npc My Theory about NPC(Non Playable Character)

[Perang Cemen 188]

I don't know is this useful or not but whatever...

 

Y' know non-player character (NPC), sometimes known as a non-person character or non-playable character, in a game is any character that is not controlled by a player. In games, this usually means a character controlled by the computer through artificial intelligence. In Rpg(y' know what is Rpg right?) Game the term applies to characters controlled by the one who make them trough program (like Rpg maker!), rather than another player.

 

now, let's say I make a town a big town, that town will be a strange if there only 2 or 3 people live there so I make 20 - 30 Npc walking around and every of them give different perspective on the plot of the game like:

 

-Giving quest/direction/hint/etc

ex: "You need axe to pass trough that forest"

      "If you need axe go to black smith, I'm sure he going to help you"

      "I need ore, give it to me and I'll make you an ax"

 

-telling condition/situation/story/etc

ex: "Monster Lord's has destroy this town, lucky we all manage to escape"

      "No good, Monster Lord's army attack us!"

 

-(I don't know this is called what but it's seems not very important talk)

ex: "what a nice day"

     "there pretty flower"

 

 

In some games Npc can be used in various way like:

Become ally

Let say you recruit them from tavern or something with gold/money to fight alongside with you but they didn't talk much or didn't take part in story or event.

 

Just a figure

Npc can be used to describe something without talking like but from their action like Dance, Swim, sleep, or in a fight with other Npc.(I'm sure they can still talking while dance or swim but did they can talk while fight with other Npc? like "Do you need something?" while he get punched or sliced or when sleep I'm sure most of text would be just zzz otherwise would be sleep talking like mmn... *yawn* *snore* etc.)

 

As a Traitor (I don't know what is this kind of Npc but they used in many game)

Npc is not limited to friendly character only, there also Npc in shape of enemy, let say you arrive at Monster Lord's castle that never found by human's before, there no way a human Npc like an old man or kid wander here expect they are captured or you want to make this look strange, in Monster lord's castle full of Monster which mean all are enemy, but there one sell item or has some information or something, like Imp that sell you something or Druid that has information to defeat his own master.(I have encounter lot's game have this, The boss is Werewolf and her subordinates is Wererat, weretiger, and werebat, they appear as Random Encounter in battle, But they also appear in map and when I talk to wererat, she told me Werewolf weakness is her tail, and weretiger told me that Werewolf claw has poison effect, that's why I call them Traitor Npc)

 

If you have something to add(or to correct me), just let me know.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Perang Cemen

[lianderson 122]

Yeah, that´s basically it. The only additional one, besides them ignoring you or being silent, is them have full blown conversations with you, which is more of a continuation of the second example. However, it takes a lot of work , so it´s best reserved for quests or those who have the time, effort, and energy into actually writing them.

Edited June 21, 2017 by lianderson

[lonequeso 1,921]

Also on some occasions, NPCs will fight alongside you. You see that a lot in first person shooters. Lead a team to complete whatever objective while trying not to get them all killed. 

[Kayzee 4,033]

What does or doesn't count as an NPC* is kinda debatable. Back in the early tabletop RPG days, an NPC as far as I can tell was always a special technical term for a DM controlled PC-like character in tabletop RPGs, and then it expanded to include any non-player controlled characters in any game. I may be wrong about that, but I am pretty sure that's how it started. So yeah, AI controlled characters might fit the best for video games. But the term can get rather murky when used outside of the context it was created for. Calling a AI controlled ally in FPS games 'an NPC' might be technically correct in a way, but then again many FPS games let you give orders to your squad or something. Do they count as PCs then? What about The Sims, or Dwarf Fortress or any other game with unique units that you only loosely direct? You could also debate what exactly counts as 'AI'. Does giving an event on a map a move route count as 'AI'?

 

Also, what should count as a 'character'? How many townsfolk in RPGs are really 'characters' and how many are more fancy sign posts or vending machines? Saying one or two lines and using the same generic sprites/faces used by every other 50 bazillion townsfolk doesn't really strike me as NPC worthy sometimes. On the other hand, most RPGs have special important characters who stand out in some way from the generic townsfolk. Reappearing story characters, unique townsfolk with a name and a personality who do something more then just be random vendors or give a single line of information, actually characters with personality and function besides just being generic background gloss, those I can count as characters no problem. But what about those townsfolk put there just to flesh out the world? Like a boy and a girl playing tag, or an old woman rocking and muttering to herself? Maybe they are generic, but they do have some personality. Heck what about characters who are important but barely appear in the game? There are all sorts of characters in fighting games for example that just show up in backgrounds, special attacks, victory/defeat animations, or are just mentioned briefly in dialogue somewhere. Do they count?

