Tools for creating dramatic games dynamics

Tools and techniques for storytelling are becoming a more desirable feature to games designers given the extensive progress of technology in providing movie similar experiences. However storytelling is no recent and new idea. It is visible in many kinds of board games; D&D, the royal game of goose, or even ancient games such as Senet. Through this we can see that stories are visible in games and have been for a long time; the digital age has just allowed us to refine the way the story is delivered. The story doesn’t rely on the metaphor of the game, but on the events encapsulated within it. Through this we could say the play of the game becomes a climactic struggle that builds to a satisfying conclusion, in layman’s terms; the game is dramatic.

Drama is a desirable quality in games, in some cases players seek out games for the drama alone, for this part we can say drama is a feature of game’s play content; it’s kind of fun. For this reason it can be important for us as game designers to imbue drama into our creations. Creating drama in games however is difficult; games will never be played the same way every time, people’s opinions and emotions may vary and we can’t control every element of the story’s creation unless we’re the only ones present to create it. It’s for this reason we need to remember we can’t create drama, only create circumstances from which drama will emerge.

Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics;

Mechanics refers to the necessary pieces we need to play the game. This consists primarily of the rules of the game but can also refer to things such as equipment, location or anything else that is an absolute minimum to play the game. For example; Basketball’s mechanics aren’t only the rules of Basketball, but also the physical laws such as gravity and energy. A perfect example of venues importance would be surfing; you can’t go surfing on a road or up a tree, you require water. Consider a game is a system; the mechanics are the complete description of that system.

Dynamics refers to what could be defined as the behaviour of the game, the actual events that occur as the game is played. In chess the dynamics might include tactical concepts like the knight fork, as well as structural concepts like the opening and the endgame. When viewing a game through its dynamics, we are simply asking ‘what happens when the game is played?’. The relationship between dynamics and mechanics is one of emergence; a game’s dynamics emerge from its mechanics.

Aesthetics are a games emotional content, the desirable emotional responses, and the fun that results from playing a game. Games aesthetics emerge from dynamics; how the game behaves should determine how it makes the players feel. Understanding how certain dynamics will evoke specific emotional responses is one of the greatest challenges a games designer can face.

Mechanics always exist; we might not be playing the game, but the pieces still exist. Dynamics only manifest when the game is played; you can think about a tactic, but can’t carry it out unless you initiate the game. Of course from this you can easily deduce that aesthetics, requiring dynamics to evoke the responses, can only come into being when the game is played.

Games designers and players travel in opposite directions along this pipeline; designers start at aesthetics, emotional responses we hope to invoke, from there we determine what dynamics will accomplish these aesthetic objectives, and from there we can determine which mechanics will create those dynamics.  From this we can see that game designers work backwards.

An aesthetic model for drama

We want drama to be part of the games emotional content, but first we need to define what drama is and how it happens, this is an aesthetic model; these can help us know when we have achieved an emotion, and if we’re headed in the right direction. It’s important to remember however that not everyone will agree with our model of drama, nor is drama a quintessential key element of every game, this is simply an example.

Our aesthetic model of drama;

This model imagines a dramatic tension in quantity that can accumulate or discharge as time progresses. However it’s important to know that we don’t mean general quantity, quantity of dramatic tension cannot be measured, it can only be analysed in terms of quality. It’s important to remember that the dramatic arc isn't a universal fact of all stories, but rather a desirable property of a dramatic story. But why so specifically this shape? It’s hard to say. Perhaps it’s to do with the human psych, the way in which we think and are appeased. This model compels us, slowly drawing us in over time until we reach the peak waiting for the final climactic event, of course you have to have the climax at some point, otherwise the story will eventually become dragged, and lose its sense of wholeness.

What’s dramatic tension? Think of it as our level of emotional investment in the story’s conflict.

However our job as games designers isn't as easy as this model may appear; we must assure a game will be dramatic, even without direct control over narratives. A narrative that isn't scripted in advance, but rather emerges as time progresses and the events of a game are played out.

All drama originates from conflict, conflict comes from competition. But how does tension emerge from a contest, and how does that tension change over time? Dramatic tension is the product of two different factors:

Uncertainty: the sense that the outcome of the contest is still unknown. Any player could win or lose.

Inevitability: the sense that the contest is moving forward toward resolution. The outcome is imminent.

