Character Design in League or Which came first: The Kit of the Champion?

ModCaptainMårvelous·8/18/2015, 8:49:45 PM·5 votes·4,423 views

Hey everyone. It's me again.

Today (or at least in this post) I wanted to talk about designing champions. "But marvelous, why are you posting in story and art then?" you might ask. Actually, my conversation is more about designing characters/champions from the point of view of characterization and about which should come first: The character or the kit. Now I want to prelude this by saying (as I don't work for Riot) I have NO idea what system or ideas come first. Rather, I wanted to discuss with the community and see which you guys approve of. Perhaps get some Riot insight if they want to chime in.

#The Kit Approach.

First, we have the kit approach. This approach focuses on designing a kit before the champion. As an example, let's say "I wanna make a champion with a teleporting ult" and then designing the rest of the kit. Following that, we have a fleshed out kit. What comes next is making a champion that tailors itself to this kit. Maybe a teleporting void monster? Perhaps a zaunite technomancer who has discovered reality hopping? etc. Some pros of this are...

  • "Iconic" kits. What's teemo without his shrooms or darius without his giga chop?
  • Champion personality types will natural be created and lead to more "diverse" fanbase (Garen players always hide in the bush, Riven players mash their keyboards, etc.)
  • The above two points feed back into the character's story or characterization and lead to a more unique character, even if it ends up being something comical.
  • Gameplay is what a character will be often remembered for, even with a strong personality.

And then you have the downsides...

  • Having to rework a champion like this will make the champion lose a chunk of it's identity. If Ahri couldn't charm anymore, would she -really- feel like the same character?
  • Characters are so tightly bound to their kits you can't tell stories without mentioning them. If there's a Lux story and she doesn't fire a laser at least once, will it really feel like Lux? What about Swain turning into a bird demon?
  • It's possible that characters emphasize their kits and don't have sensible stories or personalities. (LOOKIN AT YOU NUNU!)

#The Character Approach.

Secondly comes the character approach. As opposed to the first one, we have a character story that is turned into a champion. What if we had a cyborg who broke free from Viktor and he turned out to fight against him? What kind of powers would he have, what sort of skills would he possess? What could he do? (COUGH COUGH SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT COUGH). With this approach, we got positives like:

  • Strong characterization leads to a well-developed personality.
  • Character stories become strongly tied to the champion even in-game. Jinx is a good example, as is Lissandra.
  • Focusing on character first will remove the fear of having the cliche character repeated. (IE: Varus wants vengence! Kalista too! Oh and Lucian! Don't forget- etc)
  • A strong character can lead to a TON of kit ideas even if some ideas are scrapped in production.

Of course, there are downsides too.

  • Character-first can lead to some hodgepodge kits trying to encompass all of a character's personality. (Galio)
  • A kit that doesn't fit a character sticks out IMMENSELY compared to a character that doesn't fit a kit (Aatrox)
  • Players will be quite upset if the character has any changes to it's lore that removes/alters key facts. For example, imagine if J4 didn't hate Swain anymore? You'd need a LOT of backstory to justify it.

#"But what about doing it at the same time?"

In a perfect world, kit and character are perfected at the same time...but we don't live in one, sadly. One will almost always be completed before the other. Likewise, I'm certain a designer would think of a very basic character with amazing kits. I'd imagine Tahm Kench was thought up like that: A demon who can do this and this and that and this. Conversely, a writer/artist will make a beautiful sketch or a ten-page character bible about this character, hopes and dreams...and maybe about two paragraphs about possible kits?

As I said, I don't work for Riot or know their inner workings. What I do know is stuff like kits, conceptualization and even trying my hand at some champ design in my spare time. The one post I recall was when they were talking about Taric's VU. This is the quote from Repertoir that I'll be linking:

{quoted}

Taric's design work was actually finished early this year, but he's getting the full deal as far as updates go: model, animations, effects, sounds, lore, icons, gameplay.

He'll be a Sion-level rework, and he should probably come late this year or early next year.

I did his game design work, so if you hate it when it hits PBE, feel free to let me know then.

This means that Taric as a playable character was finished WAY in advance. That's not to say it hasn't happened the other way either: Vi and Azir, for examples, were concepts people wanted to hit for ages but it took several attempts to nail them. Sometimes one part of a character will mesh and be done in a day. Other times it'll take years of trial and error to hit them.

So what do you all think? Does Kit > Character? Does Character > Kit? Are they equal? Should one try to be nailed before the other or do you think that there should be a balance between both? By all means, discuss to your heart's content and try to add/subtract to what I said if you wish!

18 Comments

Kadavik8/19/2015, 12:11:47 AM2 votes

After a lot of thought I think id rather have kit first then characterization. Don't get me wrong characterization is a big deal and should be a part of the champion creation process as soon as possible, but I think the bases of the kit should be established first.

Look at Viktor his story is absolutely amazing and unique, yet his kit was frankly boring, underpowered and just such an obvious mash of generic abilities. Thank god for his rework which actually made him way more interesting gameplay wise.

Now look at Ekko its clearly obvious his unique kit was designed before the entirety of his character. Yet we still have a champion with a unique and interesting personality.

Its better to first have the basis of what the champion is going to be like in game and then work towards his characterization. Given that their gameplay is the core of their personality itself.

Look at it in the long run. Its way easier to change a champions background than his gameplay elements. Even the community seems to indirectly agree with this. Hell when Mordekaiser lore was shortened no one gave a shit but change his kit and everyone loses their minds!

Sharjo8/19/2015, 12:09:36 PM2 votes

I know that it depends on a champion by champion basis but I also know a bunch of champions were a kit concept before there was any character behind them;

Azir originated from the Sand Mage concept, Tahm Kench was the Fish Tank concept, Ekko was the Time Assassin concept.

I think that's more of a modern thing though as even a couple of years ago champions were just shot out the door and it's a wonder where some of them even came from. I do know of one champion though who was not a kit first:

Draven.

Draven originated from the "league needs an arsehole" concept, and blossomed from there. The idea of him being an axe juggler was something that was brought in after that, and Draven as a concept was essentially born when one Rioter said (or wrote down, can't remember) Welcome to the league of Draven. To use an example Morello once used to describe this; most champions are molded from clay in a sense during their development, while Draven was already there, they just had to get him out.

FuryofThornsRedo8/21/2015, 3:29:51 PM1 votes

There is Never a Must Perform this aspect of a concept first in any territory of artwork. My personal opinion I connect to the unique functioning of visual perceptions. I only read the first paragraph, and already I am constructing the process I would take which would most definitely transpire as a contrast in the process suggested. This is how I have always been, and the proof is in the police report of when I ran away in my youth. I continue to value the control of my frame of mind and capacity to perceive the multifaceted dimensions in life all around us.

Suggest to everyone to go in one direction, or one-way, or complete this first, and I am going to always go opposite of the suggested norm. I own an innate quality to conclude interpretations with alterations and variance contrasting to the social norm of Artwork. When we draw a circle, does everyone always start in the same place, or even, does everyone see the same perception of what a simple circle could illustrate as a picture alone, only a circle?

From: FuryofThornsRedo