Begining/orgins and history of our character.

[coffeetable]

BG is about as far from a blank slate as you can get: you're a child of a god and you grew up in a castle with a pre-eminent scholar and your sister (who is also the child of a god).

[CaptainMace]

Wow, this lack of spoiler alert is disturbing.

There's a difference between setting a plot (you're Joe, you're hungry, leave your house and go buy some stuff ffs) and giving the player to chose his origin.
In the first case, the elements given to you are relevant and needed for the story to exist, in the second you can chose some useless/irrelevant background that will either not or lightly impact the rest of the story. The debate isn't "should the PC have a history at the start ?" because the answer is always yes... The debate is about choosing between different origins.

 

"As far from a blank state as you can get" yeah let's try to keep our sanity here please.

[Greydragon]

History and cultural traits will hopefully affect the majority of events to a degree, with a few wildly different events occurring based on class/race/culture. Besides an Arcanum style character we are probably limited to an 'every character starts here' event/point (ala Icewind Dale series/NWN/NWN2 Zehir exp), if there are to be characters from unique cultural backgrounds. 

 

Mass Effect ... too simplistic. 

 

BG and NWN2 style (except Zehir exp) begin from a 'foster child' scenario which rules out characters beginning from a different cultural heritage (eg in the Forgotten Realms being born a dark elf on the surface and being raised among dark elves are very different concepts). A child adopted by parents from culture A is going to be raised culture A not XYZ. Later on (during the game) that could possibly be an option for change.

 

DAO style is simply too complex (and therefore costly) with the sheer variety of character options available.

 

At least I assume so. If they do attempt it I'll be very impressed.

 

Also to Tagaziel: BG and NWN have classes which means the character has a background, a faint one that influences dialogue and in both NWN and BG2, quest lines as well (D&D alignment tables too). FNV on the other hand is an almost pure blankslate. 

[Ulquiorra]

Also to Tagaziel: BG and NWN have classes which means the character has a background, a faint one that influences dialogue and in both NWN and BG2, quest lines as well (D&D alignment tables too). FNV on the other hand is an almost pure blankslate. 

 

And that's why Fallout NV is in difrent box then NWN. NwN classes are already some part of a backgroud but very shallow and "having no meaning" in main plot. You play the same as a wizard, the same as warrior, the same as druid and only have 1 guest for mages and 1 guest for druids, this is opposite to role playin.

 

The point of role playing game is not level ups, spec skill etc. The point is ability to play role that you want play, in Apha Protocol is was agent, in Witcher it was Witcher, id Dragon Age "gray warden" and in Mass Effect "Shepard" .. In every of this game char has some background and is makeing char more beliveble.

 

In dragon age they have made one basic "gray warden" with many possibilitys of endings (16 possible endings or more) and some backgrouds. In Fallout we also have many endings but no background.

 

But in PE we have many races, cultures, subraces, classes and mayby orgins (i sad mayby becouse i can't imagine that there will be no type of background).

 

Giving so many options does;n't mean that quanity is better then quality. If i want to play Druid dwarv i want to feel and have possibility to role play as druid dwarv not "generic adventurer or hero", if i want to play orlan fighter i want to have possibility to role play as and orlan fighter not "generic hero". The same from Aumama, mage, godlike, monk, rogue etc etc etc etc e.......

 

 

If devs promiced that we will have an opiton to "PLAY" difrent races and cultures then i suppose that meant the cultures, races, classes have more meaning then pluses or minuses to statisctics or having/ not having some abilitis ..

 

 

Becouse if don't then we go Dioblo 3 route with some classes and THE SAME gameplay .. if game play is the same, then why give so many options ?

 

I still whoud like you to think about one subiect.

 

Mage can become mage in many difrent ways, fighter can become a fighter in many difrent ways, fact that we are a human or dwarv can as much influence you life as a fact that someone was born in Africa or Canada .. (so very much) ... and a saying that this is "irrelevant" is the biggers ingnorancy i ever seen.

 

If we have many options of races, clases etc but still end op with one "GENERIC char" then all those options are simple lie to make us feel good. And i whoud like to see good ROLE playing game, not action game with a subplot like Need For Speed undergound or Skyrim

[anameforobsidian]

I still wonder how many of you actually played Dragon Age Origins.  The origins could have a major impact on the story and depending on your origin some of them actually had endings that could not be achieved if you did not have that specific origin.  Were some of them better implemented than others?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean they sucked or they didn't tie into the game at any point after.  That is just patented BS.

