7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Full Name:

IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN WORK Supervisor: Thesis orproject title: Course e-portfolio: Course manager: Name ofcourse: Class code:

Birthdate (dd/mm-yyyy): E-mail:

@itu.dk @itu.dk @itu.dk @itu.dk @itu.dk @itu.dk @itu.dk

Abstract

This paper focus on the enacted experiences in games. The game in question is Planescape Torment. Quest theory, enacted experiences and the importance of context will be used in the analysis of the game. The final result of the paper is that because the game and subsequent play session is both the player and the artifact some of the presented theories does not truly hold up. This does not mean that it is wrong but can be used to further a debate.

Keywords Games, Players, RPG, Enacted Experiences, context, Quest theory

Introduction

Quests are an essential part of most digital role­playing games. One can say it is part of their nature. Both in order to let a player progress in a story, but also to get the player to engage in tasks that sometimes are not necessarily tied to the story but more as a progression of a given player. The act of questing comes in many sizes and shapes. Some are simple fed­ex quests meaning that the objective of it can be summed up as following; collect the sword, deliver it to the owner and get a reward, while other quests can be more elaborate and deep.

Quests in role playing games are often a lot more open for interpretation than similar quests in more linear games like first person shooters like Halflife [8]. This is because of the game genres focus on players leveling up their characters and focusing on progression of that character through the choices that the player make. This choices of newer roleplaying games such as Dragon Age [7] and Mass Effect [6] offer choices that are meaningful for the player by either introducing consequences that matter or making the choices morally grey, so the player are forced to think about the best choice.

New role playing games tend to follow the focus on the morally grey area, where the choices you make matter and have consequences in some foreseeable future. However at the end of the day the use of quests, as a mechanic, are for the designers to guide the players to complete a game in a way where the players more or less know how it will end. However there are also games that takes another approach to quests, where a quest is more up for debate and ultimately interpretation from the player.

Planescape Torment [1] is such a game, where the quests throughout the game are very open for interpretation and where it is not entirely clear what the proper way to complete these quests are in order to advance the story correctly. The quests throughout the game are still from a game design oriented perspective used to advance and complete the story of the game, but because of the ambiguity of what is at stake throughout the game, one can not “blindly” play the game by completing quests and expect to get the normal results associated with them. One can argue that to completely understand the story you have to understand the journey and the central themes of the game, which is one of self discovery with no right outcome. This means that the player has to actively get more involved in the story to both properly address the issues at hand but also to make the “right” decision, which can be difficult when the story is ambiguous.

The ambiguousness of playing Planescape Torment [1] also present another interesting issue. it can be difficult to analyze by the perceived stance on games in both ludological and narratological circles, where the preferred way of analyzing games are as systems, be it through mechanics or narratives (Aarseth, Espen, 2004; Howard, Jeff; 2008). One problem with this focus on games as systems are that they neglect the importance of the player and the act of playing, which is equally important. One can argue that a game is not a game without the act of playing (Stenros & Waern, 2010). If the importance of analyzing video games is not only about the game as an artifact, but equally about the player, then some of the ways of analyzing games in traditional way needs to be updated.

Focus of this paper By looking at games as enacted experiences the context of analyzing games change and this means that some of the older models will also change. This paper will focus on the game Planescape Torment [1] and analyze it through the lens of Stenros and Waern’ (2010) theory of enacted experiences but also look into prior research such as quests and how they can both push the story forward but also help the player to narrate their own story within the games confines in search of meaning. The reason for using the prior research that focus only on the game is both to anchor this paper, but also to see where some presented theories might change when the context change. The question that this paper in particular will try to solve is: how do the presented quest theories hold up in Planescape Torment when it comes to narrative, when analyzing through the lens of enacted experiences?

Literature review

As mentioned in the introduction, this paper will both focus on quests and the act of questing in RPG in order to describe narrative and enacted experiences. Before going into the analyzation of the role playing game Planescape Torment [1] in order to elucidate how the player can have a meaningful impact on the story, it would be wise to look at the previous theories associated with the act of narrative and storytelling in games, either through quests or other means (Aarseth, Espen, 2005 ; Howard, Jeff, 2008), the term enacted experiences (Stenros; Waern) and the importance of context (Dourish, Paul; 2004).

