Difference between revisions of "Characters"

Revision as of 15:09, 21 September 2010

The abstract characteristics of deigetic persons.

Note: The use of character here is in the meaning of the characteristics of a person rather than the traditional use in art of the representation of a person (Agents is used instead form the traditional use). Also, for this context anything one would be likely to take an intentional stance^[1] towards, or perceive that one is intended to take such a stance, is considered a person.

Many games let players control game elements that represent people or creatures that act in the Game World. When these people or creatures have characteristics not directly shown in the Game World that can change during gameplay, these game elements have an abstract element called Character.

Examples

Tabletop roleplaying games such as Dungeons & Dragons and GURPS let each player control their own Character, and one of the main types of goal in the games is to raise the character's level, stats, or skills. This has been carried over to computer-based version of roleplaying games such as the Elder Scrolls series and the Fallout series, and games building on the genre, e.g. Nethack, Torchlight, the Diablo series, the Mass Effect series and World of Warcraft. The X-Com series and Jagged Alliance series lets a player control several Characters at once. Typically all these games also players choices in how to improve the Characters during gameplay as rewards for advancing, but several varieties of how they are created exist. Collections of multiple choice questions combined with some point system for skills are common (e.g. Dungeons & Dragons, the Elder Scrolls series, the Mass Effect series, and Torchlight) while some have one complete point system (GURPS). Randomness is often an important component, either for attributes (Dungeons & Dragons and Nethack) or more generally for the character's background (Traveller and the Lifeboard used in Fallen Reich). The tabletop roleplaying games often have multiple system that the player groups are choose from.

Many action-oriented computer games can be said to have an extremely weak form of the pattern through having just one abstract value, typically a health value. Examples of games that fall in this category include the Doom series, the Super Mario series and the The Legend of Zelda series (and they typically also have some inventories for weapons or tools). An exception to this can be found in the team-based FPS Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, where players have Characters that can develop between levels by gaining experience points in various skills.

Using the pattern

The design of Characters in games can either be on the level of creating pre-defined descriptions and presentations of these or by creating rules for how players can create their own Player-Designed Characters. Characters can exist weakly in games through only the mere presence of individual Handles or Health values in a HUD Interface but for more detailed Characters one common area where more details are developed include diegetically important features such as names (often determining the Handle that identifies the player's character to other players), gender, occupations and others depending on the type of Game World (e.g. many fantasy Roleplaying games have several different playable races). Another common area are the many possible details related to the mechanical aspects of the game systems: the numerical Attributes that represent physical or mental abilities and determine values such as Lives, Health, and fatigue; Skills that affect the likelihood of succeeding with actions and may give Privileged Abilities such as being a Producer that can create Renewable Resources; advantages, disadvantages, quirks, or other ways of describing character traits and motivating initial Decreased Abilities, Improved Abilities, or Privileged Abilities; worldly possessions and equipment that represents Resources or Tools; and the Characters place in social networks within the Game Worlds that define their relations with NPCs (e.g. as as Companions, Enemies or as having Linked Destinies), and the Characters positions in Hierarchical Factions, including possible Loyalty, Internal Conflicts and Rivalries within those Factions. In games with Avatars, some of these characteristics are usually cosmetic but are still important as this Avatar Personalization supports Emotional Attachment and Identification through Diegetically Outstanding Features.

Typical ways of letting players create Characters are based on Randomness or Budgeted Action Points (Dungeons & Dragons and GURPS illustrate these two approaches, although there are several choices also in the first example). These are in turn used to determine the various characteristics possible mentioned in the previous paragraph. Player-Created Characters typically provides a Freedom of Choice, but this may cause a problem of fitting or adjusting the Characters to have integral role in Narration Structures. This problem can be mitigated by the presence of Dedicated Game Facilitators such as Game Masters that can perform the necessary Negotiation to make the Characters suitable to the planned events in the game or modify the Narration Structures to fit them.

It may seem somewhat paradoxical but the question of who controls the Characters after they have been created does not have to be automatically be the creators. That Characters created by the game designers can be either Non-Player Characters controlled by Algorithmic Agents or Focus Loci for players is quite natural, as is the passive use of Characters mainly as a way to provide players with somebody to received Quests from or to perform Trading with. But Player-Created Characters do not have to be directly controlled by those players either, the Sims created by players in the Sims series are semi-autonomous and can be left completely to their own devices (and if one has created several households the sims from other households are pure NPCs for any given game session).

Independent of how the initial Characters are created, the game designer can choose whether Character Development should be possible and if players should be able to affect it. Character Development typically occurs as Rewards after completing Quests or Leveling, and often include changes in Attributes and Skills to provide Improved or New Abilities. An alternative way of supporting Character Development is through the use of Character Defining Actions and Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences can be used for both of these choices to provide opportunities during gameplay. For Character Development during gameplay, if players are able to influence the development or not may mostly depend on if players have been provided in advance by Extra-Game Information or by diegetic Clues or Red Herrings (which in the latter case make players need to take Leaps of Faith).

This planning offers players the chance of Varied Gameplay by making use of New Abilities to instantiate potential Orthogonal Unit Differentiation. Planned Character Development gives the possibility for Team Development in games with Team Play. However, unless games make use of Game Masters, this kind of Freedom of Choice regarding Characters may be difficult to combine with Narrative Structures.

