RPG companions need to be hateable, otherwise nobody’s going to love them
PC Gamer argues that memorable role-playing game companions should be capable of irritating, disappointing or alienating players, rather than being designed to be universally likeable. The author’s view is that this friction makes relationships feel more human and gives players a stronger reason to care when characters grow, reconcile or reveal deeper qualities.
The piece distinguishes deliberately challenging writing from simply poor characterisation: a companion needs understandable motives, personality and room to develop. It suggests that disagreement within a party, and the possibility that players may initially dislike someone, can create more lasting attachment than a cast made up entirely of agreeable allies.
- Flawed companions can create stronger player attachment.
- Conflict and growth make party relationships feel human.
- Being hateable is not the same as being badly written.
New here? Start with this
Role-playing games often let players travel with companion characters who join their party, help in battles and take part in conversations. These characters can have their own beliefs, personal histories and reactions to the player’s choices, making them a major part of the story.
Games have long used companions to create tension as well as friendship. A character may disagree with the player, behave selfishly or make mistakes, but their actions can feel meaningful if the game explains their reasons and lets them change over time.
The debate matters because companions can shape how players experience a game’s world and story. Writers must balance characters who are distinctive and difficult with ones whose behaviour still feels believable, rather than frustrating for no clear reason.