Quest based narratives and how to define meaning From the humble beginnings of video games where a quest consisted of little more than presented texts to much more elaborate and complicated quests of games like the Baldurs Gate Series[1], Fallout series[5], Mass Effect[6] and Dragon Age series[7] where the player is presented to complicated choices and consequences a quest has always been a way to guide the player. The core mechanics when it comes to a quest in games have not changed. As Tronstad suggests, a quest is an objective that gives the player incentive to complete it. Tronstad furthermore states; “When the quest is done and the player has found meaning, it is over and not be repeated again” (Tronstad, 2001 as cited in Howard, Jeff; 2008; p. 20).

The definition of meaning is hard to define and some would argue that quests which are linear and repetitive become boring and uninspiring really quick. Susana Tosca (2003) describe how students that play games often find quests that fulfill the linearity and predictability to become unrelated to the character’s physical and emotional development and therefore the meaning of the quest is lost and the overall story can become uncertain and ultimately futile.

A meaningful game, as in where the narrative and the activity of play conjoin into a meaningful action is still up for debate. Espen Aarseth (2004) is still sceptical of the narrative based game, because of the video games inability to achieve a true sense of narrative, where the player can do what they want inside the game. Espen Aarseth (2004) points out that narrative adventure games still have problems because of “the limited result that they achieve”, which means that characterization, extremely derivative actions plots, and for the most part, no metaphysical themes are very rarely/not present (Aarseth, Espen; Quest games”, p.367 as cited in Howard, Jeff; 2008).

Quests can be divided into three subcategories when it comes to the definition of meaning, which is meaning as initiation, meaning as narrative and thematic meaning (Howard, Jeff; 2008). Because of the complex nature of meaning, when playing a game and completing quests, it is important to get these three terms in order to decipher meaning out of a game. Meaning as initiation focus on the quests as meaningful because of its ability to immerse the player into the game world. This can be done through drama or conflict, but the idea of initiation is also to gradually ease the player into the various aspects of the game (Howard, Jeff, 2008).

Meaning as initiation can be done three ways as in the impact of the player’s accomplishment, a narrative backstory that convey urgency and tell the player why they are doing what they are doing and lastly an expressive, semantic and thematic meaning, which focus on the ideas that is symbolically encoded within the gameworld. This can be done either through landscape, objects or challenges of the quest and can be enacted through it (Howard, Jeff; 2008).

Quest Theory Espen Aarseth (2005) writes in “from Hunt the Wumpus to EverQuest: Introduction to Quest Theory” that all quests follows a similar pattern in games and that this pattern can be broken down to several subcategories. However all in all a quests most simplified function is to get the player from point A to point B. There are three basic quest types, which is the place oriented, time oriented and objective oriented quests (Aarseth, Espen; 2005). These three types of quests are usually not only one form, but a variation of one, two or all of the three basic quest types. The combination of these three types of quest also define the play experience, as in what the quest tells the player to do (Aarseth, Espen; 2005)

Quests can also embedded into the landscape of the game. Be it a FPS, RPG or RTS game, all games have some sort of visual way to communicate to the player what they can do or what they should do. There are three ways of describing how quests in the landscape can further the progression of the game. It is the uni/multicursal corridor, the semi­open hub and the open landscape (Aarseth, Espen; 2005). All three ways of landscapes is a way to analyze players progression through quests and what are presented in front of them.

As mentioned in the above chapter “quest narratives and finding meaning”, even if quests follow either one or a multitude of the basic ways of doing quests or following these embedded quests in a landscape, there are some things that you cannot do with games. Espen Aarseth (2005) do not see narration as part of the game, or more specifically, it is more a structure of getting from A to B and that may resemble narration. Another point of interest is that open worlds with a lot of freedom to do what you want, often collide with a storyline that is trying to keep focus (Aarseth, Espen; 2005).

