing game calls its GM the "judge". The term Game Master itself was first utilized in Chivalry & Sorcery (1977).
6 The Game Master
Figure 2.1: Neverwinter Nights (2002)
2) Rules
The GM is responsible for ensuring that all players know and understand the game rules, as well as for enforcing these. Rules in tabletop RPGs are somewhat different from game rules in e.g. sports and traditional board games, due to their open-ended design. Tychsen et al. argue that instead of focusing on the interaction between the players and game goals, these rules focus on: 1) how the fictional world operates; 2) how the players interact with the fictional world and its inhabitants and: 3) how the players interact with each other and the GM.
The first two of these categories can be roughly subdivided into “hard” and “soft” rules. Hard rules are those who deal with game mechanics directly, e.g. how much damage a sword does, soft rules are the general features of the fictional world setting, e.g. that there is gravity. (Tychsen et al. 2005)
In computer games, the hard and soft rules are generally incorporated directly into the game engines. Tychsen et al. state that in PnPRPGs and LARPGs, the GM can be responsible for creating the rules, if an existing RPG rules system is not used, as well as arbitrate any conflicts which arise through the use of rules. A common example of this in PnPRPGs is when a player wants to take an action that is not described in the rule book. The GM then has to introduce a new rule to determine if that action will be possible or not. This usually depends on a dice throw resulting in a higher value than one determined by the GM.
7
3) Engagement
While entertainment in most RPGs is the players’ responsibility, providing fun and tension is commonly a responsibility of the GM in PnPRPGs. The GM must present the events taking place in the game world in a way that keeps the players engaged, and facilitates communication between them during the course of the game. Lastly, the GM must provide challenges in order to keep the game entertaining. This not necessarily accomplished by catering to every whim of the players, but by making sure they have a reason to continue playing, and in the case of group-based RPGs, to keep functioning as a group.
4) Environment
In order to play, the players must have a fictional setting. This can be imagined (in case of PnPRPGs), physical (LARPGs) or virtual (CRPGs and MMORPGs). In essence, the GM creates the environment and fills it with all forms of agents that can actively interact with the players’ characters. In the case of LARPGs, providing and defining a physical game space is one of the GM’s responsibilities.
In the case of CRPGs and MMORPGs, the role of the GM can include responsibilities uniquely related to the virtually constructed game world (see figure 2).5 In MMORPGs, for example, GMs can be in charge of providing support to the player community. Furthermore, the GM acts as an in-game police force, locating bugs, preventing players from exploiting bugs or farming resources. Lastly, the GM may also be in charge of providing on-the-fly updates to the game world and to its active agents, as required by the actions of the players and the unfolding of the game’s narrative.
5 Tychsen et al. state that the three functions provided under the Virtual world category could be placed under the other categories (On-the-fly updating of game world under Narrative control; Community support under Engagement; and Bug/exploit/farming control under Rules). However, virtual worlds have features that are not shared with imagined and physical game worlds, which is why they are treated as an individual category here.
8 The Game Master
Figure 2.2: The full spectrum of GM functions associated with different types of RPGs. Functions in bold represent GM functions that are the most common among RPGs on all four platforms. (Tychsen et al. , 2005)
2.2.1 The role of the Game Master
2.2.1.1 Pen and Paper RPGs
Tychsen et al. state that PnPRPGs are constructed by description/response cycles that are formed between the GM and the players. During play, the GM assumes different responsibilities depending on game type and style of play, including the responsibility for providing information about the game world and the development of the storyline as the game progresses. The narrative is refined through player inquiry, and the players use the descriptions provided by the GM to construct their individual imagined models of the events that are taking place in the game.
According to Tychsen et al., in traditional PnPRPGs the GM has live control over the game world and its inhabitants, and is responsible for providing an environment where
9
emergent collaborative storytelling can take place, tailored for players. The GM is the participant in the game with access to the greatest degree of information outside the shared play space. The GM acts as a referee and defines the fictional world settings, as well as communicating and enforcing the fictional contract with the players. The GM has access to and is usually involved in the character creation of the other players, and is in possession of the scenario or adventure module (the notes or storyboard that the GM uses to direct or create the story).
Traditionally, the GM has the de facto power over everything within the game, however, the GM exists via the acceptance of the players, and in some forms of PnPRPG play, in- game power is more distributed. In this case, the in-game power of the GM is reduced to that of a facilitator of the narrative without any deciding influence regarding the fictional world setting, or the development of the narrative (Tychsen et al. 2005).
2.2.1.2 Live Action RPGs
Tychsen et al. state that LARPGs are based around the same core concepts as PnPRPGs, with however the major difference that the game is played in a physical game space instead of a imagined one. This increases the level of immersion and the interactive capabilities of the participants, by having the players embody their characters.
In large-scale LARPs, teams of GMs and NPC/contingency characters may use modern communication technologies to keep track of the unfolding narratives amidst the chaos of individual player actions. (Tychsen et al. 2005)
The GM is forced to let the game take on a life of its own outside her control. While based on similar principles, the requirements to GMs in a LARP are therefore very different in practice from GMs. For example, the GM in LARP games is not responsible for keeping the game flow. However, she may oversee the progress of the game and help where needed (eg. by spreading rumors), in an attempt to control or influence the information flow within the game. In general, the GMs role in LARP games is more related to the preparation of the physical space and the planning of different events that are to take place during the game (Tychsen et al. 2005).
2.2.1.3 Computer RPGs
10 The Game Master
Multiplayer CRPGs are are similar to PnPRPGs, with the exception that they present a virtual world by the use of a graphical user interface, while PnPRPGs rely on the imagination of the players. The use of a virtual world has both advantages and disadvantages:
The advantage is that the players are provided an immediate representation of the game world. This alleviates a fundamental problem in PnP RPGs, that players perceive events through their individual minds eye, which can lead to confusion, for example about who is doing what during an encounter with opponents. The disadvantage is that the representation of the game world hinders the formation of deeply personal visualizations in the individual minds eye of the players. Furthermore, current CRPGs do not have any genuine dynamic feedback capacity as that provided by a human GM. (Tychsen et al. 2005)
Additionally, Tychsen et al. state that game engines did not allow for on-the-fly updating of the game world and generation of new content in reaction to the actions of the player-controlled avatars. For example, if the players decide to open a door to a house in the game world, and the GM has not prepared for this possibility, it will take time to create the house interiors – thus interrupting the flow of the game. However, their review was written in 2005, and we would argue that the issue is now not so dependent on technical limitations6. This marks an opportunity for the study of possible solutions for the problem mentioned above.
Tychsen et al. assert that in theory a human GM in CRPGs can have responsibilities similar to those of GMs in PnPRPGs, with the added responsibility of managing a virtual game world. And as the game engine takes away most aspects of rules enforcement, the GM no longer needs to spend resources on those, allowing a greater focus on the narrative development.
According to Tychsen et al., the level of responsibility of the GM for entertaining the players is an open question. If few players are present, a GM is directly involved in all aspects of the players’ interaction with the virtual world. However, as the GM:player ratio drops, these responsibilities lessen, until they are virtually non-existent such as in a MMORPG. At this point, the challenge and entertainment lies more within the preparatory work gone into the creation of the game world. In a game with a high number of players, the GM may not have enough time to make sure that every single player is entertained. This difficulty in answering the needs of a large number of players extends to dynamic feedback and communication flow as well.
The flow of communication on a CRPG with a GM can be typically represented by the flowchart in figure 3. The GM (black) controls the game world and any events within it via a game engine and its components (light grey). Players (white) interact with the game world via an
6 It is possible that through procedural generation, the game system may be able to aid the GM in the creation of content. In the same way that in Minecraft (2009) the environment is generated as the player explores it, it seems likely that such a system could aid a GM to deliver content to the players.
11
interface. Four general lines of communication exist: Scripting7, Body Language8, Emotion and Speech (dark grey). The last three are usable via the avatars. Scripting is not associated with the avatars; although scripted text can be graphically depicted as originating from the avatars. If players and GM are in the same physical space, they can interact in person (dotted lines). In this case, Scripting could be replaced by Speech (Tychsen et al. 2005).
Figure 2.3: Communications flowchart of a GM-controlled multiplayer CRPG. (Tychsen et al., 2005)
2.2.1.4 MMORPGs
The specific roles of GMs vary between different MMORPGs, however, the minuscule GM:player ratio and the persistent nature of the virtual game world generally means that the GMs are less visible to the players. GMs in MMORPGs are typically employed to act as the middle-man between the game and the maintenance/support staff. They rarely have the ability to provide content for the players, and their role is to monitor the game world and to prevent and punish activities such as bug exploitation, hacking, and selling of in-game content for real world money via the internet. According to Tychsen et al.,
7 Tychsen et al. use the word Scripting here as a way to describe in-game communication through text. 8 Body Language covers all forms for physical action and interaction – kinesics, spatial behavior and facial expressions.
12 The Game Master
this is from a role-playing perspective an inherently unproductive use of the GM resource.