 

Maybe the term 'NPC' has become too diluted to be of much use a lot of the time. How about instead we think of three different but related kinds of things: The first are 'Characters', in the narrative sense. The other two are, to use RPG Maker terms, 'Events' and 'Battlers'. Each can be thought of as related to one of three aspects of game design: 'Story'. 'World', and 'Game'. All these capitalized terms being abstract notions of course, not really dictionary definitions. How about I define the terms thusly: A Character is a mover in the Story allowing everything to move forward, while the Story is the narrative offering context and motivation to the player's action. An Event is something in the World to interact with, while the World is a backdrop for exploration and interaction. A Battler is a game piece used by the Game, while the Game is a set of rules and challenges meant to engage play. They aren't really evenly split or anything. They can crisscross all over the damn place, but for the most part they tend to approach being segregate.

 

Each have their functions: Characters offer consistency and meaning to Events and Battlers, gives them more to do, helps plan them out, but can also be fun to read on it's own (though I rather use static media for that). Events can give the player story, they can fiddle with game elements, but they can also just be interesting and impactful to interact with for there own sake. See for example Yume Nikki, a good example of what a something made of pure World is like. It has very minimal Story and Game, but it's still fun to explore. Battlers put challenges in your way, raises emotional stakes through them, allows something to break up exploration, but they also offer a fun challenge. Just a boss rush of battle after battle without story or exploration can be fun sometimes.

 

Now we have some idea what we might be really working with here. So, Characters are, in a way, a blueprint or plan, or maybe a unifying connection between different things. Events and Battlers are the implementations of those plans, or really different things in different domains that can be brought together into a whole. A Character is a Story concept, and to interact with the World they need Events, while to interact with the Game they need Battlers. Roughly. Like I said they can crisscross all over the damn place. So I guess we could think of NPCs (or PCs for that matter) as a mix of a Character, and their associated Event(s) and maybe Battler(s)? That works for me at least!

 

(* side note: I wrote 'an NPC' without thinking then had a moment where stopped and thought about it. Mostly because in my head it sounded a bit funny. NPC doesn't start with a vowel but it does start with a vowel sound. So, 'an NPC' may sound a bit like I am saying NNPC if I slur it or say it too fast, but I am sure 'an NPC' is correct. I do that all the time with other abbreviations without thinking it's odd. Like 'an RPG'. But for a moment I thought 'a NPC' sounded more distinct. Then again if someone said "They are a NPC" it's might sound like a they are calling something a nazi computer? Wow, isn't English fun? )

Edited June 21, 2017 by KilloZapit

[PhoenixSoul 1,404]

Complete and total annihilation of the American and British English language...

 

You said it, girl.

 

To me, it really falls onto an importance scale.

 

In most cases, an NPC has little to moderate importance overall, sometimes not having any or in rare cases being close to the most important part of a story. This is how I see it.

[lonequeso 1,921]

 

 

many FPS games let you give orders to your squad or something. Do they count as PCs then? What about The Sims, or Dwarf Fortress or any other game with unique units that you only loosely direct? You could also debate what exactly counts as 'AI'. Does giving an event on a map a move route count as 'AI'?

No. Not unless the player can actively control them. Yes, it's AI if an NPC can understand even a simple command. 

 

 

 

Also, what should count as a 'character'?

Anyone that contributes to the story. That extends to sidequests as long as the quest tells story and isn't "go kill ten monsters and come back." Technically that has a beginning, middle, and end, but do you really consider NPC #28894 to be a character? I don't. They're kinda like extras in a movie as are the NPC's that comment on the weather.

[Kayzee 4,033]

No. Not unless the player can actively control them. Yes, it's AI if an NPC can understand even a simple command.

You seem so sure of that. I think it's more of a grey area then you are admitting. Then again, being strictly inclusive like that isn't a bad idea when dealing with grey areas, even if it might include things like a complex scripted chest or bookshelf or bit of background or something. I think that goes into more what I call 'Events' but whatever.

 

Anyone that contributes to the story. That extends to sidequests as long as the quest tells story and isn't "go kill ten monsters and come back." Technically that has a beginning, middle, and end, but do you really consider NPC #28894 to be a character? I don't. They're kinda like extras in a movie as are the NPC's that comment on the weather.

 

Again, it's often a grey area. Random NPCs can add to the setting without adding to the plot, flesh out the world and such. I think maybe we should be inclusive like above and include extras as characters. They do add to the story, even if all they add is 'this town has people in it'. But then, also like above. if we are over inclusive almost anything could count, any object on screen can add to the story and be it's own 'character'. Maybe restrict it to things that are moving, interactive, and/or meaningfully designed as an individual. Maybe not. I guess it doesn't matter.

 

Either way, you do have a point. A lot of these grey areas can be sort of resolved. It reminds me of my feelings on art. My definition of art is very simple, very inclusive, and very stark: Anything that is presented to invoke a response in an audience. I can include all sorts of things as art that other people might reject, but to me it's very simple binary question while other people insist it can't be defined or that there are a lot of grey areas. Perhaps NPC could be defined in a similar way?

[+ Asharonapaul 276]

npcs can also have rich histories that make the player question if a decision is right

[lonequeso 1,921]

That 2nd quote of mine was a grey area Just my opinion. For the 1st, there's clear cut definition for Player Characters and Non-Player characters. The names make it self explanatory. Player characters can be actively controlled by the player; NPC's cannot. The only grey area is an instance where a character is a NPC for most of the game, but maybe joins in for a battle or a level, and can be controlled for that portion of the game. Personally, I'd call him a PC when they are able be controlled and an NPC for when they cannot. That seems to be the most logical way of defining them. 