Games as enacted experiences Stenros and Waern (2010) describe in their paper “Games as activity: correcting the digital fallacy” the importance of looking at the player when it comes to the experience of playing. Too long the research into video games has been centered around either the digital game as an object, the structure of how to play the game or the mechanical nature of the game. By taking this approach, the researchers have been neglecting a very important part of the experience, which is the player playing the game.

This is what Stenros and Waern (2010) define as the “digital fallacy”, which in their terms “has had a profound effect on how game studies are conducted and how the central concept of a game is framed” (Stenros and Waern, 2010, p.1 ). Stenros & Waern (2010) further point to the central fact that game studies, because of this focus, has mostly dabbled into the deconstruction and analysis of the structures and mechanics of games, because it is ultimately is viewed as a system. By focusing on the system, Stenros & Waern (2010) call for the importance of studying games as play and as an activity, because a video game without the act of playing is only an object with designed properties.

Digital games are always second order design, which means that a video game are a designed structure that excels in guiding the player’s engagement and activity of play (Stenros & Waern, 2010). No matter how immersive and free a game world seem to be, there will always be a set of rules and boundaries that the player can’t break, without breaking the game and the act of playing is lost (Stenros & Waern, 2010).

Stenros and Waern (2010) argue that we as human beings are hardwired to engage in social structures, the act of playing with a videogame can be seen as a consciously structured activity. This is because humans always engage in endeavors, which are situated and embodied all the time. This means that the intended use of any given game design can only be fully realized when people freely engage in the activity of playing the videogame. This also means that gameplay can be viewed as an enacted experience, because what people experience when they play is not the game, but the play session. The play session, and therefore the game, does not exist unless we consciously and actively create it (Stenros & Waern, 2010).

Stenros and Waern (2010) also elucidate two very important aspect of enacted experiences and how they influence game activity. The first aspect is that enacted experiences are socially constructed and transferred. This means that to experience anything, one must know what to expect in order to fully understand it. The second aspect is that the player must participate and engage the game voluntary and properly, to experience anything at all (Stenros & Waern, 2010, p. 5).

This means that almost any game can be interpreted and enacted in a multitude of different ways, without breaking the core rules of the embedded structures built into a video game. The player can freely choose to approach the game in several different ways and everytime experience something new.

The importance of understanding the context Paul Dourish (2004) highlights in his paper “What we talk about when we talk about context” the importance of understanding the context right before getting into any design. His research has mostly been centered around HCI and ubiquitous computing, however the importance of getting the context right in the design of interacting with a playful GUI, such as a game, is not any different. As playing a videogame is situated in a physical and social setting, or context, the act of playing will be affected when we’re introduced to new implementations or variations of a videogame.

Dourish (2004) furthermore points out that context is a property that is dynamic and susceptible to change. This can be the activity of play. What Dourish (2004) means is that context is not a set state that people act within, but something that is created by the actions that people find important and relevant for the given context. He states “..these contextual properties take on their meaning or relevance through their relationship to forms of practice; that is, it is engaged action around artefacts and information that make those artefacts meaningful and relevant to people” (Dourish, 2004, p.8)

The views of Paul Dourish (2004) about the shaping of context is in line with the views of games as enacted experiences stated by Stenros & Waern. What is important for the further discussion in this paper is that both Dourish (2004) and Stenros & Waern (2010) agree on that an object, in this case a game, and how it is situated and experienced in a context is rendered meaningful for the player. Furthermore, the view of Paul Dourish (2004) supports Stenros and Waern’s (2010) ideas on games as enacted experiences, because both views are dependent on the activity of play to create a new context.

Summary of literature To end this chapter properly it is important to elucidate why these theories have been chosen and how they are going to be used in the following chapters. Both theories presented by Espen Aarseth (2005) and Jeff Howard (2008) in this paper on quest theory and narratives are centered on the game as an artifact and neglects the importance of the player. Stenros and Waern (2010) will call this the digital fallacy, however it also opens up for the debate of intentionality and how a product such as a game is meant to be used in an analytical sense. While both views can be used, for this paper to answer the research question properly, one cannot neglect the act of playing and the importance that it has on the context as a whole because as Dourish (2004) mentions context shapes everything. If context is king, then the new context of analyzing the game of Planescape Torment [1] with both the analytical framework of the game as well as the experience of the player in mind will have to yield some new results to the established theories.

