The Hero's Journey: Nonlinear Characterization

[EternalShadow]

The Hero's Journey is a book that talks about story flow.

In this book, it details how characters and story should typically fit together: the "ordinary world" should be set up, then the problem happens, they go to the "special world", then the evil fight occurs, and the hero(es) return with whatever is needed to repair their "ordinary world". Characterization is an element that is performed thoughout the story.

However, I have seen many think that characterization should be at the start of the story, even before anything happens. 

Inevitably, this means a creator often thinks that there should be a huge wall of scrolling text to detail "what has happened so far".

This often leads to a huge divide in gamers:

- those that don't care, because it is a scrolling wall of text

- those that don't understand the story because they forgot it after reading the text

- those that feel no attachment to the characters

- [There will be more camps, but these are the three main ones]

However, there is actually another way to introduce characters and allow them to have an impact on the player whilst at the same time, delivering the story: to do both at once. There are a few ways to do this and start the action at the same time (such as the main character grieving the loss of their lover in front of a super powerful boss that they will obviously fight as the tutorial battle before being banished to starter town at level 1, or entering a flashback or "you are my brother" trope) - but there are not an infinite number of ways. To try to utilize this in every game will evidently lead to repetitiveness.

However, this means that players have to be able to understand that not everything will make sense to them at the start of every single game. The evil guy is almost never explained at the start. The main characters are often not explained throughout the action unless through flashbacks or lulls (FF13, Stargate Universe, FF9, Murdered: Soul Suspect, King of Fighters XIII, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Tomb Raider Underworld, The Illusionist, etc) - it is the INTENT of the creator to MAKE the player confused and curious to know more as the story goes on. That is THEIR hook. It CAN be well done if the creator explains things as they go along - as long as everything is explained at SOME point!

Therefore, personally I feel that it is fine, should a player want to, to begin the story right in the middle of the action. Sure, go ahead and see that thousand-year-old-King who's been revived by a mysterious substance, obtain what you need from him, then flashback or have some dialogue during some action in the following scene about what the main characters have just done or why they have just done it. They could even argue about whether taking what they needed from him was the right choice, because it meant that he would no longer be able to return to this world from the spirit world. Then a few minutes later (or in the same scene), explain that the two are necromancers.

This sets up the plot instantly: The players need to use the [mysterious artifact] obtained from the King in order to stop the [Thousand-year-war]. The game doesn't hang about with pre-summon rituals. The game doesn't hang about with explaining characters and who they are. If they fight after obtaining the [mysterious artifact] and spill the beans during this confrontation, even better. Still, the designer might choose to reveal that they are necromancers later once their mother calls them in for tea and the [main characters] realize that they have left their necromancer equipment in the basement and their mother has returned home early.

In this instance, in my opinion, it is not a valid excuse for the player to complain about feeling "confused" after five minutes or less of the story/gameplay. It is however, a valid excuse after the first hour as by this time, the player should have a semblance of what is going on (motives don't need to be explained fully at this point, but they should be by the end because otherwise if you explain everything at the start, this gives away the entire plot/story and bogs the introduction down)

What is your take on this?

 

[JacobM]

There's a fine line to float there. It's hard to please everyone. BUT for instance, Ys I throws you into the game with little direction. They set up Adol's character and where he is from as a an intro and that was it. I have to admit after playing 15 minutes of the beginning and not knowing what I was doing was VERY frustrating, but, as I played, and as I explored I started figuring things out, and now I really like the game. You really get a good feel for the world by talking to NPCs in this game, that's probably the best feature of Ys. The NPCs do a really go job providing some characterization to the game. And you can get stuff in that game ahead of when you are supposed to as well. The average player these days does not have that kind of patience unfortunately (most want their hands to be held the entire game) and sometimes even I catch myself being impatient, I have to slow down and just start looking around. I like a balance of these things. On one hand I hate drawn out intros UNLESS it's really interesting. On the other hand I dislike NOT being told anything UNLESS the exploration is good and gives me enough information to get by and even rewards me for being extra exploratory. Again, it's a fine balance. I'm the type of person who can forgive things that at first may make me angry.. And even may appreciate those things if the game is done well enough. In the end I'm in it for the characters and their story and I'm open to the style in which they are presented as long as it's not completely broken.


Those are my thoughts on that. LOL I know I'm all over the place.

