After thinking for awhile about this, I actually *was* able to come up with some named characters with personalities in tabletop games - largely starting with anything involving miniatures, because right there you've got this tangible model that just drips expressiveness. Whatever the other flaws of Warhammer, it isn't lacking for lore; pick any WH40K mini, even the least imposing, and there's a backstory there explaining what that lil guy is.
Even outside of miniatures games, most games that use miniatures have some kind of name: the quirky robots in RoboRally, the scooby-gang-like explorers in Betrayal at House on the Hill. Some games even just have little cardboard stand-ups but with named characters with personalities, like the boardgame Android (which they did "merchandize" in the sense of reusing the IP for the Netrunner reboot, at least, though I doubt anyone ever said they'd want a plushie of a washed-up alcoholic detective), or Arkham Horror. Heck, even the characters in Talisman had a paragraph of flavor text, didn't they?
If we expand "board games" to include all tabletop including card games, TCGs like Magic are rich with characters - Urza, Mithra, Jace, dozens of others - and those *do* have merch associated with them, from posters to play mats to miniatures. I wouldn't be surprised if there are Magic-branded action figures and plushies out there somewhere.
I suspect what it actually comes down to is just market size. You mention Pac-Man as an example, but as you say, that character was just SO widespread in pop culture at the time. By contrast, even a highly successful boardgame just doesn't have that kind of reach. That's why Uncle Pennybags from Monopoly or the characters from Clue come to mind - those are two of the few games that really were big enough hits to have a real effect on pop culture. Probably the closest hobby game to reach those numbers was Catan (and Mayfair did sell wood/wheat/sheep/ore/clay plushies, though they weren't really a huge money-maker AFAIK). Of the hobby games that have actual characters... well, show me one that has the widespread appeal and recognition of Pac-Man, and I'll show you a game with merch, but I don't think there is one.
Closest other example I can think of is Dungeons & Dragons, which has a ton of canonical lore which did make it into the recent movie, and had enough effect on pop culture to use its IP for a movie in the first place. (I didn't look to see if there were any action figures from that movie, but I'd be shocked if there weren't.)
Anyway, I'd say that popularity by sheer numbers is the main stopping point here, rather than lack of characters.
(That said... would definitely encourage designers to design characters for their boardgames when appropriate. Geoff, not sure if you saw my prototype of Prism Break some years ago at Protospiel, but if you did, I did include some light backstory for the characters there - related to the mechanics, even - and writing that was super fun and let me include a kind of "easter egg" for players who took the time to look closely at the player mats. Even though I wouldn't expect anyone to make t-shirts or action figures of those characters ever, it was just fun to include and cost me nothing extra, so why not?)
Isn't it about the genre more than anything else? Memorable video game protagonists all originate from character-driven games, I can't name any that originates from an RTS or a management game (and even worse if it's multiplayer-oriented games).
Even in video games with narrative, if the protagonist is randomized (or a group of people), they won't become an IP in themselves, while some of the villains/side characters may become recognizable.
The 'PacMan' example is interesting: to me, it's more of a mascot, a pawn you use as a link between you and the game. It's recognizable because it has a distinct visual... but I can't think of any popular board game where you interact with the whole experience using a single pawn (not even Monopoly, where you manipulate cards & money).
Could you create a compelling board game experience that is centered around a single character you can get attached to? Now that's an interesting design challenge
Can't think of many character-driven board games that aren't also licensed tie-in games (like Star Wars).
A recent exception is Queen by Midnight, by Darington Press. It's a deck-building game, only the cards you can choose (and therefore the powers available to you) are determined by which character you play. Each character is a princess with a detailed backstory and personality. There's even an entire page in the rulebook dedicated to lore (which makes me think they have ambitions of creating Queen by Midnight spin-offs someday).