What is Planescape Torment

Planescape Torment [1] is a roleplaying game set in the Dungeons and Dragons universe, but where it is radically different from other RPG such as the Baldurs Gate series [2], Neverwinter Nights series [3] and Icewind Dale series[4] is in the way it is played.

You are thrust into the role of the Nameless One, which is a preset character with a blank slate. This is done by introducing the aspect of amnesia of who you are. Quickly you find out your are immortal, but every time you die your memory is wiped out and you wake up at the same place you started. In your journey through Sigil, which is a city in the middle of all planes with doors to the various planes outside Sigil, your goal is to gain an understanding of who you are and what you are. The road of self discovery in this very alien setting is full of danger, but also full of opportunities.

What sets Planescape Torment [1] truly apart from the other RPG’s set in the D&D universe is that it offers the possibility and freedom to be the person you want to be. Another way it set itself apart from other RPG’s are that very often there are a way to talk you way out of a fight, if you have chosen your attributes right from the beginning or during the game. It doesn’t mean that it is not possible to fight, but it is not the core idea of Planescape Torment [1]. Words can be more powerful than any sword and a deal or a promise can have dire consequences if not well thought through.

If you look at Planescape Torment [1] from a “normal” setting like Forgotten Realms (Baldur’s Gate [2], Neverwinter nights [3], Icewind Dale[4]) with its traditional races and creatures such as dwarves, elves, dragons etc. Planescape Torments[1] world can be very weird for players not used to this kind of Dungeons & Dragons. Planescape Torment [1] is filled with creatures from all the planes, which can range from various demons, undead, angelic creatures like solars, Githyanki and a few ordinary races such as human, elves, dwarves etc.

Normally this mix of creatures would be a no go in a traditional setting unless the story could handle it, however this weird mix of extra planar creatures is what makes Planescape so appealing. Normally a lot of these creatures would be evil in traditional sense and should be avoided or killed but in Sigil which is the hub of all the planes they become characters that can help you or betray you or in certain circumstances, they can also join you.

This chaotic mix of ideas and creatures open up for a lot of themes that can be explored by the Nameless One in his search of self discovery and to answer the great question that is introduced in the game “What can change the nature of a man?”. Many of the themes presented are very abstract and need the players involvement to answer them or make use of them. Will you join one of the various factions, such as the Sensates which want to experience pleasure to gain enlightenment or the Dustmen, which strive to attain final death and step out of the wheel of rebirth, in your search for answers or maybe another one. A lot of these themes are central to the main plot and can be used to answer that great question, but also to help you on the way to gain full understanding the game’s purpose and ending. It is here that the player’s agency really come to fruition as the game presents a multitude of different ways of both affecting the game and also ending the game on your terms.

In the end, through the Nameless One’s journey of self discovery, the player will experience a lot of encounters where there are a multitude of different outcomes with no clear definition of what is right. It would be a shame to spoil the entire plot, but in order to analyze the game the plot will be touched upon, so the reader is warned.

Analysis

The first approach to analyze Planescape Torment will make use of the quest theory presented by Espen Aarseth (2005) and Jeff Howard (2008) to both get an overview of the general structures of the game, but also to define meaning (Tosca, Susana; 2003), which is important for the players because it will ultimately define their engagement and the immersion into the game. The second approach to game will be analyzed with enacted experiences by Stenros & Waern (2010), but also with the importance of context in mind.

Analysis of three quests and landscape in Planescape Torment Many of Planescapes quests start out as “do something and get something in return”, which of course at base level does not seem that innovative. However a lot of these quests then take a very different direction, because many of these quests are interrelated. This opens up for a lot of opportunities. Another interesting fact is that it feeds back into the overall story of finding out who you are and thus are important in some way to the player.