2.2.1.5 Variability of Game Master functions across game platforms
The variability of the functions of the GM seems to be linked to a limited number of core variables: a) the GM:player ratio; b) the medium of expression; c) lines of communication available; d) the ability of the GM to generate and control content; and e) player interests, style and theme of play and the degree with which these can be taken into account when creating scenarios/plots/stories.
Table 1—Overview of core variables impacting on the responsibilities of the GM in games. (Tychsen et al. 2005)
Platform PnPRPG LARPG CRPG MMORPG
GM:Player ratio High Medium-Low High Low
Medium Imagined Physical Virtual Virtual
GM:Player ratio High Medium-Low High Low
Communication lines All All Scripting and some Scripting and some open emotion/body emotion/body language, language, live speak live speak possibly via possibly via 3rd party 3rd party software. software.
Content creation Any desired by GM Any desired but rare Limited by game Strictly limited or engine impossible
Personalized Yes Yes Yes No Storytelling
These variables, depicted in Table 1, impact on the ability of the GM and the players to create an environment where dynamic emergent storytelling can take place, e.g. in allowing player-generated content.
13
2.2.2 Current Game Master functions in computer games
According to Tychsen et al., it remains an open question whether GM functions have been successfully implemented in computer games or not. In his review he describes the medium as being restricted by technology. He also states that when discussing the integration of GM functions in CRPGs, it is preferable to address individual functions, two of the most important being: 1) the ability of the GM to design and prepare the game world; 2) the ability of the GM to on-the-fly upgrade the game world and respond to the actions of the players.
Examples of computer games featuring a GM are scarce.
Figure 2.4: Sword Coast Legends (2015)
Sword Coast Legends (2015) features a dungeon master mode in which a GM may create custom campaigns and moderate the players’ experience while they are playing them. During a preemptive stage, the GM creates the scenarios, assigning which types of enemies and quests will be present in the different stages of the campaign, as well as aesthetic elements such as props and flavor text. She can also create actor characters and configure them, deciding on their stats and which actions they can use, as well as their looks. In addition, the GM may allow the system to procedurally generate a dungeon, skipping this preemptive stage entirely. During the game, the GM is tasked with moderating the players’ journey along the campaign, acting by placing and controlling actors in the game world. These actions spend a resource called Threat. This resource is replenished as players progress through the scenarios, allowing the GM to take further action. This, along with the possibility of DM loot drops9 that can be used as tools, serves the purpose of keeping the game entertaining for the GM.
9 The enemies the player faces have a chance to spawn items that can be used by the GM to further impact the game (eg. a potion that makes the enemies stronger).
14 The Game Master
Figure 2.5: Upsilon Circuit (TBA)
In Upsilon Circuit, an 8 player online game currently under development, the game takes place in a single server, so only 8 people can be playing the game at any given time. The game is meant to be streamed in real time to an audience. While the players explore the world and face its challenges, the audience directs their experience. Whenever a player defeats an enemy or discovers treasure, the rewards go to the audience and are used collectively to level up the player, spawn enemies, and place items for the player to discover.
This is an interesting case study as the role of GM is shared by multiple people. At this stage it is unclear how this is going to be implemented, but it seems likely that some actions will go through a voting system before being enacted in the game world.
Wish was a fantasy MMORPG intended to have frequent new content instead of a static quest system. This was to be handled by a team of GMs whose main responsibility was to go into the game world and deliver the missions to the players. Although this game was cancelled in 2005, it shows us that there have already been efforts to bring the role of GM to persistent MMORPGs.
15
Figure 2.6: Wish (Cancelled)
The literature we have been able to find regarding the GM role in computer games is aimed towards the RPG genre. However, we see no reason for this role to be reserved to RPGs, as its potential is largely independent of the game mechanics attributed to the players. As such, it seems likely that this role would be equally viable in other game genres as well. This marks a great opportunity to look at the role of the GM in computer games from a broader perspective, across all game genres.
2.3 Motivations of Play
After reviewing both Nick Yee’s (2015) and Richard Bartle’s (1996) models, Yee’s seemed to be the best candidate to serve as a base for the GM motivations. According to him, being able to articulate and quantify motivations for play provides the foundation to explore whether different sections of the player demographic are motivated differently, and whether certain motivations are more highly correlated with usage patterns or other in-game behaviors (2007). This is particularly useful for game developers, as it may clarify how certain game mechanics attract or deter certain player demographics.
Yee’s model consists of six different clusters, each with two different components:
1) Action Cluster
a. Destruction.
Gamers who score high on this component are agents of chaos and destruction. They love having many tools at their disposal to blow things up and cause relentless mayhem. They enjoy games with lots of guns and explosives.
16 The Game Master
b. Excitement
Gamers who score high on this component enjoy games that are fastpaced, intense, and provide a constant adrenaline rush. They want to be surprised. They want gameplay that is full of action and thrills, and that rewards them for rapid reaction times.
2) Social Cluster
a. Competition
Gamers who score high on this component enjoy challenging other players, often in duels, matches, or team-vs-team scenarios.
b. Community
Gamers who score high on here enjoy socializing and collaborating with other people. They like chatting and grouping up with other players.
3) Mastery
a. Challenge
Gamers who score high on this category enjoy playing games that rely heavily on skill and ability. They are persistent and take the time to practice and hone their gameplay so they can take on the most difficult missions and bosses that the game can offer.
b. Strategy
Gamers who score high on this component enjoy games that require careful decision-making and planning. They like to think through their options and likely outcomes. This includes making decisions related to balancing resources and competing goals, managing foreign diplomacy, or finding optimal long- term strategies.
4) Achievement
a. Completion
Gamers with high Completion scores want to accomplish every challenge the game has to offer. They try to complete every mission, find every collectible, and discover every hidden location.
b. Power
Gamers who score high on this component strive for power in the context of the game world. They want to become as powerful as possible, seeking out the tools and equipment needed to make this happen.
17
5) Immersion
a. Fantasy
Gamers who score high on Fantasy want their gaming experiences to allow them to become someone else, somewhere else. They enjoy the sense of being immersed in an alter ego in a believable alternate world, and enjoy exploring a game world just for the sake of exploring it.
b. Story
Gamers who score high on Story want games with elaborate storylines and a cast of multidimensional characters with interesting back-stories and personalities.
6) Creativity
a. Design
Gamers who score high on this component want to actively express their individuality in the game worlds they find themselves in.
b. Discovery
Gamers who score high on Discovery are constantly asking “What if?” For them, game worlds are fascinating contraptions to open up and tinker with.
Figure 2.7: Overview of Yee’s Motivation Model. (Yee 2015)
Through multidimensional scaling, a technique that compresses the distances between a set of variables into a 2D map while preserving the original distances as much as possible, a higher-
18 The Game Master level structure to the motivations was found. Variables that are more correlated are put closer together, while variables that are less correlated are put further apart.
Figure 2.8: Overview of the Yee’s Motivation Model. (Yee 2015)
Through this method, high-level clusters were found, as well components acting as bridges between those clusters. Discovery is a bridge between the Immersion-Creativity cluster and the Mastery-Achievement cluster. Power is a bridge between Action-Social and Mastery- Achievement.
We didn’t find a bridge between Immersion-Creativity and Action-Social. This map might be hinting to us that there should be something here. (Yee 2015)
Looking at the map, it seems that there’s a possibility that the missing bridge is somehow related to the role of Game Master, as it is a highly creative role, and very dependent on the other players’ experiences. In order to support this claim, we will later discuss GM mechanics and how they can influence the game in creative, player-centric ways.
2.4 Asymmetric Gameplay
Since this dissertation revolves around a form of asymmetric gameplay, we will start by discussing what asymmetry in games is, followed by two different forms it may assume.
19
2.4.1 Symmetric and asymmetric games
Symmetry in gameplay refers to the similarities or dissimilarities in roles that different players have in a given game. According to Ernest Adams (2013, 10), in a symmetric game, all the players play by the same set of rules while trying to achieve the same victory condition. Basketball is an example of a symmetric game, as the initial conditions, actions allowed, and victory condition are the same for both teams. Chess is also a symmetric game. However, chess is a turn-based game, and the fact that one player moves first creates some slight asymmetry. For games designed in a way that the advantage of going first is slight or nonexistent, this asymmetry can be ignored. In chess, only the weakest pieces on the board (the pawns and the knights) can move during the first turn, and cannot move very far or establish a dominant position. Conversely, an example of a turn-based game with a first turn advantage that can not be ignored is tic-tac-toe, as, for experienced players, only the player who goes first can win.
Adams defines asymmetric gameplay as being characteristic of games in which different players may play by different sets of rules while having different victory conditions. We find this definition of asymmetric games to not be entirely accurate, as the victory condition can also be identical for both sides. In Team Fortress 2’s (2007) Mann vs Machine mode, the players choose different classes and have to defend a stronghold from AI-controlled enemies. Although the player’s character abilities and traits may vary, they share win (they successfully defeat the waves of enemies) and loss conditions (the enemies reach the interior of the stronghold and destroy it).
