Difference between revisions of "Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences"

Revision as of 08:15, 31 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.

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 Conflicts 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 Conflicts, No-Ops, NPCs, Social Gatekeeper

Can Be Instantiated By

Social Norms

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

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.