Creating complete Characters lets them fit within an Alternative Reality and allows personalized and unique Avatars for each Character. In games with Combat or Overcome goals between the players, pre-created Characters can be extensively play-tested to ensure Player Balance. The use of pre-created Characters is common in games either where Character Development is not a large part of gameplay or where the Character, and any Character Development, is closely tied to a tightly controlled Narrative Structure.

A critical choice regarding Characters is if the game design should try to make character traits presented diegetically in the Game World. Although there may seem to be no obvious reason why to not do so it, the Freedom of Choice for players may be limited. This not only since Character presentation is typically done through Cut Scenes (but see Environmental Storytelling) which automatically restricts players Freedom of Choice to perform actions at certain times (and gives Downtime). The presentation done by the design also limits how players can shape the Characters through Roleplaying since it puts restrictions in which direction the Characters' storyline can develop, at least as long as the players do not wish to break the Diegetic Consistency of the game session.

Diegetic Aspects

When diegetic presentations are created for Characters, Avatars are the most common form although some games (e.g. the X-Com series and the Jagged Alliance series) make use of Units. However, the Characters pattern does not need to be combined with any pre-defined ways of presenting people diegetically. Most table-top roleplaying games (such as GURPS and earlier editions of Dungeons and Dragons) support use of Avatars in combat situations but make it optional, letting players express their Characters through Performance using only their own voice and body. Another example of not having a deigetic presence during gameplay can be found in the computer game Alter Ego, which keeps track of the Attributes for the player's Character but but doesn't present it in the Game World.

Interface Aspects

Since by definition the information related to Characters is not part of the Game Worlds, some other way of allowing players to get information about them is needed. This may simply be Extra-Game Information such as HUD interfaces or Geospatial Game Widgets presented together with the Game World but can also be in the form of Character Sheets, the latter typically as a form of Secondary Interface Screens for computer games. Character Sheets may be more or less unavoidable if players need to interact with the Character statistics, e.g. to increase Attributes or Skills when Leveling (as e.g. in games such as the Elder Scrolls series and Torchlight).

Narrative Aspects

Given that Narration Structures very often depend on the intentions of fictitious persons, it would seem that Characters are integral to these. This is partly true. The pattern Characters related to the attributes of these persons in relation to the game system and how it affects gameplay. In this sense Characters strongly affect if and how Roleplaying and Performance emerge from the game structures and this may also be the Narration Structures. However, the Narration Structures can exist independently of the gameplay and be told through Cut Scenes. In this case the main relation between the two patterns in the need to maintain a form of Diegetic Consistency between the Characters gameplay actions and their actions in the narration. A special case of this are games using Detective Structure since these require that all information available to a player is tied to one specific Character.

Consequences

In games with Game Worlds, Characters form links between abstract game state values and concrete game state values through their connection to Avatars or Units. When no concrete Game World exists, Characters take the role of Focus Loci in replacement of Avatars. Characters is one way of creating Agents, although typically needing the use of Avatars or Units.

Characters provide games with points for Identification and through these points Emotional Attachment, especially in cases where Roleplaying the Characters or Storytelling about the Characters is possible. The personalities expressed by Characters make it possible to encourage certain actions and discourages others, and thereby achieving Enforced Agent Behavior as long as players wish to maintain Diegetic Consistency (Enforced Agent Behavior can of course be guaranteed for those [[Characters] that are controlled by Algorithmic Agents).

The Emotional Attachment Characters can give makes it likely to strengthen the impact of, and widen the range of, Penalties usable in the game, especially in the case of Persistent Game Worlds or when Player-Planned Character Development exists. The presence of Characters also allows more detailed Enemies and richer Narration Structures where social relationships can be important components. When both player Characters and their Enemies are given abstract characteristics this can lead to Experimenting by the players to understand their relations.

The variety of values associated with Characters open up for a range of Rewards, e.g. New or Improved Abilities through raised Attributes or Skills, and Penalties, such as Decreased Abilities through received Damage, that can occur during gameplay. When these types of Rewards allow players some form of control over the Character Development, this leads to increased Freedom of Choice in games as well as creates Player-Planned Character Development, which is a form of Investment. This is also a form of Customizable Development, that can provide a game system acknowledgment of Player Time Investments and can support Emotional Attachment to the Characters.

When games support Player-Created Characters, this gives them Freedom of Choice and Creative Control depending on the level of Randomness involved in the process, but this also increases the possibilities for Identification and Emotional Attachment generally since the creation process in itself is an example of Player Time Investments. The personalization possible also allows players to construct Player Defined Goals for their Characters as they are created, and can give them the Exaggerated Perception of Influence over how the Narration Structures will develop.

In Multiplayer Games, having Characters with different Privileged Abilities allows Orthogonal Unit Differentiation and lets players perform Team Combos. This also allows players to specialize in different Competence Areas and try to succeed in Team Strategy Identification. However, the differences in abilities may cause Player Balance to be disrupted.

Relations

Can Instantiate

with ...

Can Modulate

Can Be Instantiated By

Can Be Modulated By

Possible Closure Effects

Potentially Conflicting With

History

An updated version of the pattern Characters that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design^[2].

Acknowledgments

Maltto Elsolainen, Markus Montola, Jaakko Stenros, Anders Warrby

References

1. ↑ Daniel C. Dennett (1996), The Intentional Stance (6th printing), Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-54053-3 (First published 1987).
2. ↑ Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.