To explain the interconnectivity of the quests and how they feed back into the main plot and show the players agency, three different cases of quests in Planescape Torment [1] have been chosen. The reason for these three quests are that they both show the ambiguousness of the goal and ultimately show that what is really important is the player’s decision. It does not mean that there are not many other quests in Planescape that are offer unique end states, but for the sake of the research question and the focus of this paper, it will have to do.

1. An example can be a random quest in the Clerk’s Ward, where it start out like a very simple quest and suddenly take on a more metaphysical direction. By talking to a linguist called Finam you will find out that his father has been murdered some time ago. There is a bandit outside that maybe is involved. You can pay your respects and get to buy some stuff but not before killing the bandit. However if you have learned to speak with the dead through another quest, you can speak with the Finam’s fathers ashes and learn some things. Most interestingly, the murderer was you. It was done in one of your previous life. It is now up to you to come clean or not.

Both choices are perfectly fine and both yield almost equal rewards. By coming clean, you get a hefty xp bonus and Finam will try to forgive you. If you did not come clean and killed the bandit, you will find out that he carrying the head of another character called Mertwyn. Maybe you have met the headless person earlier in your travels and you can bring it back to that person and get a nice reward as well. Both end states of the quest result in something, however maybe you still feel some guilt and that will tarnish the feeling at the end of the quest. This is an example of the semi open hub structure of quests where they have an impact on one another (Aarseth, Espen; 2005). The interrelated structure means that the decision of the player in many quests, create ripples and affect other quests.

Moving on to the next example is a quest that the player cannot avoid. It is a quest that ultimately gives the player a purpose because it fills out the Nameless Ones’ past. The reason for why it has been chosen is that the endstate of the quest is not one that can be measured, when it comes to right or wrong, however it is very important for the game. The game does not account for the answer as in it will use the player’s choice and remember it. However it is a quest that affect the player and make them question their choices both before and after.

2. Another example is one of the most pivotal moment of the game, where the player meets the hag Ravel which are responsible for the player’s condition of being immortal. It so happens that the players character asked for immortality in ages past to prevent the terrible fate that was certainly to come from his deeds. Ravel granted this, but the ritual was flawed and every time the Nameless One dies, his memory is wiped clean and to gain new life he has to use another person’s soul. However a lot of this information is not available unless the player plays along and flatter Ravel. This can only be done by having the right attributes and having completed certain quests or have had dialogue with certain characters prior to this meeting, where you learn that she likes flattery.

The encounter with Ravel ultimately leads to the great question “what can change the nature of a man”. It is an answer that cannot be answered wrong but it is an answer that may change depending on what the player has been through up to this point and how the player has played the game. Even if the endstate in this quest is a rare case in that it always ends in a battle in order to progress the story, it is nonetheless a great example of how a lot of factors like the experience of previous quests, dialogue and knowledge gained by the player shape said player’s agency and future play. It also offers the player a great opportunity to decide how you are going to play with your character from this point on.

The last example is an important quest, because it is draws upon everything you have done through your play experience to make a qualified choice and decide how the player will end the game. The third quest is meeting the Transcendent One, where the Nameless One have the possibility to end the game in several ways. This is also where the Nameless One meet the final boss, if you will.

3. The Transcendent One turns out to be the Nameless Ones own mortality, which after it got removed in Ravel’s ritual of immortality has gained its own sentience. It kind of liked being set free and do what it wanted. However it does not want to be conjoined again and therefore become mortal again, because being separate meant that it cannot die as long as the Nameless One cannot die. It has used the countless ages that the Nameless One has lived to keep the Nameless One unaware of it. The possibilities for how this showdown is going to go down (no pun intended) is extremely varied and offers eight different ways of how to accomplish the situation. There are three major choices, each with three sub choices. Many of these choices are dependent on how you have specced you character through your travel and if you completed some of the more important quests.

