Kernels/Satellites in Mainstream RPGs

(I say mainstream for the sake of simplicity. Mainstream, by my definition, is any commercial game. In other words, a game available at your local Gamestop. Passage is not a mainstream game. Halo is, and so forth.)

If you're not familiar with the term kernel/satellite, Chatman uses them to describe elements of discourse that support the story. Kernels are necessary parts of the story, without which the story would collapse into itself. Patroclus's death in the Iliad is a kernel. Huck deciding to go down the Mississipi on a raft with Jim is a kernel. In other words, the author selects one option out of two or more (Huck goes or doesn't go, Patroclus dies or lives) and that selection becomes an anchor of the plot.

So what's a satellite? A satellite is an element of the plot that exists outside the critical narrative thread. Its absence would not cripple the story, but would rob it of aesthetic value. The term satellite, I imagine, comes from the intuitive idea that such a "story arc" circles the main story, as if in orbit, happening at the borders of the story, but never the center. Tom Sawyer's 'cameo' appearance at the end of Huck Finn, when Sawyer gleefully insists on breaking Jim out of confinement by digging him a hole through the floor with a spoon, is a satellite. Trinculo and Stefano's drunken meanderings around Prospero's island is a satellite. Specifically, these side stories have aesthetic value (comic relief, for example), but are not absolutely critical to the progress of the story.

Now, a story in a work of literature or cinema is more or less static. I could watch Casablanca twelve times and the story would be identical every time. I might discover something new with every subsequent viewing, but the movie itself doesn't change. The same applies to literature. Thirty readings later, the Iliad is exactly the same book. There is no variation in the sequence of events.

RPGs (or Roleplaying Games) are a little different. Strict linearity in roleplaying games is often heavily criticized, as the game becomes little more than a playable novel or a playable FMV. In an RPG, the player is invited to write the story for herself or himself. For example, let's look at Bioware/Black Isle's "Baldur's Gate II'. I've selected this game because it's widely accepted as one of the very best games ever to be released from the Bioware studios, partly because Baldur's Gate II (BG2) has such a non-linear story.

In fact, if I were to map out BG2 by kernels/satellites, the kernels would be relatively few, and the satellites would number in the thousands. In literature and cinema, "satellites" exist for aesthetic value, to help flesh out the story, but the heart of the story--that which the viewer or reader enjoys--is in the "kernels", or the unchanging thread of the main story arc. In RPG's, this is not so. The heart of the game rests among the satellites. Why?

Replay value.

Simply put, I would be less inclined to play the same game twice if it would be the same experience twice. BG2 follows a rather simple storyline. Your best friend is kidnapped and you must raise enough money to find a way to locate her and set her free. After that, the intentions of the antagonist are revealed and the protagonist (you) and his/her party are given the task of hunting down the antagonist, ultimately defeating him and enjoying the ending sequence. Game over.

This is the strictly linear progression of BG2's plot. The kernels are the elements of the plot that can never be bypassed. They are absolutely necessary. Most video games employ 'kernel' moments through the use of a cut-scene or a video sequence, where no player input is possible, and a scene unfolds infront of the players eyes, identical every time. In BG2, such moments are as follows: The kidnapping of your friend, your arrival in Spellhold (the prison where she is kept), the revelation of the antagonist and your final confrontation. These are four critical moments in a game that boasts over a hundred hours of play time. So what does that mean?

That the bulk of the game is composed of satellites. The hero's journey between those four kernels is entirely within the power of the player. The player decides which alternative story arcs to pursue and which choices his or her protagonist will make. Is the protagonist warm hearted and compassionate or cold and opportunistic? Does the protagonist side with a gang of thieves or with the city guard? How does the protagonist truly feel about saving his or her friend from captivity?

Some of these choices are irrevocable, and leave rippling effects throughout the remainder of the plot. In other words, through player interaction, the satellites actually transform into kernels. For example, very early in the game, the protagonist has the opportunity to become friends with an amiable thief, who later reveals himself to be a traitor. If the player rejects the thief's friendship, the betrayal never happens. Conversely, if the friendship is given time to blossom, the 'betrayal scene' does occur and carries emotional weight, purely by the choices of the player.

In other words, the player and the designer share the role of the writer/director. The designers of the game (Bioware) set up the basic premises and the engine of the overall story, and the player then decides how to 'fill in' the details of that story, and what the designer may have intended to be a 'satellite' becomes a 'kernel' based on player interaction.

I feel this is why RPG's have such a popular appeal. The ability to craft one's own story through action and interaction appeals to the imagination and to the player's sense of creativity, as well as contributes to the feeling of "immersion".

Perhaps one day, ideally, we'll play a completely non-linear, subjective RPG video game dependent entirely on player-interface interaction. But that's probably a pipe dream.