What do we call the combination of player and character? (Specifically in EVE Online)

[gomipile]

We have characters in games, which are played by players. Predicting the actions of a character in the context of a game, the character matters, and so does the player playing that character. The character matters, of course, because that is what determines the attributes and abilities the character has access to. The player matters because of player experience, and the unique resources that player can bring to bear with the character.

In games like EVE Online, the player of a character can legally change, bringing a different experience set and other resources (like currency reserves to buy more equipment.)

So, since in games like that the combination of player+character matters a lot, what one-word name could we give to that combined entity?

[GolemsVoice]

I don't think there needs to be a name for that. After all, even if the capabilities of the player heavily influence the capabilites of the character, they are still seperate. So you can say that a certain character has suddenly become more powerful because the new player of that character has more money to spend on upgrading him, and leave it at that.

I mean, essentially all things in MMORPGs are a combination of external force and internal force. A boss for example, might be very hard. Then, the company decides to make the boss easier, but it can also decide to make the boss even harder, so the boss is an important combination of it's in-game abilities and the out-of-game plan of the company.

[gomipile]

Another point is that a statement like "I've had dealings with BobX 315 going back 6 years, but not recently." doesn't have much meaning if the character has been sold on the bazaar since the dealings in question.

Predicting the behaviors of characters has a lot to do with their past actions. All that goes out the window if the character has been sold.

[GolemsVoice]

But you have dealing with the PLAYER, not with some combined entity. Of course the character somewhat represents the player, but what he writes and says, so in essence the personality of the character, are all up to the player. New player, new personality.

[gomipile]

But you have dealing with the PLAYER, not with some combined entity. Of course the character somewhat represents the player, but what he writes and says, so in essence the personality of the character, are all up to the player. New player, new personality.

In the case of EVE, the character determines how dangerous of a ship the player can fly, and the player determines whether the character will likely fire on you in a given situation. The combination of the two determines how much danger you are in if you run into that character while you are out and about.

[Rawhide]

It's called a "player character".

[gomipile]

It's called a "player character".

I don't see any sarcasm color, so I'll assume you are serious.

In the noun phrase "player character," the adjective "player" indicates that the character is a character who is played by a player. This serves only to distinguish it from a "non-player character." If a player character is talked about, the name of the player character is typically give, but not the name or any identification of the player. Most importantly, if the same player character is handed off between players, it is (at least in my experience) still referred to by the same name.

So, you will hear things like "That player character is Drizzt." One does not typically hear "That player character is a fusion of the character capabilities of the character Drizzt and his player, Bob."

What I want is a common noun that makes sense and sounds natural as the X in "That X is a fusion of the character capabilities of the character Drizzt and his player, Bob." but would never be properly used as the X in "That X is Drizzt." The common noun "player character" does not fit that criteria.

[The Glyphstone]

I also don't see why it's necessary...you seem to be arguing that the 'character' has any existence or autonomy outside of its use by the player. In EVE, to use your own example, the avatar/character isn't somehow hybridized with the player controlling it, it's just a medium through which they take their actions. Its abilities, attributes, etc. may augment or limit the actions they choose to take, but it's not anything significantly different from the player to warrant a separate title.

In real-world terms, this is like arguing that you have one word for a car (car), and one word for the person driving the car (driver), but you need to invent an entirely new word to describe the conglomerate of person-driving-a-car. A single car with specific traits and specs can be transferred between owners, who might have different levels of driving experience and different amounts of savings to spend on upgrades or repairs to that car, but you don't need a new word to describe the pair.

[Rawhide]

I don't see any sarcasm color, so I'll assume you are serious.

In the noun phrase "player character," the adjective "player" indicates that the character is a character who is played by a player. This serves only to distinguish it from a "non-player character." If a player character is talked about, the name of the player character is typically give, but not the name or any identification of the player. Most importantly, if the same player character is handed off between players, it is (at least in my experience) still referred to by the same name.

