What Does It Mean To Player Character?

I wanted to talk about player characters, so... here is entirely too many words about player characters!
----
This episode was made possible by generous support through Patreon!
/ errantsignal
----

[@ZedDiDragon]

"More of a series of musings than anything" should be your channel's tagline.

[@ErrantSignal]

You're not wrong tho

[@sirdryden42]

“In some sense, it is YOU who died, failing to tell the character ‘s story properly.” Oh, so like Prince of- *shows the Prince dying and stopping the story* O__O

[@JosephDavies]

For some reason I immediately thought of Monkey Island 2, but the Prince of Persia reboot is a pretty good example of it as well.

[@davidmorgan9203]

This was my exact reaction. lol

[@DANKKrish]

same

[@KyleHarmieson]

You and me both. His voice immediately popped into my head, saying "No, that didn't happen. Can I start over?" This guy seriously knows his shit!

[@rafihardadi8002]

Call of Juarez Gunslinger is a great example of this. You mess up and die, the main character that's narrating the story backsteps that he died.

[@underdog353777]

"This book came out in 2003, and a lot has happened in the almost... 15 years" Boy have I got news for you

[@mathunit1]

What do you mean by that?

[@SuperBrassBender]

@@mathunit1 2003+15=2018

[@SuperBrassBender]

@Brupcat "almost... 15 years" 2003 December + 14 years and 11 months = 2018 November I'm being so pedantic, please shoot me.

[@boihowdie]

don't you love the infallible passage of time?

[@downsjmmyjones101]

Well 15 is almost 16.

[@chillmadude]

personally, i dont like how video games do the "here, write your character's background!" as it is almost always before you get the chance to know anything about the world you're putting this character into. So you either make a very detailed backstory that says a lot meaningfully but might contradict the predesigned setting, or you make a less detailed backstory that could fit in any setting, but not say a whole lot meaingfully in context to the game. yeah these games (as far as i have seen) do tend to let you rewrite them later, but i still dont like it that it asks me to create the background of my character before i get to know the world this character lives in. sorry for the long rant

[@kettleware2]

Arcanum's solution was to make the player read an 80-page preface before starting the game. I didn't say it was a good solution, mind you.

[@GameLimbs]

@@kettleware2That seems legit (but not very enjoyable for a single player game), since the demand for a back story written BY YOU feels like a holdover from pen and paper rpgs where it might be part of the activity of rolling your characters to read up on the lore in the player handbook or some-such. The problem, aside from the fact that no one(?) is going to do that much reading sitting in front of a computer game, is of course that the backstory is moot since, as Franklin mentions, the preprogrammed computer-"GM" can't actually adapt at all to that story. Some games get around that by having various preset backgrounds to choose from (sometimes in multiple steps), like Mass Effect or Guild Wars 2, which the game can then be programmed for, kind of like the "role-flexible" character. Though at least in Mass Effect it still has no actual mechanical purpose, it just changes some voice lines in the opening cinematic if I recall.

[@tomio8072]

maybe yeah a good way of getting around it is if you are placed into a world as a sort of blank slate and as people talk and interact with you then you maybe are given options to where you have come from even if this isn't seen in any gameplay, if that makes sense?

[@leekalba4652]

@@tomio8072 Like Dragon Age: Inquisition did, peppered through the first half of the narrative are dialogues to fill out some details. Though, all of them fit into a predetermined column according to race and class selection.

[@Cythil]

I feel that depends a lot on what sort of world you have and what you know of the setting. Take Vampire: The Masquerade. Some people are very familiar with this setting and so could write up long backstories about how they where a part of the Giovanni family and introduced at a early age to vampires, if in a covert way, which you realised later on when you where embraced the true significance of. To just give one example. But the setting it self taking place in the modern era where vampires actually hide from humanity allows you as a player to write a very detailed background about who you are, without anything relating to vampire or the supernatural. Because that is something most people do not know anything about. So as a new player the game allows you to learn about the supernatural world at the same pace as the character you play. Naturally that does not always work. Many times you sort of need to know some basics of the world you play. Some lore to actually write a detailed background. Even if the game is set in a historical setting this is often the case. Like it can be good to know that in the 1200 AD you might be scholar. But you library of books would count in just a handful as each book would be handwritten and very rare and expensive. That is if you even own any books at all even if you are a learned man of the era. In fantasy setting or a science fiction setting this become even more problematic as the world can be very different. I feel most of those games tend to to expect you to write to much of a backstory. More be a thing you pick up as you go. But that also tend to me you sometimes feel a bit detached the the world you just entered. Like a traveller from a other dimension that has just visited the world. (Which is actually a excused used by some games)

[@Unknownslenderman]

I'm surprised there was no mention of how Visual Novels could play into this. I couldn't stop thinking about how this analysis would apply to someone like Shirou from Fate Stay Night, for instance. The video was great as usual btw!

[@MaxLebled]

I've been playing Divinity: Original Sin with my partner, it's a great co-op game. And one thing I *really* liked about how it handles player characterization is that, in spite of your characters having a past that progressively becomes more defined, there are regularly conversations that you can have with EACH OTHER, as if you were NPCs, and you pick different answers to express your opinion (morality, other characters, etc). The back and forths are really fun. I think it was really really smart of them to do this

[@JeremyComans]

The conversations between my decidely different thinking brother and sister in D:OS were one of the highlights of the game. And that RPS minigame enforced that I (the GM) couldn't determine the outcome.

[@giampaolomannucci8281]

Agree that was beautiful and very well done. Larian knows how to do RPGs and I'm glad they are working on Baldur's Gate III

[@Meteaura22]

For those of you interested in more than just the excerpt, as I am, the book is "The Functions of Role Playing Games" by Dr. Sarah Lynne Bowman.

[@Medytacjusz]

Role-playing isn't just ignored in research literature. The "measurable outcome" approach was internalised by majority of players themselves. It was of course implied in the video - roleplaying is a hard-sell for mainstream audiences. Giving role-playing priority over anything else is often treated as a design fault. MrBtongue made a video on how the notion of "balance" often clashes with roleplaying for example. How do you roleplay an underdog, or an overpowered being, in a 100% balanced game?

[@TheAssassin642]

I hope he's alright :(

[@Medytacjusz]

@@TheAssassin642 MrBtongue? After going silent on KZbin he has been writing for Shamus Young's "Twenty Sided" blog as Bob Case. Last entry was 2020 though, so he's gone silent again for a while.

[@TheNeoAvalonEmpire]

One thing I really enjoyed about the witcher (3) was how it really felt like it pulled all the stops to immerse you in a SPECIFIC role including their choices ect. This was a really interesting video; thank you.

[@2Fiddle4U]

Also, I should add, the dialogue does a great job of allowing you to frame Geralr's relationship to other characters, especially those in the principle cast. Really helps in setting you up for the emotional beats later in the story, and boy do they hit you

[@JeremyComans]

@@2Fiddle4U I reckon Witcher 3 is the closest any 3rd-person action-RPG has come to the role-play satisfaction of a good cRPG. Some narrative and gameplay outcomes depend on your stats (mainly that 'charm' skill), many others are swayed or changed by your dialogue choices, similarly by your gameplay actions. All in all I think it gives you far more latitude with a set character than anything else I can think of.

[@helgenlane]

Jeremy Comans Witcher 3 is an rpg where your only role is "Geralt of Rivia". And it's done well. First and second games were also like that but in a different way.

[@bretginn1419]

I may not care for The Witcher 3, but credit where it's due, the game certainly did a good job with the world building. Definitely made it seem like you were actually just doing your average job.

