On these forums you can find huge numbers of posts from EQ players who adore their emergent gameplay mechanisms. FD pulling, bard weaving, and EC tunnel trading are the most common examples that I've seen referenced, but I'm sure there are more (especially if you pull from other games). The devs have indicated that they're fans of emergent gameplay and creating a world that provides enough freedom for these unique pearls of play to form. However, I have recently been wondering what actually required to produce emergent gameplay and more importantly for the development of games, can it be faked?
I would argue that each of the three examples of emergent gameplay that I listed could have been consciously designed into the game. If the developers were to consciously introduce a compelling mechanic and then just tell everyone they didn't, would we consider it emergent gameplay? Would considering it emergent make us love it more?
The EC tunnel was just a hub that seemed to have the optimal balance of needs from the various parts of the community and made for a good trading location as a result. It certainly didn't seem like an intentional choice for a trading hub. All games that I've played that provide for an intentional trading hub place it in some beautiful capital city or the like. If an EQ developer came and told me now they had always intended for the EC tunnel to be the main trading hub, I don't think I would believe them, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Pantheon could create a similarly odd trading hub location by placing a teleport spire and crafting vendors on either side of an otherwise secluded camp of gnolls. Would everyone find it and assume they were taking part in emergent gameplay?
The FD pulling mechanic from EQ is absolutely adored by many who got to use it (I can't speak first hand, since I was a Paladin), but it has also been noted that it was buggy and illogical. If the Pantheon devs wanted to do away with FD pulling, but instead allowed for knockback->mindwipe pulling and just didn't tell anyone, would we love it? The thousands of players would likely catch on to it at some point in time, even if the concept was never hinted at within the game or by developers directly. Would this feel like emergent gameplay? Does it need to be more obscure? Does it need to be more complex?
One might argue the counterpoint to making a mechanic and not telling anyone is to actively remove existing/known mechanics and just watch what fills the void. If the developers remove all known split pulling mechanics, but don't specifically implement broad mechanics that prevent it, then players will seek to find their own solutions. Is this the primary, only, or best way to produce emergent gameplay?
Myriad emergent gameplay mechanics were developed within EQ, but most only remember a select handful. There was probably some enchanter somewhere who figured out how to solo a vicious spider by utilizing some odd game geometry (which I would consider to be emergent gameplay). Is the best kind of emergent gameplay localized and personal? Is the real beauty of it all found in having a player believe that with experimentation and creativity that they might find a way to gain the system? Could this work in a day and age where secret techniques spread like wildfire across the internet?
Could it be that emergent gameplay is not the true goal at all? I would ask you to consider the possibility that the reason FD pulling, EC tunnel trading, and bard weaving were so great is that some member of the community had to teach you the secret. Is communal teaching just one part of the puzzle or not part of the puzzle at all?
The gaming community has a striking adoration for emergent gameplay mechanics and their impact is long-lasting. The Pantheon devs certainly understand their value, but do they (or anyone) have a full grasp on how this phenomenon works?
What are your thoughts on emergent gameplay? Can you actively or passively produce emergent mechanics? Do you believe that it can be faked? What are your favorite emergent gameplay mechanics and how do they fit into the picture? Can you answer all my numerous open ended questions at once?
I think all games have it on some level. I also don’t think one person gets it. I think someone figures something out and passes it on and someone builds on that and passes it on. An MMO is like a tool. A single tool can be used so many ways and people learn new ways to use that tool. IMO that is a big reason when companies make sweeping changes that they lose gamers. Take away to many of their tools they have learned to use and they question if a new shinny tool is better then relearning their now bent tool.
I am sure gamers will figure out things about Pantheon that the developers will have no clue about. They maybe become staples of the game or the devs may put them to bed quickly. IMO things the community figures out, IMO are the best kind of emergent gameplay. That cant be faked.
It's difficult to allow enough freedom for emergent gameplay. Many people will complain about the things that develop in game. A good example is kiting. It was something that allowed people to solo throughout the game. People complained that x class could solo, but the developers didn't really think about much other than making fun classes with fun abilities IMO.
In the modern age of MMOs developers have a lot of experience and it has an influence on them whether they will admit it or not. It's easy to say you will allow emergent gameplay, but they will consciously consider each ability a class has in terms of how it was used (exploited creatively) in past games. If there is emergent gameplay in today a modern game it will likely be something that is designed and intended by the developers (they know about it and decided to allow it regardless of the consequences). Most MMOs I play not are heavily locked down in terms of what you can and can't do. There is a lot of stuff that can only be done in combat and durations for abilities are super short. There isn't a way to exploit game mechanics in a meaningful way.