As mentioned in the quest description there are several ways to complete the game. The three major ones are either fight it, merge with it or commit suicide. Many of the sub options are available, but a few ones need you to have certain statistics or certain weapons at your disposal. All the choices end the game and gives you an ending, but some endings are “better” than others. What is unique with this level of agency in the end states is that it is dependent on what you have done before, but more unique is that to truly end the game on your terms is to understand what has come before and hopefully by understanding the journey up to this point you can make the best possible choice.

When analyzing Planescape Torment [1] from the perspective of quest theory landscape a few things begin to materialize. There is no doubt that the overall game follows the semi open quest structure as proposed by Espen Aarseth (2005, p. 499, fig. 5). This form of quest chain has the opportunity to both keep the story on track but with the possibility for the player to go explore other options without getting lost. The sense of explorability with a tight story gives the player a level of agency and focus. Planescape Torment [1] is a RPG in the same mold as the other infinity engines RPG’s, such as Baldur’s Gate [2], Icewind Dale [4] and Fallout [5]. It also more or less follow the same formula as the other games, when it comes to the quest chains and the landscape. However there are some deviations.

One deviation is when you start the game, the Nameless One wakes up in a Mortuary, which lies in city of Sigil. However as the Nameless One you cannot die, so with every “death” player will always be brought back to the beginning which is the Mortuary. This ties into the greater storyline of you being immortal and gives the player both a gift and curse in this mechanic. The gift is the enhanced immersion that it brings, the curse means that it can mean a lot of backtracking. However it is still meaningful for overall story and thus the player.

Another deviation is that a big part of the game is not sequential, when it comes to the access to a lot of areas. This means that the player is free to explore the bizarre world and gain an understanding of it and are not hindered by the states of the game. However there is still some areas and quests that is not open up until you have met some prerequisites.

Finding meaning in Planescape Torment When viewing the content of the quests chosen for this paper and looking at the quest landscape as a whole, it is visible that Planescape Torments [1] quests offers a great deal of immersion through initiation, conflict and a great story. The story is one that the player has to slowly piece together in order to get some kind of meaning, but it does not offer the sense of emergency that tells the player to get somewhere fast. This mostly ties in with the theme of immortality, even if the objective is to get rid of it.

As Susana Tosca (2003) describe, if quests become linear or repetitive and hinder the possibility for the player to emotionally and physically to decipher meaning, then they lose their will to keep playing because the story and the goal is unclear. Planescape Torment [1] is rather peculiar in this case, because the quests often offer a lot of agency for the player and therefore with Tosca’s argument meaning. However the ambiguity of what is right, wrong and at the same time making the player question if some random quest maybe has an affect the overall story instills a notion of inquisitiveness in the player to keep searching for answers and meaning. By design a lot of answers to what the Nameless One was and can become can only be found through dialogue with various NPC and there are a lot of them. By spreading this information out, it keeps the player in the dark for some time.

To really play and get an understanding of what is at stake in Planescape Torment [1], the story urge the player to go explore every nook and cranny in the world. This opens up for exciting new areas, new npcs, dialogue etc. As even a simple door or an everyday object can be a doorway into other planes, this also gives the player the incentive to explore and be masters of their own fate, because they decide how much they want to learn in order to make the correct choice. This also adds to the story and gives you a greater understanding of the world as a whole.

Because the story for the player is one of exploration and self discovery, it is important for the player to narrate their destiny by affecting the game in some way through quests in order to find some meaning. It is in the narrative of the quests, where the player is allowed to express and decide their goals, actions and ideas through their agency. In most quests of Planescape Torment [1] the player is able to do just that, but to keep to the three examples in the analysis, this is especially true.

Summary of quests and landscapes in Planescape Torment When analyzing the three chosen quests and the general landscape of Planescape Torment [1] through the theories presented by both Espen Aarseth (2005) and Jeff Howard (2008), a question arise and that is narrative. Narrative is closely associated with agency, so why is it so hard to accept when looking at the artifact through the lens of quest theory. If meaning has to be created for the player the player must feel that the actions they do have some kind of goal and effect (Tosca, Susana; 2003). Thus they have to be able to feel that they are able to narrate their own destiny to some extent. However if it is impossible for the players to narrate their own story through the actions that they do, as Espen Aarseth (2004) mentions, then why do people play games such as Planescape Torment [1]. This is where the player experiences comes into play.

