Narrative Structure in Games

This topic could be a book by itself. Narrative structure is a complex subject in more traditional storytelling mediums to begin with. On top of that, mechanical game arcs are a layered topic for which there is no single, authoritative reference source. And discussing narrative arcs in games requires knowledge of both. I will leave the subject of game arcs as much as possible to other people and try to focus on some general concepts around narrative structure in board games. 

I have seen board gameplay described as 'all rising action.' I disagree, although I allow that that is a simple way to align most gameplay with traditional, three act structure. Any game with a single pivot point, like Clank!, has both rising and falling action. A boss-battler could be considered a single, climactic scene. Traditional narrative structures are easiest to incorporate into games when a game has a campaign mode or sequential scenarios, because of the ability to include different challenges and challenge levels that lead to a sense of story progression. 

There are, of course, different types of narrative structure, from slice of life to five act to absurdism. I'm not sure that translating gameplay arcs to existing narrative structures is all that useful to designers. I propose an analysis style more closely aligned with acting: scene work. I won't describe how actors go about scene work here, instead I want to jump straight to my suggested mode of narrative analysis. 

Scene work for game narrative starts with goals. The player character should have one major goal that drives them to perform the actions of the game. That goal should align with the win condition of the game. The player character will have any number of minor goals. Those goals will align with actions taken or attempted in the game. Minor goals might include completing a set of objects or achieving an objective first or claiming a card before someone else can. If the minor goals tend to fall into stages during gameplay that shift from one stage to the next, then the game has distinct scenes. If not, the game may only have one scene. Individual scenes will have different goals and strategies, but will further the major goal of the game. (If this all sounds like I am describing mechanical game arcs and not narrative, that is because acting and game design employ such similar language.)

Believable goals, especially minor goals, are the key to compelling characters. If I believe that a character is acting in accordance with their desires, that character comes alive. As a player, if character motivation makes sense, then I will be emotionally invested in my character. In a game without characters, I can still be invested in actions that further my goals thematically. However, I increasingly believe that it is interesting characters, not interesting stories, that matter for emotional investment. Interesting stories will arise if attention is paid to what characters want and what they are willing to do to get it. 

Of course, scenes are not just made up of goals, but obstacles and actions and resolutions. All of which should be pushing the player toward the major goal. Thinking in terms of goals and scenes can help ensure that the game narrative is thematically satisfying. 

You may find it helpful to think in terms of three act structure. You may find your game narratives naturally want to shape themselves into traditional structure, because that style of storytelling feels satisfying. There is nothing wrong with that. But designers do not need to feel limited by traditional structures (unless the game is text heavy, in which case different rules apply). 

ShippBoard Games is a board game design blog that updates most Mondays.