Character Attachment in Games

I'm slowly trying to discern what makes me like a game. I like conflict and negotiation, but not necessarily in the same game. Cosmic Encounter has this in boatloads without being draggy and drawn out like say, Diplomacy or Twilight Imperium. Still, it misses out on something that I really enjoy in games - getting emotionally attached to your character.

Now I don't mean emotionally attached meaning you actually feel something towards it, but something quite close. It makes you see your character as something more than just a whole bunch of stats.

For me, this aspect works particularly well in Descent and (for me at least) War of the Ring. I can really get into the character I'm playing and I'm able to see why I'm doing what I'm doing, even if it's a bit zoomed out like in WotR. It makes the game more fun for me, it adds drama.

On the other hand we have games like Marvel Heroes wherein you have absolutely no attachment to the characters. Everybody feels like the same, with minor change in stats (a similar lament I have on Battlelore) and you control 5 characters and it's on the heavy side, so the characters just lose all meaning and are a bunch of stats. Compare this with say, Marvelscape and you see what I'm talking about. In Marvelscape, the characters feel like they're who they are supposed to be. I might be alone in this, but I also feel the same way about Arkham Horror. Maybe it's because I'm the one in charge of the Mythos Phase and it drowns me in fiddly brain cell burning tedium, but the characters all just feel like stats to me sometimes. Good thing is there's a decent narrative to the game, but it has its off days.

It comes as no surprise to me that I like games wherein I'm attached to the character more than when I'm not. I feel it's important for a game to have this, especially in a RPG-ish type of game, or games with well-fleshed out characters.

In the case of Ticket to Ride, character is not so important. But in Clue, it is everything to setting the mood of the game. Far too little games focus on it.

For me ARKHAM HORROR definitely delivers what you're looking for. Depending on the draw (and their stats, of course) characters can play out very differently. Add in the numerous injury/madness cards you'll get during play and you end up with some special cases. And I think the personal stories from Innsmouth will enhance this aspect of the game.

But when you talk about being attached to your character, I actually feel much the same about STARCRAFT and - to a much lesser extent - TWILIGHT IMPERIUM. I know you're not pretending to be a specific character (though the heroes in BROOD WAR might change this just a little bit), but the fact that Zergs, Protoss, and Humans (and Naalu, Lizix, and Zardak Norr) feel so different when playing gives me a bit of identification.

I would agree that AH is a great example of characters that you can invest yourself in. Much as I like Pandemic, I do feel more attachment to who I am when I'm playing as someone like Sam the Diner Cook in LNOE or Gaius Baltar in BSG, as opposed to "The Dispatcher" or "The Medic" in Pandemic. It's just a picture and a couple of special abilities and a name, but I guess it's the sense of feeling attached to that character a little bit more because it has a name and some more individuality. You're right that it somehow adds a little more drama to the experience.

I think this really gets into the idea of in-game ego, the sense that you have an identity or surrogate identity within the context of game narrative. I don't think it's so much about attachment to a character as it is being about to identify where "you" are in it all.

Branham has a good formula for this- he likes to look at a game and be able to say "this is me, those are mine". If you look at a lot of Eurogames, one of the other parts of that are missing.

I actually agree that ego isn't really in COSMIC- but you clearly know what is yours and where you stuff is and what it does. I think that may be the one subtle element that puts DUNE over its predecessor, that it goes much further in giving the players and actual in-game character/identity.

This could be a really intricate, deep discussion. But it's one that I think starts to get at the roots of some of the things we like in AT games.

I think I probably get into character most when I play Robo Rally. I always play Twitch, so naturally, I twitch a lot.

Arkham Horror is great for in-game ego though, especially when playing a tough guy who goes insane.

I always take my role while Overlord in Descent serious. I always try to read the plot stuff in a goofy/spooky Dungeon Master voice.

I also slip easily into the role of Victor Danforth the Playwright in A Touch of Evil.

I think Prophecy and Last Night on Earth kind of fail in the character attachment areas though.

For me, "getting into" character has less to do with how the character is portrayed through the game mechanics, and more to do with the game's ability to interest me in its setting.

Ostensibly, I can point to the wheelbarrow in Monopoly and say "this is me." That doesn't go a long way towards getting me to think of myself as a robber baron type of character. I get to that point through the look of the components and the gameplay. I'm constantly trying to aquire deeds, fleece other players on deals, and shut everyone else out of the house/hotel pool. I'm doing the things a greedy tycoon would do, and thus get the feel of being a greedy tycoon.