[Kayzee 4,033]

Well i the first example it really comes down to what you mean by 'control'. Like I said before, there are various kinds of loose or indirect methods of controlling characters in games. Not all games rely on one-to-one correspondence from interface to action so to speak. Of course, it's entirely possible for PC and NPC to overlap in some areas.

 

Maybe I am thinking about it the wrong way. The real question is, who the player is actually playing as, not who the player is controlling. If we look back to the tabletop roots again, there PCs are strictly characters that act as representations of the player in the game. Like for example, in RTS games the units you control are not actually PCs, only the invisible general giving the orders (then again RTS games are a weird example as units probobly don't really count as NPCs outside of hero characters either, though the unit types might if NPCs can be generic character classes that can have many instances, which I think is fair).

 

Of course, player representation is a tricky thing and thinking this way leads to a interesting problem. In a lot of video game RPGs, there is really only one 'main character' who is meant to represent the player, and the rest are more like controllable NPCs acting out roles in the story and are not true PCs at all. Not all video game RPGs do that though. Some basically allow a whole party of PCs, others have basically no real player representation. Look at many older computer RPGs where you create a party on your own, compared to Final Fantasy VI for example. Who are you actually supposed to be playing as? That is who is meant to be 'you'? In the former, the whole party is different 'yous' so to speak. In FF6 everyone is basically themselves and none of them truly stand out as a player representation (unlike say, FF7, which has a designated 'main' character you make decisions for and are more or less expected to roleplay as).

 

Though really that kind of contributes to my original point, that the terms NPC and PC are terms stretched far beyond their original context and meaning and have become sort of nebulous. They are roleplaying terms first and foremost I feel, not video game terms and maybe not game terms at all. And though a lot of games can and do involve roleplaying, not everyone makes or plays games with it in mind. Yes, even when those games are nominally in the RPG genre. It's interesting to think about but it's often almost a metaactivity, that is something someone does with a game rather then part of the game it's self.

[lonequeso 1,921]

You're like Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is. Control. When you push a button or move the joystick does the character do a specific motion/action or do you hope the AI is mart enough to properly execute a command and not throw a grenade at their feet? You're making a very simple, clear cut definition far more complicated than it is. Are you using another definition for the word is?

[+ Asharonapaul 276]

do what?

[Kayzee 4,033]

You're like Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is. Control. When you push a button or move the joystick does the character do a specific motion/action or do you hope the AI is mart enough to properly execute a command and not throw a grenade at their feet? You're making a very simple, clear cut definition far more complicated than it is. Are you using another definition for the word is?

 

You are right, it's simple. You do stuff, the game reacts. Simple. That's control. What is not simple is the details. We have all sorts of different interfaces for the interactions, all sorts of different input methods and output methods, all different sorts of ways a game could react to said input from the simple to the complex, all sorts of ways the feedback to that reaction is presented. Not to mention all different kinds of calculations in between handling the actual 'game'. And when it comes the actual game objects and their representation, all sorts of distinct ways that they appear to react or not react to your controls directly or indirectly. So when trying to figure out what is 'under the player's control'? Not as universal or clear cut as you think.

 

I have already listed at least a few examples where the 'one button press = a specific motion/action' theory fails. RTS games being a big one. Or even adventure games. Just about any game where you use a cursor to say 'go here' or select from a menu to say 'do this'. Heck, what about your standard JRPG battle system? You select stuff from menus and then your characters do it. You can hardly be said to not be in control of JRPG battles. If you think FPS squad members in a game that has a dedicated interface to send commands to squad members count any less as 'player controlled' then RPG party members in a game that has a dedicated interface to send commands to party members, I don't know what to tell you.

 

I donno, maybe I am nuts, but if I am presented with people telling me something is simple and obvious that x is blah, and yet there are a whole bunch of really obvious examples of things where that simply doesn't hold or leads into weird conclusions that most people dismiss, I tend to think those people's hypothesisis either not thought through that well or stated wrong. Maaaaybe that's just me.

 

Also: What the heck is the context of that Bill Clinton thing anyway? Because it's an often quoted silly question, but I suspect that's not what he was really asking and I suspect most people know it. Or else he just had a brainfart I guess, it happens.

Edited June 29, 2017 by KilloZapit

[PhoenixSoul 1,404]

I keep getting notifications on this, but the discussion lost me shortly after I posted how I felt about it... 

[Kayzee 4,033]

There should be a 'unfollow this topic' button up near the top of the page if you don't want notifications.

 

Also: I have to apologize. I worry I have been far to picky and pedantic about a lot of stuff in this topic. I still stand by a lot of my ideas, but I never meant to make this into a huge argument about formal definitions or anything. My last post in particular was waaay too confrontational. I would like to state clearly and unambiguously: Everything I have said is my opinion, informed or not. There is no obvious right or wrong way to look at things here.