So, you will hear things like "That player character is Drizzt." One does not typically hear "That player character is a fusion of the character capabilities of the character Drizzt and his player, Bob."

What I want is a common noun that makes sense and sounds natural as the X in "That X is a fusion of the character capabilities of the character Drizzt and his player, Bob." but would never be properly used as the X in "That X is Drizzt." The common noun "player character" does not fit that criteria.

I am serious, and nothing you have said has negated my point.

In the noun phrase "player character," the adjective "player" indicates that the character is a character who is played by a player. That character is thus a fusion of the player and the character. Exactly what you asked for.

[Godskook]

I am serious, and nothing you have said has negated my point.

In the noun phrase "player character," the adjective "player" indicates that the character is a character who is played by a player. That character is thus a fusion of the player and the character. Exactly what you asked for.

Since he originally asked for a 1-word descriptor and you gave him a 2-word descriptor, I fail to see how your point is even relevant. Worse, your choice of phrase is grossly ambiguous with exceedingly common and exceedingly relevant terminology(as OP already mentioned, "Player Character" also refers to a character that can be controlled by a player, but in a way that does not care if the controlling player changes).

@OP, how about gestalt? You may need to 'teach' people that you're referring to a player/character gestalt, but after briefly establishing your terminology, it should function fine in this context.

@Glyphstone, its not really comparable to the car-driving in general, as you're unlikely to experience observably different reactions from a driver because of his choice of car. You're even less likely to be able to observe the same driver in multiple cars or multiple drivers utilizing the same car. Its easier to simplify that model to just "Driver" and let it be.

However, you can see it in D&D when a player is absent and someone else is running his character. That new and temporary gestalt will not react to the game environment properly and sometimes DMs have put in rules on how a temporary gestalt can behave; rules that neither apply to the controlling player or character in any other situation.

[GolemsVoice]

I'm just puzzled about why we need a new word for that. I've played WoW, and, granted, the characters there usually don't change owners, but I've never felt the need to adress the fact that the capabilities of player AND character add up.

If a bad player messed up even with good gear, you'd say "That's a bad player right there" and if a bad player was saved by good gear, or by the fact that his class was powerful at the moment you'd say "He won DESPITE being a bad player." I never felt the need to say "Ah, the gestalt is weak!"

[gomipile]

I'm just puzzled about why we need a new word for that. I've played WoW, and, granted, the characters there usually don't change owners, but I've never felt the need to adress the fact that the capabilities of player AND character add up.

If a bad player messed up even with good gear, you'd say "That's a bad player right there" and if a bad player was saved by good gear, or by the fact that his class was powerful at the moment you'd say "He won DESPITE being a bad player." I never felt the need to say "Ah, the gestalt is weak!"

It's just a topic I was thinking about. I wanted a word to think to myself about this concept, so as to more easily relate and combine this concept to other ideas while philosophizing about interactions in games.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm just puzzled about why we need a new word for that. I've played WoW, and, granted, the characters there usually don't change owners, but I've never felt the need to adress the fact that the capabilities of player AND character add up.

If a bad player messed up even with good gear, you'd say "That's a bad player right there" and if a bad player was saved by good gear, or by the fact that his class was powerful at the moment you'd say "He won DESPITE being a bad player." I never felt the need to say "Ah, the gestalt is weak!"

Exactly.

To expand my own analogy, an old rusted clunker car is going to handle differently than a sports car, both while handle differently than a Jeep or SUV, and it's hardly uncommon to see, say, a suburban family with kids that owns both a car and an SUV, assuming at least one of the parents works. If Mr. Mom usually drives the giant minivan full of kids around and almost never takes the sedan out, that's an easily viewable and noticeable difference (in parking, buffer zone to other cars, turn angles, etc.). Or if they decide to upgrade to a sports car and sell their sedan to the 16-year old down the street who just got his license, that's an easy way to view the same car in the hands of two different drivers.