You raise another good point: the repetition of characters across titles. Board games typically don't do much with this, but I think it's a great way to bring people back for more. Mario started in Donkey Kong (or maybe earlier), then eventually got his own titles -- plural. Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros., Dr. Mario, then Mario Kart, Mario 64, etc. Ryan Laukat keeps adding to his Arzium world, which is great -- and because we're people we look for faces within the world. A continuation of the fictional world is great ... but what if Ryan's Near and Far characters showed up in Sleeping Gods, and Creature Caravan, etc. (Maybe they do?)
I agree with a lot of the comments and many of your hypothesis sound plausible; it _is_ tougher in board games because of reasons brought up here.
Still, I will simply say that I also believe that board games haven't done good enough a job with this. From what I can tell when I hear designers on podcasts, from critics talking or writing, it is sometimes taken as a truth that "you can't really do great characters in board games." I'm thinking: Have there really been any great attempts? I see new IP and worlds being built around a setting and striking art (for example Scythe/Expeditions, Everdell, Root) but these games do not even try do put A character front and center.
"But not everyone can play the same character" – you can have several identifiable characters, but maybe center it around another non-playable character. Think of IP where the main character of the story isn't the most recognizable one, such as Darth Vader and Yoda in Star Wars. Maybe player play characters out to help this central iconic character?
"But in board games you create the character and the story; video games have more pre-defined narratives" – so design with "levels" where, just like in a Zelda game, a lot of the how you solve things is up to the player, but the story points are set and you don't influence the character. You are playing Link (not "The Crafty Elf"), but you get to choose how Link solves each challenge.
JB Oger just now commented: "Could you create a compelling board game experience that is centered around a single character you can get attached to?" I would certainly love to see someone try and I think there is so much that is unexplored here because of a sort of "inherited truth" that it is too hard.
I think the big thing is that board games are personalized. If want to play the Cragheart in Gloomhaven, I get to give it a name. And I think that's the beauty. I'm not playing one character that's the same as every other person. It's my own character with its own personality define by me.
I think you're onto something, Geoff, with your mention of Catan wood and wool merch. They aren't characters you can name -- but the game doesn't need a character to have a recognizable IP. You say "Wingspan," and I immediately picture that scissor-tailed bird on its cover.
Note that I don't know that bird's name (although if I owned and played the game more I might, because its name appears on its card in the game). I think what's going on here is a bit of a marketing void. Not that I think this should be filled -- but it could be. And it could look like this:
"I spotted the scissortail." That's my T-shirt's caption as I waltz into my weekly board game night. Maybe a graphic accompanies those words, maybe not. But I get to show off my Nerd Cred by having a tie-in product which yells, "I know that IP, and that means I'm cool!" Or at least it calls out, "I like this thing!"
I feel dumb because I don't know that bird's name. (I'm guessing above at what it might be.) But I would if that shirt existed, right? Because how often has merchandising given weight and "stickiness" to otherwise forgettable content? Think of Boba Fett from the first Star Wars trilogy. He had his own action figure, which had a jet pack! Of course I'd want to play with that toy. Which makes the character cool, which makes me remember his name.
But I'm straying back into character name territory. I started this "comment" talking about how character isn't all-important. Stickiness is -- and Wingspan is widespread, but is it sticky? With some clever marketing, it could be. And that doesn't have to be Stonemaier's burden. Think of all the unlicensed Star Wars merch that all serves to increase the stickiness of Star Wars! (Case in point: "Han shot first.")
These things say, "I like this thing, and if you like it too we can connect through it." They're all means to connect. We can connect through our shared nostalgia of trading wheat and ore. Or through our appreciation of cover bird art and the experience of bird engine building. But maybe part of the problem is that we don't have the merch to buy even though we might want it.
Pac-Man was made popular by children and teenagers. Hasn't the main customer base for hobby board games been middle aged men? Even with family games is the person into the board game hobby that introduces it. I'm less excited about wearing a t-shirt with a character from a game or any IP I love than I was when I was a child.