2.4.2 Strong asymmetry vs. weak asymmetry
Not all asymmetric games have drastic differences in the way players play them. Games that contain a strong asymmetry are those where players act on the game world with very different sets of mechanics. An example is ZombiU’s (2012) King of the Zombies mode, in which one player is fighting off zombies using first person shooter mechanics while the other player controls the placement of the zombie hordes with the objective of defeating the first player, having an overview of the game level.
20 The Game Master
Figure 2.9: In ZombiU (2012), while one player fights off zombies (left side), the other controls their placement (right side).
Another example is the Commander Mode in Battlefield 4 (2013), in which one player acts as a commander, making strategic decisions from a bird’s-eye view of the game world and instructing other players on his team, who are playing the first person shooter in its more traditional form. These games make for a very different experience depending on which role the player decides to play.
Figure 2.10: Battlefield 4’s (2013) Commander Mode.
21
Weak asymmetry is much more common than strong asymmetry, existing whenever the changes in the different players’ experiences are only slight. Some common examples of this are Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) games, such as League of Legends (2009) or Dota 2 (2013), or even fighting games like Mortal Kombat (1992). For example, in MOBA games players can choose from a variety of characters, each with a set of abilities and traits that are exclusive to that particular character. As such, different characters make for different gameplay experiences, but they feel more like variations of the same game rather than completely different ones. There is not only asymmetry within each team but also asymmetry between the two teams, as different combinations of characters make for completely different challenges and playstyles. These variations in gameplay can also be found in fighting games, since each character possesses a different set of abilities and moves that require the player to execute different combos on the gamepad.
These definitions of weak and strong asymmetry are not absolute, as games may generate experiences that range from one side of the spectrum to the other. As an example, and within games with weak asymmetry, we can compare Call of Duty: Black Ops’s (2010) multiplayer mode with Overwatch (2016). In the former, players are able to build their own class by choosing the weapons and equipment they want to use. In spite of this freedom to customize their characters, gameplay has no drastic changes to it, apart from the distance the players choose to engage the enemy from.10 On the other hand, Overwatch has several characters that are unable to be customized. However, the characters are arranged in four categories (Offense, Defense, Tank and Support), and are very different from one another. Some characters are particularly unfit for engaging in direct combat, but are instead equipped with abilities that heal or protect their teammates, while others are able to build turrets in order to defend strategic positions. Even though the game is still based on first-person shooter mechanics, players are able to choose from various characters that bear different roles consequently providing different gameplay experiences. Therefore, while both games are within the category of weak asymmetry, Overwatch has a higher degree of asymmetry in comparison to Call of Duty: Black Ops. So, it can be said that asymmetry in games may range from very slight differences in gameplay to absolutely distinct experiences for the players.
2.4.3 Benefits of asymmetric gameplay
According to Jon Shafer (2013), the more new experiences a game can provide to players, the more replayable it is. Replayability is a product of variety, and one way to increase such variety is with, for example, characters with distinct abilities and roles. He believes that, aside from replayability, asymmetry can also enhance strategic decisions: if all sides in a game play the
10 Weapons have different characteristics, such as optimal ranges and rates of fire, that may reward or punish the player for engaging the enemy at close range, for example.
22 The Game Master same way, the optimal strategic response in identical situations will always be the same. Asymmetry helps deflecting problems like this.
Ernest Adams (1998) states that “symmetry is the simplest way of making a game fair, but it tends to emphasize the artificial nature of the contest. Games are often more interesting, and feel more ‘real’, when they contain asymmetries.” We agree with this statement, as, in real life, challenges and confrontations are never symmetric.
Josh Snyder (2014) states that asymmetric gameplay offers unique perspectives and experiences for each player.
Symmetrical multiplayer only provides one point of view, one set of circumstances, and although each player can interpret those differently, they are still interpreting the same thing. Asymmetry allows players to see all sides of any game. (Snyder, 2014)
With this in mind, asymmetry can increase the longevity of a game and give the players a reason to continue exploring the game world and the diversity of the experiences it promotes.
2.4.4 Challenges of asymmetric gameplay
Keith Burgun (2013) details a number of problems related to asymmetric gameplay. We will approach them individually, relating them to the thoughts of other authors and our own.
2.4.4.1 It forces the player to “play designer”
Burgun finds that “[w]hen you have to make a non-strategic choice that has strategic ramifications, it creates tremendous cognitive dissonance”. He worries that, in multiplayer games with different factions or characters, the player may be confused as to which one to pick: the one that he thinks is the best, the one that seems like it would be the fairest, the one that seems the most exciting, or simply if he should pick it randomly. This creates situations in which the player feels pressured to choose between what he thinks is best for the game and what’s most fun for him as an individual.
We believe that this concern could be particularily important when discussing GM vs Player asymmetries, as the GM is indeed in a position where she has to consider the other players’ experience and therefore feel forced to influence the game in ways that may not be the most fun for her (eg. never being able to present the players with a particular challenge because it may be too overwhelming for them). That is indeed a part of her role as a moderator, and may be one of the reasons why being a GM may be a role that some will not enjoy or be interested in.
23
2.4.4.2 It tends to cause games to be vastly less elegant than they otherwise could be
Burgun points out that “[i]f you make a fighting game with just 4 characters, what you’ve actually done is create ten different games. Each matchup is a distinct game.” He claims that, most asymmetrical games have “truly insane amounts of content”, and that this causes new players to feel intimidated, as there is too much to learn. Adams (1998) agrees that this may be the case for some games, stating that “[i]f every faction in a Civilization title were as unique as the races in Starcraft, the end result would be an absolutely broken mess.”11
We find Burgun’s statement to be in opposition to one of the benefits of asymmetry: replayability. While it is true that it is an enormous amount of content to learn, especially in MOBAs such as League of Legends (which currently has 124 different characters), the player is faced with small quantities of content at a time. In this case, nine characters controlled by other players and one character he controls, during a match that goes on for about 35 minutes on average. This is even truer for fighting games such as Street Fighter (1987) or Tekken (1994), as the player can focus on learning a single character at a time in a 1 vs. 1 matchup. Burgun’s concern relative to the steepness of the learning curves for asymmetric games is a valid one, but strategies can be devised in order to deliver the content to the player in manageable quantities, resulting in stimulating challenges.
2.4.4.3 It generally causes games to be vastly harder to balance than they should be
The more asymmetric elements such as characters and factions a game has, the harder it is to balance them so that no particular one has a significant advantage/disadvantage over the others. Burgun even states that modern games are not striving to find real balance, but instead to find an “acceptable tier-list”. This means that there shouldn’t be anyone in the “God tier” (characters so powerful that it feels unfair to use them), and that there shouldn’t be anyone in “Trash tier” (characters so underwhelming that they are rarely chosen by players). The reason for this, he states, is that it is all we can aim for, given the amount of different variables present in games.
11 Starcraft’s (1998) three races function very differently from each other. This includes having different units as well as distinct ways to spawn them. E.g., the Zerg units spawn from larvae that can only be created at a Hatchery (their main structure) while Protoss units can be spawned at Pylons, cheap and quick-to-build structures used to power other structures. Also, Zerg units are cheaper and effective in swarms, while Protoss units are more expensive but stronger. In Civilization V (2010) the player can choose from 43 civilizations, each having one unique gameplay ability and at least one unique unit or building, favoring different victory conditions (Domination, Diplomatic, Science, and Cultural). Although this also creates different strategic choices for the player, this asymmetry is slight in comparison to the one in Starcraft.
24 The Game Master
2.4.4.4 It constrains dynamics
Here, the author is concerned that by making it so that the players aren’t starting from a completely “blank slate”, and instead begin with a faction or character with predefined traits, the game dynamics cease to be emergent, or are, at the very least, constrained.
We find this concern justified, as the actions a player can do with a certain character, are constrained by that character’s abilities. These constraints are, however, intentional. They serve as a way to make sure that one player is not able to have all the possible answers to a particular problem. For example, it is very difficult for a player in a MMORPG game to defeat stronger enemies by himself. As he levels up, he is forced to evolve certain aspects about his character (e.g. strength, health points, ability to heal other players and himself, etc.). This makes it so that players become stronger in certain aspects, requiring players skilled in other areas in order to defeat the stronger opponents. This generates social interaction, and a feeling of reward when players team up and work together towards a common goal.
Constraints are also useful in single-player games, as they force players to tackle in different ways the problems that arise during gameplay. In Dark Souls (2011), during a fight against a huge opponent, a player controlling a character with close range attacks may try to get closer and circle around its legs in order to attack it without getting hit, while a character that attacks with a bow may try to keep his distance and aim for the foe’s head. In Europa Universalis IV (2013), a player playing with the nation of Castile is better equipped to turn his efforts to colonization, while a player starting as Ottomans would be more successful in the conquest of neighbouring nations, as he would start with a larger army. The existence of different approaches represents a huge boost to a game’s replayability, as we have discussed earlier. So, while we do agree that constraints do exist, we also believe that a game may greatly benefit from them.
