Writing believable characters (Patreon)

I have always been interested in writing, in psychology and in theoretical models. It makes sense then that when embarking on my journey to start writing a visual novel, my major focus would be on psychological theoretical models for story writing. In this post I would like to share two models which helped a great deal when developing the characters for Lunar. 

Interpersonal Circumplex

I was first exposed to the “Interpersonal Circumplex” in Jesse Schell’s “The Art of Game Design” - which just so happens to be an excellent book, if a little long-winded. The Circumplex was actually developed by psychologists in 2003 and is a model for describing interpersonal behaviour, that is: the way people behave towards one another. 

As it happens, it’s a perfect way of thinking about how your characters interact with each other as well. There are two major axes originally developed by Timothy Leary (famous for bringing  psychedelic drugs into psychology). Those axes are Power (Dominant to Submissive) and Love (Hostile to Friendly). Adding in two more dimensions (Introvert - Extrovert and Separated - Connected) and we’re able to define a number of interrelationships in a 2-dimensional model. The little words in the model are attempting to capture the behaviour at that point in the model. 

On the outside edge are the extremes. For example, someone who is both very hostile and very submissive might come across as passive-aggressive, while someone who is highly friendly but dominant might be smothering or patronising. As you move towards the center of the circumplex, the strength of the behaviour lessons and the characters' behaviour become more mild. 

 

Why is this helpful? The approach Schells promotes in his book is to put your main character (in my case, Red) in the center of the circumplex and then draw all the other characters around them, so we can understand the other characters’ relationships to the main character. You can draw a circumplex between the other characters too so you can understand how they interact with each other. 

Once I did this for my characters, I realised that keeping a character at the same point on the circumplex during the whole game was very boring. The way characters relate to each other is never static. It’s always changing because of character arcs. 

In a good story, a good character has an arc, they experience an “inner journey” which changes them. This internal change results in external changes such as changes in behaviour and (importantly) changes in the way they relate to the main character. 

So, I set about drawing these arcs on the circumplex. I colour-coded them per each character in my game design manual but because I don’t want to spoil the game, this version is black & white.

I came to realise that the “bigger” the arc, the more interesting the character development. Also, if the arc crosses over one of the poles, that’s even more interesting again. A character that makes a journey from timid to assertive or vice versa is far more interesting than a character that started out as either of those things and remained that way for the whole game. 

I literally drew every character in the game on the circumplex around my main character and then thought for days about how I could move them as far away from their current position as possible, preferably onto the completely other side of the circumplex. This results in interesting, often surprising outcomes and (I believe) more interesting and believable characters. I hope you agree!

Myers-Briggs

Another model I borrowed from psychology is Myers-Briggs. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has almost become a trope of late. I have loved Myers-Briggs ever since I first discovered it, but that is what an INTP would say isn’t it?

Myers-Briggs was developed as a vocational test to find the appropriate type of work for women during the second world war, it has since gained popularity in many spheres including game design.

Much the same way as a horoscope, Myers-Briggs seeks to compartmentalise people by a set of key archetypes according to a set of characteristics. Unlike horoscopes, it can be useful when you’re trying to understand people and what motivates them. 

There are four dimensions to Myers-Briggs:

Our flow of energy: Extrovert / Introvert

How we take in information: iNtuitive / Sensing

How we make decisions: Thinking / Feeling

How we deal with the external world: Judging / Perceiving

I could write for days on the details of these (and probably will), but for now I will just talk about it's applicability to the game, you can read many other great explanations online. 

Combinations of the above 8 exprssions render us 16 unique personality types. These types (or archetypes) don't tell us how we are supposed to behave but they do give some useful insights into how characters might respond in different circumstances as well as helping us understand their flaws. 

Take Green for example: I designed him to be INTJ. Very similar to me except that he lacks the Perceiving quality I have, rather having a Judging quality. What does this mean in practice? The introversion makes him less likely to be stimulated by the company of others. The Judging, if turned outward means he is often critical of people who he sees as less intelligent than himself. The Thinking means he's likely to brood over things but also likely to come up with great insights, especially paired with his iNtuitive nature. 

The website personalitypage.com may look old, but it's still the most accurate and useful site I know with information about the MBTI. Here's what they say about Green's personality type, in the context of personal growth. 

These character flaws are a gold mine for a writer. I can selectively work them into Green's character, allow him to grapple with them and succeed or fail. Keeping Green's personality in the forefront of my mind also helps when deciding how he will react to something. 

When Red approaches Green with a problem how would Green react? Well, the feelings of another person are of no interest to an INTJ, so he would dismiss any of Red's distress as hysteria. In fact, he may not even register that Red was distressed in the first place. 

Green's only interest would be in the puzzle that Red represents, in fact you could argue that to Green, Red is nothing more than a uniquely troubling puzzle that threatens to draw him out of his shell and into the story. 

That's another thing: it's no mistake that all of the other characters (apart from Violet) in the game are introverts whilst Red is an extrovert. This means that the player is able - in fact required - to draw the other characters out. They won't tell you anything unless you ask them, they don't approach you unless there is some kind of thing you (as the extrovert in the room) have done to cause it. This fits with the mechanic of the game but is also believable in terms of the ways the characters behave.

Red's personality type (ENFP), also happens to be almost directly opposite to Green's. This means that Green and Red clash, almost immediately, it also means they have a lot to learn from each other.