Enacted experiences in Planescape Torment Stenros and Waern (2010) mentions that games are always second order design. They also mention that for the intended play experience to occur, a player must willingly participate and also understand what they are doing in order to experience the play session. In the interaction with the Planescape Torment [1], the players have the opportunity to enact (and thus narrate) their own experiences in any way they like, because the game affords it.

To start with we can return to the three quests that was analyzed in the first section of the analysis through a lens of quest theory and then look at them through the lens of the theory of enacted experiences. With this new approach one can argue that the quests in Planescape Torment [1] is questioning the player’s morality and prior experiences in order to progress in the game.

The first quest do not reward the player with a fancy new sword or nifty spell. The only reward the player gets is a boost to the experience (or knowledge) of the Nameless One. As there is not a right way to do it, then it all comes down to the player and what they decide. The player must draw upon what they have experienced before in this game. A situation can be they have joined one of the various factions of the game. Doing so does not offer any concrete effects in terms of game mechanics except in very specific quests and this is not one of them. However the themes that the various factions represent can have an affect on how the player would want to deal with situation.

The second quest premise is one of getting answers to a lot of questions that the player must have had up to this point. A lot of the questions that the Nameless One can ask Ravel do not yield any bonus as such, except in some cases experience and knowledge. There is no incentive to ask them as such unless the player metagame or is inquisitive. However many of the questions serve more to gain an idea of what you were before and what you are now. However the great question “what can change the nature of a man” is especially important when looking at the quest through the lens of enacted experiences (Stenros and Waern, 2010).

Because there is no wrong answer to this pivotal question it again comes down to the player and how they will respond and enact the play experience (Stenros and Waern, 2010). The answer is one that the player either can answer through prior experiences in the game world, but it is also one that they can answer by drawing upon experiences in their real lives. However what is important is that this question will be a central part of the game and thus one the player automatically is invested in and will keep searching for while playing the game because it is meaningful (Tosca, Susana, 2003). As the game is ultimately about coming to terms with who the Nameless One is, the game by it design involves the player to make what feel is right and coming to term with who they are.

The last quest in the analysis revolves around the ending where the Nameless One meets the Transcendent One. To reach this state, the player have to follow the overall structure of the story that is built into the game design (Aarseth, Espen, 2005). This is a part where the player can choose their own way of ending the game. However ending the game on the terms that the player wants can only be done by actively been searching for a meaning of who you are throughout the game. Some quests offer unique rewards that may seem insignificant but have a very real impact at the end. One such quest is the acquisition of the Blade of the Immortal, which has the opportunity to end the game on the player’s term, either by threatening to commit suicide so that the Transcendent One merge with the player willingly (or scare it to do so) or the player commits suicide and both the player and the Transcendent Ones and the game is done. However there are even more opportunities for this fight to end on the players terms. You can attack it, freely persuade it join etc. There is eight different outcomes where some are always present and other are obtained either through quests or stats.

However there are more to this, because some of the choices are also up to the player to decide by a long dialogue with the Transcendent One. Dialogue that discuss what they have experienced the game and the players journey to this point. Again the game directs its attention to the player by letting them choose what they feel is the correct way. Because to understand what the story of the Nameless One is about and has led them here, the player must first understand the past, present and future. It can only be done if the player embody the storyline and made it their own (Stenros and Waern, 2010) . Thus the player has control of the outcome.

Discussion if no outcome is the right one in a game like Planescape Torment [1] other than the one that make the story progress one can argue that experiences as the Nameless One is free narration in a structure. This illustrates an interesting fact. Even if the game has led the player through the game with the help of quests to tell the story, it is still up to the player to narrate the journey within the story’s boundaries. This is mainly because of the blank slate of the main character and the ambiguity of the quests. The ability to narrate their own action and story within the overall structure of the game goes against Espen Aarseth (2004) argument which describe it is impossible for the player to narrate their own story because it inadvertently would resolve of getting the player from A to B (Aarseth, Espen as cited in Howard, Jeff; 2008). There is still some truth in that statement that the quest leads the player progression story wise, but if there is enough room for interpretation then it also becomes possible for the player to narrate their journey and thus break free of said structure. This is done by the players embodiment of the story.