2.4.4.5 It’s a smokescreen, making it harder for designers to really judge the quality of their system, which results in worse systems
Here, Burgun reflects on the way a large roster of characters/factions can make a somewhat dull system seem more interesting. This makes it hard for game designers to correctly analyze the game and find elements that aren’t working as planned.
If Street Fighter 2 only had one character, Ryu, then I think that the designers would realize that they probably need to make the system itself a bit more elastic and interesting. But, since there is a forced-dynamic obfuscating the system itself – now it’s Ryu versus Zangief, I wonder how those two things push up against each other! – it’s harder to see that the system itself is kind of flat. (Burgun 2013)
25
In addition, Burgun argues that there’s a “psychological trick that asymmetry pulls on you”. This is related to how while you’re playing as one character, you imagine the other characters to be more interesting. He states that that subcouncious sense of wonder that takes places while seeing other characters in action is compelling in a somewhat “cheap” way.
We agree that this is a valid concern. Furthermore, we believe that when developing games with asymmetric roles, a major concern will always be to keep every role as equally interesting as possible for the players, especially in games that require all roles to be played. E.g., in MMORPGs, a common requirement for a group to participate in a Dungeon12 is to have a Tank and a Healer in addition to DPS13 characters. If the players don’t feel at all compelled to play less offensive roles such as a Tank or Healer, this results in very prolonged waiting queues for the DPS classes, which may in turn diminish their interest in the game. The same thing may happen in the case of games where a GM must be present in order for the match to start.
These challenges seem to describe potential pitfalls more than inherent disadvantages of asymmetric gameplay. Furthermore, as we’ve discussed, there have been several successfully implemented strategies that circumvented these challenges14, resulting in games with greater replayability and more dynamic gameplay.
12 In MMORPGs, a Dungeon is an area in which a group of players must battle enemies and use their skills and equipment to face challenges together. Typically, there is a boss battle at the end of each Dungeon. 13 These designations represent character classes. A Tank usually focus on drawing enemy damage and protecting the other classes. Healers focus on restoring their allies’ health in order to prevent them from being defeated. Lastly, the DPS (also known as Damager) class focuses on dealing damage to the enemies. The acronym comes from the metric used in some games to allow players to determine their offensive power, Damage-per-Second. 14 An exception to this is the one described in 2.4.4.5, as we believe this is a problem related to human perception and that may be hard (if not impossible) to mitigate while developing or playing games with asymmetric gameplay.
26 Defining Game Master Action
3. Defining Game Master Action
This chapter will be dedicated to the classification of GM mechanics, the different moments in which he can influence the game, and the different scopes of direct influence that his actions might take.
3.1 Game Master Mechanics
In chapter 2, we reviewed the role and functions of the GM across platforms, from PnPRPGs to MMORPGs. With this knowledge, we are able to list the different mechanics a GM might use. To achieve this, we took into consideration not only the role of GM in computer games at the time of Tychsen et al.’s review, but also the functions that it holds in the PnPRPG genre, translating them into videogame mechanics.
3.1.1 Aesthetics
Simon Niedenthal (2009) states that the word aesthetics in games can have different meanings. As such, it is important to define which one we will be using for this section. According to Nidenthal, the word is used to refer to: 1) the sensory phenomena that the player encounters in the game; 2) aspects of digital games that are shared with other art forms; or 3) the experience of playing the game itself. We will be using the word aesthetics to refer to the first of these meanings. As such, it will relate to the way a game looks, sounds, and presents itself to the player. In addition, we will refer to the game’s story as being a part of its aesthetics, therefore including in this section all the elements of a game that do not directly affect gameplay.
In traditional PnPRPGs, the GM was largely responsible for creating the aesthetics of the game world. Likewise, a GM in a computer game may be able to define story elements, as well as having control over the visual and acoustic environment in which the game takes place. This
27
control may allow the GM to choose different elements in order to cater to the player’s interests and aesthetic preferences.
In Sword Coast Legends (2015), the GM is able to write the scenario’s description, providing the players with a backstory. In addition, he defines which sets of enemies can be spawned, as well as the visual asthetics of the level, such as the lighting and the tile set used to draw the map. Lastly, the game allows the GM to create and assign quests to the players. These quests may be used to outline a general narrative, guiding the players from one objective to the next.
Figure 3.1: The dungeon creator in Sword Coast Legends (2015)
In Amnesia: Dark Descent’s (2010) Custom Story Creator15, 3D models and sound files could be imported and used as an alternative to the ones already present in the game. The users could also write and place notes in the game world for the player to find and read. This allowed the users to create different environments and plots, including some that were very unlike the ones found in the main game.
15 In the Custom Story Creator, users could create and configure Stories, or sets of levels, in the HPL 2 game engine. Those could then be shared and experienced with other players.
28 Defining Game Master Action
Figure 3.2: Amnesia's HPL Level Editor.
These two examples represent two distinct strategies for the customization of a games aesthetics. The first example restricts the GM to a number of different, though predictable, visual aesthetics, while the second one gives a lot more freedom to the user to customize the experience they want to convey.16
3.1.2 Player relationships
We believe that GM action involving player relationships in multiplayer games can separated into two categories: Conflict and Cooperation.
3.1.2.1 Conflict
Jonas Heide Smith (2004) distinguishes between two different types of conflict in multiplayer games: intra-mechanic conflict (a direct consequence of game rules) and extra- mechanic conflict (a consequence of these games being social spaces, and related to cheating and grief play). Here, we will focus only on intra-mechanic conflict, and how the GM can influence it, as extra-mechanic conflict is not within the scope of this dissertation.
16 These approaches, however, also have distinct degrees of usability. A GM utilizing the system implemented in Sword Coast Legends can create an environment and quests by simply selecting different options through dropdown menus, whereas in Amnesia he would need to learn how to utilize the game engine itself, as well as learning a programming language.
29
In a multiplayer competitive match where players are shying away from direct confrontation, the GM may make the game more interesting and eventful by providing motivation for the players to clash. In Age of Empires II’s (1999) map Gold Rush there is a hill in the center with plenty of gold and stone, surrounded by a desert barren of resources. Most of the action occurs in the center of the map, in a battle for the control of the mines. It can be said that the mines work as a motivation for conflict, since the player that controls them has a clear advantage in the match.
In H1Z1: King of the Kill (2016) players are dropped into the game world to fight one another until only a single player survives. During the match, airdrops are parachuted down to random locations, containing weapons and equipment that can be used by whoever salvages them. However, these also serve to make players converge to certain locations, acting as a source of conflict.
In the first example the gold mines act as a predetermined source of conflict, while the second example’s airdrops act as undetermined ones. Both types could hypothetically be manipulated by a GM (the predetermined type before the game takes place, and the undetermined type during it) and be used as tools to regulate conflict.
3.1.2.2 Cooperation
Cooperation can be defined as behavior that maximizes the outcomes of a collective (Van Lange and de Dreu 2001). In cooperative play, players join their efforts in order to overcome a certain challenge. In some games, cooperation is the only way to overcome challenges. Conversely, some games do not force the players to cooperate, they instead reward them for doing so by their own volition.
In Final Fantasy XIV (2013), a MMORPG, dynamic scenarios called Full Active Time Events (FATEs) appear randomly in the game world. They usually involve boss battles, escort missions or other types of quests, and completing them alone is extremely inefficient. These quests are marked on the world map, and players join their efforts in order to complete the challenges and reap the rewards.
30 Defining Game Master Action
Figure 3.3: Final Fantasy XIV (2013)
A GM could be in charge of planning and spawning these events on the map, and even adjust their difficulty depending on how well the players are handling the challenge. Instead of happening periodically, these events could also be made to happen in response to player action within the game. E.g. if a lot of players are exploring the world alone, these events could work as a way to foster communication and the creation of groups.
3.1.3 Actor management
Pedro Cardoso (2015, 93) defines actors as entities that have the ability to act in, on, or within the game world. These entities are capable of influencing the course of events and to alter game states, making the game progress.
Actor management is related to the administration of these actors and their properties. Within actor management, we distinguish three different categories: Invoke, Configure, and Control. Invoke deals with placement of the actor within the game world at a certain time and place. Configure is related to changes in the actor’s characteristics and the way they interact with other actors and the game world. Lastly, Control pertains to the manipulation of the actor by the GM, either in a pre-recorded fashion or in real time.
31
3.1.3.1 Invoke
In order for actors to influence the game world, they must be placed within it. For this to happen, the system must know where and when to spawn the actor. The system must be given a location in which the actor is to be invoked, as well as a condition it must obey in order to be invoked (i.e., when it will be spawned).17 In Super Mario Maker (2015), players are able to create levels based on the Super Mario series, which can then be shared with other players. While creating the level, players decide on the placement of the actors made available by the system. Different actor placements make for very distinct gameplay experiences, with varying difficulties and strategies the players must adopt in order to succeed.