One example I go back to is in EQ2 where you couldn't assist a character unless they consented. This is taking away freedom to prevent possible exploitation, but at the same time makes the game less enjoyable IMO. If there is no risk then there is no reward.
People forming their own trading locations almost requires there to be no auction house available and it appears the game will have local auction houses.
Another example would be camping. People camping a specific place in a zone or dungeon and having camp checks in emergent gameplay. For this to happen there would need to be the freedom for anyone to enter the dungeon and for everyone to exist at the same time. There would also need to be monster respawns. The competition for the mobs would eventually provoke the community to organize and take turns camping certain areas in the game. Some people find this to be an unfun way to play and will complain about this. The developers already know this.
One thing we used to do in EQ before there was shared banks was to drop items onto the ground and then login with another character and pick it up. This was emergent gameplay IMO, but we won't see it as there will likely be a way to safely trade your items between your alternate characters.
At this point and time I think developers who design an MMO know exactly what will result from the mechanics thei implement in game. The best they can do is offer us some freedom and accept some complaints (from players that whine about balance/exploitation) that will result from it.
As Nanfoodle said, it's more of something that develops over time as it's passed on from person to person, kinda like the Telephone game. That's why it's called "emergent." And if it's something that the devs anticipate, then it's not emergent gameplay, by definition. But it's kind of a law of gaming by now. Players will always find little tricks, strategies, etc. that the devs could never have even thought of. And those things get passed on from player to player and server to server. If it gets corrected by the devs, its called an exploit. Everything else is called emergent behavior. It's pretty simple.
Ainadak said:The EC tunnel was just a hub that seemed to have the optimal balance of needs from the various parts of the community and made for a good trading location as a result. It certainly didn't seem like an intentional choice for a trading hub. All games that I've played that provide for an intentional trading hub place it in some beautiful capital city or the like. If an EQ developer came and told me now they had always intended for the EC tunnel to be the main trading hub, I don't think I would believe them, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
One thing to note... EC tunnel was not the trading hub on all servers. On Veeshan it was NFP.
As to the rest of it, I think in every game you will always have moments where the designers are scratching their heads saying "why the hell would you do that?!?" One of the purposes of an open beta is to catch things they missed. Some things that are not perceived as detrimental might be left and considered emergent.
I would say you could fake the trading location for sure. The neat thing about EC Tunnel is that it wasn't universal. I played on Veeshan and we used North Freeport. When I started on P1999, I was like, "Wtf is everyone hanging out in this tunnel?" Then I found out that for most servers, that's where you traded in the old days. I think the team has a pretty good idea of which amenities and conditions people are going to want to have in one place. They can group these amenities and conditions together in various locations throughout the world and let the populations choose. If they do a good enough job at it, different servers will choose different locations and they will have 'faked it', I'd say.
I'd hope that they wouldn't fake split pulling because it really doesn't make sense to do that (in my opinion). As has been said in this thread and in others, if they want PRF to have split pulling, they should implement it directly, and in an intuitive way.
I'm not sure about the bard twisting. That's a bit trickier to me. It seems to be pretty intuitive, if difficult.
I would like to clarify the intention of the thread. I wasn't trying to start a discussion on what defines emergent gameplay, but to initiate a discussion on what the developers can do, if anything, to affect emergent gameplay. Can they make a game that enables the creation of positive emergent gameplay mechanics? Can they trick us all into doing what they intend without us knowing like puppet masters hiding behind veil of denial/omission?
@Shucklighter and Maximis
I find it funny that you both bring that up, because I also played on Veeshan. I never knew about the EC tunnel until well after I stopped playing EQ, but figured it was used in the majority of servers.
@Bazgrim
If the developers anticipate the behavior, but nobody knows, then isn't the developer the only one that knows it's not emergent? What is the practical implication to the developers anticipating a style of gameplay?
It is a really neat thing to see the adaptation of player driven Emergent Gameplay.
By the time "Lost Dungeons of Norrath" came out in EQ, the Devs were well aware of pulling mechanics and designed those dungeons accordingly. Mob density and hostile action aggro, combined with new mob control skills amongst some classes, it was quite apparent. So they adapted new expansions with this in mind.
What really intrigues me are the things we all are going to come up with as a way to beat a situation in the game. In regards to pathing, new mob AI, spell skills, additional game mechanics, we will be trying all kinds of techniques to work in our favor. I do not think the Devs can think of all the possible loopholes as they get tunnel visioned in their work. This is completely normal as their work is extrememly tedious and pressured by time (even though they say they will not rush the game development).
