The Physical Character:
The physical dimension of a character is the easiest to show to players, especially in visual media such as video games. This dimension is all about how the character's look reflect their personality. But this alone does not make a well-rounded character: we need to include the other dimensions as well.
The Sociological Character:
This dimension includes a characters past, their upbringing and their environment, both local and cultural. If a character has a past, then their actions have a reason, rather than being tacked on for the sake of it. The environment aspect includes both where the character grew up, and where they are now. It is very easy to get carried away with a character's backstory, and end up with a huge list of unimportant details. The backstory should only serve to provide relevant information that helps to mold the character.
The Psychological Character:
For a player to bond with a character, they need to know as much as they can about that character. The trick is for the player to get to know the character, without the character explaining everything themselves. As Sheldon advises, characters who explain themselves are not only boring, but not true-to-life. Very few people know everything about themselves, even the most self-centered people. If a character is well-written, then they won't have to explain themselves - they are revealed by what they choose to do.
It is often very enjoyable to an audience to know more than the characters know. Watching a character do something that they do not realise is detrimental to their situation can be amusing, or nail-bitingly awkward. Either way it will evoke that extra level of emotion from the audience or player.
It is best to reveal a character's psychological dimension in a moment of crisis. It is easier for a character to keep their cool when everything is going well, but the mask tends to get stripped away when they are under pressure.
Character Progression:
Good stories will have their major characters change as the story progresses. This can be in the form of growth, or development, which are both different aspects.
Growth:
Character growth describes the changes that occur to a character as they progress through the story. Growth helps to portray a fully developed character, but also serves to assist in the storytelling. To have character growth, we must first be aware of where the character is, psychologically, at the start of the story. Sheldon says that if a character begins triumphant we'll have to tear him down, and that if he starts in the gutter, it will be a lot easier to enjoy the road he takes to the throne.
Development:
Development is less about change, and more about unveiling information. Information may be revealed to the player, that the character will never know.
The Pivotal Character:
A pivotal character is one that sets the story in motion: they create conflict and make the story move forward. The pivotal character can be either the protagonist or the antagonist. Many RPGs begin with an evil force already at work, and the player character then reacts to the resulting crisis. If they are neither the protagonist or the antagonist, then the story must still have a pivotal character. Sometimes the sidekick is the pivotal character. A good pivotal character must have something very vital at stake. In Jak & Daxter the sidekick, Daxter, is the one that sets the story in motion. Jak's journey is the search to help Daxter regain his original physical form, after being transformed into a rodent.
The Player-Character:
The player character, while the hardest to keep entertaining, is arguably the most important character in a game story. The player character is the most complex character in the story: the player will learn more about them than any other character. The player character is normally a direct link between the player and the game, and how he interacts with the game world reveals much about his nature and the nature of the game.
When creating characters for a video game, writers must ask several questions that writers of other media don't have to face.
Is the player character meant only to be controlled by the player, or is it meant to be the player?
In most games the player character is kept distinctly separate from the player, and serves as the player's puppet. Sometimes, the player becomes the lead character in the game, most often in games where the point of view is first person. The intention behind allowing players to play themselves in a game, is to add a greater level of immersion. In earlier text adventures, referring to the player as "you" helped the reality of the worlds. Most games today however, feature player characters that are distinct from players. This is for several reasons, which Sheldon lists:
- Computer games are happiest as a visual medium, and text is usually suffered only as a necessity.
- We have a tradition of empathising with characters in other visual media such as film, television, and live drama.
- Games today are attempting more sophisticated storytelling. We see this even in the development of the Myst games where the first is nothing more than the unraveling of a backstory, and the later sequels feature ongoing story in which the player character becomes actively involved.
It is now accepted that a greater immersion is actually possible if the player character is not a representation of the player. This is because we can empathise with well drawn fictional characters; because players recognise the significance that these made-up protagonists play in a story; and because with them it is far easier to involve a player in the fictional narrative.
Is the player character original, or based on a character from another medium?
While adapting a character from another medium sees a lot of the work being already done for you, it does create new work. The characters actions have to remain true to the original character at all times, or the character will feel false to the player. With this in mind, the gameplay must keep the character in mind: a game as open-ended as Grand Theft Auto wouldn't fit a character like James Bond, because he is not likely to want to gun down innocent citizens.
How much does the player know about about the character?
From an early stage, the write must decide how much of the player character's innermost thoughts are shared with the player. The writer must then decide how fleshed out the character should be. Villains are generally more fun to write, but we want the player to identify with the protagonist most. If a player character is too fully drawn, then the player may have trouble identifying with them, because they may differ too much from the player (speech, attitude, ethics, favourite sports, etc).
The writer must then keep the knowledge between the player and the player character balanced. In a film it can be beneficial for the viewer to know more than the protagonists, but in a game it can ruin the immersion if the player has too much knowledge. Sheldon insists "never, ever, ever consider amnesia as a means to keep the knowledge shared by the player character and the player consistent. It's such a cliché that to call it a cliché is a cliché." This seems like sounds advice, because there are plenty of alternatives to deal with sharing knowledge between the player and player character.