 

I loved DA's Origins, but they're not high on my list of priorities.  My hierarchy is (from least to most important), origin-based content, race-content, class content, skill content.  This is mainly because skill checks need to be everywhere to work well, but race and class content/throw away lines spice things up fairly nicely.  I love when druids can speak to animals or wizards can decipher arcane runes.

[Mor]

I still wonder how many of you actually played Dragon Age Origins.  The origins could have a major impact on the story and depending on your origin some of them actually had endings that could not be achieved if you did not have that specific origin.  Were some of them better implemented than others?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean they sucked or they didn't tie into the game at any point after.  That is just patented BS.

I don't about the rest, but I don't care about DA:O specific implementation(or any other for that mater). I like added replay value and how it effects the plot, I just prefer that major questlines don't be tied up with "class" restrictions.

[Silent Winter]

I still wonder how many of you actually played Dragon Age Origins.  The origins could have a major impact on the story and depending on your origin some of them actually had endings that could not be achieved if you did not have that specific origin.

 

If Obsidian is working on multiple endings then I'd rather those endings were dependent on my in-game actions and choices rather than a button I pushed at Char-Gen.

Not that it wouldn't be cool to throw in an extra personalised bit based on class - druid returns to nature kind of thing - but given how much they'll be able to do, adding in histories as well would be too much.

It's not a case of 'a blank slate with no personality' but that we have our own personal history and use that to inform in-game decisions, which then affect what happens.

 

Just because a history is non-specific, doesn't mean we can't roleplay it.

 

As an example:  I started a BGT runthrough as a Chaotic-Evil Sorceror.  He'd been a bit of a brat as a child and then power-hungry as a teen, though he'd kept it quiet from Gorion.  He'd always had a soft-spot for Imoen though, the only one he'd ever had any affinity with.

Over the course of the game, through the influence of Imoen and one or 2 other party members, including Viconia's personal struggle,  he became chaotic-good (at least as far as I was concerned - the engine didn't change his alignment but in-game actions affected the ending, not the alignment) so that he got the good ending for TOB.

 

So even with BG, where there's no real way to change your history, you can make your own story and have it affect in-game events.  (and I simplified the background I made for the sake of brevity).

 

So in the end, I'd rather have in-game choices that matter vs. pre-game ones.  Of course, I'd like class and race to come up and affect dialogues or even whole quests, but history just isn't that important if there are enough in-game choices.  It's up to us to roleplay it, not have the game make those choices for us and only present us with things appropriate to our pre-defined background.

[Karkarov]

You guys know "blank slate" is a non character.  You can invent whatever backstory you want, but if you have a "blank slate" character the game will never act on it or acknowledge it exists because in game mechanics terms... it doesn't.  So sure you cause use your invented backstory to inform your choices... but that conversation you just had with it's three dialog options will always be the same choice with the same dialog no matter what character you play.  Be it a female human mage, a make elven bard, a female dwarven priest, or a male godlike cipher with hair made of fire.

 

I would much rather have the option to pick some kind of background that would have some kind of effect on the game itself no matter how small that effect was.  Even one conversation being different due to my choices is better than zero conversations being different because I am a "blank slate".

[decado]

I still wonder how many of you actually played Dragon Age Origins.  The origins could have a major impact on the story and depending on your origin some of them actually had endings that could not be achieved if you did not have that specific origin.  Were some of them better implemented than others?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean they sucked or they didn't tie into the game at any point after.  That is just patented BS.

They had no meaningful impact on the story once you got past the origin story itself. You would occasionally get a throwaway line of dialog, and some NPCs would react to you differently. But that's it. There were no major plot points missed or gained depending on your origin story. No major plot points panned out any differently because of your origin, as the choices available to you were always the same. Kill Connor or not, your origin is irrelevant. Nullify the circle or not, your origin is irrelevant. Kill Loghain or not, your origin is irrelevant. Choose Harrowmont as the new king or not, your origin is irrelevant.

 

I'm very critical of DA:O but that is because I enjoyed huge parts of it. I've played through every single origin at least once. I've yet to find any significant difference between how the origin stories effect the main quest proper. Which doesn't really bother me, because I understand that designing that level of variability into a game is extremely difficult. The reason I tend to get irritated about it is because BioWare oversold it in the first place, just like they did with your "decisions" in ME2 and ME3. They routinely promise way more than they can deliver in that department. I wish they would stop.