I am almost certain that as we are released into this new world of Terminus, players will discover and introduce many things that the Devs never planned. The obvious things would be landmarks they thought were insignificant, yet players identify as significant in order to navigate the land. With the new NPC AI, I am certain there will be some behavioral activities we can manipulate to our favor, whether it be our skills, pathing, line of sight, terrain, combos, etc... It will be discovered and either fixed (as it was not intended) or adapted to because it is something not intended, but accepted by the Dev team and improved upon in later patches or expansions.
As far as programming Emergent Gameplay ahead of time, I think this is very difficult to do unelss you give no other options to the player. I think it would be best to design a rich world with lots of things to do, then let the natural adaptation from the players take place and go from there...
Good stuff..!
They may be able to trick us, but I doubt there will be anything glaring that they didn't foresee. Having played a number of MMOs over the years there is less and less freedom in terms of what you can do. The dvelopers have to much experience to draw upon from past games.
or forcing emergent play- like, as the wolf of wallstreet would push garbage stocks, so might one "say" the trading hub is "here" when it never was nor was thought to be "here".
Rather, it would behoove such a fasle-promoter to withold their eagerness to spread " the idea" that they would selfishly take claim for and falsely boslter their pride, but instead hold their tongue and say nothing while the mass of individual players try selling here, or there on their own whim, or over there, until- by coincidence- there happen to be many in one place at one time for the same reason and there, all say to themselves and without prompting- "ah, this is the place to sell"- and perhaps where goods and evils can come freely beyond the concerns for faction.
I feel that emergent gameplay is more in the hands of the players optimizing the tools that the developers have given them, rather than developers knowingly putting it in. Another example in EQ was taking advantage of the 6 second mana tick. Cast a spell or two then sit down till the mana tick then cast again. Once players figure out the mechanics they will try to optimize it.
If the developers create a good game, the players will pick a part every little piece of it so they can play the best that they can. There's no way developers forsee all the emergent gameplay, but they build mechanics that allow players to have some control.
I think it boils down to freedoms. Developers create as sandbox-ey (is that a word?) of a game world as possible: unique spells, skillsets, and the like and let the player's play. Players will ultimately develop unique strategies and unintended uses for spells and skills.
And, unlike EQ some behaviors considered emergent then like kiting will be known and no longer considered so, but now there may be some environmental twist on kiting like melting the snow with a fireball before kiting to be more successful and not slowed down (made up example).
If the "emergent gameplay" that develops borders on an exploit like casting through a wall, fix those mechanics, but don't throw around the nerf bat because one class/race figured out how do to X easier than Y and succumb to the whiny squeaky wheels screaming that's unfair.
Emergent gameplay: Complete Heal Chains, Buff stacking, insta-click buff stacking, the Necro feeding mana to Mage to summon Mana Rods for Casters to chain eat, AoE groups, Manaburn Teams, Gravity Fluxing to 2nd level in City of Mist to bypass locked door, DMF/Levitate mitigation of KnockBack, etc.
I guarantee that none of these were ever thought of by the developers. Not a single one. If you ever wanted to be sure that something was truly emergent gameplay, look at everything that has been nerfed. It is is some action or process? Emergent gampelay.
You can't stop it from happening, you can only nerf it if you find out it harms the game.
@Ainadak
My answers:
YES
YES, PROBABLY
DOUBT IT
PROBABLY, NO. NO. NO. I don't know, no, debatable.
The answer is a matter of personal opinion.
Some would say we are about to find out.
Great philosophical question to direct at the developers.
Yes or No depending on your experience.
Of course not.
I am not quite sure to be honest.
Both if done properly.
Of course.
I am not honestly sure at this point.
No.
Wow!! What a post!! You asked some seriously fascinating philosophical questions!!
Ultimately, to answer your question in as much totality as I can... I am going to refer you to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which (in easy terms) states that "the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa." It is also a principal that is often confused with another principal called the "observer effect." They are not interchangeable principles, but rather coexistent ones in game mechanics. I personally believe that as things evolve more and more with the internet and instantaneous sharing of information, not to mention the gaming community more or less now having the knowledge they do about game development and that they are being observed all the time, and the developers are constantly adjusting, tweaking, improving.... we live in a time more than ever where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle combined with the "observer effect" applies... and therefore I do not believe any truly wise person can know the answers to your questions for sure!
P.S. I think your questions would make a great longitudinal research study over time though, taking into account the aforementioned principles. :D
Emergent gameplay is the result of an emphasis on systems. If a designer presents players with systems, gives them a set of tools, and then steps back to let them find their own ways of interacting with those systems, then emergent gameplay will result. The more complex the systems and simple the tools, the more interesting the emergent gameplay.
This approach can be contrasted with a philosophy in which player/system interactions are designed. You can call these pre-designed interactions mechanics.
