This is sort of a stream of consciousness that starts with the problem of animation selection and ends in the invention of instanced etiquette.
The final result of any logic that we are going to build is an animation played by a character. This animation may be modified by a pose (to express tiredness e.g. or personality).
Sometimes animations will be played by two characters synchronously (playing with each other, hugging, etc). This motivates us, combined with a reluctance towards individuality, to think of this animation being chosen by the situation rather than the individual actor.
If individual characters have to perform animations synchronously, they would have to communicate with each other about the choice of animation and when to get started. This is messy.
This means that, at least when the situation consists of more than one actor, one could think of the situation itself as possessing the knowledge about the mood that motivates behaviour, rather than the individual actors. This would mean that each actor agrees on the mood of the situation. This may not be realistic but it might be good enough. Giving the actors the freedom to choose whether or not to do what the situation dictates is messy. Perhaps we can call this “mood of the situation” etiquette.
Now, how does the situation gauge the mood? And do we allow for a measure of randomness?
A lot depends on the characters. On their personality and their state (or mood). But coming to a single conclusion about the mood of a scene, based on these parameters, is boring. This is where randomness can be our friend. So that when a weak girl meets an aggressive monster, the chance exists that she greets him with fond enthusiasm.
These leads us to causality. If the monster responds favourably, then the two characters can become friends. This would drastically reduce the chances of e.g. the girl being eaten.
If the monster responds negatively, the girl doesn’t necessarily have to give up. This depends on the narrative goal of the situation. And how strong it is. If there is a strong “pressure from etiquette” to become friends with the monster, the girl may be motivated to remain nice until the goal of friendship has been reached, or a more prominent goal has surfaced (e.g. survival if the monster becomes menacing).
There may be a problem with thinking of the situation or etiquette being the core of the system in terms of modularity and reusability. Do we need to have multiple instances of etiquette, one for each encounter? Or does a single “master brain” suffice (with the dreaded spectre of the Drama Manager looming on the horizon)?
On the other hand, when we think of real etiquette, it still applies even when a character is alone. And also, and perhaps more importantly, perhaps the etiquette actually only needs to exists where the player’s avatar is -at least for the kind of games that we want to make. We could consider etiquette to be a sort of stretching bubble that includes only the characters in the vicinity of the player’s avatar.
A problem with avatar-centric etiquette is obviously that characters outside of the sphere of influence will behave like animals. 🙂
So how do animals behave? The general answer is “on instinct”. Perhaps instinct is also a form of etiquette. Perhaps instinct could be replaced by etiquette. To prevent them from behaving like animals.
What does this mean?
What if all characters walk around with an etiquette bubble? When they meet each other, one character will be enveloped in the other’s etiquette bubble. Which etiquette bubble wins is randomly decided. If one of the characters is the player, then the player’s bubble always wins. It doesn’t really matter because all etiquette bubbles are the same. The important thing is that two (or more?) characters can share the same bubble.
Instanced etiquette would allow characters to interact with each other without involvement of the player’s avatar. When two characters meet, etiquette controls both of their behaviours.
Or is protocol a better name?
Posted on June 5, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Very interesting, I like your stream of consciousness.
Here’s another bit of input though – why let the player’s ‘etiquette bubble’ always win?
Why not let characters influence the avatar’s mood and even behaviour?
I would love to see my avatar shiver in fear in front of a monster and not being able to hit straight with his sword. Or have a hard time finding words when charmed by a pretty lady.
Posted on June 5, 2006 at 1:43 pm
The only reason why I let the player’s etiquette bubble “win” is practical. It doesn’t really matter. The only important thing is that only one etiquette bubble is active. Once characters share a bubble, it doesn’t matter whose it is: etiquette is the same for everyone. In your example, etiquette would dictate your fear, not the monster.
This does mean that the game’s etiquette should be shared by all characters. In reality, this is not always the case (especially with monsters 😉 ). That doesn’t mean that we can’t tell stories with monsters. It just means that our etiquette will have to be big enough (so it’s not the same as real-world etiquette which is tied to cultures).
Posted on April 5, 2007 at 1:40 am
Speaking of bubbles and princesses, have you read Princess Bubbles?