Again, it all comes back to that conceptual/executive divide. Is there some logical connection between what I'm doing literally doing at the table (drawing cards, pushing counters) and what my character is doing in game terms? Dune, for example, would probably have worked just as well as a game about the Roman empire. You're scheming, backstabbing, and vying for power. I think you'd get the feeling of being a power-hungry political faction regardless of the setting because the gameplay itself puts you into that sort of atmosphere.

For me it's more about shared journey than anything. If I am able through my position in the game to make the scenario grow or even just change as the game progresses, I feel some level of attachment. That's the key part for me and some euros pull it off well in spite of short playing time and simple rules. Alhambra or Settlers start you off with essentially blank slates and your job is to build. That draws me in. In Descent the growth is too little. I like the game, but I'm not making a material difference -- I'm optimizing. Cosmic Encounter, well, I had a game where I had to switch teams with someone after I did all that building. That was the kiss of death for me -- Cosmic Encounter still leave a bad taste in my mouth because after all that building I had to give it away and compete against what I had made. I was completely disenfranchised and I haven't come back to the game since because of that one experience.

A hardcore roleplayer, I came to Last Night on Earth expecting big things and where I think it fell short with me was that the characters were so two-dimensional. There was no way to put heart into them. They don't progress, they don't make interesting choices, they just are. Anyone else could play the same character and they'd largely be the same. A game completely coated in theme is all zipped up and impenetrable -- there was nothing I could bring to the gameplay.

When I mentioned in a LNoE thread that likely I was spoiled by about 5,000 hours of roleplaying experience, others in the thread came back replying that they too had roleplayed and that Last Night on Earth was better. I just don't see how that could be the case. It's the best example I can think of for a game that plays itself.

If your choices don't matter or can be figured out in a decision tree for the best possible outcome (especially if there is no risk management involved) then you're a spectator. You may as well watch the Orioles on TV -- your immersion is equivalent and the outcome as easily predicted.

Sag.

mjl1783 wrote:

Again, it all comes back to that conceptual/executive divide. Is there some logical connection between what I'm doing literally doing at the table (drawing cards, pushing counters) and what my character is doing in game terms? Dune, for example, would probably have worked just as well as a game about the Roman empire. You're scheming, backstabbing, and vying for power. I think you'd get the feeling of being a power-hungry political faction regardless of the setting because the gameplay itself puts you into that sort of atmosphere.

I take your point, but a major difference for me is that my knowledge of Dune and its characters is deeper than my knowledge of Roman politics, so my identification and investment is much deeper than it would be with a game set in the latter milieu. That may reflect poorly on my American public school education, but for me it also underlines the importance of specificity of theme (and, as you say, the degree of its connection to the actual gameplay).

Sagrilarus wrote:

A hardcore roleplayer, I came to Last Night on Earth expecting big things and where I think it fell short with me was that the characters were so two-dimensional. There was no way to put heart into them. They don't progress, they don't make interesting choices, they just are. Anyone else could play the same character and they'd largely be the same. A game completely coated in theme is all zipped up and impenetrable -- there was nothing I could bring to the gameplay

That's a great description. We've had some great sessions of LNoE where the characters really shined ("I'm not goin' out like a chump" became a catchphrase for a mercifully short length of time) and "behaved" perfectly in-character, but they're all two-dimensional. Which, to be fair, is pretty fitting for a game that takes inspiration from cheesy B-grade horror movies. LNoE is a light game, and the stereotypical nature of the characters feels pretty fitting to me (as well as part of the reason it doesn't get played much around here any more).

metalface13 wrote:

I think Prophecy and Last Night on Earth kind of fail in the character attachment areas though.

Prophecy is almost utterly generic in theme and setting. I enjoy the game, but there is zero about the world or characters or gameplay that sparks my imagination. It succeeds in its effort to tighten up basic adventure game mechanics, but its almost as if they surgically removed any potential character from the game. The map alone seems designed to neutralize any sense of sense of exploring a fantasy world, and the flavor text on the character cards actually make the characters less interesting.

There are some games, like Cosmic Encounter, Cutthroat Caverns and to a certain extent, Twilight Imperium, where it's not important if you are attached to your character, since it doesn't really need it. I'm down with that.

There are games though that I feel I should have some sort of attachment to my characters that just doesn't happen. Biggest culprit here for me would be Marvel Heroes. Arkham almost fails here, but the sheer amount of flavor in the encounter cards pushes it into win.

