Link to Download and Play 'PIG': HERE
Commentary on PIG, an interactive narrative
This commentary is split into two sections; the first section will review interactive narratives and their benefits, the software used to create PIG, and different interactive narrative structures with a focus on agency; the second section will explore level design, narrative layouts and site specific storytelling. Both sections will use my interactive narrative PIG for reference.
PIG is an interactive story, retelling the classic short story by Roald Dahl of the same name, which was first published in Kiss Kiss, 1960. The participant experiences the interactive narrative through the actions of our protagonist Lexington. Lexington and his aunt are strict vegetarians and working on a cookbook when she suddenly dies. Now Lexington must leave the small farm where he was raised and head into Bristol to try and finish his cookbook. He is met with strange and malicious characters and must handle his interactions with care. He becomes fixated on a pork dish he eats in a restaurant and must learn how the dish was made. This leads Lexington into a dangerous situation where he discovers a dark secret. The story follows a ‘choose your own adventure’ style of interactive storytelling similar to the works of Edward Paclard. PIG was designed using Twine, an open source interactive storytelling tool.
Interactive Narrative
In this section, we will review what an interactive narrative is and the benefits of using interactive narratives; the software used for creating my interactive narrative and the reasons behind this; and top down systems, with a focus on agency within my story.
McEarlen defines interactive narratives, “An interactive narrative offers a pre-specified level of story agency or choice to the audience, allowing them to exert an influence on the plot” (McEarlen 2018, p.2). Within PIG the participant is presented with a series of options which determines the outcome of the story, allowing them to influence the plot. Therefore PIG is an interactive narrative.
The benefits of interactive narratives over traditional narratives are the power to have agency over the story. “Agency, understood as the general and fundamental capability of humans to act in the world,” (Stang, 2019) which allows a user to experience, “the satisfying power to take meaningful action and see the results of our decisions and choices,” (Murray 1997, p.126). Furthermore, “Interactive narratives offer the viewer varying degrees of navigational control of the story. Pathways may be formulated and plotted to create new experiences and interpretations of the text” (McEarlen 2018, p.2). Murray argues this allows the participant to experience one of the most exciting aspects of artistic creation - the thrill of exerting power over the narrative, which Murray explains “is not authorship but agency” (Murray 1997, p.153). The power of agency over a story excites and engages audiences. Agency can stimulate participants and allow them the satisfaction of self discovery that traditional forms of narratives cannot reproduce.
For this interactive narrative I choose to use Twine. Twine is an open source storytelling tool that uses written text to tell interactive and nonlinear stories. Whilst retelling the short story PIG by Roald Dahl I choose to use Twine as it allowed me to pay homage to the author and his work. This was achieved by mimicking Roald Dahl’s writing style. This was a challenge as Roald Dahl is one the great storytellers and I could never truly write in his style. I could, however, attempt to write in a style reminiscent of Dahl’s. Twine being best suited to written narratives allowed me to write large amounts of text that other interactive mediums did not allow. With the added benefit of being able to adapt his story to further stimulate and satisfy the participant with increased agency.
“In order to allow for agency in a narrative, the narrative requires not only multiple paths, but also oftentimes multiple endings” (Rezk, 2022). Inorder to give the participant of PIG agency the interactive narrative needed to follow one of two systems, bottom up or top down. Ryan defines bottom up systems as “creating stories during the run of the program,” (Ryan, 2009 p.51) within these systems every action changes the outcome of the story and the story is not predetermined. An example of a bottom up system is The Sims, where you are presented with a world, characters, and objects. Each character and object is restricted to certain actions, as these actions are performed more possibilities emerge and a world is created as a result. The benefit of bottom up systems is the mass amount of agency a participant is granted within the world. “Agency can lead to an aesthetic pleasure, an experience to be savoured for its own sake” (Murray, 1997 p.128). Therefore, we can see how within a bottom up system the audience could receive more agency, more satisfaction, and more pleasure. The challenges of building bottom up systems is the complexity of the system, these systems can be difficult to design and require large amounts of resources. Furthermore, without predetermined endings you grant the participant control over the outcome of the narrative and as an author you lose control over your own system. This can be difficult to navigate when retelling predetermined stories, where you want the participant to experience the story as it is intended. Ultimately, a bottom up system would not have suited my interactive narrative as I wanted control over the system, to tell a story with predetermined endings.
A top down system follows a “journey along a path that is already traced and that leads to a fixed destination, or to several destinations when the system offers branching points” (Ryan, 2009 p.52). Within top down systems the participant cannot create new endings, “only unlock what is already there” (Rezk, 2022). Therefore the participant is granted some level of agency over the system. They can discover new branches or different endings although these have been produced in advance. An example of a top down system is Bandersnatch, an interactive film where the audience makes decisions at certain breaks in the film. These decisions determine the narrative journey and ending of the film. All the choices in Bandersnatch are predetermined choices and there is only a possibility of five different endings. Allowing the audience some agency, as they have some influence over the plot.
