Ok, but this only really applies to active antagonists or other
characters who somehow set up roadblocks for the player. What I was
trying to say is that the puzzle aspect often prevents the characters
from actively "helping" the player. I think Edward is a good example
of this. He seems to me to have been conceived as a puzzle first and
a character second (comments, Gareth?), and I think this leads to his
passivity. On the other hand, B+J and Wilderspin seem to have been
conceived as characters first, and so are more active and interesting.
As a side effect, I think the puzzles involving them are much more
satisfying than those involving Edward.
I'd also like to comment on another sentence from Gareth's original
post:
> Inevitably, interaction with characters is very limited: you can ask
> them about things, you can order them to do things (when this suits
> the solution to a puzzle), you can give and show them objects.
I think it's interesting that Gareth listed only interactions in which
the character is essentially a passive recipient of an order or
information from the player. I don't see why interaction is
"inevitably" limited in this way. What about having the player obey
orders from the character? Follow him/her around? Are these not
considered interactions? Again, in my opinion it's the puzzle-based
nature of IF that leads to this view of characters as passive
recipients of the players actions.
BTW, I also think that this whole discussion on why some of the
characters in Christminster are more interesting than others is a
reflection of the strength of the game.
chris