Edited December 2, 2013 by decado

[decado]

Also, I had a perfectly good amount of fun role playing my six little dudes as I trudged through the Bard's Tale when I was a teenage nerd in my basement. Good game play and a good story are way more important to me than some predefined set of variables that will change a few dialog lines.

[Silent Winter]

You guys know "blank slate" is a non character.  You can invent whatever backstory you want, but if you have a "blank slate" character the game will never act on it or acknowledge it exists because in game mechanics terms... it doesn't.  So sure you cause use your invented backstory to inform your choices... but that conversation you just had with it's three dialog options will always be the same choice with the same dialog no matter what character you play.  Be it a female human mage, a make elven bard, a female dwarven priest, or a male godlike cipher with hair made of fire.

 

I would much rather have the option to pick some kind of background that would have some kind of effect on the game itself no matter how small that effect was.  Even one conversation being different due to my choices is better than zero conversations being different because I am a "blank slate".

You're confusing race/class reactivity with history reactivity - the game can still offer dialogue choices for druid v fighter etc without needing a whole background check.

[Karkarov]

You're confusing race/class reactivity with history reactivity - the game can still offer dialogue choices for druid v fighter etc without needing a whole background check.

Yes, obviously the "reactivity" I am looking for is getting dialog option 3 to change to "Eat Cold Steel", "Eat Fiery Death", or "Eat Mother Natures Fury" based on my class.  The only real class reactivity in an Obsidian game worth mentioning is in BG2 when you get a different "stronghold" based on class.  And there were still only what 3 of them?

 

No, I am looking for REAL response to character creation that takes a character background into account.  Not race/class and nothing else.  I am talking quests specific to certain background choices, possible endings locked behind certain background options, potential faction relationships being different at game start, etc etc.  I am not talking about the game flagging me as needing to be hailed as a "Warrior" instead of a "Wizard" because I choose fighter.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Karkarov

[Ulquiorra]

Yes, obviously the "reactivity" I am looking for is getting dialog option 3 to change to "Eat Cold Steel", "Eat Fiery Death", or "Eat Mother Natures Fury" based on my class.  The only real class reactivity in an Obsidian game worth mentioning is in BG2 when you get a different "stronghold" based on class.  And there were still only what 3 of them?

 

No, I am looking for REAL response to character creation that takes a character background into account.  Not race/class and nothing else.  I am talking quests specific to certain background choices, possible endings locked behind certain background options, potential faction relationships being different at game start, etc etc.  I am not talking about the game flagging me as needing to be hailed as a "Warrior" instead of a "Wizard" because I choose fighter.

 

 

Besides, obsidan/biowere made DnD games olny recocnize your "Race" and "Class" but not both at the same time. For example you whoud take halforc paladin an nobody sees it's odd a little bit.

 

The reactivity ended just after it started. Halforc, human, dwarv --> the same events and dialogs .. the same for mage, rogue and other classes. That was allways a downfall of games that allows you to play difrent races and classes but it was partly fixed in dragon age "orgins".

 

Many of you sad that "orgins"

 didn't change to much .. well at leat changed more then in every obsidan made game. .. sorry but that truth.

 

Even the worst designe dalish elf had some dialogs specific to his orgin, but if you combain ALL dialogs specific to race or class in any obsidan game it will still be lestt then typical dialogs for dallish ..

 

And i Even don't say anything about the human noble and dwarven noble who where best desinged.

[neo6874]

Problem with DA:O was that the vast majority of the history stuff only mattered at the beginning of the game (i.e. one of the opening quests before getting requited to be a warden).  Sure, playing a human meant that (overall) you were liked more than the Dwarf or the Elf, but I don't recall in any of the play-throughs that as a Dwarf or Elf your questline was any different than a human -- if the quest was "obtain the 3-headed monkey statue, get it back here so I can finish the voodoo spell" all three races were "waltz in the front door, kill all the guards, kill BBEG, take the thing, return to the voodoo lady"

 

BG was good, you're an orphan being raised in Candlekeep, though don't really know anything (because Gorion sheltered you from who/what you really are).

NWN was also pretty good -- you're a wanna-be adventurer answering the call of Neverwinter to help end the Wailing Death, and, well, we don't care about your past.

NWN2 was alright, a bit too lax on thanking Tymora that you somehow survived the fight that lodged the thing in your chest though.

 

Haven't yet started BG2 or IWD/IWD2, but I'm gonna assume they follow some of the same progression of "we don't care about your past -- you should know enough about FRCS to figure it out" (although, I wouldn't be surprised if BG II was a direct followup to the BG storyline, since it stayed with Bioware/Black Isle rather than getting shipped off to another group.