One way to balance the knowledge is to make sure that surprises in the story are surprises to both the player and the player character. To effectively maintain the fictional reality of the character, try to avoid setting up puzzles and tasks where the player character would know what to do, but the player themselves has to learn from scratch.
How much does the character know about the player?
Some player characters do what is known as "breaking the fourth wall". This is where the character acknowledges the existence of the audience or player. One example is the real time strategy game Warcraft: if you click on a character repeatedly you'll get a normal in-game response. However, if you click on a character too many times without issuing an actually order, then they tend to get angry and yell at you. This breaks the fourth wall in a humorous fashion, but also serves to help get the player back on track.
If the player character needs certain skills, does the player need to have them too?
A single game will often feature many types of gameplay. Shooters feature adventure-game-like puzzles. Role-playing games can require the hand-eye coordination of an FPS. However, simulations are one type of gameplay that doesn't travel so well. As Sheldon says, Nothing breaks a player's willing suspension of disbelief more than when they are required to be a master marksman, but must work like crazy to hit the broad side of a barn.
Similarly, if an RPG aimed at a large audience requires a high level of FPS skill to be successful in combat, this also creates a dilemma. RPG players are less likely to have honed the reflexes needed to be skilled swordsmen, or to "chain" a number of keystrokes to trigger special combat moves.
If the player can control more than one character, how does this affect the NPCs and storytelling?
Non-player characters serve to populate the game world, and move the story along. They also provide a focus for the player's emotion, when the death of the player character is likely to evoke frustration more than sadness. The death of an army won't usually affect the player much more than being annoyed at having to restart the level, but the death of one of the player character's companions can be a potent source for much deeper emotion.
A lot of players don't want to read walls of writing, and some players will spam the ESC key at the slightest hint of text. A common solution is to provide NPCs. The more NPCs you have, the more digestible pieces you can break your story into.
While major characters are essential to the story, minor characters are also very important. They serve to add to the verisimilitude of the setting. Minor characters don't need anywhere as much detail as the major characters do, but they still often have crucial, albeit sometimes brief, roles to play in the game. If they aren't necessarily needed for the story, they can still be useful to the player (merchants, quest givers, etc).
We don't always have the luxury of being able to flesh out our characters in long descriptive paragraphs, like a novelist does, but when it comes to sketching our characters vividly, we still have quite a few tools at our disposal:
- Recognisable character types or personalities, such as the talkative salesman, the flirty barmaid, or the tough assassin, etc. The problem is that these personalities can very easily turn into stereotypes. We need to give the characters some kind of twist to keep them unique, such as a serving wench actually being very prim and proper.
- Professions that can quickly tell the player, from previous experience, what role they are expected to play: librarian, policeman, ticket clerk, etc.
- Physical Mannerisms. Does the character twitch? Do they shy away from people? Do they reach for a weapon?
- Turns of phrase or accents. If someone insists they are trustworthy they probably aren't.
- Clothes. A beggar will not be the ideal person to ask for a loan. A scantily clad woman is probably not the best person to bring home to meet the family.
- Distinct attitudes and opinions. A few short phrases sprinkled throughout the conversation. "Yup, the mayor has a mule for sale, but count yer change. He's a politician."
Not all extras talk, but they are equally important as ones that do. A city street is normally busy in the daytime, so if the streets were empty it would be hard to justify designing the city in that way. That's why a lot of games are set in abandoned/post apocalyptic environments, as it's easier than creating more extras. In computer games, extras tend to have one line that they repeat, which brushes off the player (either politely or impolitely), and informs them that they have nothing to offer that will further the story or enhance gameplay.
Avoiding Stereotypes:
The list of stereotypes is an extremely long one - Sheldon lists quite a few of the well known ones: "Square-jawed heroes, hook-nosed villains, gravity-defying big-breasted women, wise-cracking cowardly sidekicks, wily thieves, scheming clerics, wise bearded magicians, old crone-like witches, stubborn dwarves, grass-chewing rustics..." I'm going to endeavour to avoid as many of these as possible when creating the story for my style guide.
There are many reasons why even good writers may fall prey to the allure of stereotyping:
- They might not realise they are stereotyping. It takes time and experience to observe and absorb knowledge, and we never know when a bit of seemingly useless information will prove valuable.
- Stereotypes are easy to write, because the work has already been done for us.
- We may justify their inclusion by citing time constraints. Deadlines make it very tempting to cut corners and convince ourselves we will go back and fill in the gaps later.
- Stereotypes are often confused with archetypes.
- Some types of games, like RPGs, rely on them for player character creation. Players want to play the stealthy rogue, the benevolent cleric, the elven archer. Since these characters are developed very mechanically on purpose, they should occupy a special exception to the rule. The largest problem with the game in this case may not lie with stereotyped characters at all, but the stereotypical setting you want them to live in.
