Original Concept

 INDIVIDUALIZED PERSONA ALGORITHM UTILIZING CONFLICTING MOTIVATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERSONA FOR THE PURPOSES OF IN-GAME CHARACTER INTERACTIONS

by

Geoffrey R. Elder

University of Advancing Technology

ABOUT THE INNOVATION

In several role-playing games, interacting with non-player characters of one faction are generally identical. In some cases, an interaction with one individual of a faction is merely a continued conversation held with another member of the same faction. However, the real world has nuances between diplomats as well as soldiers in how a faction interacts with another based on the job, personality and priorities of the individual in question.

To better simulate personal agendas of characters in a video game, certain motivations have to be attributed to the characters. Sometimes, these motivations are at odds with groups and affiliations of the character. Within the motivations of a character, the motivations of the group with which the character is associated are prioritized within the character’s personal motivations and can also alter the prioritization of the values associated with the group. In some characters, the motivations are the same and share the same priority, in others the motivations are different or have different priorities.

The characters also must be programmed to respond to different stimuli based upon these priorities. Interactions with the player and simulated considerations based on the character’s motivations will change the situational setting of the game. Different responses by the player should bring different responses from the character based on the character’s motivations so that no two members of a faction will have exactly the same reaction to something the player does. The words and tone of the player’s communication with the non-player characters will be used in the program and interpreted by the character’s priorities and a response formulated based on these variables with a slightly random factor.

INNOVATION TIMELINE

To begin with, the project must first have a list of motivations for the individual. Keeping in mind the purpose of this project is to be able to have multiple personas run from one machine and coupled with a group, a set of motivations for a group and a set of motivations for the individual will have to be listed. A simple list of group motivations can be listed as follows:

Motivation	Value / Variance
Expansion	50 / 25
Defense	80 / 5
Science	88 / 10
Law	90 / 4
Faith	0 / 100
Magic	0 / 100

The value is a percentile of how motivated the group is towards the particular motivation as a whole. The variance is how much above or below the listed value the group is willing to tolerate. Note that Faith and Magic are listed as zero with a 100 variance. This could lead to a negative value which would mean the tolerance is there for an individual within the group to be antithetical to the motivation.

An individual might have other motivations beyond those of the group. In the following example of an individual, some of the motivations are the same, if a different value, to the group, and the individual shows an interpretation of the motivation.

As can be seen, the Group motivation for this individual is a 75. This value is the percentage of adherence to the Group motivations not already assigned in the individual’s listing. As a member of the Group, the motivation of Peace would then be 75% of the value of 90 so a range of 67.5.

Generating the values is quite simple. The first thing is to begin with a determination of whether the encounter is going to be based on the group or the individual. If it is the individual, you generate the individual’s priorities randomly with a value of -100 to +100 and then move on. If however it is for the group, you must first generate the group’s priorities from the list of the group’s motivations and then the individual’s motivations. From there, you move to the next step which is to modify the priorities that the individual shares with the group as explained in the previous paragraph. Finally, if this is a group representative, the contact’s priorities are modified to meet the minimum / maximum values of the group’s variances. For example, if we are using a group contact with the Science value listed for the individual shown, we would find the Science motivation is below the allowed variance of the group’s Science motivation. The motivation will have its value raised to the minimum which in this case is a 78. Otherwise, the values for the individual would remain as they are and the next encounter can take place.

Conversations will be based on the idea of Greetings, Game-Specific Topics, and Closings. The principles for each of these subjects are the same, so covering only the Greetings will be done at this time. A cloud of responses and greetings will exist as a database based on every increasing and decreasing values of the various topics along the axes within the cloud. For this particular example, three motivations will be used as a means of expressing the cloud.

Using Law, Exploration and Science as example axes with values of 46, 27 and 89 respectively, we can begin with the pinpointing of the responses. Taking ten percent of the absolute value (for instance, Law at 46, we would use 4.6), and shift along the Law axis up to 4.6. So if the value we vary Law by is +3, we would move to 49 on the Law axis. This is done for each axis to represent changes in mood of the person on a day to day basis. When all the axes are shifted, the response is then used with person focusing more on the current highest setting. In this case, Science will be the focus of the conversation. The Game-Specific Topics and conversation Closes are also handled in this way.

INNOVATION INQUIRY

Developing scope-specific personalities that would provide a realistic game play of a political setting with changes made to the political structure of the setting based on the interactions of the player with personalities within the game. How was the master motivation list selected? How were the motivations determined by race and faction? How were the priorities set for the motivations? What methods were used for assessing reputations? What was the methodology of determining the interactions of the player’s reputation with one faction with the player’s reputation with another faction? How do the reputations affection an individual non-player character’s reactions to the player?