 

TBH, one of the better "you know nothing about your past" storylines I've played recently has been Arx Fatalis ... although I'm not that far in, at least the other "main" characters you keep running into have the same story for me -- "oh, yeah, the Goblins probably whacked you a bit hard"

[Lephys]

I don't see how a character can have no "relevant history." How can everything you've ever done or experienced have absolutely nothing at all to do with anything you do or experience in the future? Unless you somehow died and were reincarnated into a new, fully adult being in the blink of an eye? In which case, complexity aside, you'd still make use of previous experiences in your new form. Unless you just didn't know anything. In which case, you would only have no relevant history because you, for all practical purposes, would have no history.

 

Now, do we choose some big elaborate template that we, the player, must sort of mold our play to, for that character? Or, do we simply decide what happened in the past for our character whenever something comes up, so that we get to pick and choose all the little nuances ourselves? I dunno. But, either way, I don't see any scenario in which an RPG character can possibly have "no relevant history." The sheer act of choosing a class immediately begets the relevant history of anything and everything that led to your Level 1 state-of-being in that class/those skills/traits/stats, etc.

 

In fact, the entire progression system, itself, is literally built upon the relevance of history. What did you do at Level 1? That now affects what you can do at Level 2, and at Level 3, and so on and so forth. So, a game can simply say "Meh, we're just not going to worry about what that character did before he became a level 1 (insert class here), specifically)." But, that hardly makes character history irrelevant.

 

History affects the present state of things (including your character), and the present affects the future. 'Tis the natural flow of cause-and-effect.

 

Personally, I think just starting whatever character you build at the common narrative source point (like the crash in Arcanum, for example) is the way to go, with character creation allowing us to choose things about our past that don't affect things like where we go or end up, but, instead, the state of our Level 1 character when we take direct control over them. The state that will affect things throughout the game. Basically, a slightly more complex trait/background system, that possibly goes so far as to present us with a bunch of scenarios from the character's past, and have us decide how we handled them/what our character was like in those scenarios, then tell us the results, and how that affects our character's current state.

[Silent Winter]

 

You're confusing race/class reactivity with history reactivity - the game can still offer dialogue choices for druid v fighter etc without needing a whole background check.

Yes, obviously the "reactivity" I am looking for is getting dialog option 3 to change to "Eat Cold Steel", "Eat Fiery Death", or "Eat Mother Natures Fury" based on my class.  The only real class reactivity in an Obsidian game worth mentioning is in BG2 when you get a different "stronghold" based on class.  And there were still only what 3 of them?

 

No, I am looking for REAL response to character creation that takes a character background into account.  Not race/class and nothing else.  I am talking quests specific to certain background choices, possible endings locked behind certain background options, potential faction relationships being different at game start, etc etc.  I am not talking about the game flagging me as needing to be hailed as a "Warrior" instead of a "Wizard" because I choose fighter.

The examples you gave were all race/class combos - hence my response.

If my character creation choices are limited to 'Human Male Noble Fighter' v. 'Orlan Female Orphan Mage' then I'm going to be pretty disappointed too.

Are you also expecting people to know your background?  So you're going to adventure by staying at home?  Again, it would be better to have as many dialogue / quest options as possible and let us roleplay it.

If you're expecting Obsidian to cater for every possible background choice combined with every possible race AND class combination and creating unique dialogue choices (throughout the game - not just a one-off because 'see - reactivity') for each then you're being unfair to them.

As for ""Eat Cold Steel", "Eat Fiery Death", or "Eat Mother Natures Fury"" or being hailed as "Ho Warrior/Wizard" being the only way to show class reactivity - that's hardly a realistic concern.  I envisioned more subtle options and quest solutions based on gameplay as well as dialogue options.  Fighters might size up a physical threat more readily and, if intelligent, be able to interject with some knowledge that gains an upper-hand vis a vis intimidation (and if not intelligent then a similar option might provoke a conflict).  Alternatively, Cyphers might be better at reading people and spotting a connection between the Elven vase on their desk and their apparent distrust of Orlans.

 

Even being able to create dialogue (more than just a one-off) to combine every race/class combination seems like a large task to me.  Certain specific cases, sure, like the half-orc paladin mentioned above, might be worth taking into account for some meetings.  But for the most part - people will react to your class OR race depending on their own perspective on life / society.  Not to mention that we're playing a party so how should they react when an Orlan Wizard, a Dwarven Cypher and an Elven Monk walk into a bar?