 

[whitesphere]

I agree you don't want to spill the beans completely up front.  That would spoil the entire plot.   A normal, linear plot still can spill out character details sparingly.  In fact, I think it's a good approach, sometimes, if the characters themselves wouldn't know.  The problem is it is very hard to do well.  Done poorly, crucial plot details can just jump out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing. Done well, I agree that sets up some interesting character twists. 

Basically, I agree with the concept of starting in the middle of excitement, or (in my current project) right after the excitement (the 2 characters wake up as undead at the bottom of a deep crypt). 

Little cutscenes can reveal what the player needs to know without forcing him/her to sit through a long intro.  Then, the player learns more about the characters as the plot goes on.

I don't see how that's non-linear characterization though.

 

[Makio-Kuta]

I haven't read this book, but I'm going to assume that establishing the 'ordinary world' did not mean 'explain everything right off the bat' and meant more teaching the player what constitutes as the 'norm' so that way when the game shifts and stuff starts going down, it's clearer for the player what things are an abnormality. Which is, personally, an important thing to do whether you are starting smack dab in the action or starting with a slow start in your home town. It's important for a player to be able to immerse themselves in the game in order to enjoy it, and a part of that is being able to follow the action.

If you are starting your story in the middle of your plot - let's say in the middle of a huge, plot important war, then it's important to establish for the player that this is a war; that this is not an everyday thing that is constantly happening; that this is not the 'ordinary world' for these characters. You would have to use what is abnormal, to establish your normal, but you still need to explain that this is not the normal life of these characters. Because it's very possible that it could be - You could just as easily start a story in the middle of a war, and establish that that IS the norm. That these characters are always fighting in a war, that it's never ending - and perhaps your 'strange world' is after the war ends.

In order for your player to understand what they are playing, this needs to be told to them.

In this instance, in my opinion, it is not a valid excuse for the player to complain about feeling "confused" after five minutes or less of the story/gameplay. It is however, a valid excuse after the first hour as by this time, the player should have a semblance of what is going on (motives don't need to be explained fully at this point, but they should be by the end because otherwise if you explain everything at the start, this gives away the entire plot/story and bogs the introduction down)

I disagree with your first statement here. It is a very valid reason to not enjoy yourself in a game if you are confused after the first five minutes. Think of how many games exist in this world - think of what you are trying to get your player's attention from. If I was a player and had to pick between a game that is excluding me from understanding it VS something that I can understand and feel invested in, what would I pick? This doesn't mean needing to spend hours fleshing out a back story (I hate scrolling intros a lot) but you should still arm your player with the knowledge they need to be able to connect themselves with the game world and story and characters. Otherwise, why should they care?

Of course a player understands they are not going to know every. single. detail. at the very start of a game. That would be silly; a lot of games the fun comes from watching the story unfold. But if you are throwing complex world-building related words at your player before bothering to explain what those are - you will lose them and it will be very hard to get them again. Again though, the myth that this needs to be done with long drawn out introductions, info dumps, or scrolling walls of text is silly. It should be handled through Character/Character interactions, Character/World interactions, and Player/World interactions.

 

[EternalShadow]

I haven't read this book, but I'm going to assume that establishing the 'ordinary world' did not mean 'explain everything right off the bat' and meant more teaching the player what constitutes as the 'norm' so that way when the game shifts and stuff starts going down, it's clearer for the player what things are an abnormality.

 
Yes, exactly.

I disagree with your first statement here. It is a very valid reason to not enjoy yourself in a game if you are confused after the first five minutes.

Then in this instance, would you say that within the first five minutes, most things should be explained? Are there any circumstances where a confused player in the first five minutes is a good thing? What about stories that develop and explain after the action (in question) is wrapped up?

 

[Makio-Kuta]

Perhaps we have different opinions on what a 'confused' player is.

Things that a player should never be confused about in any point in the game:

* What they are doing

 * Why they are doing it

Now, this doesn't mean they need to have the RIGHT understanding of why they are doing something in their head, but they need to be given a reason to do what they are asked.

Example:

Player is told by their mother to "Go get salt from the neighbour" so their mother can "cook dinner"

The player is in this instant given a goal, a reason to accomplish that goal, and a bit of world building that the player's family and the neighbours are on close enough terms to lend ingredients to one another.

