I wonder if it's possible to turn the notion of "character advancement" completely on it's head in cRPGs? Don't know if any cRPG, electronic or otherwise, has tried this but I've been keen on the idea of what a more dramatic, mature cRPG might be like. Is it possible to uproot the very foundation of advancement and turn it toward more mature situations? How would you do it? What I mean, btw, is not that you experience good storytelling, make a choice and get some XP which you then turn in the service of slaying something so that you can ultimately become godly and kill the last boss. That's what I've heard called the "Little Tailor" trope-- you start weak and grow to overtop the bad guy in the end. What I'm more interested in is what I've heard called the "protagonist learns better" trope, which involves character defining changes that fundamentally evolve a character through dramatic states. Now before you yawn and move on, I'm not talking about dropping the typical cRPG's fantastical setting. I'm just curious how you might advance in terms of "character" in such a setting (I'm thinking of the character advancement seen in the acclaimed Battlestar Galactica series as an example of fantastical setting but mature, dramatic themes). What if, rather than leveling to brandish a bigger sword, you had to do something in the game world to trigger abilities that are in the context of drama? Would it be possible to evolve from cowardice to honor, from shameless greed to self sacrifice? Or are these sorts of things better left to canned quests and character summaries?

There's probably a reason why it isn't done more often. That said, it seems like a workable idea. You need to, as you implied, make sure that the advancement doesn't seem canned.

When you wrote "shameless greed to self sacrifice", I immediately thought of "A Christmas Carol". It's a good story, but I don't think it would make a good game. You're game could either be some generic model with "A Christmas Carol" tacked on as a story, but then it feels canned. Or, your game could be about choices, and the player wins if they make similar choices to Scrooge, but then you need to make the choices very interesting or the game won't be any fun. If you can think of a way to turn "A Christmas Carol" into an engaging game without losing the flavor of the book, and the theme of "shameless greed to self sacrifice", I'd be very interested in hearing it!

The issue with something like this is players are going to choose whatever they want. They are aware its a game - some play along, others don't. I see it being hard to have that sort of progression in a game that doesn't have a lot of incredible, smart procedurally generated content that can expand and evolve and would adapt to the players choices, allowing that kind of expansion to the degree your talking.

Ultima comes to mind, specifically Ultima 4: Quest of the Avatar. While most of the ultima series has some measure of "virtue", in Ultima 4 the player was let loose in a free-roaming world, but had to embody the virtues through their actions to actually "win" and become the Avatar.

So the player has to do virtuous things like give to the poor, never run from a battle, be honest when buying from blind merchants, trying not to kill your enemies, giving blood, meditating at shrines, etc. However as one might imagine the temptation to flee from tough fights, save on cash, or use the forbidden Skull Of Moldune to incinerate anyone who stands in your way can be pretty strong sometimes, even though doing so means moving away from the goal of the game.

You have somewhat of a tough one there. Some elements of experience could easily be done in the context of learning. For example, you could learn a spell or how to create a potion through the story of the game. Additionally, you could have real training (which you can fail) for learning different combat styles.

However, the emotional traits are a tough one. The player is always going to fight as hard as they can because it's not their body getting abused. If you could put some real risk in for the player, then maybe their decisions would be based on the ability of the character and not based on the fact that they can always load a save game if they fail.

Also, you have to make sure that in your efforts for realism, you don't make the game "not fun" to play.

John

Have ranks. Be them nobility, military or secret society-wise, ranks have an under-used potential. Without having the character magically become stronger or smarter, ranks offer a good explanation to why you suddenly gain access to better weapons or spells. You can gain better knowledge as well (locations on the world map ? Branches in a skill/spell/tech tree ?) access to more high-ranked people, possibility of better loans.

I often cite Sid Meier's highly acclaimed "Pirates" as a counter example to most character development paradigms : you begin young, and therefore at the highest of your physical abilities, then you begin to get old. Reputation and nobility ranks, however, allow you to grow richer, to have access to higher paid missions (but more costly as well), to recruit crew more easily, and also to attract... more interesting enemies ! ("Ahh! so YOU are this famous pirate that plundered the Dutch city of Etreuta, I'm going to chase you down !")

The goal of the game, beside gathering your whole lost family, was to end the game with the higher social status depending on wealth, reputation and nobility ranks.

[shamelessplug]I kinda have a similar goal set up for Hero and Paranormal; the thread for the former's in this forum section.[/shamelessplug]

As has been pointed out, this is a tricky one to solve. Not impossible, mind you, but difficult. As Roger Ebert pointed out in his article regarding why games aren't/cannot be 'art,' (an assertion I fundamentally disagree with, though pay close attention to in an effort to understand) a designer sacrifices much authorial control in a 'naive implementation.'

Thing is, something akin to Left 4 Dead's AI Director could be used to cunning effect. Give the game intelligence, and you give it back control. Sort of like the STRIPS vs FSM scenario in more traditional game AI: One tries to modify the environment, one merely reacts to changes. Note how such a seemingly small difference in agent control can have a profound effect on the overall end behaviors. Getting back to my original point, I do believe that games *can* have an impact on the emotional and possibly even philosophical state of the player, and the trick do doing what you describe hinges on the designer's ability to manipulate *that* state so that its effects carry back over into the game world. I think that this is actually the way 'story' games are headed, and in the future the proverbial strength of the title will depend primarily on the complexity and depth of its interactions with the player.