[@iroveashe]

While the world and dialogue and voice acting are great, it bums me out that the story of the game has such urgency while everything else to do in it works entirely against that. You have a compelling story with fleshed out characters with an important urgent mission, and legendary Geralt will spend 7 hours sitting down to play gwent, or go find some berries for a dwarf for some gold coins. Not to mention legendary monster killer Geralt will die of 2 hits against some rando bandits because they're much higher level. Things like that really took me out of the world.

[@BumroyV2]

Thank you for crystallizing a notion I've thought about for a while. Curiously, what you called, "player avatars," I called, "player characters," a vice-versa. Though you intimated as much as well, I think these exist on a spectrum rather than well defined categories, with flexible player avatars compromising a compromise between the two extremes. For example, Commander Shepard and Geralt are both flexible avatars, but the difference in characterization means Shepard is, comparatively, more of a player character and Geralt more of an avatar.

[@michelottens6083]

Adding to the player focalization/characterizaton model, I'd put another axis or spectrum to signify whether the player feels like they're controlling just one character, or a group. The Witcher has you buddy-up with your witch buddies at different points, but they very much seem to act on their own. Mass Effect has you control your buddies in combat, and the action becomes more meaningful when you use the whole team as one. For a lot of KOTOR, playing as one of your prescribed party members is more important than playing as their leader, for example when one of the buddies can sneak into some spaceship where your main guy can't. This spectrum would scale out to the mass action of a Total War game, where you have your hero units and generals, but you identify more with the whole horde of people you otherwise control. And even at mass scale the spectrum of player characterization, that this video proposes ("you are you" vs. "you are that"), still works. In a Homeworld game the entire fleet you build across missions comes to represent how "you" made the trek across the galaxy. In a Starcraft campaign, each mission prescribes the army that "they", those spacetrucker generals, chose for that point in their story.

[@JeremyComans]

Where Shepard and other characters of her time, such as Infamous' Cole, fall down, is the good vs bad character dichotomy. Especially where it encourages always being one side because it leads to objectively superior 'good person' power upgrades, etc. The choices you make for Geralt don't affect his gameplay ability, so you're free to focus on narrative and gameplay outcomes.

[@chiarmahdra8100]

While you have a point I would argue that the example is more of a spectrum within that one category. Shepard is more flexibble than Gerad but in the end both of them are what they are and do what they do. The choices you have are only a change in flavor to the character not substance. DA:O would be my example to show to a hybrid between categories as it has a player made character with substantial differences (race choice) that the world reacts to as well as substential story choces (will you become a father or even a king) despite having a prewritten story like like Witcher or Mass Effect.

[@cuthalionxvi]

I thought his choice of "avatar" for "you control the actions but not the characterization" was confusing, as I would have thought it meant one where the player determines characterization as if they were the character. But I guess I see what he was going for, and the three modes are interesting regardless of how we name them.

[@Wilbefast]

"Aesthetic of Play" does a better job than "Rules of Play" when it comes to building a framework that roleplay actually fits into- I'd recommend watching Brian Upton's GDC talk "Play of Stillness" for a good overview of the book.

[@AquaSteel]

The moment you said "you failed to tell Mario's story properly" I instantly thought the Prince of Persia game over screens. Well played.

[@lionocyborg6030]

AquaSteel Well, Sands of Time in the sequel trilogy anyway. The original game's game over screen was an empty hourglass in that trilogy's unnamed princess's room with the girl herself missing as Jaffar (the predecessor to the sands of time vizier) killed her. In the second game, Prince of Persia 2: the Shadow and the Flame, the game over screen is a tree losing the last of its leaves to scary music symbolising the princess dying in a coma.

[@Rugerfred]

Interesting video, as always. Thank you so much. I'm a game designer focused on role-playing games though, and I got some things to add to this discourse: - Dr. Sarah Lynne Bowman contributed a lot to the field of larp (live-action role-playing) studies, so that's something so consider imho when analyzing and quoting her. It gives more context to her words, in my opinion. - Tabletop role-playing games evolved quite a lot in the last two decades, to the point where a game master isn't necessarily needed at a table for some games. Playing or analyzing them may be very helpful to this discourse and it's something I definitely suggest. (I can suggest some good ones if needed) ;) - Single player non-digital role-playing games exist too, actually. The amazing game designer Emily Care Boss launched the RPG Solitaire Challenge in 2011, and since then they spread quite a lot, with some notable recent publications too. - Related to the topic of playable characters, there's a MUST WATCH talk by Eirik Fatland called "The Art of Playable Character". I strongly suggest everybody interested in the topic to watch it. I hope this may continue the discussion forward, and I'm definitely interested in seeing (or contributing, to if you need a hand!) more videos on this topics. :)

[@aeternalslime9670]

i think part of the difference is that an rpg asks you to play A role, while this new choose your own main character thing asks how You want to play This role.

[@lakithunder4569]

I don't know. Some of them do that, but some are more like what he's describing. They don't ask you to embody the character at all, only to explore what parts of the character you want to see.

[@michelottens6083]

To add to this, the best RPGs I find do the Obsidian thing of giving you lots of freedom to define yourself in this world, only to then throw a plottwist at you about who the game world thought you were all this time, and how they see you've changed or not. Not only do you then define yourself as a player in a story, but suddenly you appear to have marked a change in who the people of Vegas thought the Courier was, or who everyone thought the Nameless One was, or whomever you'd been inhabiting as The Watcher or The Last Castoff, in Pillars of Eternity or Numenera...

[@SoranMBane]

While I generally prefer the Fallout: New Vegas style of player character where I get to use my creativity to define who my character is on almost every level, there is one thing I appreciate about the Horizon: Zero Dawn style of roleplaying, and that's how it attempts to simulate free will. Because, while we don't have much power over who we are at a fundamental level, we can still choose how we react in certain situations, as well as how we interact with the people around us. So, just like I could choose to be meek, snarky, or friendly in any given situation, Aloy can choose to be compassionate, angry, or intellectual. The main thing that model of roleplaying doesn't properly simulate is how often in real life the healthiest reaction is often the hardest to choose; in fact, in games of this sort, I often find it HARDER to choose the options I consider unhealthy, whereas in real life I tend to react meekly in most situations, even when I KNOW I should be standing up for myself.

[@JeremyComans]

On your first point; I also really enjoyed Aloy in terms of the choices she could make. Because you can be a nice person and still find someones actions inexscusable, her emotional state can change depending on her circumstance and the information she has. There are NPCs where ultimately they will live or die based on how you act. That absolutely helped me relate to my good hearted yet tempestuous Aloy. To separate out what you said about the difficulty of acting a certain way; that's something I find really interesting about being good or bad in games, and the codified or social consequences of doing so, versa real life. I think I'm a more empathetic person in 'real' life now, because I tend towards empathy in role-playing games. When you have characters in a game, and you can take a hazard at the outcomes of your actions, your impact is more defined than it is in lifes general chaos. Plus, you know that you are role-playing a character whose destiny is to succeed within the prescribed universe you are inhabiting.

[@night1952]

I usually roleplay more in games where i control a pre-designed character than if i create one of my own. I don't create a rol when i create a character, so i just do what i'd do, while when i have a character with a predefined bio I take decisions or act like they'd do. For example in FFXV you play as Noctis, a lazy prince that likes fishing, so i lazily let Ignis drive me all over the place and took care of my fishing supplies and searched for spots with new fish to catch.