 

'Blank Slate' is not what I'm after but being able to play the character I want to, rather than a limited number of history scenarios, is better for me.  Give us dialogue options that let us make our character, not just let us make our character and then give us the dialogue options that fit.

 

Edit: Oh, and BG didn't have just 3 strongholds - it was one per base class, so 6, I believe (sorceror and mage were the same and Barbarian and fighter were the same - could have been better with more time / budget, I agree)

Edited December 3, 2013 by Silent Winter

[neo6874]

I don't see how a character can have no "relevant history." How can everything you've ever done or experienced have absolutely nothing at all to do with anything you do or experience in the future? Unless you somehow died and were reincarnated into a new, fully adult being in the blink of an eye? In which case, complexity aside, you'd still make use of previous experiences in your new form. Unless you just didn't know anything. In which case, you would only have no relevant history because you, for all practical purposes, would have no history.

Well, NWN2 you had no "relevant" history to what was going on around you, at least up until middle of Ch2, IIRC. Or rather, whenever you found out the truth about the githyanki sword fragment lodged in your chest.

 

You were a "new adult" reveling in the last year you're able to participate in the harvest festival, having a good time celebrating everything with friends for the night. Go to sleep, and middle of the night your little village is getting stomped by Githyanki and other bad things. You get a hurried explanation of "some item" in the swamps after doing what little you could to help the townspeople get to safety, and are tasked with taking the thing to Neverwinter to (IIRC?) "Uncle Sand" who was a long time friend of your father's.

 

 

Personally, I think just starting whatever character you build at the common narrative source point (like the crash in Arcanum, for example) is the way to go, with character creation allowing us to choose things about our past that don't affect things like where we go or end up, but, instead, the state of our Level 1 character when we take direct control over them. The state that will affect things throughout the game. Basically, a slightly more complex trait/background system, that possibly goes so far as to present us with a bunch of scenarios from the character's past, and have us decide how we handled them/what our character was like in those scenarios, then tell us the results, and how that affects our character's current state.

Agreed, although the trouble with games that take this route are that they like having some sort of twist in them (KoTOR -> you're Revan; KoTOR II -> You're the "Anti-Force"; NWN II -> You have part of the sword in you; MoTB -> you're the Betrayer; and others I'm forgetting...)

[Monte Carlo]

Sorry, I'm late. My character wakes up hungover in bed with three slave girls and a sheep called Billy bob. He finishes the half-drink beer on the bed-stand, puts on his outrageously plumed hat (and nothing else) and goes downstairs to start a fight.

[SophosTheWise]

Sorry, I'm late. My character wakes up hungover in bed with three slave girls and a sheep called Billy bob. He finishes the half-drink beer on the bed-stand, puts on his outrageously plumed hat (and nothing else) and goes downstairs to start a fight.

 

I like your style.

[Osvir]

This might go in the "Things you've wanted to see for the past decade" thread but this is more fitting as it is on topic too.

So, let's take Baldur's Gate as a concept.

Let's say you start a Priest character, and you get to choose all attributes, appearance and all, but as a final note, you get to choose were to start your game as well. Do you start at the Temple? Or are you a emissary from Baldur's Gate and you start at the gates? Or are you Gorions ward?

What would be the meeting ground? Friendly Arm's Inn or Nashkel. Just like in the original experience.

But I think it could add a little bit more choice and freedom to the Player if they could choose a starting "spawn" point. But instead of being teleported to "Ostagar" (just a choice of words, Dragon Age: Origins meeting ground), you'd have to traverse the land to get there.

Ostagar: No matter which Origin you start with in DAO, you always end up in Ostagar in the same way, with the same intention, similar backstories (the jist of it: Duncan recruits you). The Origins in DAO is simply "texture" but the underlying story is exactly the same. Duncan -> You -> Ostagar.

But what if you could've started in Denerim Commons as a City Elf, do your crimes or whatnot and get sent to Ostagar as a soldier (forced against your will, but either that or death), then travel too Ostagar and face off enemies or do quests along the way and then you meet Duncan when you get to Ostagar.

As a Mage, Wynne could take you under her helm, take you to Ostagar as an assistant and perhaps even as an apprentice of hers. Travel with her to Ostagar, traverse the lands and allow some freedom (change course, miss the entire battle at Ostagar and continue the game accordingly towards the general Darkspawn Objective/Game Objective). Maybe you meet a worn and torn Alistair who you help and eventually become a Grey Warden with him as the "helping hand".