Personality is a set of behavior based on a person's ideology. To change their personality is to change their ideology.


Transition of personality:

If such a transition exist, it is implied that the person has some changeable ideology. The path to change it could involve:

o Identifying the previous ideology and correct it
o Show the person that the new ideology is better for the person in his environment

In a game, you could do one of the above or do both. You cannot change someone's personality if you cannot convince them that the alternative is better. This implies that the person must value something, or be introduce to something of value such that their ideology changes to include and protect this value.

In the story of A Christmas Carol, the main character is forced to see the effects of his lack of values. The conversion was completed by showing him a future that he had not considered. It happens that the main character can still feel regret and fear the future, so the conversion is possible by showing him the other sides of his existence. This conversion is not universal. It would not work if the main character does not fear. In my imagination it might never work in reality, because the story did not acknowledge why the main character was selfish. Most people would be too defensive to be changed. I am convinced that conversion in A Christmas Carol would be insufficient in reality, so it is moot to implement it to satisfactory in a game.

For example, a rich miser in reality could be convinced that he must rid of his own emotion and friendships to do what he must do in order to provide the greatest good for the most people. In his perspective, he is correct, the poor people are wrong for not doing their parts, and his sacrifice of his own emotion and reputation is noble. That ideology is what the ghost must change to change the miser. Having the ghosts show the same things to this miser would have no effect because the miser's ideology had already included them. The ghosts would be showing the miser something he had already known. The ghost would just be annoying.

So if you were to code a game with a reference to A Christmas Carol, perhaps it would be easier to make the player be emotionally and intellectually engaged to the work by showing that the original method does not work, and that the player must discover what would actually work.

The replay value of such a game is not based on the condition where the situations or causes are procedurally generated. But the mere depth of the story. You would compare it to reading a book again, and reexperiencing your journey in discovering the solution. The desire to replay the game need not be to apply the same method to solve one more problem. You would design the game as a single gem that the player keep looking instead of a gem making machine that could create a new gem as frequently as the player wishes. I am not speaking against procedurally generated contents. I am just saying that you don't need to use it in the sense that the game will still be good without it.

It is about what the player is rewarded for. If the player is rewarded for killing everything that moves, then they will kill everything that moves.

If you reward the player for a certain mode of behaviour, then they will do that. But then, if you change what behaviour is rewarded, then they will adapt.

Lets take the Christmas Carol.

Scrooge has been rewarded for hoarding money. But then he learns of being punished for hoarding money and find the reward in giving. He changes from the Hoarder to the Giver.

So how can we do this in a game. Well the first "Act" of the game would be to reward the player for doing something, say killing everything that moves. The player earns money and is able to buy better equipment. Towards the ends of this act the general population has become afraid of them, or that the player has moved away from their roots as the peasant hero and into he realm of the nobility (maybe by having to betray the people they once helped).

In the second Act, the player begins to learn of the punishment of their actions. As the hero, they are introduced to political life and they gain enemies that they can't just "Slice and Dice". However they are offered different ways to eliminate their opponent (discredit them, etc).

Eventually even this does not give them all the rewards that the need. They eventually learn that to proceed further they have to gain the support of the general people, and so he must go back to his roots and regain the trust and support of the people.

See, most plots are just the first act of this, the player starts weak and becomes powerful and eventually destroys the boss - end of game. But, what about what comes after the boss, they becomes feared by the people they once helped (ie if they could kill the big bad boss, does this mean that he is now an even bigger, babder boss? And how can defeat him if he turns bad?).

Thanks for the replies everyone!

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan It is about what the player is rewarded for. If the player is rewarded for killing everything that moves, then they will kill everything that moves.

Agreed. I think Gyrthok's point about Ultima 4 (which I've heard about but never played) works here. If you get XP for helping the poor, people will help the poor. I've seen some of this done in cRPGs like Jade Empire, where you for instance get to choose to free or betray defenseless slaves. What bothers me is that the situations are so black and white as to not even challenge you to think, let alone agonize or take a risk.

Quote:

If you reward the player for a certain mode of behaviour, then they will do that. But then, if you change what behaviour is rewarded, then they will adapt.

I agree with you on this but I think it's missing a crucial aspect. It's not enough to just create lots of areas in the world where the player can engage in alternate behavior. You need some sort of tradeoff so that it's a real choice.

Let's take this situation: Do you forgive a teammate for abandoning you in battle? It can't be a yes/no response, there has to be some cost/gain to either action. And not only that, it has to motivate the player.

I can see a character having strong feelings about betrayal, but I think what motivates a player more than anything else in a game is long term survival-- that is, are they going to be able to finish the game. If I'm right about that then the cost to forgiving a coward has to be the risk of greater jeopardy in the future. You're choosing to keep around someone who could get you or others harmed.

Alternately, you could be risking some kind of character evolution-- maybe you're hoping the coward evolves into a heroic figure. But then how do you depict that nebulous state? Certainly not as a stat bar.