Could mass consumerism/commerce also play a part? Businesses could see that Pac-man had mass market appeal so they start producing their products (t-shirts, comics, toys, cartoons). Hobby board games has never had that level of mass appeal, and might not for a long time. It's easier to notice a pac-man t-shirt if one million children and young adults are walking around the general population with one compared to say 50 with a Takenoko Panda t-shirt (if such a t-shirt exists. If a business was unwise enough to think they could make good money from this). We don't feel it's a successful IP character because those children don't beg for those t-shirts and toys for their birthdays because businesses rightly haven't bothered to create those products (which creates repetition outside the game). If products created by mass media businesses creates and reenforces an IP character's feeling of successful, does that mean the relatively tiny hobby board game market cannot create such a "successful" IP?
I can think of some characters like Maginos and Tilda and Collin and Filch from Mice and Mystics (kind of cheating, because Geoff mentioned the game. Others are favourites from the Dead of Winter games like Sparky, Kodiak Colby, the Santa guy (who's name a forget - the irony!), Mike Cho.
The reason these don't make it into a marketing guys thoughts has been covered I think. Exposure. Boardgame is a small market. Not everyone loves Dead of Winter or mice and Mystics. Many (maybe half in my experience) don't like story games at all. So the pool is further reduced.
Maybe the themeless and story lacking games of strategy are more akin to a doco. Rarely to people gravitate to a doco character, and yeah I know this is not a watertight analogy, but the movie's that produce recurring merch sales are way less often a true story, or even a drama.
Memorable characters is slightly different to a marketing merch spinning character though. Hmm.. lots to ponder.
I think you may be right about the distance. Video games, like books and shows, are consumed where we watch the characters go through their adventures. Sure, you are controlling Zagreus go through hell, but it's his adventure, not yours. We are mere watchers <<voyeurs>> as we are to celebrities and social and historical figures.
Playing board games seems more similar to FPS or strategy games. You become more attached to the functional aspects or the archetypal ones: weapons, skills, or factions. Character names and faces are unimportant, what YOU can do matters and is possibly the only thing you are thinking about. And any board game npc will never be as iconic as anyone going through a heroes journey in other media, their stories are just not hot enough for many.
...And we remember those functional aspects of functional games, right? Geoff mentioned Catan merch. And think of Minecraft, which sells a TON of merch. It's all based around the look of the game (that's what's recognizable or its "trademark") and what players love about it: complete customization. But they still want to show off the fact that they're a fan by wearing a Minecraft shirt. Because it's popular and, hence, cool.
What top-selling board games have characters in them? Wingspan has birds. Ticket to Ride has trains. How many people have been exposed to video game IP? There is no board game stream that has the numbers of viewers that watch people playing video games. We sit at tables opposite actual people and they are the ones we spend our time looking at and interacting with.
Of course, I am hoping to change that, but it's an uphill climb for sure.
I think it’s simply down to the fact that our brains are more likely to ascribe “identity” or “life” to animated images with sounds than they are to a static image and collection of rules or die roll modifiers. Pac-Man seems “alive” in a way that a picture of a barbarian and a +3 to wound and the knowledge that he always has an axe card do not. We tend to refer to cars, for example, as if they are characters with personhood. We don’t tend to do this with photographs of cars. I will say that the Descent: Legends of the Dark characters are the first board game characters I can recall “caring about” beyond their abilities as strategic game mechanics (tanks, ranged attackers, magic users, etc.) entirely because of the computer-driven story component with audio and simple static scenes. It really elevates the experience.
The first ones beyond Monopoly and Clue that popped into my head are the ones from Scythe. The Lovecraft games also have characters, but I believe most are from the novels.
After thinking for awhile about this, I actually *was* able to come up with some named characters with personalities in tabletop games - largely starting with anything involving miniatures, because right there you've got this tangible model that just drips expressiveness. Whatever the other flaws of Warhammer, it isn't lacking for lore; pick any WH40K mini, even the least imposing, and there's a backstory there explaining what that lil guy is.