[@mrf4ncyp4nts]

Player? I aardly know' er!!! edit - One of my favorite things that a lot of games leave out - If you're trying to get me to become a different, believable, person, I need to be able to take some flaws instead of only power-trip bonuses. Tabletop systems generally do this very well, especially when taking a flaw increases your roleplaying abilities in both mechanics and flavour (even sometimes making room for new bonuses!) The fallout series (having just been directly taken from a tabletop) did this very well, but outside of a few, intentional CRPG games, you don't see that kind of stuff anymore. I distinctly miss the little trip-ups and imperfections that make the limited play space of a pre-created video game just that much more believable.

[@GmodPlusWoW]

Damn straight. Having someone be good at certain things is fun, but having someone be BAD at something makes things interesting.

[@snkenjoyer4989]

What are some examples of giving the player character flaws to enhance gameplay?

[@JoeFF85]

Cancer Off the top of my head the optional traits you can optionally pick during character creation in Fallout 1 and 2 each had a boost AND a detriment (stronger chem effect AND higher addiction chance; shoot for fewer AP but lose the chance to aim, EVER, etc)

[@snkenjoyer4989]

@@JoeFF85 oh wow. That actually sounds kinda cool 👁

[@JoViljarHaugstulen]

"One of my favorite things that a lot of games leave out - If you're trying to get me to become a different, believable, person, I need to be able to take some flaws instead of only power-trip bonuses." It also have added bonus of giving more content to people who want to a challenge and I mean giving the player more options in single player games is never a bad thing (at worst it is waste or resources.... or I suppose it could be worse with useless options obscuring important options but I think that is very very unlikely to happen as that would require both a lot of options and terrible UI)

[@Humorless_Wokescold]

In light of predefined characters like Geralt, I think it might be worthwhile to take a step back and consider the act of deciding what game to buy and whether that can be part of the roleplaying experience. The pitch on the back of a box isn't dissimilar to the campaign pitch you'd get from your dungeon master, especially if your dungeon master likes to keep games on rails and you, the player, are ok with working within a relatively rigid framework.

[@JeremyComans]

There are two types of game master: Your troupe comes upon a sheer obsidian wall 40ft high. Insurmoutable. You have a good length of rope and if your most agile member can reach the top, you could climb up. She takes a run at the wall and rolls a 20: In one case you scale the entire wall in one arduous scrabble, in the other you hit the wall at speed and don't hurt yourself; because climbing that wall is impossible. Nothing wrong with either, per se; It just depends on what type of game you want to be playing.

[@88Factor]

Another aspect to consider with a predefined character is the act of roleplaying... Well, that focuses on being someone you aren't? There are versions of Escapism which I think have an interesting type of depth, and what it says about say, who we want to be, versus who we, usually at least, do not. Granted, that isn't, necessarily, related to player characters, however, player characters are selling you a pitch in regards to saying, "You can be this person instead of yourself for x number of hours."

[@temporalwolf7054]

There's a subset of avatar characters that I find kinda fascinating: the character action character. Characters like Devil May Cry's Dante, or Bayonetta, who's character informs their abilities and playstyle while also allowing the genre and gameplay inform the character. For instance, Dante is a cocky goofball that does insanely stylish combat maneuvers to be the most brutal he can be in combat, taunting enemies is rewarded, changing up combos is rewarded, etc. and at the same time the game implicitly tells you that he *has* to be like that because otherwise he would die. It's an interesting take on it in my opinion, and kind of alleviates that very defined line between character and player. Especially in Bayonetta, for all her power and ability the game does a very good job of conveying that Bayonetta is one slip up away from being dragged kicking and screaming into the depths of Hell, and an entire realm of existence is lined up to drop banana peels in front of her. That way when you do screw up, it does feel like YOU screwed up but that the character could also screw up. It's still treated as an incorrect ending, but one that's more believable to the player... I hope I'm making sense...

[@thirduncle5366]

Yeah, great comment. Thanks!

[@julien2983]

I think this is your best work in recent memory, great video! I will be rewatching it soon I'm sure

[@DarthBiomech]

This really rang true. I noticed that in modern "roleplaying" games there's NO weaknesses or tradeoffs. The worst that player can fear is to being locked out of the good ending if he killed too many enemies. Every skill is just adds to the total sum of the abilities, not raises ones and deflates others.

[@magicalgirlgleamingmoonlight]

The game hiveswap friendsim is built around exploring the relationship between player and character by explicitly casting the player as the character, while also presenting a world that is clearly acted in and acted upon the character. Its really worth checking out!

[@zed1991el]

I'm actually not too fond of the third type primarily because they often boast about "choice" or "player agency" without actually providing on that.

[@TriggerHappyRC1]

It's interesting how different games in that category can be thought. In witcher 3 a lot of your choices do have meaningful consequences without braking your character's personality. In Horizone: Zero Dawn, I can't think of any choice of the top of my had that actually had impactfully different outcomes. Still like both games though. The ones that I don't like are the pretensious games such as telltale's games where they lie that your choices matter.

[@chiarmahdra8100]

I am actually quite fond of those games but I agree that they are not what they claim to be. They don't saticfie my desire if I am looking for an RPG but they do if I m looking for a substitute to reading a novel or watching a movie. What I am not fond of is that the industry decided to call them RPGs, claim the same space in the marketplace and replace the real RPGs thereby limiting the suply of those.

[@TheAgamidaex]

I liked the skill system in Sunless Skies, where each option adds a little to your backstory. And some of them can have minor downsides too.

[@patrikkarlsson9463]

Cool! I like your videos on video game things in general, not just videos on single specific games (although they're good to). Great stuff, hope for more like in the future!

[@thebigbrzezinski3201]

I'm reminded of my experience playing Metroid Prime. Retro Studios seemed to want to collaborate with me to characterize Samus. The game portrayed Samus' calm, collected, analytical nature as she scanned the environment and made notes in her logbook about creatures, equipment, and lore. At the same time, we are placed right in her visor, providing her emotional nature ourselves. We feel the weight as she reads her Chozo foster parents' records, performs autopsies on deceased Luminoth fighters, and sees her fellow bounty hunters succumb to phazon corruption. This crescendos in the cutscenes, like finding the aftermath of the GSF marines' last stand and the deaths of the others hunters as Dark Samus absorbs them. Rundas' boss theme in particular has the impression of someone begging a loved one to put the gun down. Samus feels the loss and tragedy surrounding her, but refuses to be ruled by those feelings. She mourns after the mission is complete. The net presentation is of a person with great self masery. Samus is rarely in control of her own destiny, but she is always in control of her own mind. It's this perception that probably allowed me to enjoy the badly dubbed Syfy Original B Movie that was Other M. Along with everything else that must be said about that game's story, I would say it was very satisfying learning about how Samus grew into the calm, collected Hunter we love.

[@leXie1337_chan]

I think it's the friction between avatars and role playing characters that causes those of us who prefer RPGs and story-based games to cry foul about a loss of agency; When the game's writers try to switch between the two kinds, and force the avatar to act in a way the player wouldn't. See: Mass Effect 3, Fallout 3, etc.

[@fishcake7212]

I dunno, some of the characters I have been the most immersed in were the third type. The only difference with the first type is that you don't design the character, but that does not mean you are kept separate from them. In night in the woods, for example, (maybe cause there is no failure state, admittedly) I would always take the choice I thought Mae would take, not the one I wanted to see or I wanted to take. Same with Life is Strange. I did some stuff there that was waaay out of character for me but totally in character for Max, and that almost included the final climactic choice in the game. I thought about it for a while, and the version of max I was playing as just coincidentally made the same choice I would have.

