In what ways does the role given to you by a game shape the actions you take? If you're walking past an alley in a game and hear an NPC scream for help, which would compel your actions more: your overall goal in playing the game or the role that the game either casts you in or allows you to pick? I imagine that if you're playing the game just to relax, to experiment or for some other self-directed goal the role the game either confers/allows will have little impact. The NPC's cry for help will be filtered by whether or not it serves your overall interests. If it doesn't, you might think "that's their problem, not mine" and be fine with that sentiment. Being conferred a role or allowed to take on one seems to be a bit different. If you're the hero, for instance, you may feel a certain degree of expectation to act, or even think (in a meta-game sense) "this is what the designer/game wants me to do, so I'll do it." Violating that expectation may also pull you out of the game's universe and prevent you from suspending disbelief. (That is, if you're called the hero and you go and aid in harming the NPC in distress I can't help but imagine that it would jar you on some level because the game's narrative and your actions would now be dissonant). If any of this makes sense then it feeds into my main question: By giving a player the role of "everyday joe" are you in fact disconnecting them from having empathy or interest in the game world at large?For Example: You walk by a bank robbery with thieves in the process of exiting with loot. If you're the hero, maybe you should do something about it. Your role gives you permission to act. If you fail, you might rationalize that you're just not strong enough yet, but that acting was still the right thing to do. However, if you're "everyday joe," cast as an average citizen in the game world, then upon failure you may draw the conclusion that it was not your business to act at all. Thoughts?

well, since (almost) every game offers a save game feature, I tend to explore the possibilities. Being a hero, villain or average joe, I like to see what options the designers thought I could take, and what surprises they had put inside for me.

In your example, maybe if try to stop them as a joe, I won't be beaten, but a police car appears in the last second, or I'm taken as a hostage.
Explore is the key.

Quote:

Original post by mystb well, since (almost) every game offers a save game feature, I tend to explore the possibilities. Being a hero, villain or average joe, I like to see what options the designers thought I could take, and what surprises they had put inside for me.

Thanks for the input mystb. It sounds like the role a game gives you has little impact on your actions because you as a player have an out-of-game "meta-goal" of experimenting. Would I be right then in saying that typically the fiction of the world doesn't really compel you toward one action or another?

I think that most players generally try to act out the role suggested by the narrative, as they assume that this is "optimal play." I think a smaller group of people will wander off and try to do the opposite of what they think the designers intended as well, but I think this is less common.

Disclaimer: I have no evidential basis. Just shady anecdotal recollections.

Quote:

Original post by reykjavik I think that most players generally try to act out the role suggested by the narrative, as they assume that this is "optimal play." I think a smaller group of people will wander off and try to do the opposite of what they think the designers intended as well, but I think this is less common.

I agree. I fall into the latter camp, but probably only because I'm curious about how the game works under the hood (the curse of being a former QA tester I guess).

But if you give the player no role, does this mean they have no real guidance as to what they're expected to do? If so, this would seem to be a bad idea.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by reykjavik I think that most players generally try to act out the role suggested by the narrative, as they assume that this is "optimal play." I think a smaller group of people will wander off and try to do the opposite of what they think the designers intended as well, but I think this is less common. I agree. I fall into the latter camp, but probably only because I'm curious about how the game works under the hood (the curse of being a former QA tester I guess). But if you give the player no role, does this mean they have no real guidance as to what they're expected to do? If so, this would seem to be a bad idea.

I guess we'd have to create a Zelda game where there is no situation in the beginning and see what happens. XD

Quote:

Original post by sirkibble2 Quote: Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by reykjavik I think that most players generally try to act out the role suggested by the narrative, as they assume that this is "optimal play." I think a smaller group of people will wander off and try to do the opposite of what they think the designers intended as well, but I think this is less common. I agree. I fall into the latter camp, but probably only because I'm curious about how the game works under the hood (the curse of being a former QA tester I guess). But if you give the player no role, does this mean they have no real guidance as to what they're expected to do? If so, this would seem to be a bad idea. I guess we'd have to create a Zelda game where there is no situation in the beginning and see what happens. XD

If there's a reference here, I don't get it, but the fact that it's a Zelda game establishes a set of expectations in the player for how their character should be acting (heroically).

If you're given no role or guidance, I think they'd play it like a sandbox game. The people that like open play would mess around, but I think the majority of people need goals. Then again, look at the Sims.

I think the other possibility is that if you give the player a scenario to react to without defining a role, they will act however they wish and assume that they are playing the intended role.

Thats not to say some people wont be lost, but its quite common in games with multiple paths for players to assume that the path they took was the "intended" one because it seems most obvious to them. They assume because a particular path seems most sensible that the designer must have made it that way, so long as when they try it the results are consistent and sensible (or even sometimes when the results arent sensible, because the path wasnt foreseen, and then the player will complain that the mission was poorly designed).

In the majority of games most of the content is there for a reason. When a players comes across the situation their experiences with previous games will tell them that by checking it out they will advance the story/get a new goal/get a new piece of loot.

I can't think of many games that have smacked players in the face for their curiosity (I'm sure there have been some but I can't think of any off the top of my head.)

So even if you don't give players a role, they will fall into the role of the hero that most other games have set them up to be.

Quote:

Original post by jColton So even if you don't give players a role, they will fall into the role of the hero that most other games have set them up to be.

Agreed, whether or not the player has a specific mission or is just a wanderer, I think almost always the player will become a hero and figure out what the job is to be done.

Finding the right path in some games are inevitable while some take some time. Depending on what the player likes, I think they will all get on the right track sooner or later.