Lemma Soft Forums

Do you find it easier playing through a character that already has a rather extensive knowledge of the plot's conflict, post-play events and the things that influenced his motivations at the beginning of the game? Or is it easier/more convenient playing a character who knows very little (or nothing at all) from the start and the facts will be introduced to him (and the player) throughout the game?

What do you think are the pros and cons of both? Which character would be harder to write?

Knowing nothing from the start and finding out at the same time as the player does seem more realistic to me.
Generally, if you think about it, the protag might know a bit about the goings on, but they wouldn't have a feel idea (if they knew exactly what would happen I'd find it rather boring).
If that's what you meant?

AshenhartKrie wrote:Knowing nothing from the start and finding out at the same time as the player does seem more realistic to me.
Generally, if you think about it, the protag might know a bit about the goings on, but they wouldn't have a feel idea (if they knew exactly what would happen I'd find it rather boring).
If that's what you meant?

Yes that's what I meant
I suppose it is easier to get into the "feeling" of being the character and sympathizing with his emotions/reactions to events and infos if they (player&char) are introduced to the same things at the same time

Generally when I play a Vn or Kn I consider myself the protag anyway. Other people might not do that. It just adds a sense of realism I guess.

I find that it is something of a cliche for the protagonist to have, for example, amnesia so that the player and PC have the same lack of knowledge. I find this cliche a bit overdone and not interesting anymore. I often find such characters tend to be a bit flat.

Whenever I find a Game where the PC has knowledge of the world they live in as a realistic person would, and the author can manage the difference between PC and player knowledge well, I'm always impressed. I find that much more impressive that another version of amnesia or stranger in a strange land. If those things are done well? Okay...but often it just doesn't work for me.

Whichever you choose, whether the protagonist have extensive knowledge or not, avoid info-dumping to the player just because the protagonist know it. Simply having an encyclopedia style for the player to read themselves is overwhelming for some people (and they won't read it).

So even though the protagonist know it, s/he still need to somehow teach all that bit by bit to the player. This is why almost all (if not all) detective games/show have an "idiot" side character(s) who know nothing. That way, the protagonist can explain all kind of things to those characters (and player). On the other hand, having all those basic information explained to the protagonist (and hence the player) will make him look stupid.

For your answer, it actually depends on the story. If your character is a veteran or a genius, he should already know various of things. While if he is a newbie, you can have a veteran/old side character that will explain all those things to him (and the player) bit by bit to avoid info-dumping.

I don't think it is hard at all for the protagonist to have a lot of info at the beginning, though it also depends on the point of view.
In first person, certain basic fact about the world are going to be hard to explain (prevalent in fantasy/scifi, but also happen to any unusual stuff such as a school theme with weird semester system), since the protagonist are not going to remind herself that she can walk on air if that is what she and everyone in the world have been doing. The easy way out here is to have another character who is fish out of the water to ask those question instead; another easy method is to simply ignore all of the weird thing altogether and assume that the audience with get it. The exception is character introduction however, so the protagonist can monologue basic fact about her childhood friend such as his personality in the introduction.
In third person however, it might be harder to pull off fake knowledge (ie. what the protagonist think she know as some basic fact but are not true), since third person is supposed to be more objective.
Flashback or similar kind of associative memory should be simpler to handle. Human memory work by association, so it is safe to think that the protagonist simply do not remember the flashback at all until something trigger it, and then you can show it. So the protagonist might know some basic fact about the childhood friend, but not until event X happen that she remember that he once did Y, which might be something against his personality (and thus remembered) or something that is part of his personality (but is the the most representative, or somehow linked most strongly to event X).
Of course, having the protagonist know TOO much will push her into the Mary Sue category, but I don't think it is the main point of this thread.

The protagonist having little to no information at the beginning is easier to handle, since it makes the story flow more naturally and the player is generally on the same page as the protagonist. If the protagonist is informed, the information should gradually be shared with the player through conversations and internal dialogue. It's difficult to follow a story when the protagonist and the player are on different pages.

I like it better if the protagonist has just enough info at the beginning. I don't like it when they have none but I also don't like it if they just keep spouting on and on about crap i don't care about yet. If they know nothing like if they have amnesia that always weirded me out. You can have a character now know about themselves a bit without amnesia.

Semienigma wrote: You can have a character now know about themselves a bit without amnesia.

Amen to that.
Characters with amnesia at the beginning of the game are a bit hard to relate to if you ask me.
Not everyone has gone through amnesia so it feels a bit uncomfortable.

I think that a protagonist with little knowledge of the plot conflict is more preferable than they already know that is going on. It is easier to connect to the player since the player itself has a little knowledge of the plot conflict in the start of the game. If you make it a protagonist-know-it-all, you need to elaborate more the conflict to the player. But this is unnatural.

Having a protagonist with little knowledge in the plot conflict can make the player go with the flow and feel the protagonist feeling when he discovered the conflict.

But after all, it depends on the theme and setting of your story.

I tend to prefer a protagonist who has enough information to feel like part of the world they're in. A lot of stories seem to fall back on the cliche of "here's this person suddenly placed in this situation which is completely alien to them!"

I also feel that I should mention that just because the protagonist knows something does not necessarily mean that the audience needs to. I mean this, of course, to facilitate editing of excessive setting dressing and am in no way suggesting that a narrator might be unreliable, or even just wrong, in some instances.