[@chiarmahdra8100]

The strong connection to those characters might be explained by the story being more tailor made to make the player connected. The problem with freedom in character is that in order to express that freedom in a prewritten videogame you end up with a looser narrative. If you had LiS with a player made character your Max might not hang out with Cloe at all,you might not have met Warren at the parking lot but instead hang out with some girls in the dorm and therefor never realized that the girl you saved was Cloe. Instead of going through the scriped narrative that LiS is you would have had other adventures in variable orders. I find that in these kind of games (flexible prewritten characters on their prewritten journey) I connect to other NPCs more than to my PC. If I think back to ME2 I remember and feel much stronger about Jack than about my Shepards (the female one I originally importet from ME1 or the male one I replayed ME1 for to be able to romance her). Same goes for Witcher where I remember Shani from W1 more than anything Gerald has ever done/said. On the other hand I can tell you stories for hours when it comes to my EQ Cleric and her time adventuring through Norrath almost 20 years ago.

[@cannonfodder4376]

A most superlative look into the concepts and observations surrounding player characters and interactivity. Gave voice to things I have noticed but never knew how to describe. A fantastic video Chris.

[@MCCanaryVideos]

I've been thinking about game design a lot lately and I have been toying with the idea of an experimental rpg. One that plays and looks like a traditional jrpg but one that functions to contextualize it's typically clinical and separate game play. My main philosophy with this game's narrative design is one that the narrative is not defined by the player's discreet choice of words, but rather shaped by how the player chooses to use the combat system the player is presented with. So instead of taking on the character as just an avatar, the character's dialog and responses are a direct response to the outcome of how the player decides to utilize the tools the game presents them, but without trying to go to any extreme with it. My ideal is the player is given the option to use lethal/non lethal means of combat, meaning the actual character the player is playing can experience different things dependent on how they decide to use the system, since it is both the player and the characters main form of expression. Things like dialog are actually a result of how this system is use, not just a choice by the player. This would be use in line with a theme that the player's input is important, but the character is viewed as one that could justify either outcome due to their personality. This means that the outcome of a situation could be different, but the character development that happens is strictly defined on how the character reflects on what they did, not necessarily what the player wanted to paint the character to be or act like. It is actually and idea I have worked through a design bible for on and off for the last couple years. I do really want to try it one day as a mixture of being an rpg parody cracking jokes at rpg tropes as well as a sort of test of character writing to be able to make a game where the contextualization of play characterizes the character, not the player discreetly, and where the gameplay is where the choice is made, not just a binary system of dialog options. Even to the point that I would make moments that deviate from the core system but are still designed to reflect that system since it is actually how the character reconciles conflict, not the player.

[@LimeyLassen]

Do you mean like a game that respects a pacifist run? Like Undertale, or Iji?

[@MCCanaryVideos]

Nope. I want am going for something more moral Grey. The main character is a hired gun. Hence why he would be able to justify lethal and non lethal violence. But either way: he uses violence to resolve conflict which reflects his character, hence why choices are a result of the combat system, contextualizing it.

[@ThrottleKitty]

Soo.. dishonored?

[@Nachtom]

I really expected mention of Kingdom Come as it is basically the only modern "big" game really close to role-playing. Although there is 1 given character, you can shape him however you want. And he has only weaknesses in the beginning. :)

[@boihowdie]

i love that you used the "line in the sand" analogy while showing specops theline never did shoot out any sand traps the whole game.

[@jeanphilippemalouin]

I rewatch this every year at least. Great analysis!

[@balrogdahomie]

23:00 in vid now I think, in addition to being a “what would you like to see next” sort of thing, role-flexible dialogue choices can give us insight into the characters thoughts. It’s a way for the game to show “what did this character consider saying.”, without spelling it out like an omniscient narrator might in a book Obviously this isn’t the case for every game, but it’s how I’ve interpreted it in the past

[@ieuanjones1318]

This was a fantastic video. You've made me want to start making youtube videos just to talk about the nature of role-playing spaces in specific games. Dishonoured 1's silent Corvo Attano has always fascinated me in the way that his backstory and circumstances are very heavily established but the way you choose to behave radically reinterprets the kind of man said circumstances made him.

[@therupoe]

What did you think of the sequel's approach?

[@ieuanjones1318]

@@therupoe I hated the sequel for many many reasons, some of them very personal, some of them I think are more genuine complaints. But I do think that one of my legitimate complaints is that while they broadened the player's ability to experiment in the game mechanics, they restricted the character interpretations the player could make through those actions.

[@thirduncle5366]

@@ieuanjones1318Although Dishonored 2 might have more tools and gadgets to engage with in combat scenario's, but D1's combat is still capable of being way more expressive. I am not sure if you referred to combat when you were talking about ''game mechanics'', but that's my take anyway.

[@ieuanjones1318]

@@thirduncle5366 I agree that the game as a whole was less expressive, and I definitely liked it a whole lot less. But there were more systems in the game that people could manipulate (for example linking people's fates and killing one to kill others), and the maps were on average larger with more routes through them. That's mostly what I meant.

[@Tequilamockingbird71]

As bizarre as this may sound, I think the Championship Manager/Football Manager series is one of the very best role-playing games out there. You’re thrown into a simulation that could happily carry on as if you’re not there. Emergent game play follows and the sheer number of choices you have, even how much you delegate, comes to define your play style and the way the world sees you. Players who get a few seasons in end up feeling real attachment to not only their persona in-game but the unique setting that has been generated around their play. It certainly isn’t a series for everyone, especially those who dislike sports/football or need action gameplay, but as a role-playing game it hits the sweet spot between depth, customisation and game design. For me, anyway.

[@Subcomfreak1]

As a Philosophy Grad student who is now getting into games scholarship, thank you for your videos. Always very great.

[@Thehotdogman]

Make a square peg small enough and it'll fit into that circle. Role playing elements and systems have been shaved down to where the best we can do is color an existing character to what we like. I think that's pretty sad. We aren't encouraged to play characters that have actual weaknesses anymore. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. It's not about challenge and creative thinking anymore. Just clicking around until the next cut scene.

[@chiarmahdra8100]

The term "role playing" has been bastardised in general by missunderstanding why something was called "role playing element" in the first place. If you search for RPG you can find almost everything because every game that has some "RP elements" calls itself an RPG. But RPG elements are called that way not because they turn a G into and RPG but because they originated in RPGs. Level based progression, an inventory system, skill trees, diaolg options were all present in RPGs but they are not what made them RPGs. What makes a RPG is the meaningful choice idealy on both story and gameplay level. Fighting with a sword insteat of an axe isn't a meaningful choice on its own and neither is responding to an NPC diplomatically or intimidating. They only become meaningful once there are lasting consequences to what you choose. If axes hit faster and sword allow to parry while both require limited skillpoints to be invested in their individual skills there is a meaningfull coice due to meaningful consequence. Same goes for diaologe where being initimidating might yield me more gold as reward for a quest but beig dipolmatic opens up future quests. So I would claim that the term "weakness" is misplaced as the absence of bonus dosn't neccessarily mean the existence of a malus. Sure this latest trend of having PCs sooner or later become godlike masters at everything is completely counterproductive as it takes away the meaning of every single decision, kills all sense of connection to "your" character (it becomes just the character since it will become the same one no matter who plays it) and denies any value to replaing the game but it is not the lack of weaknesses so much as the devaluation of strenghtes by having them all become inevidable.