Even outside of miniatures games, most games that use miniatures have some kind of name: the quirky robots in RoboRally, the scooby-gang-like explorers in Betrayal at House on the Hill. Some games even just have little cardboard stand-ups but with named characters with personalities, like the boardgame Android (which they did "merchandize" in the sense of reusing the IP for the Netrunner reboot, at least, though I doubt anyone ever said they'd want a plushie of a washed-up alcoholic detective), or Arkham Horror. Heck, even the characters in Talisman had a paragraph of flavor text, didn't they?
If we expand "board games" to include all tabletop including card games, TCGs like Magic are rich with characters - Urza, Mithra, Jace, dozens of others - and those *do* have merch associated with them, from posters to play mats to miniatures. I wouldn't be surprised if there are Magic-branded action figures and plushies out there somewhere.
I suspect what it actually comes down to is just market size. You mention Pac-Man as an example, but as you say, that character was just SO widespread in pop culture at the time. By contrast, even a highly successful boardgame just doesn't have that kind of reach. That's why Uncle Pennybags from Monopoly or the characters from Clue come to mind - those are two of the few games that really were big enough hits to have a real effect on pop culture. Probably the closest hobby game to reach those numbers was Catan (and Mayfair did sell wood/wheat/sheep/ore/clay plushies, though they weren't really a huge money-maker AFAIK). Of the hobby games that have actual characters... well, show me one that has the widespread appeal and recognition of Pac-Man, and I'll show you a game with merch, but I don't think there is one.
Closest other example I can think of is Dungeons & Dragons, which has a ton of canonical lore which did make it into the recent movie, and had enough effect on pop culture to use its IP for a movie in the first place. (I didn't look to see if there were any action figures from that movie, but I'd be shocked if there weren't.)
Anyway, I'd say that popularity by sheer numbers is the main stopping point here, rather than lack of characters.
(That said... would definitely encourage designers to design characters for their boardgames when appropriate. Geoff, not sure if you saw my prototype of Prism Break some years ago at Protospiel, but if you did, I did include some light backstory for the characters there - related to the mechanics, even - and writing that was super fun and let me include a kind of "easter egg" for players who took the time to look closely at the player mats. Even though I wouldn't expect anyone to make t-shirts or action figures of those characters ever, it was just fun to include and cost me nothing extra, so why not?)
Isn't it about the genre more than anything else? Memorable video game protagonists all originate from character-driven games, I can't name any that originates from an RTS or a management game (and even worse if it's multiplayer-oriented games).
Even in video games with narrative, if the protagonist is randomized (or a group of people), they won't become an IP in themselves, while some of the villains/side characters may become recognizable.
The 'PacMan' example is interesting: to me, it's more of a mascot, a pawn you use as a link between you and the game. It's recognizable because it has a distinct visual... but I can't think of any popular board game where you interact with the whole experience using a single pawn (not even Monopoly, where you manipulate cards & money).
Could you create a compelling board game experience that is centered around a single character you can get attached to? Now that's an interesting design challenge
Can't think of many character-driven board games that aren't also licensed tie-in games (like Star Wars).
A recent exception is Queen by Midnight, by Darington Press. It's a deck-building game, only the cards you can choose (and therefore the powers available to you) are determined by which character you play. Each character is a princess with a detailed backstory and personality. There's even an entire page in the rulebook dedicated to lore (which makes me think they have ambitions of creating Queen by Midnight spin-offs someday).
You raise another good point: the repetition of characters across titles. Board games typically don't do much with this, but I think it's a great way to bring people back for more. Mario started in Donkey Kong (or maybe earlier), then eventually got his own titles -- plural. Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros., Dr. Mario, then Mario Kart, Mario 64, etc. Ryan Laukat keeps adding to his Arzium world, which is great -- and because we're people we look for faces within the world. A continuation of the fictional world is great ... but what if Ryan's Near and Far characters showed up in Sleeping Gods, and Creature Caravan, etc. (Maybe they do?)