Figure 3.4: Super Mario Maker (2015)
In ZombiU’s (2012) King of the Zombies mode, one of the players tries to defeat the other by spawning enemies in the game world. While in Super Mario Maker this can only be done before the level is experienced, in this example the placement of enemies takes place while the other player is experiencing the level. The role of GM could potentially involve both approaches, preparing the challenge beforehand as well as being allowed to spawn additional actors or remove them in order to regulate the challenge. The GM could also be able to set conditions for the spawn of actors, e.g. if the player manages to stay at low health for a long period of time, the GM could reward her with a health pack. This kind of interaction could act as a way to keep players engaged in a state of flow regardless of skill level. In Dark Souls (2011) NPCs appear in different areas of the world and at different times in response to player action. The player can then follow their questlines and uncover story elements. A GM could also be responsible for invoking actors in order to deliver a plot to the player. Doing so during the game would allow him to respond the players’ actions in a continuous feedback
17 These conditions may take a number of variables into account, e.g. how much time has elapsed since the game started, and player position within the game world.
32 Defining Game Master Action loop, creating narratives tailored to the player and the way she chooses to navigate and influence the game world.
3.1.3.2 Configure
Every actor has a number of characteristics as well as set of rules that define the way it interacts with other actors as well as the game world. We will be addressing this set of rules using the term behavior, as it seems appropriate for describing the range of actions an actor may perform when faced with different stimuli. In Final Fantasy XII (2006), the player is able to configure the playable characters’ behavior during combat. This system (called the gambit system) allows her to program how the playable characters will respond to distinct battle situations. A gambit consists of three components: an action – where the player specifies the action to be enacted by the playable character; a target – where the player designates the target and the condition for that action to occur; and the priority – where the player sets which gambits to execute if multiple are called-for (Cardoso, 2015).
Figure 3.5: The gambit system in Final Fantasy XII (2006)
A similar system could allow a GM to define an actor’s behavior and to adjust it in response to player feedback during the game. This could be used to regulate the difficulty of challenges, e.g. by making an enemy be more or less aggressive towards the player. Another potential use would be to create interesting and emergent narratives between actors, e.g. if Character A is victimized by Character B, which the player then defeats, then Character A becomes the player’s ally.18
18 This approach, in which actors interact with one another and respond positively or negatively to player action, has been discussed at length by Ken Levine (2014). He discusses the opportunity to create a narrative-driven game in which narrative elements are non-linear and interact with each other.
33
In XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012), the player is tasked with defeating enemies in turn- based tactical battles. Each type of enemy possesses a number of attributes that define its prowess in combat (Table 2). These attributes change according to the level of difficulty the player chooses at the beginning of the game.
Table 2: XCOM: Enemy Unknown’s (2012) Thin Man enemy attributes.
Difficulty Easy Normal Classic Impossible
Aim 65 65 75 75
Critical Change 0 0 10 10
Defense 0 0 0 0
Health 3 3 4 6
Mobility 15 15 15 15
Will 15 15 15 15
Damage Modifier -2 -2 0 0
The GM could be able to configure actor characteristics such as these as a way to tune the game’s difficulty. Adams (2013, 427) states that “[s]ome designers believe that no automated system can accurately predict how hard a player wants her experience to be”. Furthermore, he states that although Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment (DDA) systems are time-consuming to build, they can significantly enhance the player’s experience if done well. With this in mind, a GM could act in conjunction with a such a system in order to keep the difficulty at a level adequate to the player’s skills, in order to keep her in a state of flow.19
3.1.3.3 Control Actors can either act according to a behavior defined by a set of rules or be controlled by a human player. In most videogames these are mutually exclusive, hence the popular use of terms such as player character (PC) and non-player character (NPC).20 However, some games allow the player to take control of actors, overriding their autonomous behavior. In Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee (1997), the player is able to control an enemy by using the chant mechanic. She can then use it to access areas usually inaccessible by her, use its shooting mechanic to defeat other enemies, or walk into traps, eliminating herself. If the player stops controlling the enemy, it returns to its autonomous behavior.
19 We have briefly described the state of flow in Chapter 1.1. 20 Adams (2013, 517) defines NPCs as simulated characters with AI-controlled behavior who are not avatars for the player. However, it’s important to note that this definition leaves out other entities that act autonomously even if their behavior doesn’t really qualify as AI (E.g., a trap that triggers whenever a character comes near). In the context this dissertation, we consider those as well when discussing actor management.
34 Defining Game Master Action
Figure 3.6: The player (top-left) controls an enemy (bottom-right).
In Watch Dogs (2014) a player with the game’s companion mobile app, called ctOS, is able to challenge players on the main game to car races. During these races, he can use the app to overview the map and control actors within the game, attempting to hinder the other player’s progress and prevent her from reaching the checkpoints in time. He controls a helicopter with which he can follow the player, earning points he can then spend to control other entities in the game world. These include police cars, controlling traffic lights, closing gates and raising spike traps. This is a great example of how one player can control the game’s actors in order to influence the other player’s experience. A GM could use similar mechanics in order to override automated behaviors and react organically to player actions. This would allow him to influence the narrative in interesting ways, e.g. if a player is exploring an area with no predetermined narrative event in hopes of finding one, the GM can originate one by manipulating the game’s actors in runtime. This may be an effective way to reward the player for exploring the game world and its mechanics. If the player executes an action for which she expects a certain reaction from the system, and the system does not deliver on that, the player may feel disillusioned or even frustrated. Having a GM prevent these occurrences could make the system feel more responsive to the player.
35
Figure 3.7: The ctOS player interface (left side), and the main game (right side)
Overriding actor behavior may also serve as a way to adjust the game’s difficulty. If the player is struggling too much or too little against a particular enemy or challenge, altering its behavior may be a subtler way of altering its difficulty.21 The examples we described so far exhibit the use of this mechanic after the game has started. However, a GM could, in theory, pre-record an actor’s actions before the game takes place. The actor would then execute that sequence of actions instead of acting according to a set of rules.
3.1.4 Rules
According to Aki Järvinen (2003), rules are based on principles, i.e. assumptions of what the player can, should, and cannot do: “this is the purpose of the game”, “the player is allowed to do this”, “the player has to do this”, “the player can not do this”. These are tied to specific states of the game, which take the form of specific game elements: components, procedures, environments, and interfaces, and the specific challenges they each present. In most games, these rules are easily enforced by the system, either by allowing or preventing the player from executing different actions, punishing her if she participates in grief play, or by rewarding her if she accomplishes a certain goal. However, in some cases, it may be hard for an automated system to perceive whether the player is acting in a disruptive way or simply following her understanding
21 Anna Anthropy & Naomi Clark (2014) state that “[s]ubtlety is necessary in DDA because of how it changes and manipulates the conversation between player and game.” When faced with blunt use of DDA, the player may feel like she is being mocked (if the game keeps lowering its difficulty) or as though the game is “cheating” (when it keeps raising the difficulty).
36 Defining Game Master Action of the game rules. Furthermore, exploits can lead to play experiences very distinct from the ones intended by the developers.22 We will be discussing how GM action may help resolve these issues.
3.1.4.1 Grief play
Mulligan & Patrovsky (2003) define griefer as “[a] player who derives his/her enjoyment not from playing the game, but from performing actions that detract from the enjoyment of the game by other players.” According to this definition: the griefer’s act is intentional; it causes other players to enjoy the game less; and the griefer enjoys the act.
In Counter-Strike: Source (2004), players are punished for repeatedly attacking their teammates. The way the system determines if a player is intentionally doing this is the following set of rules:
1 – Dealing 80/90+ damage to a teammate at start of game.
2 – Dealing 400+ of damage to teammate(s) over the period of the whole match.
3 – Killing 3 teammates.
In some servers, if the option "Kill teamkillers" is enabled, the player who killed a teammate will die in the next round and the text "Because you killed your teammate in the previous round, you cannot play in this round" appears. Furthermore, if a player kills too many teammates, she may eventually be banned/kicked from the server. These measures serve as a means to identify and punish griefers.
However, for some games, it is harder to ascertain the player’s intentions. Trouble in Terrorist Town23 (2010) is an example of this. At the start of each round, approximately one quarter of all players are randomly assigned to be traitors, while the remainder are innocent. Some innocent players are granted access to special equipment in order to discover the traitors – these are the detectives. The traitors must work as a team to hide their true nature and eliminate everyone else before the round ends, while the innocents must work together with the detectives to either find and defeat all the traitors, or avoid being completely eliminated. A common behavior for a griefer on this map is to shoot other players for no apparent reason, only to take them out of the game until the next round starts. This is refered to as random deathmatch (RDM). These players can then be reported to the system by anyone, regardless of their role in the game, in order to be penalized.
22 See Cardoso (2015, 291-295) for more information on exploits. 23 Trouble in Terrorist Town is a a user-created game mode for the sandbox physics game Garry's Mod (2004).