[@PsychadelicoDuck]

I'm not a roleplaying type of player, but I feel a similar sadness whenever things like Far Cry's random encounters get called "story", so I think I know how you feel. There's a... looseness of terminology ("bastardization" as Chiar Mahdra calls it, in their comment above) that makes discussion difficult until terms have been set, and a constant narrowing of the game industry through consolidation that leaves many feeling in the lurch.

[@MCArt25]

It's not about "clicking the next cut scene", it's about giving players a sense of empowerment, however fake it may be. The illusion of meaningful choice is a powerful method to have player invest themselves in a game.

[@JosefTrejbal]

Thank you for making this video. While I have loved Telltale Games games, I have always been on the fence what is making me decide the choices - is it what I want to see? Is it how I think the avatar would react? Is it what I think is the most profitable choice? With the option to see the statistics of 'how many % of other people played the role the same' I have decided to blend the choices of 1) what I think the avatar would do, 2) what is in accordance to what was established 3) trying to find the least "popular" (in terms of percentage) role-playing 4) what I would personally do. I might be in the minority but I just wanted to react to what you said at 23:02

[@michaelkindt3288]

The three philosophies you mentioned seem like areas on a spectrum. Even before you mentioned the third philosophy, I got the impression that the other two were on different ends of a spectrum. (Just thought that was interest.)

[@cachotognax3600]

You showed a few frames of Night in the woods, and that reminded me how I interpreted the consequence-free dialogue options: they are a way to force the player to take a side on whatever it's going on, to suck them into the matter at hands and force them to form an opinion. The witcher example can be considered in a similar way, why you don't really have to form an opinion, you have to think about the matter at hand, either way you respond you had to think about the two character and their relationship, it's a way to hammer in some concepts from the developer's side, and for the player a way to internalize the story a bit, it's more of the characters expressing themselves onto the player.

[@etamr60]

I wanted to point out that the multiple endings of the Witcher 3 actually had some kind of "have you played this character truthfully?" vibe to them, especially as one ending is quite tragic, thus showing that role-flexible AAAs go a bit further than purely anecdotal choices. Then I remembered the "bad" ending I got in Blood&Wine (the second dlc), having no choice but to be a kind of a dick to a key character due to a "mistake" in role-playing hours earlier. I remembered agonizing over my lack of a good option, and then seeing the tragedy unfold itself, and I still can't tell if it was good game design or the opposite. The "sad" ending was clearly ill-suited to the celebratory atmosphere of Blood & Wine, but on the other hand the memory of my impotence, of my inability to be good still lingers.

[@boihowdie]

Yo I didn't even realize there was another option until after finishing that DLC. I tried to reload a save and do things differently, but the bad ending still occurred. Then I found out I could have done it differently much earlier as well, and it's probably the best instance of harsh consequence in the whole game.

[@cugzkani2674]

Great video, really liked the structure - it made it easy to follow all the musings along the way. But, I do think these pseudo-rpgs with pre-existing characters (specifically The Walking Dead) do invite you to role-play, it's just a soft-invite (rather than a hard invite, like creating your own character - that way you must fill in the blanks). They let you decide if you want to role-play (think what Lee would do) or not (save who you like more). I also think there's a happy medium in The Witcher 3, where you have to choose a play style, and have just a smidge of character/dialogue options to feel enough as some what role-playing (having a pre-existing character is probably important for AAA games for marketable design and voice acting...). And as a final though, I wonder why all of these avatar games where the players mundane actions, rather than big story-choices (ie, murdering in the tens and hundreds rather than save/harvest little sisters), are reflected in the characters story (Spec-Ops, TLoU, Far Cry 3) all came out in the span of a few years of 2012? At least it felt like that to me at the time... Maybe it was just developers independently reacting to the critique of "ludonarrative dissonance"... at roughly the same time, for some reason...

[@JeremyComans]

The Walking Dead, especially, I think was an issue of expectation. I think that series set up the expectation that you would define the story far more than you could. But I thought it very successfully engaged me with the kind of protagonist I wanted to be, like how I would relate to the characters around me.

[@MrDarksbane]

Love it: Will the captions indicate which games were on screen because I didn't see an indication of game titles when they were being shown. I was particularly fascinated by the RPGs you showed at the beginning: I want to say Baldurs Gate, Vampire: TM Bloodlines and you named Tyranny, but I wasn't sure of others.

[@JosephDavies]

A list of featured games would be welcome as there are some here that look pretty interesting and I think I was able to Google them based on some keywords (races and location names), but it would be nice to be certain since sometimes multiple games exist in a particular storytelling universe.

[@nyghtly-derek]

Great video. This is one of my favorite topics! I had some thoughts of my own after watching it... I feel that "classic" digital RPGs are not as true to tabletop as we imagine them to be. In fact, I would go further and say that they are not any different from the "role-flexible" style games as you describe them. Ultimately, the player is still choosing from a limited set of character roles. More importantly, the *performance* of those roles is also pre-determined. Yes, you can design a charismatic Vampire on the character creation screen. And yes, you will be presented with persuasive dialogue options as a way of validating your choices during character creation. But ultimately it is the game that decides when and where your charisma matters, how much it matters, and exactly how your charismatic actions are performed. Two players of a tabletop RPG can both be handed a cookie-cutter character sheet and yet they will perform that character in two completely different ways, and thus generate truly unique gameplay experiences. On the contrary, a charismatic character in Bloodlines will always talk their way out of the exact same situations in the exact same ways, regardless of who the player is. The choice is binary: to be charismatic or not. In the end, it's just a really complicated hypertext, rather than a truly co-authored experience. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this kind of game. I just think it's interesting to consider that--despite the namesake--digital RPGs never even came close to capturing the tabletop role-playing experience. That's not to say that tabletop-style co-authorship isn't possible in video games. EVE Online comes to mind...

[@b.janisch4108]

Fantastic Vid. Pls keep up the good work!

[@mr.fluffyface431]

I like these General Topic videos way better than the The ones that are about one particular game.

[@willheisdarkrock6286]

Glad you highlighted Tyranny, such a (hidden?) gem of a game!

[@AssassinFOURnolan]

I've just gotten back into vampire TM bloodlines in prepping for the new one, nice to see you have too.

[@sageferreira1533]

It seems like Dragon Age blurs the lines a bit even between the newer hybrid approach and the older roleplay (which might be why there wasn't any footage of it here?), at least in the newer games. Origins slots comfortably into roleplay, Dragon Age 2 arguably into role-flexible - though like the two Shepards, there's technically "three Hawkes" to choose from, and some choices regarding gender and magehood that give a little wiggle room - but what about Inquisition? On the face of it, describing the character creation process, it seems like you have a roleplaying game once again. But the Inquisitor does seem to be fairly defined as a character (or perhaps a set of characters, like Hawke and Shepard before them?) as someone who is extremely determined, who has a certain amount of innate charisma, who inspires people without necessarily meaning to. On the third, mutant hand, there are irreconcilable differences between, say, a fervently religious human Templar-in-training who believes themselves chosen and that they deserve the power they have been given, and an agnostic Vashoth mage who doesn't think they were chosen for anything and believes everyone made a mistake in choosing them as Inquisitor, both of which are possible to some degree to shape using in-game choices. There's something in here about voice acting, too, and the lack of a flaw system in any of the Dragon Age games, but I'll leave that for others to muse on.

[@scrollkeeper5272]

You could have talked about how the player sometimes has to fill plot holes by adding your own pieces of narrative or expression.