It seems like most people here are in agreement that emergent mechanics come from games with enough freedom that they naturally develop. I have to agree that my personal experiences align to this as the means by which profound emergent gameplay has arisen. I think that because EQ was breaking ground in so many revolutionary ways, that its devs were (perhaps unknowingly) mixing the nutrient soup from which emergent gameplay could truly evolve.
@Pyye and Raidan - While I agree that predicting emergent gameplay is likely practically infeasible, perhaps there's an interesting distinction to be made. "Emergent gameplay past" can be seen as different from "emergent gameplay future". Emergent gameplay future is an enigma, perhaps only to be revealed with time. Emergent gameplay past (trading locations, split pulling, etc.) has already been revealed, studied, and discussed. Can the devs allow emergent gameplay past to repeat itself by consciously avoiding development of intended mechanics (or by consciously developing the mechanics and hiding that fact). Can emergent gameplay past ever return to its former glory or is it necessarily included in the list of known mechanics that should be actively designed towards?
@UnknownQuantity - I think you bring up a very interesting part of the discussion. As you say they will probably not miss anything "glaring", but perhaps the "glaring" gameplay that emerges is the best. If a small quirk in an area of the game exists (Vandraad mentioned gravity flux content skip), then that can make small impact. However, maybe the devs allowing themselves to be bold enough in their system development to not anticipate "glaring" gameplay is exactly what needs to be done.
@Manouk - Well written. You made your point quite artfully.
@RumorHasit - Thank you for the full list of answers :). We certainly do seem to live in an MMO age of adjusting, tweaking, and improving. I actually believe that WoW is a pretty masterful example of exactly that. I may just be being daft, but I'm not 100% following how you see the uncertainty principle and observer effect applying. I would personally liken the faking of emergent mechanics to the placebo effect, where if we didn't know they intended it, then we still get the partial/full benefit. Perhaps you were saying that the murkiness comes on the developer side, where if they predict mechanics, then that inherently changes the way they build the game and makes them biased in their design approach?
@Shai - I really like this breakdown of the concept into its fundamental components. It matches up with many of the other examples of emergent gameplay that I can think of. The most easy example is minecraft (although I've barely played it), where the players are given very simple toops and a very open ended system. The players of that game have created numerous and vastly different emergent gameplay mechanics.
On the subject of emergent gameplay... :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CBRByBCcRU
@streeg - What about EC tunnel trading made it great? FD pulling I can more easily see, since it was a relatively complex mechanic that required finesse and expertise. I was under the belief that EC tunnel trading's unique characteristic was that it was emergent. If we pretend for a moment that it was intended, I feel like many people's response to it would be negative. Why would a developer make you sit in a dark dank tunnel instead of a beautiful vibrant city? I'm not at all trying to say you're wrong, quite the opposite. The enjoyability is paramount, but does the impression of emergence play into enjoyability? Is the fondness for EC tunnel trading evidence that emergence can tip the scales of enjoyability or does it have other characteristics that made it inherently great?
@Gamerchick - I gave that show a try, but was turned off by the unsavory parts. That scene was pretty great though and those actors are spectacular. If natural selection is intentionally ended because of its harsh realities (winners and losers, ending and beginning) in favor of adjusting, tweaking, and perfecting, then evolution cannot progress. This is reflected in MMOs by the staleness that accompanies the endless quest for better versions of what already exists. While this all seems quite profound, for its application to game development does it not all just boil down to the practical statement "the devs should innovate"? To take it back to the analogy of the show, even though they've stopped their own evolution, what about that of their creations? Anthony Hopkin's character should not be "indulged the occasional mistake", he should be encouraged to be bold and fearless enough to not view them as a negative. The same encouragement, tolerance, and understanding should be extended to the VR devs. "If you're going to make something beautiful, you have to make a mess of it first. I don't care if you're making a baby, an omelet, or a television show -- things are going to get weird."
Edit: Added a response to Gamerchick
You pose some good questions.
Emergent gameplay to me is very similar to the phrase 'clever use of game mechanics'. Some take both to be considered 'hacks' or cheats. But to me they both are simply ways that the players have found that the dev's simply didn't think of. The main difference being that emergent gameplay is what the dev's call it when they are ok with it and clever use of game mechanics is when they say "dam you got us but we are fixing it so no one else can do this now".