37
This can lead to some undesirable outcomes. A player playing as an innocent may see that another player is exhibiting suspicious behavior (e.g., having her weapon unholstered, or walking alone along the fringes of the map). She’s convinced that the other player is indeed a traitor, so she shoots him. In the case that the other player is innocent, it may seem from his point of view that he was unwarrantedly removed from the game. This can result in a RDM report for the player who shot him. That player is then potentially facing penalties as if she were a griefer, even though her intention was not to cause the other player to be frustrated. In these cases, it would be much harder for a system to detect whether grief play has occurred. A GM acting as a referee could be a great asset, working in conjunction with the automated systems already implemented to penalize disruptive behavior in multiplayer videogames.
3.1.4.2 Exploit usage
Another area that could potentially benefit from the intervention of a GM is the counteraction of exploits. According to Josh Bycer (2015), the player is said to be exploiting when she “uses mechanics put in by the developer to circumvent the gameplay.”
Exploits don’t involve a player actively changing code in a game or deceiving other players; instead, they are ‘found’ actions or items that accelerate or improve a player’s skills, actions, or abilities in some way that the designer did not originally intend, yet in a manner that does not actively change code or involve deceiving others. (Consalvo 2007)
Bycer distinguishes two categories of exploit usage: “breaking the game” and bug exploits. Since the process of correcting software bugs (debugging) is usually a task that requires some degree of knowledge in computer science, in the context of this dissertation, we will only be discussing the first category. Breaking the game “refers to [the player] using the mechanics in such a way that [the player] finds a strategy that completely dominates anything the game developer has put in.” (Bycer, 2015) This is what occurs in strategy games where one particular element (e.g., a weapon, item, unit, or card), or a combination of elements gives the player an advantage unintended by the developers.
38 Defining Game Master Action
In Final Fantasy Tactics (1997) the player may use her characters to corner an enemy Chemist24. The Chemists AI is programmed in such a way that whenever it has low health, it uses a potion to replenish it. Since the computer-controlled characters have access to unlimited items, and the player-controlled characters receive a fixed percentage of experience points everytime they attack, the player can attack the Chemist, allow him to heal back, and repeat. This allows him gain experience levels at a rate and ease unintended by the developers.
Figure 3.8: The player characters (right side) surround the enemy Chemist (left side).
Another example is the exploit of the pathfinding algorithms employed in the actors’ AI. In Bloodborne (2015) one of the early boss fights can become trivial if the player is able to position her character in a way that one of the level’s obstacles separates it from the enemy. If this happens, the boss becomes “stuck”, and is unable to pursue the player. This makes the challenge effortless, as the player can simply attack from a distance or retreat whenever she needs to heal.
Figure 3.9: The enemy boss (farther from the camera) is unable to attack the player character (closer to the camera).
24 In Final Fantasy Tactics, each character can be given a job. These jobs determine the abilities that the player can use in battle when controlling that character. The role of the Chemist is to heal its allies using items such as potions.
39
This kind of flawed actor behavior can break the player’s immersion, as it makes the characters act in ways that are not realistic. By assuming control of the actors, a GM could easily correct these flaws in their behavior, restoring the game to its intended level of challenge.
3.2 Game Master Action
If we consider the player’s experience to be a sequence of gameplay events, it can be said that the GM’s role involves influencing that sequence. GM action over a certain gameplay event doesn’t take place exclusively when the player is experiencing that event. We consider GM action to take place at two different moments: before and during the game. We will use the term preemptive action in order to address actions taken by the GM before the game starts, and intervenient action to discuss actions taken during the game.
3.2.1 Preemptive action
Preemptive action creates a basic structure from which the narrative will emerge. The GM configures the different elements we have discussed in Chapter 3.1. He may configure the game:
a) by defining each element himself (e.g. manually configuring and placing the actors);
b) by choosing from a series of predetermined settings;
c) by allowing the system to procedurally generate an initial state for the game; 25
d) by any combination of these options.
These options require different levels of effort from the GM, but also allow him to have more or less flexibility when preparing an experience for the player. In general, allowing the GM to make detailed changes to the elements in the game offers him more flexibility, but increases the time he has to invest in preparing the game. This is why option ‘d’ seems desirable in most circumstances. E.g. the system generates an initial state, which the Game Master can then edit. In this case, the DM decides how much effort he wants to invest in creating the initial state of the experience.
This preparation stage may not be required for all games. Some games may have a fixed initial state, allowing the GM only to intervene during the game. Although this removes all control over
25 Here, the word “initial” does not mean that the system only generates the state of the game at the beggining of the player’s experience timeline, as the system could also define events that trigger at any point in time during the game. Instead, it means that this state can be then altered during the game by the GM in order to collaboratively shape its narrative.
40 Defining Game Master Action the initial state from the GM, this may be desirable for some cases, as it places both the GM and the player directly in contact with one another, without the GM having to prepare in advance. In games where the initial state isn’t fixed (ie., the configuration of the game elements is either chosen at random from a set of possibilities or procedurally generated), but can’t be manipulated by the GM, both the game participants will be exploring the game world (albeit through different perspectives) during the game.
The player does not participate in this preparation stage.
3.2.2 Intervenient action
Intervenient actions occur during the game, and are composed of any actions the GM takes in order to affect the state of the game. These actions may be executed to direct the game’s narrative and to respond to player feedback. This allows the GM to oversee the player’s experience and adjust various game elements in order to improve it.
It is important to note that the GM can not only influence the game at its current state, but also he can prepare future events to occur at a certain point during the experience26. This can be done in order to create repercussions for player actions. E.g. if the player decides to help a certain character, the GM may prepare a event in which that character helps the player in return. This adds weight to what may initially seem like a inconsequential decision for the player. According to Tracy Fullerton et al. (2004) “drama and suspense in games seldom come from the storyline. It comes from the act of making decisions that have weight, and the more weight each decision carries, the more dramatic the game becomes.”
Figure 3.10: Decision scale. (Tracy Fullerton et al., 2004)
26 In cases where the player’s traverse isn’t linear, but branches out according to player action, these should be instead described as potential future events, as there’s no guarantee that the player will actually experience these.
41
In order to create a truly engaging game, you want some peaks and valleys. Let the decisions rise and fall, and as the game progresses, ratchet up the tension by making the decisions gradually more important, until by the
climax of the game, everything hangs in the balance. (Tracy Fullerton et al., 2004)
The advantage of allowing a GM to manage the consequences of the player’s decisions is he can reduce the amount of inconsequential decisions, as well as adjust the pace of the narrative, taking player feedback into consideration.
In board games, it’s common for the GM to have his ability to influence the game limited by a set of rules, be it terms of how many times he can act, or the actions he may take at a specific point in time. In Mansions of Madness (2011), the GM must spend his in-game currency, Threat, in order to influence the game. He then regains some points of Threat at the end of each turn.
Figure 3.11 — The Threat cost is displayed at the top-left of every card. In some cards the cost is variable and depends on the action the GM wants to take.
This seems to be a desirable strategy to implement in computer games as well, as it restrains the GM action’s, encouraging him to make worthwhile and punctual adjustments, and preventing him from overwhelming the player with constant changes in the game’s dynamics. During the intervention stage the narrative emerges from both the player’s interaction with the game world and the way the GM reacts to that, shaping the game world so that it better suits the current narrative. This continuous communication loop and the varied ways it can affect the narrative could create very distinct experiences for different game participants, and even different game sessions.
3.2.3 Scopes of direct influence
Since the GM’s and the player’s influence over the game world isn’t always synchronous, it’s important to describe their individual timelines, as well as the range of events they can
42 Defining Game Master Action influence at any given point in time. As we previously discussed, we will be considering the player’s experience to be a timeline constituted by a sequence of events, as described in figure 3.12.
Figure 3.12: GM and Player timelines. The player’s timeline is composed of narrative events (E).
As we’ve already discussed, during the preemptive stage the GM has the ability to prepare an outline for the player’s experience. Therefore, it can be said that, in this stage, the GM is capable of directly influencing any events that he has planned for the player. During the intervention stage, the player begins to influence the game world. Through her actions, she is able to start creating a narrative and exploring the game world, navigating from one narrative event to the next. Although she can indirectly influence future events27, what we may call her scope of direct influence is still limited to her actions in the present moment of the narrative. However, this is not the case for the GM.
In addition to this, different GM actions may result in consequences bearing different levels of significance. Taking this into consideration, we distinguish two different categories for GM action: macromanagement and micromanagement.
3.2.3.1 Macromanagement GM actions that classify as macromanagement are those that have a broader impact over the narrative. The creation of narrative events, or overarching changes to the game state can be included in this category. E.g., the GM places a number of enemies that ambush the player in an
27 By acting in different ways in the present moment of the narrative, the player can affect future narrative events. However, she can’t do so directly.
43
area that she would otherwise consider safe. In this example, the GM places the actors as a group, with little concern for their individual characteristics. Macromanagement can be a way for the GM to create a basic outline for what he intends the player’s experience to be.
3.2.3.2 Micromanagement In contrast, micromanagement actions are those that create different nuances in the narrative, subtle alterations in actor behavior or characteristics. Following the previous section’s example, a GM micromanaging that narrative event could change the actors’ behavior and characteristics in order to add variety to the enemies, and maybe even encouraging the player to adopt different strategies when facing them. Micromanagement, while less time-efficient than macromanagement, can be used to add detail to a previously created outline for the experience.
