I don''t think a "weak hero" in the sense of an utterly helpless waif is any kind of hero, let alone interesting. Maybe a pathetic character designed to evoke sympathy, but never a primary character.

OTOH, I think a hero with specific weaknesses is a good hero. Nobody is perfect, so why make your characters perfect? Adding flaws is a good way to keep characters real. You''ll notice that virtually every story does this already. An interesting twist, though, might be neglecting the "hero overcomes his weakness in moment of dire need" formula and simply never letting the character get over his weakness. If done right, that might make an interesting and emotionally involving story. I think a few movies have done this but I can''t name any off the top of my head.

These three "types" (genre is style related, not character specific) of characters are not all heroes, the "weak hero" as you say is what is known as an ''antihero'' and is approached developmentally in a different way.

Because a straightforward strong, alpha hero is readily diagnosed, whereas an antihero has intrinsic personality traits and characteristic idiosyncracies for a reason. That reason being that part of the story being told is about what is going on inside the antihero''s head.

The true hero''s story is being told in the world they protagonistically act upon, and usually anything related to the inside of what is going on in this character type''s mind is character depth portraying exposition for the purpose of a more rounded empathetic character, not because antiherolike ambilance, confusion or any other complication derivative technique effects the plot.

The hero knows the bad guy must die, and that he must get him at all costs, the antihero wonders if he is going to live, or even be able to tell the difference between what is good and what is bad, in the case of antihero like characters played by Woody Allen, for example.

Each type of character is an example of one of the oldest arguments in all dramaturgy: is character story or is story story? I come down on the side of story is story, as my personal artistic choice, but that does not mean a game cannot be a ''character piece.''

What you need to realize is that character selection and development is a function of the problem the original story presents, if you happen to be on the side of story is story and character is not. The reason for this is that when you have a clear definition of the conflict in the game or story world (and I''ll brook no suggestion that story is one thing and game is another for the sake of this discussion, simply because nobody has been able to clearly make the distinction outside of rationalizations not contextualizing all proofs), the kind of character best suited to have the audience or player empathize with or avatar through become appearant after the fact. If you are just slapping together a story or game world over an overused version of second hand conflict description, and archetyping the characters within it to the point they look like ever other hero that has came before, then you are doing neither yourself as an artist or designer, or your audience or player any favors.

Good art is sculpture, not tinkertoy engineering. Certainly there are mechanics involved in good plot design just as there is in level and gameworld design, but if you want something unique that is you, and represents your particular talents uniquely, you will give this critical pre production development it''s due.

I see all the time people who want to leap to coding because they get to use their strengths and have control over the process of development rather than address this oft overlooked and glaringly obvious through play testing of the finished product underdeveloped flaw in conceptual design. Why code for months and months to produce mediocre characters. Players don''t invest emotionally in a feature or tool, they invest in characters and conflicts, like they have for thousands of years, and will for thousands to come if we survive planetside.

You need to maximize your chances that the person who is going to buy your game is in one of the two emotional investment camps, character or conflict. You get your best chance when you develop for both as much as possible.

So, really, there are only two types of main or central characters, hero or antihero. The Unseen type of character you cite is just another version of the hero, with a recessive character traist that just makes them stealth oriented, there is nothing antiheroic about being sneaky, the best heroes do it when there are huge odds against them. Whether or not they would put themselves in imminent danger is relevant to the use of stealth practice, not the underlying character mindset.

I don''t know if this qualifies or not, but I thought the character from Half Life was a great example of an antiheroic character than allowed the player to be heroic through avatar use. And, there was plenty of choices for both stealth and dominance as well as the option to use stealth.

I''m not that great an expert in interactivity design, but I would say that the designers of that game gave me the choice to act in all three ways, heroically, stealthfully and antiheroically. That to me, was great design of character and conflict.

I''m not sure being so weak would make a fun game. Then again...

I''m not sure if this is what you mean, but what about characters who start off weak, and become stronger in the end? Granted, they never become as strong as a fellow NPC or party member though. i.e. Raiden was pretty weak, and he relied on Snakes help in the ending parts of the game. I doubt Raiden was strong enough to have been able to complete the mission if it weren''t for Snake. Or in many of the FFs and Crono Trigger. Tidus was super weak, but he was a hero, and necessary to the story, despite the fact that Auron was 10x cooler and stronger. Similar to this: Crono/Robo; Zidane/Steiner; Sora/Goofy. Something I find awesome is when the hero starts off slightly weaker than others (Cloud/Barret and Cait Sith), develops beyond them, and then comes through in the end, with some new awesome ability. But Tidus and Raiden pissed me off, they sucked!

DON''T COPY THAT FLOPPY!

A weak hero is as one who''s flaw out wieght their strengths. It doesn''t have to be physical weakness, it can be many other kinds. The main problem with keeping the character weak is justifing to the player why the character can''t overcome these weakness. Since in most liturature and games characters develop keeping the character weak will severally limit the character development. Maybe the character is part lizard, because of that everyone hates him, and NPC''s will either not speak to you or treat you with utter disdain. Because of that your character is alone and afraid of people. Now how to have story progression without allowing the player to help is character over come his fear of people?

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

Yes, i think that the TRUE "weak" character can make a very interesting character in a book, but for all the reasons listed above isnt very appropriate for a game.

"strong" characters with massive weaknesses can still be good for gameplay though. As an example, look at Raistlin from the Dragonlance series (yes, he was actually a character someone played before the books were written). This character was physically about the weakest a character could possibly be and hope to survive. However, this was balanced by his extreme talent with magic, and he ended up being an extremely powerful "hero" character.

Its also worth noting when looking at Raistlin that he was evil, but was still portrayed very well as a hero. Everyone knew how evil he was, but because he could be identified with, everyone wanted him to win. Things like this are good to try to build into games.