Character Creation Question

[GerPronouncedGrr]

This question is more about game theory in general, and relates to PE only insofar as it belongs to the group of games I'm thinking about while asking this question.

 

The question is: Given the evolution of CRPGs from linear to open, and from set characters to player created, could an otherwise modern CRPG with a strong narrative and deep mechanics still be fun if all of the characters were set in stone?

 

Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about characters who develop linearly, but just, rather, that you don't create any of them from scratch, as you do the protagonists of the IE games. Additionally, this question is asked as is, irrespective of character and game balance, or lack thereof.

 

Things to consider:

 

1) The subtle differences between IWD, BG, and PS:T, in terms of character creation and story development. Consider also the staggering differences between, say, Final Fantasy 7 and Skyrim. Now consider the differences between Final Fantasy Tactics and BG2:ToB. No, these are not direct analogues, and they're not intended to be. I'm simply attempting to highlight two things which appear to differing degrees in each of them.

 

2) Is the old system (set characters) considered worse because it's inherently flawed and no longer viable, or simply because it's no longer fresh? Conversely, is the new system (player-created characters) considered better because it represents a true step forward in terms of game theory, or simply because it's new?

 

3) Assume for a moment that a game will have a philisophically deeper and more narratively powerful story and dialogue if the characters are set. Assume also that the level of game reactivity to player choices is superior in this case. Would the game be more fun this way? Conversely, assume that a game will have greater replay value and combat depth if the protagonist is player-created and the player has a choice of which characters to have join during the story. Would the game be more fun this way?

 

4) Is there a third option?

 

I'd really like to see some in-depth discussion here, not just, "Like this, not like that. Cause I said so." If you have something to add aside from the points I specifically mentioned, please bring them up!

[Micamo]

The question is: Given the evolution of CRPGs from linear to open, and from set characters to player created, could an otherwise modern CRPG with a strong narrative and deep mechanics still be fun if all of the characters were set in stone?

Yes.

 

1) The subtle differences between IWD, BG, and PS:T, in terms of character creation and story development. Consider also the staggering differences between, say, Final Fantasy 7 and Skyrim. Now consider the differences between Final Fantasy Tactics and BG2:ToB. No, these are not direct analogues, and they're not intended to be. I'm simply attempting to highlight two things which appear to differing degrees in each of them.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

2) Is the old system (set characters) considered worse because it's inherently flawed and no longer viable, or simply because it's no longer fresh? Conversely, is the new system (player-created characters) considered better because it represents a true step forward in terms of game theory, or simply because it's new?

I honestly think it's just because Choice and Consequence is a big fad right now. My opinion is, a game where you play a pre-generated character with their own motivations can be just as good as a game where you play your own character, though those two games would be good in different ways.

 

3) Assume for a moment that a game will have a philisophically deeper and more narratively powerful story and dialogue if the characters are set. Assume also that the level of game reactivity to player choices is superior in this case. Would the game be more fun this way? Conversely, assume that a game will have greater replay value and combat depth if the protagonist is player-created and the player has a choice of which characters to have join during the story. Would the game be more fun this way?

False choice. Games Aren't Movies.

 

4) Is there a third option?

For what?

[mcmanusaur]

The question is: Given the evolution of CRPGs from linear to open, and from set characters to player created, could an otherwise modern CRPG with a strong narrative and deep mechanics still be fun if all of the characters were set in stone?

A fun game? Perhaps. A fun roleplaying game? Not in my opinion. Of course, "set in stone" with regard to character creation (during which you represent your character's background, prior to the events depicted in the game) and with regard to character progression (leveling and degree of choice- moral or otherwise- in the narrative) are two different things, as I believe you mean to assert. A game can define your character's past but still give you the freedom to decide their future, and the inverse (with some customization- if shallow- during character creation, and very linear narrative/gameplay) is also possible to some extent.

 

In considering the four permutations (character customization x choice) here, it's ultimately down to what you want to get out of your roleplay experience. The "set in stone" characters you refer to are great for storytelling, but are simply not feasible for a game with any multiplayer functionality (lest we have everyone playing more or less the same character all at once). Lack of choices throughout the gameplay with regard to narrative also might not impede the storytelling aspect, but I personally value the sandbox elements and the ability to play my character's "role" holistically, outside of how it pertains to combat-focused gameplay or the central plotline. Even if Project Eternity has already been confirmed as exclusively singleplayer, I still like the idea of being able to customize my character's past, and in many ways I think it would be great for roleplaying games to have us wondering whether really we're playing singleplayer or multiplayer.

 

Hopefully I'll have more time to respond to the rest of this later.

[Larkaloke]

I find this an interesting question, partly because we clearly have rather different ideas about how the evolution of CRPGs has been going. To my mind, if anything they have been becoming more linear and have more set characters than they used to. I don't see this as in any way a good thing, but if you compare recent roleplaying games to older ones, you tend to end up with much more set characters and at least as much linearity.