3.3 Summary
In this chapter, we have discussed the potential tools a GM may use to direct the player’s experience, as well as the different times he can influence the sequence of gameplay events experienced by the player. We believe the mechanics listed in this chapter would allow the GM to thoroughly customize the experience he wants to convey to the player. However, the more of these mechanics a game features, the more proficient the GM has to become in making use of them. Games where the GM has access to less of these mechanics would bear a more gradual learning curve, while overall giving the GM less control and less responsibility while moderating the game. We believe this to be a sensible approach to the introduction of players to this asymmetry.
44 Project
4. Project
4.1 Prototype
This prototype consists of a first version of a platform focused on the GM-Player relationship we have been describing, where the GM could not only affect the current state of the game, but also prepare future events for the player to experience.
4.1.1 Concept
The prototype is a text-based adventure game based on Shakespear’s Tempest with a branching storyline that can be edited by the GM. 28 We chose this approach for two of reasons. Firstly, by being a text-based prototype, it removed the need to create visual representations of the characters, environments and events being depicted. This allows the GM to freely alter these elements without constraints related to the content. Secondly, having a branching storyline simulates the different approaches a player could take in any other type of game, as well as the need for the GM to prepare and respond to any of those approaches.
4.1.2 Mechanics
4.1.2.1 Player Mechanics During the game, the player is faced with a descriptive text and up to three options he can choose from. When selected, each of those options leads the player to a different node in the narrative, featuring another descriptive text and a new set of options. The player navigates through the narrative utilizing this request-response cycle.
28 This prototype was developed in conjunction with Ana Costeira (2016). Her work relates to the transposition of narrative when taken from its original medium and placed in an interactive one such as the videogames medium.
45
Figure 4.1: The player’s starting screen.
4.1.2.2 Game Master Mechanics The structure behind the game is similar to those employed in dialogue trees. Initially, the GM is given an initial set of interconnected nodes, which she can then edit before the game starts. This includes changing the node’s descriptive text, as well as its options and links. She is also given the option to create new nodes.
After the game has started, the GM can keep track of which node the player is currently at (marked by its light blue color). This allows the GM to observe player choices and continue editing and creating nodes in order to accomodate for them.
Figure 4.2: The GM’s interface.
46 Project
When doing so, the GM spends a currency called Influence. She starts the game with 5 points she can use to take actions, each costing one point. Influence points are replenished as the player advances from one node to the next.
Figure 4.3: The GMs interface while he is editing a node.
4.2 Testing
We exposed 21 users of both genders between the ages of 20 and 30 to our prototype and asked them to play once as the player and once as the GM. After the play session, the users filled out a form29 based on the Game Experience Questionnaire30 (GEQ), along as some questions more related to the GM role in particular. The GEQ-based section of the form consists of different modules: 1) Core module — concerns actual experiences during gameplay; 2) Social Presence module — concerns playing with others; 3) Post-Game module — concerns experiences once a player has stopped playing.
4.3 Results
The GEQ captures the game experience based on a number of items. The Core module evaluates Competence, Sensory and Imaginative Immersion, Flow, Tension/Annoyance,
29 See Appendix A. 30 For more information on the Game Experience Questionnaire, see IJsselsteijn et al., (2008).
47
Challenge, Negative Effect and Positive Effect. On a scale from 0 to 4, the users’ average scores in the Core module were as described in figure 4.4.
Competence
Sensory and Imaginative Immersion
Flow
Tension/Annoyance
Challenge
Negative Effect
Positive Effect
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 Figure 4.4: Users’ average scores in the Core module of the GEQ.
The Social Presence module evaluates Empathy, Negative Feelings, and Behavior Involvement. The users’ average scores on this module, on a scale from 0 to 4, are shown in figure 4.5.
Empathy
Negative Feelings
Behavior Involvement
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 Figure 4.5: Users’ average scores in the Social Presence module of the GEQ.
Finally, the Post-Game module evaluates the items Positive Experience, Negative Experience, Tiredness and Returning to Reality. The users’ average scores on this module, on a scale from 0 to 4, are shown in figure 4.6.
48 Project
Positive Experience
Negative Experience
Tiredness
Returning to Reality
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 Figure 4.6: Users’ average scores in the Post-Game module of the GEQ.
In addition, we asked the users to rate statements regarding the GM role in a scale from 1 to 5. The statements and relative scores are listed in figure 4.7.
I felt like I was able to influence the game
I felt a responsibility towards keeping the game fun for the player
It was fun to play as Game Master
I took the player's feedback into consideration while playing the game
I would like to experience similar roles in other computer games
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 Figure 4.7: Users’ average scores in the Game Master module.
4.4 Discussion
From the results, we can conclude that while the users felt competent while playing the game, they felt as though they hadn’t been challenged. We would argue that this is due to the fact that the game is story-based, and lacking mechanics that are demanding of the player’s skills.
49
Additionally, the game has no real fail-states. The different actions the players can execute simply lead them towards different paths in the story.
The users scored reasonably high in Behavior Involvement, in the Social Presence category. This means that the player’s and the GM’s actions were dependent one one another. This is backed up by the indication that the GMs took the players’ feedback into consideration while designing their experience (figure 4.7). The GMs also felt like they were able to influence the game, and felt responsible for keeping the player entertained. Finally, while users didn’t find playing as GM to be particularly interesting in this prototype, they showed interest in experiencing the role of GM in other computer games. We believe that these results point us towards an opportunity to further explore this asymmetry in computer games, with other types of GM mechanics31 and other game genres.
31 See Chapter 3.1.
50 Conclusions
5. Conclusions
5.1 Summary
The focus of this research was to explore the GM-player relationship, and the ways it can influence the narrative in videogames. By translating the functions and capabilities of a GM from board games to computer games, we defined a number of mechanics he may utilise. Looking at those mechanics, we were able to find areas in which GM moderation could be a great asset when used in conjunction with automated systems.
In single-player games, a GM would be able to the shape the player’s experience in interesting ways by managing the game’s different elements in response to player feedback. This includes actions such as preparing gameplay events, adjusting the game’s difficulty to the player’s skills, and managing the game’s actors so that they respond to the player’s actions in ways better suited to the current narrative. In multiplayer games, the GM would have the added ability to manage the sources of conflict between the players as well as create opportunities for them to cooperate and overcome challenges together.
As a way to expose players to the GM-Player asymmetry and to observe their thoughts concerning the role of the GM in computer games, we developed a game prototype. After the players tested it, we evaluated their experience and discovered that both GMs and players found that their actions within the game were dependent on one another’s feedback. Furthermore, players showed considerable interest in playing more computer games featuring a GM. With this in mind, we conclude that there is potential for the role of GM to find its place in modern computer games. As such, we find that there is motivation for further exploration of the GM-Player relationship, with different mechanics and game genres.
51
5.2 Limitations
One of the greater limitations of this research is that this type of asymmetry is still mostly unexplored in computer games. Some multiplayer asymmetric games provide one of the players with mechanics that resemble those of a GM, but the player is still competing with the others in order to achieve her own victory condition, and not just interested in directing their experience. As such, we can only hypothesise about the full extent of its potential effects in modern games. Because of this, the list of GM mechanics we compiled, while fairly comprehensive, is also prone to some error. There may be potential GM mechanics we have not discussed, while some of the ones we discussed could turn out to be unpractical for a human game participant to perform.
We described the management of player relationships by the GM32 to be either related to the creation of conflict between the players, or to the promotion of cooperation. However, we find that it is unclear if these two are the only types of relationships a GM can encourage the players to form. They are merely the most common in multiplayer games, and the easier for us to discuss in this context.
Finally, we believe our prototype to be a very simple implementation of the GM role, with problems regarding the GM’s interface as well as an experience for the player that is not particularly fun. However, we believe that our rather simple prototype, while not particularly successful at giving the playtesters a great gameplay experience, was successful in allowing them to experience the role and briefly explore its potential.
5.3 Future work
Regarding the prototype developed in this dissertation, allowing the player and the GM to play in different computers online would allow the GM to prepare events without the player’s knowledge, as well as make it easier for her to edit and create nodes while the player is playing the game. The GM’s user interface can be made more user-friendly, in order to facilitate her navigation through the node structure. In addition to this, the GM could be allowed to create triggers for different nodes to be activated. E.g., if the player picks up an item early in the story, an extra option could be made available to him in a future node that allows him to use that item. This would allow the GM to set up repercussions for player actions before the player executes them.
We find that it would be particularly interesting to develop a new prototype with more complex mechanics in which a GM oversees a competitive match between players. The GM would then act as a moderator and a referee, affecting elements such as the environment in which the players play, or the way it simulates physics. This is a potentially interesting facet of the GM
32 Described in Chapter 3.1.2.
52 Conclusions role, with underlying dynamics that we were not able to test using the prototype developed in the context of this dissertation.
Overall, we would like to continue exploring the role of the GM in computer games, experimenting with the different mechanics and strategies we have presented in this dissertation, while evaluating their viability and potential to help create interesting, player-centric narratives.
