The Second AI
Problems with video games can highlight what is right with tabletop role playing games and vice versa.
When a player goes up against a computer opponent in a game, that opponent is controlled by an AI. The AI is supposed to simulate the tactics and decisions a real opponent would make. The orcs might be smart, the orcs might be dumb — it depends on how the AI is set and also based on how well it is programmed. If there are multiple opponents, there can be more than one AI, but each AI is basically subjective — it controls creatures in the game world.
What's missing is the Second AI, the AI that controls the game itself, the AI that tries to make sure the player is having fun. The enemy AI's aren't supposed to do that — they're supposed to try and win, not cut the player a break.
So what would this Second AI do? Moderate random events within the world of the video game, swinging them for or against the player to maximize the fun. Increase the challenge when the game is too easy, or foil the enemies a bit if the player is having too hard a time.
This idea probably sounds familiar, because even though it is non-existent in video games (as far as I know), it's ingrained in tabletop roleplaying, because that's what the GM does.
footnote: “Second” AI might not be the best term, since in computer games there could be any number of AIs running the adversaries. It's really a Gamemaster AI or Game AI.
Leave a reply
I like this concept. Having a computer game that is made fun by a ai sounds like a good idea. And it wouldn’t be that hard now AI is getting better it would be easier
This has been touted as a selling point for a few games. The one that comes to mind for me is left 4 dead. It has its AI (the zombies and miniboss-like ‘special infected’) but also has a ‘Director’.
The director controls when hoards of the undead appear, when the special infected appear, what kind of special infected, who they’ll target, etc. The director’s aim is to emulate the peaks and troughs of a good creator directed gameplay segment, but to do it dynamically, meaning that every storm through the games few campaigns is unpredictable and surprising, while still being attentive to the pressures (or lack thereof) being placed on each player.
This often means, hilariously, that the tables may turn halfway through a map. The director takes pity on you – the waddling, half dead survivor that you are – and suddenly the player who was mocking your lack of skill earlier gets pounced by special infected over and over while the lesser undead bicker over which cut they get. You, however, get to stand there and laugh (while you can).
Left 4 Dead’s director has always seemed to me to have a gift for punishing hubris with devastatingly comedic results.
@Denny: Yeah “AI” is just a easy label to comprehend. Eventually your Playstation may sue for suffrage, but not yet.
Going back over all of your old posts (Alexandrian linked me here and I’m engrossed) so excuse the 6 year late reply.
I’m a game designer, freelance now, but formerly of Electronic Arts.
What you’re talking about lives as independent systems that exist throughout games rather than a functional single Second AI. Skyrim, for instance, has a leveled encounter system (as mentioned by Rick_TWA), Most of EA’s sports games have a system of boosting or nerfing the CPU controlled players at the lower difficulty levels (where as higher difficulty levels do not have this, as it’s assumed players at those levels are looking for a more ‘organic’ simulation).
To call it AI is perhaps reading too much into it. AI is a weird phrase… in most games, it amounts to little more than random behavior tables. Imagine if, as a GM, instead of looking at the game situation and determining what the orc will do, you rolled percentile dice and consulted a table. That’s how most video game AI works.
In well designed games, it takes the form of very deep decision trees based on a series of if/else checks (think flow charts). That is still rare, as the design side of gaming hasn’t really come to terms with AI.
One of the most annoying versions of this you can find in computer games is the leveled enemy, ala Final Fantasy 8, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Oblivion. In most Computer RPGs, if you want to make the game easier, you can simply spend an afternoon grinding somewhere putting your level above the level the designers anticipated for the current area. Similarly, if you’re short of resources you can go back to an area where the challenges are easier and grind for a while to make money, get potions, whatever, without much risk or effort. The leveled enemy system is annoying because these posibilities no longer exist. Leveling up only makes every enemy in the game more difficult to defeat and going back for resources is pointless since you’ll spend them as quickly as you earn them. In these games, the only way you can give yourself an advantage is by finding some way to make your character more powerful without leveling. usually this means better gear, more efficient planning or non-level dependant advancement.
It’s odd that this is so damn annoying in video games because it works really well in tabletop RPG. In fact, MOST tabletop RPGs use a system similar to this, where the Game master designs a challenge specifically with the character’s abilities in mind. However, where the GM has the advantage that the computer does not is that they can distinguish between the creations of power disparity that will make the game more fun, and those that will make it less fun.
This feature has been common in video games since the early 1990s. I think “Gods” on the Amiga was the first game that boasted about doing it. If you haven’t noticed it that may be because games are very good at doing it subtly.
Not all players like it. For example the recent “Cars” game was critized because it is very noticable that when you are losing a race all your opponents slow down to let you catch up. A lot of 2 player fighting games and some MMORPGs like City of Heros try to balance combat between players by having special moves that can only be performed when the player is low on health.
Some players prefer to have a fixed difficultly level of “easy, medium, hard” so they have an objective standard to measure their performance against. For games that are about testing the player’s skill rather than immersing them into a story, this is more appropriate.
I think the difference between a computer game and a tabletop game is far more than fudging the dice rolls. Most computer games test skill and are nothing like a roleplaying game. Many video games test strategy and in that respect they are like tabletop wargames, and hence like the combat portion of a roleplaying game. “Roleplaying” computer games incorporate elements of skill and strategy but also attempt to tell a story and simulate a world, goals they share with tabletop roleplaying.
The main difference, in my opinion, is simply that computers cannot yet write stories, and so the story of a computer game is fixed and cannot adapt very much to the players actions. Branches in the story are possible, but each branch doubles the amount of work required to create the game, so they are rare.
There is research being done to enable computers to invent stories, and I have seen one experimental game along these lines.
I don’t know if this concept is considered when building video games or not either. However, at the risk of creating a neologism, I would call it the Meta AI.