Difference between revisions of "Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences"
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== Using the pattern == | == Using the pattern == | ||
| − | A prerequisite for [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]] is that there are [[Social Norms]] defined for the [[Game Worlds|Game World]]. These norms are typically either considered universal (except by [[Outcasts]]) or common for all those belonging to a [[Factions|Faction]]. Regardless of this, the actual consequences can be enforced by global rules (as for example by the karma system in the [[Fallout series]]) or be encoded on an individual level for [[Algorithmic Agents]]. The former of these makes it easy to track the consequences, giving [[Character Defining Actions]], but this may be an emergent feature from the latter. | + | A prerequisite for [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]] is that there are [[Social Norms]] defined for the [[Game Worlds|Game World]]. These norms are typically either considered universal (except by [[Outcasts]]) or common for all those belonging to a [[Factions|Faction]]. Regardless of this, the actual consequences can be enforced by global rules (as for example by the karma system in the [[Fallout series]]) or be encoded on an individual level for [[Algorithmic Agents]] based on the traits of [[Characters]]. The former of these makes it easy to track the consequences, giving [[Character Defining Actions]], but this may be an emergent feature from the latter. |
However, [[Internal Conflict]] can be achieved by having [[Characters]] belong to several different [[Factions]]. This since it provides opportunities for [[Characters]] with [[Social Norms]] from different [[Factions]] to clash when they meet in a [[Factions|Faction]] they have in common. | However, [[Internal Conflict]] can be achieved by having [[Characters]] belong to several different [[Factions]]. This since it provides opportunities for [[Characters]] with [[Social Norms]] from different [[Factions]] to clash when they meet in a [[Factions|Faction]] they have in common. | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
== Relations == | == Relations == | ||
=== Can Instantiate === | === Can Instantiate === | ||
| + | [[Character Defining Actions]] | ||
| + | [[Continuous Goals]] | ||
[[Diegetic Consistency]] | [[Diegetic Consistency]] | ||
| + | [[Emotional Attachment]] | ||
| + | [[Freedom of Choice]] | ||
| + | [[Optional Goals]] | ||
| + | [[Selectable Sets of Goals]] | ||
| + | [[Social Maintenance]] | ||
| + | [[Risk/Reward]] | ||
=== Can Modulate === | === Can Modulate === | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Algorithmic Agents]] | [[Algorithmic Agents]] | ||
| + | [[Characters]] | ||
| + | [[Factions]], | ||
| + | [[Game Worlds]] | ||
| + | [[Internal Conflict]] | ||
| + | [[No-Ops]] | ||
| + | [[NPCs]] | ||
| + | [[Social Gatekeeper]] | ||
=== Can Be Instantiated By === | === Can Be Instantiated By === | ||
| Line 47: | Line 58: | ||
=== Can Be Modulated By === | === Can Be Modulated By === | ||
| + | [[Penalties]] | ||
[[Player-Designed Characters]] | [[Player-Designed Characters]] | ||
| + | [[Rewards]] | ||
=== Potentially Conflicting With === | === Potentially Conflicting With === | ||
Revision as of 13:15, 27 May 2010
An action by a character influences on how other characters perceive and how they interact with the acting character.
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.
Contents
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 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. Regardless of this, the actual consequences can be enforced by global rules (as for example by the karma system in the Fallout series) or be encoded on an individual level for Algorithmic Agents based on the traits of Characters. The former of these makes it easy to track the consequences, giving Character Defining Actions, but this may be an emergent feature from the latter.
However, Internal Conflict can be achieved by having Characters belong to several different Factions. This since it provides opportunities for Characters with Social Norms from different Factions to clash when they meet in a Faction they have in common.
Acting against the Social Norm of a Faction or a NPC is associated with negative behavior and should relate to a suitable Emotional Attachment. Acting against a Social Norm of a Faction may trigger positive social consequences in the members of another Faction. For example, breaking a Social Norm (stealing) of a Faction might be required in order to become a member of a Faction (thief guild).
Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences can easily be tied to Penalties (for not following 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 Gatekeeper. By having Player-Designed Character, games can allow players to make these choices before gameplay starts.
Diegetic Aspects
Living up to or breaking Social Norms should also be presented diegetically in the reaction of NPCs in order for Diegetic 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 Social Norms, either by doing socially unacceptable actions or failing to do expected actions, but also Penalties if this is detected. If players have the choice of which type of Faction (or 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. In addition, Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences contributes towards the believability of NPCs since the pattern can provide Diegetic Consistency when some actions are depicted as being socially unacceptable but still possible to perform.
Since 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 Social Norms can require Social Maintenance and failure to keep this up leads to consequences.
Relations
Can Instantiate
Character Defining Actions Continuous Goals Diegetic Consistency Emotional Attachment Freedom of Choice Optional Goals Selectable Sets of Goals Social Maintenance Risk/Reward
Can Modulate
Algorithmic Agents Characters Factions, Game Worlds Internal Conflict No-Ops NPCs Social Gatekeeper
Can Be Instantiated By
Can Be Modulated By
Penalties Player-Designed Characters Rewards
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
- ↑ Lankoski & Björk (2007). Gameplay Design Patterns for Social Networks and Conflicts. Proceedings of GDTW 2007.
- ↑ Lankoski (2010). Character-Driven Game Design - A Design Approach and Its Foundations in Character Engagement. PhD thesis at Aalto University. Publication Series of the School of Art and Design A 101.