I started with Baldur's Gate as an example but started talking about DAO instead xD but hey, iz all part of the brainstorm somewhat.

Let's go back to Baldur's Gate examples:
- Start as a Fighter, choose again to start at some key-points in the game. Maybe start off in Beregost, or straight off in Nashkel at the tavern.

A Bhaalspawn can be anyone right? So maybe the Main Character has been eluded from his own truth, and Gorion is someone from the past (Maybe he was the ward of your character but your character managed to escape, or had to leave). Knit it together with the original plot somehow so that the cutscenes make sense. I think it would and could be a rich addition to the game, but mostly to the character's lore and history.

Baldur's Gate does suffer slightly from the "Yeah you're that guy" no matter how you start the game. You'll always be Gorions Ward and you'll always start in Candlekeep. The roleplaying aspect becomes limited within the bounds of your starting position.

Arcanum feels the same but yet it has a brilliant execution with the Zeppelin so your character can really come from anywhere and be anyone. Baldur's Gate doesn't have that at all. You can only be one character with one history (with a Player crafted personality).

This is something I'd like to see in an RPG.

TES games (all of them) are also very good at this execution. You are someone who can be anyone coming from anywhere within the bounds of the world. But the TES games also lack this short "intro" in a way. If I make a Redguard in Skyrim I do kind of want to play the game as the Redguard I am creating, before getting caught by the Imperials. Just to create some backstory on my own.

In Arcanum you pick an origin, but I kind of want to vaguely create an origin. And the only way I can "truly" do that would be to experience an origin.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Osvir

[Wolfenbarg]

I'm getting the impression that Obsidian is going for something like Mask of the Betrayer, where circumstances occur which make you unique within the game (or backstory). This excludes a solid origin like Planescape or KotOR and makes the concept of exploring your own origins a bit superfluous. If you're an elf, doing elf things relating to some backstory of yours seems a bit inconsequential compared to not having a soul or whatever narrative push they come up with. That's what I'm more interested in for this game.

[Karkarov]

TES games (all of them) are also very good at this execution. You are someone who can be anyone coming from anywhere within the bounds of the world. But the TES games also lack this short "intro" in a way. If I make a Redguard in Skyrim I do kind of want to play the game as the Redguard I am creating, before getting caught by the Imperials. Just to create some backstory on my own.

You can do that in skyrim through modding, at least on the pc version.  You are still a "blank slate" though.  Like I said you can make up any sort of in game backstory you want but when the game only sees "redguard, high skill with bows" it doesn't really matter.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Karkarov

[Robsidious]

This is an interesting discussion though I don't feel like I know enough about the narrative of Project Eternity to state a clear preference for it. As others have noted, there are many options that Obsidian could explore along the [blank slate] <->[set protagonist] continuum and any approach can be executed well or poorly. The basic premise of *witness supernatural event that envelops you in the plot* is indeed pretty wide open, hence the speculation in this thread.

 

I can say what I'd like in general terms, but would hesitate to claim that I definitely wouldn't want something in PE. I'm also not full bottle on the information we already have about the game so take my musings for what they are.

 

I would enjoy at least some recognition of my choice of race, ethnicity and class in dialogue, even if it's just for flavour rather than affecting quest-lines and narrative. I do like the idea of getting to select from a few key options at character creation regarding specific traits; such as spiritual/religious inclination or certain personality traits, that would influence how some npcs react to us, affecting quest options and branching, or even allowing us to roleplay our character's development by changing our inclinations over the course of the game. However this seems like it could become a lot of work to do meaningfully, so I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be beyond giving us flavour dialogue and enabling us to 'roleplay' outside of the game's reactive systems.

 

There does appear to be a significant constraining dichotomy between freedom of character backstory creation and reactivity, in contrast to the reactivity for in-game decisions and role-play. The more freedom and variation you give players in their backgrounds, the harder it is to provide meaningful reactivity to those choices. Whereas it appears easier to just provide gameplay scenarios and dialogue options for player choice and character expression solely in-game. So I don't think I would like my character creation choices to substantially affect the main plot, as I imagine this would require fairly highly prescriptive backgrounds and I would like a lot of freedom in character creation, so I guess I lean more towards the blank slate side of things for Project Eternity there. That said, there could be ways to do so that I haven't experienced or can't envisage, which brings me back to my original point that this poll is great for stimulating discussion ;-)

Edited December 9, 2013 by Robsidious