Examples:
Emergent gameplay - FD pulling, quad kiting, swarm kiting
Clever use of game mechanics - Wall walking, bosses bugging in certain terrain, etc
Yes those examples for clever uses are in fact bad news but the players that first did them did so unintentionally. It wasn't their fault it was possible. Those are also some of the more harsh ones. Over many games I've found tons of ways to use game mechanics in my favor. Some are good, some not so good. This is the reason why I try to break games in testing phases. So hopefully these things can be stopped before they destroy the game early on.
oneADseven said: I was the first tank in the world to solo tank Avatar of Fear in EQOA. It was all based on positioning ... I would tank AoF behind an altar, and positioned our raid so that the healers would have LOS of me but not be in direct LOS of AoF because of the angle we used. Prior to me tanking him this way, there were several other guilds who killed it using swarms and swarms of summoners/necros chain spawning their pets on him. Which of the styles was emergent? When my guild got the #3 WW kill on Pedestal of Sky raid in EQ2, we used a strategy that no other guild was able to reproduce for several months. The fight had 2 dragons, and what every other guild would do is tank both dragons on opposite sides of the room. If both dragons were aggro, they would do a huge zone wide "lethal" aoe if their HP was ever more than 5% different from each other. So most guilds would tank both dragons on opposite sides of the room and split their dps on both mobs to prevent the ae from ever going off. My guild ended up going in with 12 healers (3 each group) and mana batteries / ranged dps. We killed the first dragon solo, and then when we initiated combat with the second one, it would start using the "lethal" AE. Because of our raid composition, we were able to chain heal through the "lethal" AoE and kill the second dragon 100-0% while the AE went off the entire time. It was crazy. Many other guilds tried to duplicate this strategy but failed miserably. My guild got WW 3rd kill on ChelDrak, utilizing a strategy where we intentionally had 3 of our healers kill them self during the fight in order to get some extra mana when they revived. It had to be timed perfectly because if they got hit by an ae while they had rez sickness they would get 1 shotted.. A lot of people flamed us saying it was a "zerg" strat but that couldn't have been further from the truth. It had to be executed perfectly with timing, and only 3 people died during the entire fight. All of this was coordinated and thus "Death Coordination" was born. It became a famous strategy in that game and eventually lead to the site eq2flames being created. I remember a guild Dissolution being so upset that we killed the mob before them that they literally flamed us for several years after that. That was emergent gameplay. My guild also got WW #7 kill on Matron. Hardest fight of any game I have ever played. My character got Matrons Heart, a mythical item that only drops one time per server. It took us months and months of practice to kill this thing. After having it on farm status for a couple months, I was playing my coercer in the zone. I found a named that I could charm that did % of max HP damage on its long cool down nuke. We tried using the pet on Matron and it nuked her for 30% of her max hp. We ended up getting an easy kill on her that week ... shortly thereafter, SOE removed that nuke from the mob I charmed. We reported it after the kill because it obviously seemed way over powered. Anyway, another example of emergent gameplay. My guild has always found ways to kill the hardest raid encounters in an unorthodox way. It takes a ton of practice and a large player pool for raid composition flexibility (12 healers on Pedestal for example ... most we have ever used by far. Standard raids usually had 6-8) but I loved coming up with ways to do stuff like that. We never had the best dps in the game, we usually had a "sustain" strategy where we focused on keeping the the main tank alive at all costs. On cheldrak, it was almost a 15 minute kill when we did it the first time. Dissolution killed it a couple hours later after we did and it was like 9 minutes. Personally, I really hope that the raid strats are more than max dps. I always loved a strategy that was more focused on not dying rather than killing something asap. That's just the style I like to use, and I think balancing survival elements with max dps is the key to enable emergent gameplay. Allow multiple methods ... my personal favorite is to "sustain" a fight. I hated hard timers on encounters. Every now and then is fine but don't design the game so that every single raid had an enrage timer. I wasn't a big fan of that.
Not sure why is quoting it in one big block but I'll touch on each of these.
AoF - What they are doing was called pet swarming. It happened in EQ as well. If it's a thing in Pantheon I'll be highly pissed.
Pedastal - What you did is basically a zerg strat. You stacked the group with certain classes and zerged through the aoe. That shouldn't have been possible and imo is bad design.
ChelDrak - Clever use of game mechanics. If dying gives mana back then it's totally fair game. Sore losers cry otherwise ;)
Matron - That kill should have been taken away. It's still what I call clever use of game mechanics but you trivialized the fight and calling that a world anything kill is a kick in the teeth to every guild.
I'm all for outside the box strats but anything that trivializes the fight is not worthy of recognition. If pet swarming (or pet walling, whichever you prefer) is in, then people will 12-18 box bosses with all summoners and RMT is born (see EQ TLP servers where this is rampant or was anyway). Otherwise, everythings fair. Even though I think the aoe was designed badly, taht wasn't your fault. You found a way through it so well played.