This is good. They might be annoyed 'oh a fetch quest!' but whatever - they have been given a task and a reason for it. There is no confusion here.

While at the neighbours house, you see/learn through visuals and dialogue that they are powerful heroes who defend the town from evil. The next morning when you return the salt, you find them all dead. Returning home, your mother is missing. You begin a quest to avenge their deaths and find your mother.

However what they don't know is that your mother is actually possessed by a SUPER STRONG demon, and that by removing the salt from the nieghbours house, the demon could now get inside and kill the entire family.

There are things the player doesn't know, and will not know for some time into the game - but the player has no need for confusion. The story, at their level, is very clear to them. The goals and reasons are clear to them. The true intentions behind everything is not.

You've established an ordinary world, you've put in some problems, and now begins the special world to be wrapped up and returned to some form of the ordinary.

BUT you have no confusion.

Some games are throwing out new terms like candy, before these terms mean anything to the player. This causes confusion, makes them lose a level of connection to the game (They keep talking about Gabbergookies but I don't know what a Gabbergookie is! I feel left out of the conversation!), and ultimately can give them a reason to turn the game off. Likewise, if they are told to do something, but not given a reason to do it. "But WHY do I need to go here to get that!?" <-- you don't want the player to have this sensation.

If within five minutes of a game's start, the characters have talked about 20 different fancy terms and not one of them has had light shed on it - that's unfair.

Even a story that is striving for mystery or suspense or secrets needs to give out information so the player will care about the information that is being withheld.

A curious player is a good thing; a confused player never is.

 

[whitesphere]

In the first five minutes, I think the player should:

• Have a general idea of the "feel" of the world.  Much of this can be the initial scene and map --- is it fantasy, steampunk, sci-fi?  The music also aids immensely in setting the tone of the intro.
• Know at least the basics of "Who am I?" and "What do I do next?"
• If necessary, have any unique skill categories, like crafting, at least introduced

Basically, you want enough information so the player isn't completely out to sea and knows where to go and so forth.  The intro is the wrong time to throw in a ton of new words and ideas.   It also doesn't need to introduce tons of backstory.

If we look at Chrono Trigger, all of the things I mentioned (except Magic which, justifiably is NOT mentioned or given to the players yet) happen quickly.  You know you're a young boy who is going to visit his friend at the Fair and have literally ran into Marle.  Not long after that, you get sucked into your first Time Portal, and end up in the past.

The backstory of the game and main villains comes out slowly as you do various quests, so the player isn't inundated with an info dump.

That doesn't mean you can't throw major monkey wrenches into the game, plot, world and character-wise, but the first few minutes need to establish a brief springboard so the player wants to keep going.

 

[EternalShadow]

Oh yes, absolutely. By a "confused" player, I moreso referred to those that feel that they are "lost" by not knowing a plot element that is revealed later, such as the people dying/missing mother. Revealing it (that the mother is possessed by a demon) early would however give the plot twist away. Certainly, throwing a lot of key words around and not explaining them in due course (which could occur if the main character is transported to the mysterious world and the generals of the army start talking about these mysterious words in front of them, and someone else drags the main character away to explain everything to them later) might not be a good thing unless done well. I think Harry Potter has an example of this: His welcome letter. Harry didn't know what some of the things were, so his "mentor" explained them as they went along.

 

[whitesphere]

I think we agree about that, then, Hotfirelegend.

Sort of like how we do NOT find out, in Final Fantasy IV, that the King of Baron has been killed and replaced by Cagnazoo (Elemental Water fiend) until later in the game.  But we DO have fairly heavy hints that something is wrong with the King beforehand -- from the start of the game, really.

That's the essence of a plot twist, and I think we all agree the player should NOT be given plot twists before they happen.  But I think a good plot twist has foreshadowing so when the twist happens the player is surprised but the foreshadowing "clicks" and makes perfect sense. 

 

[Makio-Kuta]

Yeah, generally speaking, having a main character that isn't already in the know is the easiest way to build up the world and terms along with the story and character. This is why you get a lot of rookies, amnesiacs, people tossed into a new world type scenarios - because it makes it easier to have a character on the same level as the player when it comes to the world and how it works. And when you have an experienced main character, you will often have the sidekick-newbie character ready to ask questions and so main character can explain it to newbie and player at the same time. These are nice safe ways to establish the world and characters and mechanics without being obtuse about it.