I agree with a lot of the comments and many of your hypothesis sound plausible; it _is_ tougher in board games because of reasons brought up here.
Still, I will simply say that I also believe that board games haven't done good enough a job with this. From what I can tell when I hear designers on podcasts, from critics talking or writing, it is sometimes taken as a truth that "you can't really do great characters in board games." I'm thinking: Have there really been any great attempts? I see new IP and worlds being built around a setting and striking art (for example Scythe/Expeditions, Everdell, Root) but these games do not even try do put A character front and center.
"But not everyone can play the same character" – you can have several identifiable characters, but maybe center it around another non-playable character. Think of IP where the main character of the story isn't the most recognizable one, such as Darth Vader and Yoda in Star Wars. Maybe player play characters out to help this central iconic character?
"But in board games you create the character and the story; video games have more pre-defined narratives" – so design with "levels" where, just like in a Zelda game, a lot of the how you solve things is up to the player, but the story points are set and you don't influence the character. You are playing Link (not "The Crafty Elf"), but you get to choose how Link solves each challenge.
JB Oger just now commented: "Could you create a compelling board game experience that is centered around a single character you can get attached to?" I would certainly love to see someone try and I think there is so much that is unexplored here because of a sort of "inherited truth" that it is too hard.
I think the big thing is that board games are personalized. If want to play the Cragheart in Gloomhaven, I get to give it a name. And I think that's the beauty. I'm not playing one character that's the same as every other person. It's my own character with its own personality define by me.
I think you're onto something, Geoff, with your mention of Catan wood and wool merch. They aren't characters you can name -- but the game doesn't need a character to have a recognizable IP. You say "Wingspan," and I immediately picture that scissor-tailed bird on its cover.
Note that I don't know that bird's name (although if I owned and played the game more I might, because its name appears on its card in the game). I think what's going on here is a bit of a marketing void. Not that I think this should be filled -- but it could be. And it could look like this:
"I spotted the scissortail." That's my T-shirt's caption as I waltz into my weekly board game night. Maybe a graphic accompanies those words, maybe not. But I get to show off my Nerd Cred by having a tie-in product which yells, "I know that IP, and that means I'm cool!" Or at least it calls out, "I like this thing!"
I feel dumb because I don't know that bird's name. (I'm guessing above at what it might be.) But I would if that shirt existed, right? Because how often has merchandising given weight and "stickiness" to otherwise forgettable content? Think of Boba Fett from the first Star Wars trilogy. He had his own action figure, which had a jet pack! Of course I'd want to play with that toy. Which makes the character cool, which makes me remember his name.
But I'm straying back into character name territory. I started this "comment" talking about how character isn't all-important. Stickiness is -- and Wingspan is widespread, but is it sticky? With some clever marketing, it could be. And that doesn't have to be Stonemaier's burden. Think of all the unlicensed Star Wars merch that all serves to increase the stickiness of Star Wars! (Case in point: "Han shot first.")
These things say, "I like this thing, and if you like it too we can connect through it." They're all means to connect. We can connect through our shared nostalgia of trading wheat and ore. Or through our appreciation of cover bird art and the experience of bird engine building. But maybe part of the problem is that we don't have the merch to buy even though we might want it.
Sandra, the Boss, from Kanban, is a subtle touch that brings the game a lot of character.
Struggling to think of another. (Certainly enjoy a lot of the quirky characters in Neuroshima Hex, too.)
I think iconic characters has a lot to do with it.
Overwatch is a first person multiplayer shooter, but I think I could name the entire roster?
Why? Because the characters use recognisable colour palette's and their look describes their role - they are Iconic.
I would argue this is why I can recall the cast of Cluedo as well.
I'm struggling to think of other board games that have an iconic cast.
Could it be the target audience?