Both of the above are independent of each other, they’re evoked using different systems and dynamics, which make it easier for a designer giving better control over each element separately for tuning and adjusting. When uncertainty and inevitability intersect, this gives rise to the peak of dramatic tension.

Most techniques that imbue dramatic tension use two main approaches, 'force' and 'illusion';

Force is manipulating the state of the contest itself. We make a game close because we limit how much advantage one player can have over another. For example giving both players the same weapon.

Illusion is manipulating players to make the game seem closer than it actually is. An example of this might be something such as Yu-Gi-Oh card game, player A has 5 monster cards down, player B only has one, but player B’s one card is more powerful than player A’s five, however he doesn’t know this and will no doubt attack believing he has the better position.

The feedback system used in conjunction with uncertainty has four main parts;

The Game State – for example the game save or the time left to complete a level.

Scoring Function – Quite straight forward to understand, this could be things such as kills, or captures that indicate to a player who is winning and who is losing.

The Game Mechanical Bias - the rule of a game which gives one player an advantage over another.

The Controller - the rule of the game that decides which player receives the mechanical bias with the decision being made from the scoring function. For example kill streaks in an FPS.

Negative feedback systems could be seen as those that strive to keep the scores as close and close to zero as possible. Positive feedback on the other hand would be a system that strives to separate scores by larger quantities usually resulting in a decisive winner.

The negative feedback system is a powerful tool in creating dramatic tension as it keeps the game uncertain; players won't know the outcome of the game as the scoring difference would be as close to 0 as possible, therefore creating dramatic uncertainty. This allows you to keep all players immersed in the experience for longer. It avoids players ‘rage quitting’ because going on seems pointless. When aiming towards the end of a game, using the positive feedback system is useful for dispelling uncertainty, bringing about the climax and a sense of finality, every game needs an endpoint, and endpoints are more enjoyable with a victor. Using only the negative feedback system can cause games to stagnate so positive feedback systems are needed for breaking the equilibrium and moving a game forward.

There are but a few of the feedback systems, and there are many more. For example;

Pseudo-Feedback is a mechanism used to create game dynamics that make a game appear as though it is being driven by a negative feedback system, however there is no actual cybernetic feedback system at all. In simplicity; the game deceives the player into thinking it’s interfering, when in fact it isn’t at all.

Escalation is a game mechanic used to make the score gain faster and faster as the game progresses so more points are at stake at the end of the game than there were at the start. Because of course who doesn’t like bigger numbers! It makes you feel better, feel like you’re doing better!

Hidden Energy is another tool used, an example of this could be 'turbo fuel' on a racing game, each player has an equal amount of hidden energy at the start of the game but the timing of using this fuel can change the outcome, think of the Need for Speed the film, where the main protagonist almost beat his opponent, but inevitably failed due to his poor choice of timing to use his hidden energy. This mechanic creates dramatic uncertainty by manipulating the players incomplete understanding of the true score of the game.

Fog of War is a mechanic used to create dramatic uncertainty by limiting the information available to players. As a game progresses, more information becomes available. Generally any RTS can usually be called upon as an example of this systems use. It is quite important because that uncertainty causes intrigue, which pushes the player onward.

Decelerator is used as an obstacle that slows down players later in the game, making it seem that the game is closer than it actually is by changing the scale and pace of the game. Look at the game show gladiators; the player who won earlier events would be given the lead, however as that player progressed, obstacles got harder. This allowed the other player to catch up, creating the illusion the game is closer that it really is.

Cashing Out is another mechanic used. An example of this would be if a player wins a round of a particular game, the start of the next round both players start even, but the first player to get three wins will win the game. This shows that the player who wins the first round will not necessarily win the game, however it does give them a greater chance at winning as they are one win closer than the opposition. For example capture the flag.

Out of all these in terms of the least used, I felt pulled between Decelerator and Cashing out. In the end I feel Decelerator is the least used. Cashing Out can be seen in many forms of gameplay now; a perfect example would be any game that has capture the flag, or a game mode such as Call of Duty’s Search and Destroy. Decelerator on the other hand is more difficult to incorporate or notice in a lot of modern day games. Hence why I had to resort to the example of the old game show gladiator. In fairness it becomes clear how subjective these systems uses are. For example one could argue that both cashing out and decelerator are both visible in capture the flag; cashing out in terms of the next round, and decelerator  in terms of the difficulty a player may have getting the flag back to their base, or perhaps the nature of the game mode is likely to result in an opposite force, and instead speed the game up the further in you get?