[@legojayman]

Excellent video! I feel like I've somehow always known this but never could put my finger on it

[@flyrefi]

Genuinely love this video. Put a lot of my thoughts about those "role-flexible" systems into words. Edit: Surprised you didn't use Firewatch as an example! I can't think of any game more invested in the role-flexible concept.

[@MarquisdeL3]

I think of it this way: if full rpgs are asking you what you'd like for dessert, the rp-flexible games are asking you what flavor of ice cream you'd like (or if you'd like vanilla, chocolate, or twist if it's particularly restrictive).

[@fortunatesoul12]

No idea what the video is about yet, but I am so glad for a new one. Cheers

[@fortunatesoul12]

Fck, that was so good

[@SebastienDelfino]

One can absolutely roleplay to the game, not as an abstraction or an internal narrative outside the game but in mechanic, every time the game allows for player choices to actually define their character, and for the game world to react to the character's stands. For instance, the Witcher and Mass Effect have touched on this by allowing your own version of the PC to resolve quest in various ways and most RPGs try their hand to it. Usually without much depth, simply because it's a radical design choice that quickly influence the scope or the type of games you can make. But if we commit, we can design games in which deciding "who you are" is actually part of the core mechanics, and tehrefore of the main experience. For instance, storylines that actually demands players chose a side in a conflict, games which dialog options are actually crafted to be expressive of the character's feelings, opinions and relationships, games that modifies your stats based on how you choose to solve problems (for instance, every time you beat down the opposition, you gain strength, and sometimes you may loose speech abilities) "choose your own adventure" designed to open and close storylines depending on wether you've been ruthless, distant or caring, interaction with opinionated NPCs reflecting how you positioned your character in the game world and opening or closing some avenues... This kind of design is rarely compatible with full-3D, triple A products but it's been done before (from the original Deus Ex to many TellTale games, within Firewatch, Sunless Sea or even Darks Souls, it's more in focus in Divinity : Original Sin 2 or Oxenfree...). It's doable, and I'd argue it's one of the most interesting things we can do within an interactive media : allow player's to position themselves in the fiction, through gameplay. It's largela the essence of table-top rpgs...

[@scatterbrains9]

@12:04 "Line in the sand" Very Alan Moore, I love it

[@tastygravy4410]

With the third type of character, thoes minuet, insignificant choices, while not impacting the core story, impact you, the player. It further immerses you by giving you the choice of what to say; what joke do you make, how do you respond, etc. These choices impact how you chose to play the character, thereby impacting the story. For example, when I was playing assassin's creed odyssey, I *chose* that kassandra would be kind and that *she* would chose to not accept payment for certain jobs. This developed from making constant similar, insignificant choices prior. Does it matter that I chose to be nice? No. But it does define kassandra as I play her, shaping how I make truely important story choices.

[@ZandoFox]

Ironically, most "role playing games" are actually more avatar based, according to your distinction here

[@daddyespressodepresso2207]

I think the quote from Dr. Bowman at 3:53 can still be interpreted to include single player rpgs. A sense of community can expressed through an in-game "society" of npc's for the player to interact with. And a shared storytelling experience can be expressed through multiple playthroughs with different characters and / or shared experiences outside of the medium. Like discussing with a friend about how your character dealt with a particularly difficult choice. Just a thought.

[@dolvana]

Excellent work!

[@DannyThePatton]

could be interesting to take Bowman’s exclusively multiplayer analysis and apply it to the context of the community around single player rpgs and the metagame of relating to each other and talking to each other about the world through the metaphor of the game, and the unique role each player takes within its systems

[@bnjkf9u3]

Could you tell me what "Bowman's multiplayer analysis" is? Sounds interesting but I can't find it on KZbin :/

[@DannyThePatton]

@@bnjkf9u3 It's in the book quoted at 2:43, which seems to concern mainly tabletop role playing games. Campster goes on to say that these ideas can't really be applied to single player RPGs, but I was drawing a very vague parallel between the communal experience of a tabletop RPG and the way that players of a single player RPG can relate to one another through it

[@vin-cc9nk]

I think this trend of 'role-flexible' characters was probably popularized by Mass Effect's Commander Shepard. That transition from role-playing characters to this new model makes sense when you think about BioWare's history: from their beginnings with the Infinity Engine in the late 90's to making big budget mainstream games under EA in the late 00's.

[@VahnCruz]

I find these more introspective based videos of yours help me appreciate games in a deeper way, not just 'is this fun' but more 'wow, this is a great system or look at this subtle animation'. Not just as entertainment but perhaps as a form of story, art, sound, movement and engineering appreciation. A game can have a horrible story yet intriguing gameplay, the controls could be horrible but its story and music rises above it.

[@LE0NSKA]

15:22 I think those are the most expressive and hilarious dance animations I've seen in any videogame lol

[@Multi_Plays]

I think some of the most intriguing and entertaining roleplay games involve having a preset past. But choosing a future. I find sliding into a character just as fun a making a whole new one of my own.

[@ImpulseEqualsVCubed]

This was a thought provoking video! I do find myself disagreeing a bit with how the typology is constructed, specifically in terms of how the Witcher 3 fits into it. The example dialogue choice has no impact on the story or gameplay, but I could pick similar examples from more true role playing games. Unlike in Horizon Zero Dawn, your choices in the Witcher 3 can lead to key characters dying and significant differences in how the overarching story plays out and concludes. There are very significant choices that you can make as Geralt throughout the game, and I think it does raise to the level of role playing rather than merely player preference. At least, that is how I engaged with the character. There were several major decisions that I spent a decent amount of time considering now what my preference is but rather what Geralt as a character would do, given what I new about him from the lore and also how I had chosen to express him up until that point. I consider the Witcher 3 a role playing game proper because the game invites the player to play a role and explore it within some constraints. The choices you are asked to make are not like those in the Walking Dead, which I do agree tend to boil down to player preference: they are choices that instead ask questions about who Geralt is as a character and the role Witchers have in the fictional society. That being said, I do agree that Geralt is clearly not the traditional Western RPG character which you are free to create however you want (within the constraints of the game system) and who is defined almost entirely through player choice. But where I think the Witcher 3 succeeds as a roleplaying game is by building the constraints of your character into the game mechanics. As such, I'd personally place the Witcher 3 somewhere between the typology of the traditional RPG character and the avatar which facilitates expression but not choice.

[@minch333]

This was such a great video! One of your best, honestly. I really like your analogy of viewing oneself as an actor within more scripted rpgs. When playing the Witcher 3, my feeling was similar in that I felt like I was Geralt's confidant, that I had considerable influence over his final decisions, but that ultimately I wasn't him. I thought this was a great strength of the game given it's writing, since its interesting moral and social dilemmas could not have happened if I had the freedom to play Geralt as a lying, drunken religious zealot or whatever. Ahhhh, I could go on but I can't be arsed to type anymore, sorry! Again though, really good video :)

[@leviadragon99]

single-player roleplaying games have always been one of my favourite kinds of games, and I've played a lot of the genre, glad to see a little love for their particular niche.

