One of the problems I see sometimes in branching scenarios is maintaining consistent perspective. The narrative will switch from one character’s point of view to another character’s without purpose, or the actions and decisions will belong to a side character rather than the main character. Less experienced instructional designers can get mixed up and place the action with multiple characters rather than building a cohesive progression. Instead of showing how the main character responds to a series of challenges, the story splits focus, showing more about how other people’s actions affect the character. This makes for a confusing narrative and a less effective scenario-based learning experience. In this post, I’ll share a before-and-after example with an inconsistent perspective so you know what to watch out for and how to fix the problem.
Example scenario with inconsistent perspective
Let’s look at an example. For this scenario, the objective is to help new managers conduct effective performance conversations with underperforming team members.
Evie is a first-time manager. Her team member Lincoln has missed three deadlines in the past month, and the quality of his recent deliverables has dropped. Evie has scheduled a one-on-one to address it.
With this setup, Evie is the protagonist. She’s the manager who the audience should identify with. That means Evie is the character who should be making decisions; the action should focus on her.
But look at the first decision point after Evie starts the meeting and asks about the missed deadlines.
What should Lincoln say next?
A. Promise to do better at meeting the deadlines moving forward.
B. Explain the problems he’s had getting critical information from another team.
C. Ask for help prioritizing his responsibilities.
Instead of a scenario about how managers talk to their employees, suddenly this has become a scenario about how employees respond to criticism. The action is focused on the employee’s perspective; it no longer aligns with the role of the manager.
How to check alignment
When you review scenario decisions, you’re watching for alignment between the audience role, the skill being trained, and the decision points themselves.
Does the protagonist of the scenario have a similar role to the audience’s role in their work?Does the decision point show the protagonist acting, or does it show another character’s actions?Does every decision point relate to the same character’s actions, or does it shift throughout the scenario?
Of course, it’s possible to create a branching scenario that shows multiple perspectives. Hana Feels is a great example of an interactive story where you make choices based on multiple characters who talk to Hana, who is ostensibly the main focus of the story. But you only guide Hana indirectly, trying to shape her emotional responses based on her conversations with others. A multi-character scenario like that requires a lot of planning though, and it’s more complicated to maintain a consistent narrative over the course of various paths. Most of the time, when I see this in training branching scenarios, it’s haphazard rather than well-planned.
How to fix the consistent perspective problem
Fixing the problem of inconsistent perspective requires stepping back to the planning stage. Every decision point should focus on what your protagonist is doing. The actions of other characters are the consequences and challenges that your protagonist responds to, rather than the decision points themselves.
When I start planning a branching scenario, one of my early steps is to draft an outline of the main actions. A simple numbered list like this helps make sure I’m on the right track with my focus before I get too far into prototyping or development. These actions reflect the “ideal path” someone might take if they followed the process perfectly and chose the best options every time.
For this example scenario on performance conversations, that outline of actions in the ideal path could look like this:
Opening: Open with a clear, specific statement of the issue.Gather Info: Ask open-ended questions to understand the context.Listen: Listen actively and acknowledge what she hears.Set Expectations: Restate what success looks like to clarify expectations moving forward.Action Plan: Clarify concrete next steps for follow-up and support.
With that outline guiding me, I know each of my decision points connects to those actions. Since the first step is the opening the conversation, I can diagnose the problem: my first decision point actually happens too late in the story, after Evie has already opened the conversation. I need to back up and put the decision point right at the beginning of their meeting.
What should Evie say?
A. “Your work hasn’t been great lately. I know you can do better, so let’s talk about how to get back on track.”
B. “I can’t believe you missed the deadline for the Q3 dashboard! That’s the third deadline you’ve missed recently. This is a becoming real pattern, and it’s a problem.”
C. “In the past month, you’ve missed multiple deadlines: the Q3 dashboard, the Henderson report, and the Palmer project QA review.”
Now the decision is clearly about the performance conversation and the actions Evie takes as a manager. Lincoln’s reactions are the consequences and effects of what Evie says. The next decision point will respond to Lincoln’s words. If he’s resistant to the feedback, then Evie needs to ask questions and actively listen to understand and work past that resistance. The scenario decisions remain focused on Evie’s actions though, not Lincoln’s responses to feedback. The scenario has a consistent perspective that reflects the learners’ experience.
What branching scenario challenges can I help you with?
Do you have a challenge writing or building branching scenarios? What would you like to see me write about in future posts? Let me know in the comments or by replying to this email.
Upcoming events
Crafting Choices That Challenge: Designing Scenarios for Authentic Practice
