Difference between revisions of "Enforced Agent Behavior"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Category:Needs revision]] | [[Category:Needs revision]] | ||
[[Category:Character Patterns]] | [[Category:Character Patterns]] | ||
| − | ''The | + | ''The enforcement of certain actions in order to maintain or develop an agent’s personality.'' |
| − | + | Games that have developed characters may have rules to ensure that these characters behavior is consistent to their personality, or that the personality develops in a certain direction. For those characters that are under players' control this may require limiting what actions they can make the characters perform, or taking control way from them. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
=== Examples === | === Examples === | ||
Dialogue systems of games | Dialogue systems of games | ||
| − | Thief: Deadly Shadows (Ion Storm, 2005) uses goals and game system enforce certain behaviors. Goals are used to make sure that a player will steal valuables | + | Thief: Deadly Shadows (Ion Storm, 2005) uses goals and game system enforce certain behaviors. Goals are used to make sure that a player will steal valuables. |
| − | Call of Cthulhu | + | The roleplaying game [[Call of Cthulhu]] has rules for character insanity. When insanity checks are failed, if the character sees some horrific monsters or heinous acts, the character, for example, freezes or flees despite the player’s will. |
| + | |||
| + | In [[Space Alert]] players decide which actions their characters should perform in one phase of the game, and all the actions are then performed in a later phase without a possibility for players to change them (with a partial exception of being able to correct wrongly selected actions). | ||
== Using the pattern == | == Using the pattern == | ||
| + | The initial concern with making use of [[Enforced Character Behavior]] is to determine what that behavior should be. Typically this may be to provide [[Diegetic Consistency]] (including [[Diegetically Consistent Dialogues]]) or maintain [[Narration Structures]] (especially concerning [[Character Development]]). However, it may also be used to make it impossible to actively act against team mates in games with [[Team Play]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The easiest way of making sure of [[Enforced Character Behavior]] is to only make those actions which are wanted possible, which comes down to defining a [[Limited Set of Actions]]. This set of actions may be enough to sustain the behavior if the only interesting part of the personalities one wishes to present is noticeable from actions uninformed by previous events. In these cases | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, for more complex behaviors the development of [[Characters]] is typically necessary. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is a clear difference between achieving [[Enforced Character Behavior]] depending on if the [[Characters]] in question are under players' control or not. [[Algorithmic Agents]] and [[Game Masters]] are natural choices for guaranteeing [[Enforced Character Behavior]] when players are not intended to be directly involved in choosing or performing the actions, i.e. for controlling the behavior of [[NPCs]]. However, [[Zero-Player Games]] and those using [[No Direct Player Influence]] also achieve this as the behaviors are set earlier (typically through [[Action Programming]] from a [[Limited Set of Actions]]) and then enforced. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Mandatory Goals]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | For player [[Characters]], two strategies present themselves in how to ensure [[Enforced Character Behavior]]: making players perform the action or taking control of their [[Characters]] so that a game system can perform the actions. | ||
[[Limited Set of Actions]] | [[Limited Set of Actions]] | ||
| − | + | Guaranteeing certain actions | |
| + | |||
| + | Limiting set of actions | ||
| + | |||
| + | Taking over | ||
Revision as of 14:58, 30 May 2010
The enforcement of certain actions in order to maintain or develop an agent’s personality.
Games that have developed characters may have rules to ensure that these characters behavior is consistent to their personality, or that the personality develops in a certain direction. For those characters that are under players' control this may require limiting what actions they can make the characters perform, or taking control way from them.
Contents
Examples
Dialogue systems of games
Thief: Deadly Shadows (Ion Storm, 2005) uses goals and game system enforce certain behaviors. Goals are used to make sure that a player will steal valuables.
The roleplaying game Call of Cthulhu has rules for character insanity. When insanity checks are failed, if the character sees some horrific monsters or heinous acts, the character, for example, freezes or flees despite the player’s will.
In Space Alert players decide which actions their characters should perform in one phase of the game, and all the actions are then performed in a later phase without a possibility for players to change them (with a partial exception of being able to correct wrongly selected actions).
Using the pattern
The initial concern with making use of Enforced Character Behavior is to determine what that behavior should be. Typically this may be to provide Diegetic Consistency (including Diegetically Consistent Dialogues) or maintain Narration Structures (especially concerning Character Development). However, it may also be used to make it impossible to actively act against team mates in games with Team Play.
The easiest way of making sure of Enforced Character Behavior is to only make those actions which are wanted possible, which comes down to defining a Limited Set of Actions. This set of actions may be enough to sustain the behavior if the only interesting part of the personalities one wishes to present is noticeable from actions uninformed by previous events. In these cases
However, for more complex behaviors the development of Characters is typically necessary.
There is a clear difference between achieving Enforced Character Behavior depending on if the Characters in question are under players' control or not. Algorithmic Agents and Game Masters are natural choices for guaranteeing Enforced Character Behavior when players are not intended to be directly involved in choosing or performing the actions, i.e. for controlling the behavior of NPCs. However, Zero-Player Games and those using No Direct Player Influence also achieve this as the behaviors are set earlier (typically through Action Programming from a Limited Set of Actions) and then enforced.
For player Characters, two strategies present themselves in how to ensure Enforced Character Behavior: making players perform the action or taking control of their Characters so that a game system can perform the actions.
Guaranteeing certain actions
Limiting set of actions
Taking over
Enforced Character Behavior can be introduced with Cut Scenes (Björk, Holopainen, 2005) portraying player character and Predefined Goals (Björk, Holopainen, 2005). Also using predefined functions
and Limited Set of Actions1 (Björk, Holopainen, 2005) and Trait Regulated Behavior are forms of Enforced Character Behavior.
Interface Aspects
Diegetic Aspects
Narrative Aspects
Consequences
Exaggerated Perception of Influence
Enforced Character Behavior takes some control from the player to maintain the character’s personality. However, the pattern can conflict Roleplaying (Björk, Holopainen, 2005) if the character design is not transferred consistently to the gameplay.
Relations
——Instantiates: Character Defining Actions ——Instantiated by: Cut-scenes (Björk, Holopainen, 2005), Predefined Goals (Björk, Holopainen, 2005), Limited Set of Actions (Björk, Holopainen, 2005), Trait Regulated Behavior ——Modulates: Character (Björk, Holopainen, 2005) ——Potentially Conflicting with: Illusion of Influence (Björk, Holopainen, 2005), Role-playing (Björk, Holopainen, 2005), Freedom of Choice (Björk, Holopainen, 2005), Player Designed Character
Can Instantiate
Can Modulate
Can Be Instantiated By
Can Be Modulated By
Potentially Conflicting With
History
An updated version of the pattern Enforced Character Behavior, first introduced in Lankoski 2010[1].
References
- ↑ 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.
