Difference between revisions of "Enforced Agent Behavior"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
The easiest way of making sure of [[Enforced Agent 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 intended behavior if the only interesting part of the personalities one wishes to present is noticeable from actions uninformed by previous events. In these cases the state of the [[Agents]] may only need to expressed through use of [[Avatars]], [[NPCs]], or [[Units]]. However, for more complex behaviors the development of [[Characters]] to keep track of internal states is typically necessary. | The easiest way of making sure of [[Enforced Agent 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 intended behavior if the only interesting part of the personalities one wishes to present is noticeable from actions uninformed by previous events. In these cases the state of the [[Agents]] may only need to expressed through use of [[Avatars]], [[NPCs]], or [[Units]]. However, for more complex behaviors the development of [[Characters]] to keep track of internal states is typically necessary. | ||
| − | There is a clear difference between achieving [[Enforced Character Behavior]] depending on if the [[ | + | There is a clear difference between achieving [[Enforced Character Behavior]] depending on if the [[Agents]] 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. | 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. | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Mandatory Goals]] |
| + | |||
Guaranteeing certain actions | Guaranteeing certain actions | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Taking over | Taking over | ||
| + | |||
| + | Player Designed Character | ||
| + | |||
| + | Planned Character Development | ||
| Line 46: | Line 48: | ||
== Consequences == | == Consequences == | ||
| − | [[Diegetic Consistency]] | + | [[Enforced Agent Behavior]] can help [[Diegetic Consistency]] since it can ensure that [[Agents]] behave in accordance to what is expected within a [[Game Worlds|Game World]]. However, the use of [[Enforced Agent Behavior]] typically makes it difficult to have [[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]] and [[Freedom of Choice]], especially when player control is explicitly removed through use of [[Cut Scenes]]. Even when |
| − | + | Depending on | |
Enforced Character Behavior takes some control from the player to maintain the character’s personality. However, the pattern | Enforced Character Behavior takes some control from the player to maintain the character’s personality. However, the pattern | ||
Revision as of 15:42, 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
The dialogue choices available in games such as the Mass Effect Series or the Witcher gives players' some degree of freedom while at the same time guaranteeing that the responses chosen are in line with the personality of the players' characters.
The Thief Series uses goals and game system enforce certain behaviors. Players that try to complete the game will make their characters steal valuable items since this is dictated by mandatory goals. However, they are further encourage to do similar actions through optional goals, and are not encourage to behave in certain other ways (e.g. killing guards) by the lack of game rewards for engaging in these types of activities.
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 Agent Behavior is to determine what behavior the Agent 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 Agent 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 intended behavior if the only interesting part of the personalities one wishes to present is noticeable from actions uninformed by previous events. In these cases the state of the Agents may only need to expressed through use of Avatars, NPCs, or Units. However, for more complex behaviors the development of Characters to keep track of internal states is typically necessary.
There is a clear difference between achieving Enforced Character Behavior depending on if the Agents 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
Taking over
Player Designed Character
Planned Character Development
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
Enforced Agent Behavior can help Diegetic Consistency since it can ensure that Agents behave in accordance to what is expected within a Game World. However, the use of Enforced Agent Behavior typically makes it difficult to have Exaggerated Perception of Influence and Freedom of Choice, especially when player control is explicitly removed through use of Cut Scenes. Even when
Depending on
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.