[@Schrammletts]

I'd argue that role-playing is a response to decision making more than a choice in itself. When the player is presented with a choice, they mentally can contextualize that as a choice they make as a player or as a choice they make as the character by consciously breaking with the game's association of player with player character. Role playing games generally accomplish this by giving the player lots of choices for expression, but I first experienced this break with Spec Ops. There came a point in the game where I felt too alienated from Walkers actions to mentally associate myself with the character. In effect, I accepted the game's thesis and instead acted as I thought Walker would. That separation between player and player character can come from a number of sources

[@Stephen-Fox]

I'd say I never really do the embodiment in games, but I'm sat here in January 2021 and still putting on a pyjama-esque set of clothes at the end of each New Horizons session and having my character climb into bed before save and quitting (Except for when I'm going to be firing the game up later that day, then I just go inside my house before doing so). Honestly I think that's the most roleplay I've ever done when playing a single player game - including ones with plot critical decisions. A small, little thing, I do during my sessions of Animal Crossing that serves zero gameplay function but which feels like it makes my character's actions within that world more believable as somehting someone would do. The rest likely is determined by exactly what games I've played - I haven't gotten around to Disco Elysium yet but I hear it does a great job of avoiding the issues I'm about to describe so maybe that will work for me in a way the various games I've played that attempt to facilitate roleplay just, fundamentally, haven't, so I'm looking forward to that. Outside of that, it's always "What do I think is the best choice" or "What narrative outcome do I want to see" (or "How does the game's systems want me to play this" in the worst scenarios) - if there's the scope to make any choices at all, the games I've played with that scope don't give me nearly enough hooks into a character to be able to make decisions that make sense to me for that character to make, or respond to who my character is with enough depth to really make me feel like I'm playing anything but a Generic Person Unit. The ones that give me enough hook into the character to possibly roleplay them tend to be linear, or lakcing in narrative despite not being linear, adventures, story driven (Final Fantasy) or otherwise (Zelda). Stop giving me blank slates and asking me to roleplay them in more meaningful ways than going to bed at the end of each session of Animal Crossing. I can't roleplay a blank slate in a meaningful way. At best I can project myself onto a blank slate (and it's never a good fit) Your comment about questlines that can shape your character and the world around them actually brings up another issue I tend to have trying to roleplay in video games - It makes zero sense to me, from anything but a "This is content to be consumed" sense, for questlines to not do this. I don't have to decide what activities makes more sense for my character to do in most RPGs. My character can do everything. A character getting to the highest rank in multiple guilds makes zero sense from a world or character perspective, but Elder Scrolls games? It's almost expected. Even on a smaller scale - People will be waiting for days, weeks, or months of in game time for me to solve whatever minor problem they're having, and the main quest will wait patiently for days, weeks, or months of in game time for me to deal with whatever minor problems I decide to deal with. This makes sense from a gameplay systems perspective, but puts one hell of a brick wall between me and actually roleplaying my character - It makes my decisions of what parts of the game world my character engages with feel like they lack any sort of consequences. Visual Novels and Twine games - and the visual novel segments in stuff like Persona 3-5 - can do better there, but tend to hit even harder on the 'I'm either picking what I'd do or what story content I want to see rather than playing a character' problem for me.

[@Lairdom]

I love Skyrim for this reason. I can tailor the game to suit whatever character I want to roleplay next. Implementing more and more choices for a game that already has quite deep roleplaying potential to begin with (for a modern game). At this point its less of a "what does the game has in store for me", but rather me knowing exactly what is going to happen and i'm just tailoring the events that lead to that outcome for a good narrative. For example, I know the college of winterhold quest line pretty thoroughly so I can roleplay my novice mage better knowing that next day you are going to be delving into the cave. Is my character afraid of darkness or spiders? Knowing when you are forced to do stuff your character wouldnt do helps me avoid certain quests or mod them in a way that allows me to finish them differently, in a way my character would do.

[@Dorumin]

This is why AI dungeon is one of the most interesting games I've played, it flips roleplaying games on its head and I wonder how it will progress with time

[@chickensangwich97]

One thing that I like about the third style which you describe is that it narrows the range of personality traits a character can have, while still giving the player room enough to emphasize the ones they like. That narrowing makes a world of difference as a writer. It’s tremendously hard to tell a story whose central protagonist can be either a generous saint or a total douche and have the story still be compelling and personal, and make the character in any incarnation still be interesting and reacting to the events around them naturally. If we know that, say, Geralt is a skeptic with a dry sense of humor but genuine affection for the people in his life, we know enough about him to write a scenario that will always mean something to this character, but leave the audience enough space to decide for themselves just what that will be. Geralt can come out with an ultimately positive view of humanity, or be the world’s deepest cynic, or somewhere in between. He can be a loving father to Ciri or uncomfortable and distant. Any of these make sense, and we can write a complete tale with complete arcs out of them, because we have a clearer starting picture.

[@theonetheoriginal]

Another good one. I would love to see you review the original 3 part Mass Effect series and your thoughts on the Indoctrination Theory. Not sure if you saw the original 2 Indoctrination Theory videos by the now defunct Clevernoobs but it was pretty interesting and is still around on KZbin. Anyway, hope to see your analysis. Always enjoy the videos and insight. Keep it up.

[@seeranos]

Crusader Kings II has one of the more interesting player character structures. Like a role playing character, you get to shape their life toward wildly different potential outcomes, but you do not get to customize your character to be your expression of a role. (In dlc you can but in a basic game, you just get to pick from a world of characters who already have ancestries and dynasties.)

[@wasd____]

The "series of abilities, typically from three tiers for some reason" is because of World of Warcraft. Character classes are customized (I would argue it was mostly ever pseudo-customization, since there were objectively best builds for various gameplay roles people wanted to fill) by choosing from one of three specialization trees. It worked well enough and World of Warcraft was a big enough and famous enough money-printer that it kind of set the expectation and the trope for character "customization" with its system.

[@Altorin]

I've been playing baldurs gate 2 ee with a couple friends for a couple months and we've basically been roleplaying. Not super strictly acting but really sort of getting into the headspace of our own characters. My character is Rekham. He is an evil Kensai. He immediately took Jaheira as a healing slave until we got Viconia. But before getting Viconia he took Jaheira aside and killed her. Then he took Viconia as a slave wife. He is not nice. Another character we added when a friend briefly played with us for a night is a Blackguard named Urg the Half-eaten. Urg the Half-eaten was found in a Tomb that was infested with illithids. When we found her she was being eaten by an Illithid. She has 3 intelligence and can barely communicate. She used to be a paladin who was drawn to the tomb by the ghostly denizens wanting a savior to save their remains from the illithid. She was unsuccessful and the brain damage she suffered due to the injury removed all of the Good in her and left only a little bit of evil personality and a honed martial capability. We consider her kind of like a Michael Myers or Leatherface killer. We also avoid using restoration magic on her. Because we like Urg the way she is!

[@duelverse8815]

Hey errant do you think you could talk about Headliner: NoviNews ? I think that’s a game that’s right up your alley.

[@birdsongphylactery]

One issue with the role-flexible design is side quests. Where in an rpg, if you don’t do a side quest you just didn’t, in Assassins creed 3 not doing Homestead missions basically makes you miss out on a huge aspect of Connor’s motivation. Just mentioned rdr2 but it’s the same, not going on fishing trips and such just makes you miss out on character backstory.

[@newtonswig]

Great watch! I get what you’re saying about role flexible games vs the classic RPG model. The game is no longer structurally ludic. But I think reality isn’t structurally ludic for most people. Most people don’t get to change their irl role, just change their way of looking at it, most of the time. And that’s what these games offer- an experience of a life, Heideggerean Thrownness (roughly, being stuck in your own role) and all. Perhaps these are unfree games for unfree people?

[@Danmarinja]

That point about skill trees seems like it’s a response to people’s FOMO, where people are scared of not getting everything possible, rather than being a specific character that lends far more choice and performing that role. Seems like proper Role Playing is too niche for a lot of developers and writers these days.