There is also the matter of context. Because the player is seen as a central part of the play session in order to make it exist, there is the matter of freedom when it comes to interpret the game Stenros and Waern (2010). Stenros and Waern (2010) mention the two important criteria for enacted experiences to occur. One is that experiences are socially constructed and transferred. The second is that the player must know what to expect from the game in order to understand it.

By taking a more social constructivist approach in analysing Planescape Torment[1], one can argue that because the play experience consists of the interaction between both the artifact and the player, thus the story that Planescape Torment [1] presents to the player must also be a created by the efforts of both. With this change of context in mind it fitting to say that Planescape Torments [1] story affords the player to narrate their own story, however within certain confines because games are always second order design (Stenros & Waern, 2010). It comes down to how much possibility space of the designers of the game has put in for the player to narrate their own story. Because of the blank slate of the main character and a story that is almost universal understood because it is the heroes journey the designers of the game has given the player a way into an otherwise complicated universe. This is because at the heart of it all, it tells the story of redemption and that you are master of your own fate. It is something we all can relate to.

Because Planescape Torments [1] story affords the player to narrate their own destinies to great extent, it automatically also become meaningful for the players if when referring to previous studies (Tosca, Susana; 2003). To measure the meaningfulness of Planescape Torment [1] is by looking at what the player feels in any situation when interacting with the game. It is not by only focusing on the game mechanics and looking for consequences and rewards storywise which the study of narratology and ludology focus have been on.

Conclusion

The focus of this paper was to view games as enacted experiences, instead of only focusing on the game as an artifact. It serves to highlight an important aspects of games, which is that the player is just as important as the game. With this new context the research question asked if it was possible for quests in Planescape Torment [1] to let the players make their own narrative. This paper shows that the design of Planescape Torment [1] takes into account the importance of the player. By focusing on this new context there is often a big possibility space for the player to make their own narrative through a lot agency in the quests. This is against some of the prior research done when it comes to analyzing games, however it does not point out that the theories are wrong in their own context. It merely serves to nuance them and hopefully consider a game more than just a system.

Bibliography

1. Aarseth, Espen (2004). Quest games as post­narrative Discourse. In: Ryan, Marie­Laure (ed.) Narrative Across Media:, pp. 361­76. University of Nebraska Press. 2. Aarseth, Espen (2005). From Hunt the Wumpus to EverQuest: Introduction to Quest Theory. Paper presented at: ICEC 2005 Proceedings, Entertainment Computing ­ ICEC 2005: 4th International Conference. 3. Dourish, Paul, 2004. What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and ubiquitous computing 8, 19–30. School of information and computer Science, University of California 4. Howard, Jeff (2008). “Introduction”, in Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives, J. Howard, Wellesley, MA: AK Peters, pp. 1­29 5. Tosca, Susana (2003). The Quest Problem in Computer Games, It University of Copenhagen, Link: http://www.it­c.dk/people/tosca/quest.htm (last visited 13/12/2014)

Games references

[1] Planescape Torment. 1999, Black Isle Studios, Interplay Entertainment, Wizards of the Coast [2] Baldurs Gate, 1998. Bioware, Black Isle Studios, Snowblind Studios, Magic Pockets, High Voltage Software, Overhaul Games. [3] Neverwinter Nights, 2002, Bioware, Infogames/ Atari macsoft [4] Icewind Dale, 2000, Black Isle Studios, Interplay Entertainment, Overhaul Games, Beamdog [5] Fallout, 1997, Interplay Entertainment, Interplay Entertainment, [6] Mass Effect, 2007, Bioware, Microsoft Game Studios, Electronic Arts [7] Dragon Age, 2009, Bioware, Electronic Arts [8] Halflife. 1998, Valve Corporation, Gearbox Software, Sierra Entertainment