Unless FFG does something about it, Battlelore will be like this forever. All units are just a bunch of stats.

I think that this is another component of what facilitates imagination. It is possible to have a great game without "character attachment"; however, if that is to be accomplished, then the game has to excel in other areas.

At the end of the day, the game has to engage the imagination. This can be through theme or through characters or whatever. I want to be able to imagine myself in the game world in some manner. As mj pointed out, this is accompished well in Monopoly just by the rules and mechanics -- you really feel like battling capitalists. In Arkham Horror, you have a character that a story is happening to (similar for me in the Gunslinger campaign). War of the Ring is opposite in that the characters are facilitating the greater story itself. Acquire is even more abstracted, yet you really feel like a corporate tycoon.

For the most part, I think it is up to the players to be open to the imagination, but some games preclude the ability to immerse yourself in the game. For instance, something like Settlers of Catan fails miserably for me -- I don't feel like I am settling a new world or really trading goods, and perhaps it is because their is a lack of detail and I don't have a "dude" to point to and say this shit is mine. I have some roads and some houses, big fucking deal.

Space Ghost, you raise some interesting points. I think that with both Monopoly and Acquire, it helps put you in the game by having a pile of play money and real estate deeds or stock shares. You can stack up your play money, hold it in your hand, wave it around or spread it out... it's your money, and that practically puts you right on the board itself. Games where you have more abstract resources, maybe a VP tracker on the edge of the board and some tenuous market position... those games leave me cold.

The Prophecy comment is interesting. And I'll bring in a tangent.

For me Prophecy is much more involving than most because I have so much control over the growth of the character. I'v had had a Mystic armed with a two handed sword in the same way that my Librarian with an Tommy Gun appealed greatly in AH.

It seems that involvement in a character for you is related to new worlds. A lot of fantasy adventure games set in new worlds are vastly alien to me.

"In the fourth age of Kryzaxtic, the Overseer of Fugelbond created the race of slime lizards called the Urtbrech. The giant fairy golems of Ythop took offense to this new race and started the war of Dfjdsfj Gski which decimated the snow marshes of Brrp."

(I have a LOT of fantasy adventure games, as that may be my favorite type of game. Perhaps a couple hundred.)

And so the generic nature of Prophecy appeals to me. I get it. And I can map most anything onto it, and imagine myself as Deathstalker.

Props to Runebound and Descent. While I hate a lot of things about Runebound, they have a REALLY good mix of a generic fantasy world with their own tweaks. The FFG crew really is unmatched at theming.

It's not new worlds that I'm interested in -- I too feel completely engaged by the characters in WotR, for instance. And I can't abide the kind of proper noun gobbledygook bullshit that you use as an example. I just want more of a sense of context than what Prophecy delivers. The reason I keep playing the game is for exactly the reason you state -- the flexible character progression, and the sense of investment on that level.

moofrank wrote:

The Prophecy comment is interesting. And I'll bring in a tangent.

For me Prophecy is much more involving than most because I have so much control over the growth of the character. I'v had had a Mystic armed with a two handed sword in the same way that my Librarian with an Tommy Gun appealed greatly in AH.

It seems that involvement in a character for you is related to new worlds. A lot of fantasy adventure games set in new worlds are vastly alien to me.

"In the fourth age of Kryzaxtic, the Overseer of Fugelbond created the race of slime lizards called the Urtbrech. The giant fairy golems of Ythop took offense to this new race and started the war of Dfjdsfj Gski which decimated the snow marshes of Brrp."

(I have a LOT of fantasy adventure games, as that may be my favorite type of game. Perhaps a couple hundred.)

And so the generic nature of Prophecy appeals to me. I get it. And I can map most anything onto it, and imagine myself as Deathstalker.

Props to Runebound and Descent. While I hate a lot of things about Runebound, they have a REALLY good mix of a generic fantasy world with their own tweaks. The FFG crew really is unmatched at theming.

You're right, choosing how your character progresses in Prophecy is one of the things that makes it a good game. But then, in the example you set forth, a dual-sword wielding mystic doesn't sound like much of a mystic. What, is the mystic the magic chick with the sword? See, it's almost a little too generic. But when you do start drawing skills from your guild, buying appropriate weapons for your class (spears for the ranger, sword for the warrior, staves for the mages, etc) you do get the feeling that when you have all these advantages against animals you really are a ranger.

The expansions are supposed to add character races that you can pick that give you bonuses to your character. I'm really ready for those expansions to come out myself.