 

To answer the question, for me at least they can be fun, but I don't see them as roleplaying games and won't enjoy them as such. Playing a character I haven't created feels more akin to acting than to roleplaying to me, and while also enjoyable, it is neither the same thing nor as enjoyable. Some games fall into a sort of grey area where I do consider them roleplaying games, but only barely -- Planescape: Torment, for instance, has enough of being able to determine what the character is like now that it feels like a roleplaying game to me, but still one cannot actually create the character completely. Mass Effect and Dragon Age II enter the grey area from the other direction, where technically you can create the character, but the terrible dialogue and the voicing then proceed to hijack them frequently.

 

Honestly, I don't even consider the Final Fantasy games and similar games to be roleplaying games. I know they fall into the category, but they don't feel as though there's any roleplaying to them at all when I play them. I'd just as soon consider a strategy game to be a roleplaying game.

 

Again, I don't consider set characters to be the old system -- more the new system -- but either way I don't consider it viable for a roleplaying game. I think it's viable for games in general, certainly, but a different sort of game. A huge part of my definition of roleplaying involves creating and playing a character, and fully half of that is gone with a set character. Feels more like acting to me then; you get a character, you're playing them, and you have to figure out how they would act based on what you've seen of them thus far.

 

As to why I think that characters have become more set rather than less, well, as a general trend I find it fairly obvious. All the older RPGs I can think of (Arena, Daggerfall, Darklands, those sorts) have you creating characters. The next set (Icewind Dale, Icewind Dale II, Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II, Morrowind, Fallout, Fallout 2, Arcanum, and so forth) also do, with the exception of Planescape: Torment. Some newish ones (Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, Knights of the Old Republic, Knights of the Old Republic II, Oblivion) do, but some newer ones also don't (The Witcher, for example). Very recent ones mostly have you creating the character, but with large restrictions that weren't previously there, with the main exception being Skyrim. Dragon Age: Origins wasn't too bad about that, but even then it was worse than most of the older ones.

 

To point number three, even if I do assume that the first is true (which I don't), the game would still be less fun for me. I might get some enjoyment out of it, but I play roleplaying games because I want to play a character or characters in the game. If I just wanted a good story and interesting characters, I would read a book. If I just wanted combat, I'd play a different type of game. If I assume the second is true (which I do), and even if I don't, it is more fun for me. The most fun for me personally is if the entire party is player-created.

 

I think there could be a third option, although it might be an annoyingly large amount of work for the people making the game. I'm sure it would be possible to have the option of playing through with a default character and of making your own character, and there have already been games there there's the option of a default party of NPCs and of making your own other characters.

 

There is also middle ground between completely making your own character and having them completely set, but that tends to satisfy very few people -- it certainly does not usually satisfy me.

 

In summary, I find that creating a character and playing that character is a very large part of the fun of a roleplaying game, and also a very large part of the definition of it. The more that ability is removed or hampered, the less fun I find the game (assuming it is supposed to be a roleplaying game at all, of course), and the less I find that it even fits into the category of being a roleplaying game.

[yaminsoul]

With respect to the well said opinions of others, for me the answer is certainly yes, but it leads to a slightly different type of game, though the difference for me is not nearly as grand as Rem seems to feel it is for him,

 

As MC mentioned, there is a huge difference from whether the character STARTS premade or user-generated to whether the game allows real, viable choice in character growth or not. The first is a more a fine difference to me, the second very important, and I would be very sad for linear, forced character growth a la ff 13. I still think the game can be "fun," but I see this as major weak point in certain games.

 

Now, as the original topic had more to do with starting premade or user generated, I will focus on that.

 

I think its important to note that most recent games fall somewhere between the two poles for character gen. Some games, like Skyrim, offer many, many options for custom characterization of the main character, whereas Witcher often almost none. Both I consider to be excellent games, but just trying to tell a different story. Da:O, Balder's Gate, NVM 1 and 2 and the bioware games are somewhere in between. In almost none of the games can you create a "blank slate" or are forced to play exactly what the story tells you. FF games are different, and slide heavily towards the fixed character end, but to me they are from a different tradition of RPG's than infinity games.

 

Now, if we are going to look at this somewhat objectively, lets discuss what you gain and lose as you go towards either pole, starting with premade character.

 

What do you gain?

 

Well, in addition to saving developers and programmers valuable time and code (a not inconsiderable boon for them), more important it is much, much easier to a create a FOCUSED STORY. I think few who play Witcher 1 and 2 can deny that Gerald and is his tale are extremely captivating, and the writers and designers are able to lay out beautiful twists, moral challenges, and an evolutionary path. I strongly feel they are aided in this precisely because they can know, loosely, beforehand what archtype you will playing, even if certain major decision are left up to the players. It is no coincidence that to me, two of the best written games in recent memory, Planescape torment and Witcher 2 have pretty much set protagonists. You are following there story, which can twist and fork, but its still there story, and you are meant to enjoy the ride as well as help them along their way.

 

On the other hand, despite sinking more than a 100 hours into Skyrim, I never felt much character growth in story sense for my hero, nor did he seem to change much except mechanically.

 

Now the next question

 

What do you lose?

 

I think here we go back to what Rem said is crucial for his enjoyment: The ability to mimetically connect to the avatar you generated. Or for you non-English majors reading: to BECOME at least in an imaginative sense, the character you are playing. The more freedom one is given in character design the easier it is, I believe,  for many people to forge that vital connection to their character, to feel as if they have generate something unique and made it there own, to create an alter-self and than progress said alter  on their journey, there ware.