53
References
Adams, Ernest. 1998. “Designer’s Notebook: A Symmetry Lesson.” http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131699/designers_notebook_a_symmetry_.php. ———. 2013. Fundamentals of Game Design Third Edition. Anthropy, Anna, and Naomi Clark. 2014. A Game Design Vocabulary: Exploring the Foundational Principles Behind Good Game Design. 1st ed. Addison-Wesley Professional. Bartle, Richard. 1996. “Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUD’s.” http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm. Burgun, Keith. 2013. “Debunking Asymmetry.” http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/KeithBurgun/20130923/200828/Debunking_Asymmetry .php. Bycer, Josh. 2015. “Cheating vs. Exploiting in Game Design.” http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20150114/234205/Cheating_vs_Exploiting_i n_Game_Design.php. Cardoso, Pedro. 2015. “Playing in 7D : An Action-Oriented Framework for Video Games.” Ph.D., Design, University of Porto. Consalvo, Mia. 2007. Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames. The MIT Press. Costeira, Ana. 2016. "Interatividade e Storytelling: desenvolvimentos narrativos em videojogos". Manuscript. MA dissertation. University of Porto. Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály. 1990. “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.” PhD Proposal 1. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. Fullerton, Tracy, Chris Swain, and Steve Hoffman. 2004. “Improving Player Choices.” http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130452/improving_player_choices.php. IJsselsteijn, W., K. Poels, and Y. A. W. de Kort. 2008. “The Game Experience Questionnaire: Development of a Self-Report Measure to Assess Player Experiences of Digital Games.” Järvinen, Aki. 2003. “Making and Breaking Games: A Typology of Rules.” DiGRA 2003, 68–
54 References
79. Kushner, David. 2008. “Dungeon Master: The Life and Legacy of Gary Gygax.” http://archive.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/news/2008/03/ff_gygax?currentPage=all. La Farge, Paul. 2006. “The Believer - Destroy All Monsters.” http://www.believermag.com/issues/200609/?read=article_lafarge. Levine, Ken. 2014. “Narrative Legos.” GDC 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58FWUkA8y2Q. Mulligan, Jessica, and Bridgette Patrovsky. 2003. Developing Online Games: An Insider’s Guide. Indiana: New Riders. Murray, Janet H. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. The MIT Press. Niedenthal, Simon. 2009. “What We Talk About When We Talk About Game Aesthetics.” Technology 9: 15. doi:10.1177/0021943608325751. Peterson, Jon. 2012. Playing at the World. Unreason Press. Shafer, Jon. 2013. “Asymmetry.” Gamasutra.com http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JonShafer/20130111/184692/Asymmetry.php. Smith, Jonas Heide. 2004. “Playing Dirty – Understanding Conflicts in Multiplayer Games.” The Association of Internet Researchers, no. September: 19–22. Snyder, Josh. 2014. “Asymmetrical Gameplay: Gimmick or Revolution?” http://www.theoryofgaming.com/asymmetrical-gameplay-gimmick-or-revolution/. Tychsen, Anders, Michael Hitchens, Thea Brolund, and Manolya Kavakli. 2005. “The Game Master.” Proceedings of the Second Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment (IE ’05), 215–22. Van Lange, Paul, and Carsten de Dreu. 2001. “Social Interaction: Cooperation and Competition.” Introduction to Social Psychology: A European Perspective, no. 3rd edition: 342–69. Williams, Patrick, Sean Hendricks, and Keith Winkler. 2006. “Gaming as Culture.” Yee, Nick. 2007. “Motivations of Play in Online Games”. Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775. 1,” 772–75. ———. 2015. “The Gamer Motivation Model”. http://quanticfoundry.com/2015/12/15/handy- reference/.
55
Cited works
Age of Empires II: Age of Kings. 1999. Ensemble Studios.
Amnesia: Dark Descent. 2010. Frictional Games.
Battlefield 4. 2013. EA DICE.
Bloodborne. 2015. From Software.
Call of Duty: Black Ops. 2010. Treyarch.
Chivalry & Sorcery. 1977. Fantasy Games Unlimited.
Civilization V. 2010. Firaxis Games.
Counter-Strike: Source. 2004. Valve Corporation Turtle Rock Studios.
Dark Souls. 2011. From Software.
Dota 2. 2013. Valve Corporation.
Dungeons & Dragons Supplement II: Blackmoor. 1975. Dave Arneson. TSR, Inc.
Europa Universalis IV. 2013. Paradox Development Studio.
Final Fantasy Tactics. 1997. Square.
Final Fantasy XII. 2006. Square Enix.
56 Cited works
Final Fantasy XIV. 2013. Square Enix.
Garry’s Mod. 2004. Facepunch Studios.
H1Z1: King of the Kill. 2016. Daybreak Game Company.
League of Legends. 2009. Riot Games.
Mansions of Madness. 2011. Arclight & Edge Entertainment.
Marvel Super Heroes Game. 1992. Pressman Toy Corp.
Mortal Kombat. 1992. Midway Games.
Oddword: Abe’s Odysee. 1997. Oddworld Inhabitants, Saffire Corporation.
Overwatch. 2016. Blizzard Entertainment.
Starcraft. 1998. Blizzard Entertainment.
Street Fighter. 1987. Capcom.
Super Mario Maker. 2015. Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development.
Sword Coast Legends. 2015. N-Space, Digital Extremes.
Tekken. 1994. Namco.
Upsilon Circuit. n.d. Robot Loves Kitty.
Watch Dogs. 2014. Ubisoft.
XCOM: Enemy Unknown. 2012. Firaxis Games.
ZombiU. 2012. Ubisoft.
57
Appendix A — Form
Core Module
This module concerns actual experiences during gameplay. The users were asked to evaluate these statements using a scale of 0 to 4.
1. I felt content 2. I felt skilful 3. I was interested in the game's story 4. I thought it was fun 5. I was fully occupied with the game 6. I felt happy 7. It gave me a bad mood 8. I thought about other things 9. I found it tiresome 10. I felt competent 11. I thought it was hard 12. It was aesthetically pleasing 13. I forgot everything around me 14. It felt good 15. I was good at it 16. I felt bored 17. I felt successful 18. I felt imaginative 19. I felt that I could explore things
58 Appendix A — Form
20. I enjoyed it 21. I was fast at reaching the game's targets 22. I felt annoyed 23. I felt pressured 24. I felt irritable 25. I lost track of time 26. I felt challenged 27. I found it impressive 28. I was deeply concentrated in the game 29. I felt frustrated 30. It felt like a rich experience 31. I lost connection with the outside world 32. I felt time pressure 33. I had to put a lot of effort into it
Scoring Categories:
a) Competence: 2, 10, 15, 17, 21 b) Sensory and Imaginative Immersion: 3, 12, 18, 19, 27, 30 c) Flow: 5, 13, 25, 28, 31 d) Tension/Annoyance: 22, 24, 29 e) Challenge:11, 23, 26, 32, 33 f) Negative affect: 7, 8, 9, 16 g) Positive affect: 1, 4, 6, 14, 20
Social Presence Module
This module concerns playing with others. The users were asked to evaluate these statements using a scale of 0 to 4.
1. I empathized with the other
2. My actions depended on the other actions
3. The other actions were dependent on my actions
4. I felt connected to the other
59
5. The other paid close attention to me
6. I paid close attention to the other
7. I felt jealous about the other
8. I found it enjoyable to be with the other
9. When I was happy, the other was happy
10. When the other was happy, I was happy
11. I influenced the mood of the other
12. I was influenced by the other moods
13. I admired the other
14. What the other did affected what I did
15. What I did affected what the other did
16. I felt revengeful
17. I felt malicious delight
Scoring Categories:
a) Empathy: 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13 b) Negative Feelings: 7, 11, 12, 16, 17 c) Behavioral Involvement: 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 15
Post-Game Module
This module concerns experiences once a player has stopped playing. The users were asked to evaluate these statements using a scale of 0 to 4.
1. I felt revived 2. I felt bad 3. I found it hard to get back to reality 4. I felt guilty 5. It felt like a victory 6. I found it a waste of time
60 Appendix A — Form
7. I felt energized 8. I felt satisfied 9. I felt disoriented 10. I felt exhausted 11. I felt that I could have done more useful things 12. I felt powerful 13. I felt weary 14. I felt regret 15. I felt ashamed 16. I felt proud 17. I had a sense that I had returned from a journey
Scoring Categories:
a) Positive Experience: 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16 b) Negative Experience: 2, 4, 6, 11, 14, 15 c) Tiredness: 10, 13 d) Returning to Reality: 3, 9, 17
Game Master Module
This module concerns experiences once a player has stopped playing. The users were asked to evaluate these statements using a scale of 1 to 5.
1. I felt like I was able to influence the game 2. I felt a responsibility towards keeping the game fun for the player 3. It was fun to play as Game Master 4. I took the player’s feedback into consideration while playing the game 5. I would like to experience similar roles in other computer games
61