PIG follows a top down system, there are four predetermined endings and multiple paths you can choose to reach these endings. As I am retelling a prewritten story it was important for me to stick to this story's narrative where possible, only with the added benefit of giving the audience some agency. There are also moments where you can discover information about our protagonist's past which allows the participant the satisfaction of self discovery, although this is not vital to the story. Depending on certain decisions made throughout the story you will be able to experience different endings. This is achieved through adding the money variable. In the original story the protagonist gets taken advantage of by other characters, extracting as much money from him as possible. In my interactive version, depending on decisions made by the participant, the amount of money that Lexington maintains changes. Ultimately, this affects the ending and the choices the participant is presented with. The participant needs to maintain a certain amount of wealth to survive, or else they are met with a gruesome death, as scripted in the original story. Surviving is the only ending that doesn’t follow a similar outcome to Roald Dahl's original ending.
Narrative Structure
In this section we will review the narrative layout, level design of PIG, and why this particular layout was chosen. We will also explore the use of site specific storytelling to further the participants' experience and engagement.
PIG is constructed using a combination layout, each chapter or section in the story takes the form of a different layout. To begin with, to keep the narrative and mechanics simple, PIG follows a linear layout. This layout is easy to navigate and gently introduces the participant to the system, mechanics, variables, and will always lead them to the same point. As the participant progresses into Bristol, the second level or chapter, PIG uses a hub and spoke layout. This layout is more complicated and offers the participant more agency as they are able to explore all three spokes (locations) on their own. The hub and spoke layout allows the participant the satisfaction of discovering new areas for themselves. One path is vital to the story, one path reveals background information about our protagonist, and the last path needs to be completed to move onto the final level. Lastly the final level follows a branching narrative. There are four possible endings, although two of the endings offer the user the chance to retry their last decision. This is because those endings are early on in the chapter and I want the user to reach one of the intended endings. This branching narrative format suited PIG as it gives the participant some agency and also allows them to experience the entire narrative as it is intended.
“Spatial navigation allows for the movement through virtual landscapes which can be pleasurable in itself” (Murray, 1997 p.128). Spatial navigation is another form of agency the participant can experience. That is why I designed PIG to have a combination of layouts. I wanted the participant to experience agency and the satisfaction of discovering different areas and locations. I also wanted the participant to experience the story as it is intended where the narrative follows the original work written by Dahl.
The challenge of using combination layouts is deciding what happens when you return to a location you have already explored. The participant cannot have the same original interaction again, this will break the story. Therefore, I used variables to tell the system whether or not this area had already been explored. Then once it has already been explored upon returning to the location the description or narration changes, causing a dead end and forcing the participant to return back to the centre of the level.
“The space is of course, not an empty container but an active agent” (McAuley, 1999 p.40) that is why I decided to change the locations in PIG from the original setting of New York to Bristol. The intended audience of the interactive story are familiar with Bristol and all the locations used in the story. This allows the audience to bring their own lived experiences of these locations into their own narrative, increasing engagement and enjoyment. Furthermore, I wanted the participants to be able to clearly imagine the locations used in the story, only they have been slightly altered to be more sinister, disturbing, and strange. This adds another layer of entertainment and humor to the narrative.
Conclusion
The success of my interactive story lies within its agency, I wanted to prioritise agency whilst also having the narrative structure fit the original story. This was a challenge, because as shown the more agency the participant has the less control I have over my own narrative. This is where the hub and spoke level layout allowed more agency without losing the narrative of the original story. It was a section that allowed the participant agency as they could explore the city without sacrificing the plot.
The main challenge of this narrative was trying to write in a style that is reminiscent of Roald Dahl’s. Trying to add multiple different sections in real life locations, I was faced with a difficult task of recreating these locations as if Dahl had imagined them himself. This was a test of my ability to write creatively and the success of this is not for me to say, but rather in the opinion of the participant.
Overall my interactive narrative achieved what I wanted it to. It retells the classic short story PIG by Roald Dahl in an interactive format that allows participants agency over the story without sacrificing the plot.
Bibliography
McErlean, (2018) Interactive narratives and transmedia storytelling : creating immersive stories across new media platforms. New York, NY : Routledge
Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. The Free Press. Pp. 2-153
Stang, (2019) “This Action Will Have Consequences”: Interactivity and Player Agency. The international journal of computer game research. 19(1). Available at: https://gamestudies.org/1901/articles/stang
Rezk, (2022) Beyond free will: Understanding approaches to agency and their suitability for Bandersnatch-like titles. Entertainment Computing. (43). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875952122000246#:~:text=In%20Bandersnatch%2C%20the%20narrative%20momentum,to%20one%20of%20the%20options.
Ryan, (2009) From Narrative Games to Playable Stories: Toward a Poetics of Interactive Narrative. Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies. (1). pp. 51-52 Available at: https://www-jstor-org.bris.idm.oclc.org/stable/25663007?seq=12
McAuley, (1999) Space in performance : making meaning in the theatre. University of Michigan Press. p.40