Difference between revisions of "Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences"

Revision as of 18:44, 13 July 2014

Actions by a person in a game world influences how other people perceive and interact with that person.

Perceived actions influence how a non-player character will act toward the acting character. Different types of actions have different consequences: stealing will trigger hostile behavior while doing a favor friendly behavior.

Examples

Stealing in the third installment of the Fallout series makes player characters lose karma, which in turn changes how other characters reach to them.

Most social interaction performed between Sims in the Sims series change their perception of each other, and in Sims 3 not socializing with a friend for some time may turn them into a distant friend.

Using the pattern

A prerequisite for Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences is that there are Diegetic Social Norms defined for the Game World. These norms are typically either considered universal (except by Outcasts) or common for all those belonging to a Faction. A special case is the norms constructed by players belonging to the same Parties in Multiplayer Games. Regardless of this, the actual consequences can be enforced by global rules (as for example by the karma system in the Fallout series), be encoded on an individual level for Algorithmic Agents based on the traits of Characters, or simply result in changed behaviors and attitudes of the other players. The first of these makes it easy to track the consequences, giving Character Defining Actions, but this may be an emergent feature from the latter two.

However, Internal Conflicts and Internal Rivalry can be achieved by having Characters belong to several different Factions. This since it provides opportunities for Characters with Diegetic Social Norms from different Factions to clash when they meet in a Faction they have in common.

Acting against the Diegetic Social Norms of a Faction or a NPC is associated with negative behavior and should relate to a suitable expression of Emotional Attachment. Examples of actions that may trigger this includes Stealing Game Items, using illegal Tools, and engaging in Combat. Acting against Diegetic Social Norms of a Faction may trigger positive social consequences in the members of another Faction. For example, breaking a common Diegetic Social Norm against Stealing from one Faction might be required in order to become a member of a Faction (e.g. a thieves' guild).

Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences can easily be tied to Penalties (for not following Diegetic Social Norms) and Rewards (for following them). By doing so, game designs can provide both Continuous Goals and ones with clear closures, e.g. passing the requirements of a Social Gatekeepers. By having Player-Designed Characters, games can allow players to make these choices before gameplay starts.

Since Diegetic Social Norms are not only about not doing certain things but also that some actions are expected by others, No-Ops can also have Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences. Another way of framing this is that Diegetic Social Norms can require Diegetic Social Maintenance and failure to keep this up leads to consequences.

Diegetic Aspects

Living up to or breaking Diegetic Social Norms should also be presented diegetically in the reaction of NPCs in order for Thematic Consistency to be maintained when this pattern is used.

Consequences

Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences often provided Risk/Reward situations for players since there might be Rewards associated with breaking Diegetic Social Norms, either by doing socially unacceptable actions or failing to do expected actions, but also Penalties if this is detected. Depending on how much information players have received about the possible consequences, this may make the choice to perform the actions Leaps of Faith or not. If players have the choice of which type of Faction (or Diegetic Social Norm) they wish to belong to, Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences provides a Freedom of Choice and can support Selectable Sets of Goals or Optional Goals.

Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences can create a dynamic between the PC and NPCs and can introduce new conflicts or potential threats to the goals. For NPCs which belong to the same Factions as players, this can easily be modeled as cases of Internal Conflicts. For Companions in player-controlled Parties this changes the freedom in what actions are possible, and the same applies for Helpers when they are nearby. In addition, Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences contributes towards the believability of NPCs since the pattern can provide Thematic Consistency when some actions are depicted as being socially unacceptable but still possible to perform. Quite obviously, using Algorithmic Agents to encode that Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences modifies the way the Algorithmic Agents behave during gameplay.

As mentioned earlier, if Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences are added to actions which are required for Continuous Goals the effect is to create Diegetic Social Maintenance.

Relations

Can Instantiate

Character Defining Actions, Continuous Goals, Emotional Attachment, Freedom of Choice, Internal Conflicts, Internal Rivalry, Leaps of Faith, Optional Goals, Selectable Sets of Goals, Diegetic Social Maintenance, Risk/Reward, Thematic Consistency

Can Modulate

Algorithmic Agents, Characters, Companions, Factions, Game Worlds, Helpers, Internal Conflicts, No-Ops, NPCs, Social Gatekeepers

Parties in games with Companions

Can Be Instantiated By

Algorithmic Agents, Combat, Diegetic Social Norms, Tools

Parties together with Multiplayer Games

Stealing together with Game Items

Can Be Modulated By

Penalties, Player-Designed Characters, Rewards

Possible Closure Effects

-

Potentially Conflicting With

-

History

An updated version of the pattern Actions Have Social Consequences, first introduced by Lankoski & Björk^[1] and then expanded in Lankoski 2010^[2].

References

1. ↑ Lankoski & Björk (2007). Gameplay Design Patterns for Social Networks and Conflicts. Proceedings of GDTW 2007.
2. ↑ Lankoski (2010). Character-Driven Game Design - A Design Approach and Its Foundations in Character Engagement. D.A. thesis at Aalto University. Publication Series of the School of Art and Design A 101.