[@teh1archon]

Fantastic video

[@KatyLevinson]

I'm a big fan and really love your work. Unfortunately, for me, and I mean this a constructively as possible, this particular video is unwatchable. I mean this literally: if I look at the screen, I am currently not able to understand what you say. For most of the first 6+ minutes, the screen is covered with constantly changing text that has nothing to do with the content. I haven't found a way to focus past it to understand you, even on repeat viewings. By the time we're out of that section, I'm really confused and struggle to tune back in and catch up. The fact that the video frequently cuts back to this visual/audio clash does not help. I don't know what percentage of people have this problem, but I do know enough people struggle with this that Lindsay Ellis has a whole thing about it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3aQZ4BtfseBias With her, I can at least visually focus on her during the text/audio clash to follow what she says. With your video, there is nothing to visually focus on during these sections that corresponds to your voice or content, and so I get lost. I love your work otherwise though.

[@SvenSimonsen]

I have a related, but also differing problem with the video. I specifically find the clicking around in character creation screens used as backdrop for this video SUPER distracting to the point where I will restart the video after writing this comment, and hide the video to concentrate on the talking. I think the problem is related to me knowing the underlying systems and getting lost in thinking about them and daydreaming about roleplaying scenarios in general.

[@SaiScribbles]

Dragon Age 2 has the most interesting "flexible" character in that Hawke has some very set traits and circumstances but you can guide him or her toward three very distinct personalities, or blend them, and the game will invisibly change things based on which way you lean. Dragon Age and Mass Effect both have high player authorship and people get pretty attached to their version of the player character while also having good character writing.

[@TempestDacine]

Since you mentioned the sims I'd love to hear you talk about games like ar no surge, undertale, or baten kaitos where your role as the man behind the curtain is acknowledged or subverted.

[@soshspotgames4380]

please...what were the first 2 (?) games you showed in this video? o_o

[@donovanwestwater7945]

Red angel has a video that kinda relates to this topic but focuses on popular rpg maker games instead. I recommend it if anyone want to explore the topic further.

[@donovanwestwater7945]

@TheXJ47 Parasocial relationships in OFF, Undertale, and Oneshot

[@GertrondeBaggins]

I have to hand in my master's thesis at the end of the month and my topic is the player-avatar relationship. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to write more than 50 pages and so I had to pick only two games as examples and I chose to leave RPGs aside. I rely a lot on 'Rules of Play' which I think is fine for a first attempt at writing on video games, but it is true that it is becoming a bit outdated. Finding accessible academic writings on video games is tough, especially when you do not belong to the field. I may be wrong, but I also feel like there is a general lack of consensus on many notions in video gaming. I believe that when you play a video game you experience double-consciousness, you merge with your avatar and take on its attributes, including its personality, and you act accordingly within a reality that you accept as real for the duration of play. Because you never lose track of your own reality, it's just pushed back to the edge of your mind, you also always know that the character is not you per se. It all comes down to the experience, as in experiencing a world, a role, but also a gameplay. I don't mind having no agency on a character's personality and choices, as long as the other features of the game satisfy me.

[@viktorberzinsky4781]

I want the role-playing characters who I can select personality traits for which effect how dialogue options come out or which ones are available and perhaps choose the voice they say it in.

[@Marinealver]

It's been a while since we had an editorial piece on a topic instead of a game.

[@ErrantSignal]

It's tough - I'm far enough removed from game academia at this point that it's hard to find topics, and also it's hard to not veer into some really super questionable sloganeering like I did here. There's good work being done in academia, and I'd love to be able to cover more of it, but from my current vantage point it's kinda hard.

[@streak1burntrubber]

There's another side to skills I notice too, like you see in the Borderlands games. Sure, some of your choices can make a little bit of a difference in the sort of character you are playing as, like if you want to be more stealthy than confrontational, but often it's less of a change of character and more of a simple change of gameplay. Like, say I'm playing as Krieg. I could build the character to beat the crap out of enemies with an axe, or I could build the character to light himself and enemies on fire, or build into a tree literally called "Bloodlust". Or some combination of them. But I'm a psychopathic "hero" character either way. My choice didn't really change Krieg's character in any meaningful way, just the gameplay. He's just as much a crazy maniac in one tree as the others.

[@stevethepocket]

I was going to say. He focused almost exclusively on role playing as a form of self expression, but often people choose their character builds based on their preferred play style. In this way, it acts as a more complex and personal form of a difficulty slider-you can either choose a play style that you feel will give you the easiest time, or pick something else to intentionally challenge yourself.

[@streak1burntrubber]

@@stevethepocket not just play style either. With those rpg sliders (stamina, intelligence, dexterity, etc), a lot of the time you build into stats to use various gear you collect with stat requirements. Most of the time when i see those bars, that's what I'm thinking of. Not "oh, i want a smart character", but thinking of how the stats will affect my dps and survivability. That's less play stile and more just general progression. I see roleplay less in terms of stats and more in terms of the character you pick. Bloodlust Kreig and Hellborn Kreig might not be very different in personality, but Kreig and Zero definitely are.

[@TonkarzOfSolSystem]

11:44 I think it's important to note that different people will respond to same game events in different ways when it comes to whether an event or action is done by the player or by the character. It's not something that is 100% controlled by the game itself.

[@DensetsuVII]

Surprised there wasn't mention for games like Kentucky Route Zero here - I've always found that one in particular a compelling argument for the player-as-actor modality in a single player context - it's not for you to be 'you' but rather to empathize and express the feelings of the character you're playing. True, and also sad, that most games co-opting these mechanics aren't using them that way, but as a tremendous fan of the single player RPG, the parallels to the challenges and joys of acting are, I think, an untapped lens in which to view this part of game design~

[@christophermiller3031]

heavy rain is an example of a story heavy narrative game... yet... the mechanics the player is given to control slight movements... and have him fail OR win had me REALLY feel on control and at one with the father of the year... JASON! Shenmue is another game with a defined character I played that I was also able to merge with... to become... becoming one with a video game character is hard to explain as I fear I don't have the words... it's almost like lucid dreaming...

[@seraaron]

Great video. One thing I hoped you would mention but didn't was those games where the dialogue options are forced on you, not even as an illusion of choice, like when you choose dialogue option 1 (e.g. will you help us? ... no) and then either an NPC or sometimes even your own character (as internal monologue) tells you to try again and pick the 'right' option. (e.g. come on that's not like you, please will you help us?) Sometimes it even continues to give you to option to choose the 'wrong' answer, putting you in an endless loop until you effectively agree to the games terms and conditions. I see this mostly in JRPGs and they almost always make me mad, like why the hell is there an option in the first place? Persona 5 is maybe the only good example of this, because it literally asks you to agree to it's terms and conditions at the start, and if you refuse then it boots you back to the main menu. I suppose the baptism moment in Bioshock Infinite is similar, you either agree or stop playing the game. I do wonder what the point of those sorts of moments are though... If there's only one scripted outcome then why give a choice at all?

[@birdsongphylactery]

I feel like Red Dead 2 suffered due to the role-flexible thing. Arthur has a character, one that even goes through an arc, but the game encourages you to play him as either ‘bad’ or ‘good’ to the degree that it changes many end-game things. the problem is Arthur isn’t either of those things and so it often doesn’t match up.

[@mlovecraftr]

Was that Warlords Battlecry at the beginning? From around 0:30 to 1:20

[@kingkasper4950]

What game are you playing in the beginning of the video???? It looks like D&D but i dnt recognize the game itself.

[@zachthecool4321]

As a 1 year drop out game designer i can say you did fucking great research here.