Pac-Man was made popular by children and teenagers. Hasn't the main customer base for hobby board games been middle aged men? Even with family games is the person into the board game hobby that introduces it. I'm less excited about wearing a t-shirt with a character from a game or any IP I love than I was when I was a child.
Could mass consumerism/commerce also play a part? Businesses could see that Pac-man had mass market appeal so they start producing their products (t-shirts, comics, toys, cartoons). Hobby board games has never had that level of mass appeal, and might not for a long time. It's easier to notice a pac-man t-shirt if one million children and young adults are walking around the general population with one compared to say 50 with a Takenoko Panda t-shirt (if such a t-shirt exists. If a business was unwise enough to think they could make good money from this). We don't feel it's a successful IP character because those children don't beg for those t-shirts and toys for their birthdays because businesses rightly haven't bothered to create those products (which creates repetition outside the game). If products created by mass media businesses creates and reenforces an IP character's feeling of successful, does that mean the relatively tiny hobby board game market cannot create such a "successful" IP?
I can think of some characters like Maginos and Tilda and Collin and Filch from Mice and Mystics (kind of cheating, because Geoff mentioned the game. Others are favourites from the Dead of Winter games like Sparky, Kodiak Colby, the Santa guy (who's name a forget - the irony!), Mike Cho.
The reason these don't make it into a marketing guys thoughts has been covered I think. Exposure. Boardgame is a small market. Not everyone loves Dead of Winter or mice and Mystics. Many (maybe half in my experience) don't like story games at all. So the pool is further reduced.
Maybe the themeless and story lacking games of strategy are more akin to a doco. Rarely to people gravitate to a doco character, and yeah I know this is not a watertight analogy, but the movie's that produce recurring merch sales are way less often a true story, or even a drama.
Memorable characters is slightly different to a marketing merch spinning character though. Hmm.. lots to ponder.
I think you may be right about the distance. Video games, like books and shows, are consumed where we watch the characters go through their adventures. Sure, you are controlling Zagreus go through hell, but it's his adventure, not yours. We are mere watchers <<voyeurs>> as we are to celebrities and social and historical figures.
Playing board games seems more similar to FPS or strategy games. You become more attached to the functional aspects or the archetypal ones: weapons, skills, or factions. Character names and faces are unimportant, what YOU can do matters and is possibly the only thing you are thinking about. And any board game npc will never be as iconic as anyone going through a heroes journey in other media, their stories are just not hot enough for many.
...And we remember those functional aspects of functional games, right? Geoff mentioned Catan merch. And think of Minecraft, which sells a TON of merch. It's all based around the look of the game (that's what's recognizable or its "trademark") and what players love about it: complete customization. But they still want to show off the fact that they're a fan by wearing a Minecraft shirt. Because it's popular and, hence, cool.
What top-selling board games have characters in them? Wingspan has birds. Ticket to Ride has trains. How many people have been exposed to video game IP? There is no board game stream that has the numbers of viewers that watch people playing video games. We sit at tables opposite actual people and they are the ones we spend our time looking at and interacting with.
Of course, I am hoping to change that, but it's an uphill climb for sure.
I think it’s simply down to the fact that our brains are more likely to ascribe “identity” or “life” to animated images with sounds than they are to a static image and collection of rules or die roll modifiers. Pac-Man seems “alive” in a way that a picture of a barbarian and a +3 to wound and the knowledge that he always has an axe card do not. We tend to refer to cars, for example, as if they are characters with personhood. We don’t tend to do this with photographs of cars. I will say that the Descent: Legends of the Dark characters are the first board game characters I can recall “caring about” beyond their abilities as strategic game mechanics (tanks, ranged attackers, magic users, etc.) entirely because of the computer-driven story component with audio and simple static scenes. It really elevates the experience.
The first ones beyond Monopoly and Clue that popped into my head are the ones from Scythe. The Lovecraft games also have characters, but I believe most are from the novels.
Hudson the Hedgehog (Butterfly)
Rattlebones!