 

Without this ability, a huge part of immersive experience can be lost for certain players, and weakened for many.  

 

Now I believe, in the tradition of more recent IE like games, Project Eternity will fall somewhat in the middle, though leaning the to the user-gen side: A wide variety of possible starting characters with different traits, images, possible personalities, ect, but still slightly less open ended generation that Skyrim, with its nameless execution-ie protagonist. and I am fine with that.

[GerPronouncedGrr]

Thank you for the really detailed replies! I'm curious now though, to ask some related questions.

 

Let's say that a game's story is totally linear. Does it matter at all if you create your character?

 

Similarly, is a game a roleplaying game because you create your character or because you play the role of the protagonist whilst 'creating' the game world through the choices you make?

 

As a theoretical exercise, imagine a story has two protagonists of equal importance. What if you could create one but not the other?

[yaminsoul]

Question 1) Um, does it matter to whom, for what? For people who like identifying with their characters, its a nice bonus, but if none of your choices make any difference and you have no alternate paths to explore (much like FF 13 for most of the game), i think alot of people will be sad. But again, it could still be a strong game based on other attributes. I still think making your own character is less important for the immersion feel that a good story, but that's me.

 

2) Both? But more the latter. I think its still "role-playing" with a pre-gen character who you then can make decisions that matter versus if nothing do makes any difference, even if you create the character, I think its not really roleplaying in the table top sense...(though a railroad plot GM might disagree).

[Fearabbit]

As others have mentioned, it's not the case that games used to have predetermined main characters and are only now starting to let you play as whoever you want. Those two approaches have always existed (RPGs were basically invented with the concept that you call "fresher") and they simply offer different experiences.

There aren't only extremes, though. We have had lots of in-between approaches as well. You can create your character, but you are the Chosen One, or your father was a god or whatever. You are Shepard, the officer from Earth who becomes the first human Spectre, but you can define your own background, take a class, distribute skill points.

 

And to answer your question: Yes, Final Fantasy XV looked pretty neat. As always, I would prefer a remake of Final Fantasy VI or maybe, for once, a JRPG without anime hair and without strange medieval sci-fi fantasy worlds full of airships and robots.

(The point being, of course, that "a modern RPG with characters who are set in stone?" isn't a hypothetical question. These games exist. There are hundreds of them.)

 

Concerning your question about a totally linear game: What does "create your character" mean in that case? You're being very vague. Everything from character creation has to have some sort of impact on the game or it has to be clear that certain things, like your appearance, are only cosmetical. So, do cosmetical settings matter? Of course. They let me play a character who looks awesome. That's nice. Doesn't have anything to do with a linear or non-linear story though. And these other options that have an impact on the game? Well, they can't have an impact on the story, so they will most likely concern combat and other gameplay mechanics. So we're actually talking about options that don't have anything to do with whether the story is linear or non-linear, again.

 

Do you see what the problem is? These are non-issues. You're asking the wrong questions.

What you're thinking of is roleplaying. You're talking about the (theoretical) problem that one creates a character and tries to roleplay him as an evil badass, only to find that the linear narrative has him saving puppies from a burning building and, with a smile, returning them to their rightful owners. You're thinking of the old question whether the narrative or your own roleplaying should be more important.

[GerPronouncedGrr]

Yes, fearrabbit, that is what I'm asking, although I was trying to do it obliquely in order to generate a more broad range of response, and not a binary set. You are correct though. Setting aside for the moment any holes in my initial thoughts, how do you weigh in on that question?

[Larkaloke]

Let's say that a game's story is totally linear. Does it matter at all if you create your character?

This depends on what exactly you mean by that. If only the story, the overall narrative, is completely linear -- yes, it certainly does matter to me. Several of my favourite games have a completely linear story (Icewind Dale, for one example). If you mean not only the overall story but every instance of choice, no matter how small, including dialogue ... well, no, then it doesn't matter in any practical fashion, and I might begin to wonder why the option was presented at all. Even then, if the character creation were reasonably detailed and the lack of dialogue choice were to come in the form of no dialogue at all somehow rather than determing what your character said for you, I might end up considering it as a roleplaying game (or at least as much of one as some of those I mentioned earlier that are in a grey area).

 

Similarly, is a game a roleplaying game because you create your character or because you play the role of the protagonist whilst 'creating' the game world through the choices you make?

To me, quite decidedly the former, although the second does come into play and aid the first. There are many other types of games where one plays the protagonist, sometimes even while making choices, and those I do not count as roleplaying games. It is true that most games where you cannot create a character are also games where you cannot make choices in character, but that's not always the case. What differentiates a roleplaying game from any other type of game to me is creating the character and playing them, but you cannot play a character you've created without first creating them. Creating the game world brings more to mind games simulation games or such.

 

As a theoretical exercise, imagine a story has two protagonists of equal importance. What if you could create one but not the other?

It might frustrate me somewhat depending on how this was presented, but I would say it's a roleplaying game.