The only way you can even tell the difference between someone controlling another person's character badly and the owner having a bad day/bad luck is that they're sitting across the table from you. In an online game like EVE, the difference will be even harder to tell apart, since so many other factors get involved.

You can freely and happily name this 'gestalt', but don't expect many other people to have any idea what you're talking about or why such a definition is needed in the first place. It's really just unnecessary beyond an idle thought exercise, at least until AI advances to the point where a character could conceivably exist beyond its player's attention and activity.

[Rawhide]

Since he originally asked for a 1-word descriptor and you gave him a 2-word descriptor, I fail to see how your point is even relevant.

Multi word terms with loanwords:
deus ex machina
quid pro quo
ad nauseam
au contraire
per se
vice versa

Multi word terms:
think tank
pillow case
locker room
tit for tat
first aid
compound word
tea bag
foot fault
heal spur
make believe
deep end
tear gas
traffic light
cricket bat

English is filled with multiple word terms that cannot be separated without changing their meaning or resulting in words meaning something completely different. Neither player nor character mean the same without the other. I fail to see how what you've said there is even relevant.


Worse, your choice of phrase is grossly ambiguous with exceedingly common and exceedingly relevant terminology(as OP already mentioned, "Player Character" also refers to a character that can be controlled by a player, but in a way that does not care if the controlling player changes).

"Bob is a player character. He was played by Jack, but now he's played by Jill. Since Jill took over, Bob has become more intelligent."

To my knowledge, and the knowledge of everyone posting so far, we don't have a single word term to mean not only the combination of the two elements, but the specific combination at that time (e.g. Bob*Jack). I also dispute that there is any ambiguity. The term does more than to simply distinguish it from a non-player character (in fact, the term "non-player character" is actually to distinguish them from player characters, rather than the other way around), it refers to what that character is: a player/character fusion.

A player character's abilities, skills, knowledge, personality, power, et. al. is a fusion of a character and the person playing it. This term is exactly what the original poster asked for.

"I slaughtered the player character Bob the other day, but after Jack sold Bob to Jill, he's become much more ruthless and cunning."

The term gestalt is highly ambiguous, since it can mean so many things when condextualised and means very little when used in isolation. You could not simply call the fusion a "gestalt", you would have to call it a "gestalt of player and character" in order for it to make sense.

e.g. "The gestalt of the player Jack and the character Bob." or, after defining what you mean by gestalt in the beginning of the document, you could shorten it to "The Bob*Jack gestalt." - but you do need to specify the definition you intend to use prior to use in order to clarify the ambiguity.

[Driderman]

Playaracter?

[Hawriel]

There already is a term for when a character in the game is representing the actual player.

Avatar.

That's it.

Other terms that may apply are sprite, player character, or icon.

[gomipile]

There already is a term for when a character in the game is representing the actual player.

Avatar.

That's it.

Other terms that may apply are sprite, player character, or icon.

Is that terminology commonly used in tabletop RPGs as well? Also, the term "Avatar" as I have seen it used to refer to an incomplete subset of the traits of what we refer to as the character.

[Rawhide]

Is that terminology commonly used in tabletop RPGs as well? Also, the term "Avatar" as I have seen it used to refer to an incomplete subset of the traits of what we refer to as the character.

It's rarely used in tabletop, not in this sense anyway, but likely because a player character isn't an avatar. In tabletop RPGs, you're almost always playing a character that is not you. An avatar is a representation of the entity in a different form. e.g. The term avatar in tabletop RPGs is used to refer to the representation a formless deity uses to project themselves into the mortal plane.

An avatar is essentially a direct representation of the controller, rather than a fusion of the two. The controller may choose to portray themselves differently in that representation, but that is effectively the same as wearing a metaphorical mask (the same way people put on different metaphorical masks when they move through different social circles), rather than playing a character.

[GolemsVoice]

Also, in a roleplaying game, the player playing a character usually sits right across the table, so he doesn't need an avatar, because you can talk to the real person (even when talking to the character)