REVIEW OF RELATED MATERIAL

Many games which involve a socio-political element have a set script for the factions. Meeting one member of the faction is the same as meeting any other member of the same faction. This is particularly true of games such as Star Control 2, or various games like World of Warcraft or DC Universe Online in which talking to someone from one faction or with a particular task within the game is the same as talking to anyone else of the faction or in game task. For greater believability as well as player immersion, a method to develop personal goals and internal personalities for the computer controlled characters should be developed.

Many games use what are basically pre-scripted personas. No matter who you are, where and when you meet, the persona of the non-player character will always be the same. There might be some change based on the player’s reputation with the faction. The character of ZEX in the game Star Control 2: The Ur-Quan Masters does the same thing no matter when he is met, how he is met or under what circumstances he is met. First encounter sends the player on a quest after much discussion. Each subsequent encounter is the same until the player completes the quest. Tanaka, within the same game, continues to try and destroy the player until the player has insulted Tanaka three times. At which point, Tanaka remains vigilant in the system he is encountered. Of course, the quest upon which ZEX sends the player is doomed to failure which will allow the player to repopulate Tanaka’s race.

Massive multi-player online games also use pre-scripted personas. Meeting such characters as city guards always follow the same script, regardless of which guard is met. Quest givers follow the same script each and every time the quest is given, and if the player returns without completing the quest, the quest giver responds the same way without variation. Obviously, this is not a realistic approach to quest giving. Each subsequent return without completing the quest could involve frustration on the part of the quest giver. This is the standard model by which the vast majority of persona’s in games are made. It is easy to script and follows simple if statements.

Random quest generation, though nothing new, is simple to implement. The system simply takes the player’s level and formulates a challenge by randomly selecting a mob of an appropriate level to be killed, or an item that is dropped by a mob of the appropriate level to be acquired. Usually, a certain number of kills or acquisitions must be accomplished before the quest is completed. Usually, no personas are involved. These quests are usually acquired through a kiosk or a message board found within game. These are also known as dailies in some games where the quests can only be performed once per day.

Player generated quests can be the most interactive due to the negotiation of the reward for performing the quest. However, most games utilize an auction house or a bounty system for this. Almost every massive multi-player online game has an auction house where players can sell the more rare items for in game money. In a sense, the player acquires an item and turns it in to the auction house with a minimum price (reward). This is similar to acquisition quests, but there is no experience point gained for turning in the item. If there is a high demand for an item, the money is the incentive to go on the “quest.” The alternative is the bounty. Bounties are player generated quests by offering in game money or rewards for another player to fight yet a third player within the game. When the server registers a kill of the third player by the second, the bounty is considered complete and the reward paid.

To provide the characters with personalities, the programmer must define what constitutes a personality within the scope of the game. Motivations used to determine what is more important to the individual. The level and intensity of that motivation places certain actions of an individual as more likely than others. A list of pre-scripted responses does not necessarily mean that there is no alteration between encounters, but that the program has a wider range of options within the script based on motivations. A non-player character with aggression as a high level and high intensity motivation is more likely to start combat with the player, but might not necessarily do so.

Reputation is used in several games to denote favor or disfavor of a faction based on previous encounters and successful quests. A similar method can be used as a means of individual memory as well as faction reputation. A list of reputations, such as those found in the Star Trek Role-playing Games published by Last Unicorn Games, is recommended. A list of reputations is preferred because each faction would have what it considers more important reputation aspects.

With an understanding of the quest generation and individual motivation methodology, a means can be developed to combine the two into a single framework of realistic requests and favors of non-player characters which will change based on the actions of the player and those actions moving through the game environment.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blizzard Entertainment (2004). World of Warcraft [Software]. Available from http://us.battle.net/wow. Though the quests and interactions all follow a definite script, they are broader in that many of the quests and personalities do rely on previous encounters with other members of the same faction.

Beijing Perfect World (2005). Perfect World [Software]. Available from http://pwi.perfectworld.com. Useful for further information on pre-scripted personalities. It is similar to World of Warcraft, often being compared as the Chinese World of Warcraft.

CCP Games (2003). Eve Online [Software]. Available from http://www.eve-online.com. Carrying an excellent bounty system, I recommend it for the reputation as well. Though there are few other role-playing opportunities in Eve, the bounty and reputation systems developed by CCP games do make for non-linear semi-scripted quests and player-developed bounties.

Funcom (2001). Anarchy Online [Software]. Available from http://www.anarchy-online.com. Helpful for this topic due to the random quest generation. Examples of kiosks are in major player congregations in the game.

Toys For Bob (1992). Star Control 2: The Ur-Quan Masters [Software]. Available from http://sc2.sourceforge.net. Useful in showing the method of pre-scripted personalities. Every encounter of a race is identical as any other with the same race. However, continuing plot elements are progress in a linear manner, regardless of interactions throughout the game.