Protagonist - Fixed, Semi Fixed or Open/Free?

[Kleptocratic debt serf]

Ok let me clarify,

Fixed, as in Geralt, you're not only a monster slayer but you have a strictly fixed and (mostly) predefined character with his own personal motivations and history. Shepard and Hawke from their bioware franchises would count too, but those aren't really RPGs...

Semi Fixed, is probably the broadest category in that it includes games like FO(Vault Dweller, but a classless system coupled with a blank slate in terms of personality), DA:O(warden with some degree of freedom; races/origins) ect.

Open/Free, would include games with complete character and/or party creation... Backgrounds/Histories, Races, Classes, Skills, Stats, Sex, Traits(strenghts and weakness), personality, the sky is the limit.

From role playing, gameplay and/or story perspectives which is better and why?

 

[octavius]

Open/Free, because it's more difficult to make interactive romantic movies around them.

 

[oscar]

I'll assume we're talking about a writing and story-focused CRPG than a more dungeon crawling (or even Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale-esque) rpg.

Fixed isn't bad if you can direct how the character ends up in interesting ways. For instance if it were a Napoleonic naval story: does the character become a stern, introspective, disciplined, taciturn, self-doubting Hornblower or a loud, passionate, confident and brash Jack Aubrey?

For open to be done well requires a lot more resources. Arcanum is probably the best instance I've seen of it, with a great deal of reactivity depending upon your race, stats or even what clothes the protagonist is wearing.

 

[suejak]

I can accept the divisions in the OP, but I have trouble accepting that Geralt and TNO are in the same category... That makes me really uncomfortable.

Or is TNO semi-fixed?

It's a tough call.

 

[Haba]

TNO is blank slate with history, Geralt has history and defined personality.

Anyhooo, dunno what is the point of the topic. You use the right tool for the right purpose. The pieces have to fit the puzzle.

 

[CrustyBot]

I find that the more cinematic the game is, the more it benefits from having a fixed protagonist with a set personality (though still somewhat malleable in terms of attitude, beliefs and motivations - Thorton, Geralt, etc). The less abstract the method of conversation and interaction, the less the game relies on the player to fill in the blanks, so it's harder to write good dialog without beating the player over the head with a "character".

Take note that this is not related to the quality of the writing or the game, just a general comment on how a game's interaction method can affect the effectiveness of a certain type of protagonist. You can obviously have very good, or very bad writing regardless of how you setup interactions and protagonist design. But games like Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol or Witcher would not work as-is if their protagonists were blank slate or even semi-fixed characters.

Above all though, it depends on the game itself and what it aims to accomplish. Often, the type of protagonist you have illustrates what kind of game you have. Games with expendable characters tend to be lighter on the narrative focus so they wouldn't have to deal with game-changing reactivity if X or Y got killed. A lot of old RPGs with full party creation (and permdeath) focused more on exploration and doing cool shit with your stats/skills than emotionally engaging you for this very reason. Well, that and because they wanted to make virtual PnP programs not emotionally engaging masterjesticpieces.

Whereas a game with a fixed protagonist and/or party has the opportunity for more of the game's content to be relevant to the character or party. I think Avellone once made mention of how he preferred working with a smaller cast of characters, as that allowed him to better integrate reactivity wrt those characters into the general narrative and thematic core.

A game like Deus Ex would lose a lot IMO, had we played blank slate or semi-fixed character archetype instead of JC Denton specifically. Conversely, why would you want a fixed character in a game like PS:T? It's a bit of a unique case, as the approaches are a bit intertwined but it'd be the difference between playing him as-is, or playing him as one of his previous incarnations.

It really comes down what kind of game it is and how best it would utilise the protagonist. There's no inherent "right" answer, though my preference lies away from fixed characters. Aside from the fact that cinematic games (in which a fixed character is the most advantageous) have a limited ceiling for potential incline and a boundless one for potential derp, I just enjoy thinking up of character concepts and having a massive array of options for character generation. That said, I also do like the idea of having a fixed history/backstory to ground the character in the game world.

Basically, I'd cum buckets if we could combine Darklands/RoA character generation with AoD's backgrounds or the Origin stories concept from Dragon Age.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Ok let me clarify,

Fixed, as in Geralt, you're not only a monster slayer but you have a strictly fixed and (mostly) predefined character with his own personal motivations and history. Shepard and Hawke from their bioware franchises would count too, but those aren't really RPGs...

Semi Fixed, is probably the broadest category in that it includes games like FO(Vault Dweller, but a classless system coupled with a blank slate in terms of personality), DA:O(warden with some degree of freedom; races/origins) ect.

Open/Free, would include games with complete character and/or party creation... Backgrounds/Histories, Races, Classes, Skills, Stats, Sex, Traits(strenghts and weakness), personality, the sky is the limit.

From role playing, gameplay and/or story perspectives which is better and why?

This is a good topic. Although the answer is easy.

Of course Open free, in ideal situation when you can afford it. Typically you should be able to choose your background and that should influence your gameplay (a la Arcanum). When that is not possible, at least some flexibility is nice.

With Witcher like fixed character games you have fewer choices and thus lesser control over the game.

I actually liked the Origins system in DA:O. It allows you to connect to your past self more clearly and gives a decent reason to play to those standards. Games with fixed background can take that freedom away from you (e.g Geralt can never act like a moron or a villain (not that I want him to ).

For details on my opinion:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-basics-character-creation-progression.69522/

 

[Captain Shrek]

I find that the more cinematic the game is, the more it benefits from having a fixed protagonist with a set personality (though still somewhat malleable in terms of attitude, beliefs and motivations - Thorton, Geralt, etc). The less abstract the method of conversation and interaction, the less the game relies on the player to fill in the blanks, so it's harder to write good dialog without beating the player over the head with a "character".

Take note that this is not related to the quality of the writing or the game, just a general comment on how a game's interaction method can affect the effectiveness of a certain type of protagonist. You can obviously have very good, or very bad writing regardless of how you setup interactions and protagonist design. But games like Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol or Witcher would not work as-is if their protagonists were blank slate or even semi-fixed characters.

Above all though, it depends on the game itself and what it aims to accomplish. Often, the type of protagonist you have illustrates what kind of game you have. Games with expendable characters tend to be lighter on the narrative focus so they wouldn't have to deal with game-changing reactivity if X or Y got killed. A lot of old RPGs with full party creation (and permdeath) focused more on exploration and doing cool shit with your stats/skills than emotionally engaging you for this very reason. Well, that and because they wanted to make virtual PnP programs not emotionally engaging masterjesticpieces.

Whereas a game with a fixed protagonist and/or party has the opportunity for more of the game's content to be relevant to the character or party. I think Avellone once made mention of how he preferred working with a smaller cast of characters, as that allowed him to better integrate reactivity wrt those characters into the general narrative and thematic core.

A game like Deus Ex would lose a lot IMO, had we played blank slate or semi-fixed character archetype instead of JC Denton specifically. Conversely, why would you want a fixed character in a game like PS:T? It's a bit of a unique case, as the approaches are a bit intertwined but it'd be the difference between playing him as-is, or playing him as one of his previous incarnations.

It really comes down what kind of game it is and how best it would utilise the protagonist. There's no inherent "right" answer, though my preference lies away from fixed characters. Aside from the fact that cinematic games (in which a fixed character is the most advantageous) have a limited ceiling for potential incline and a boundless one for potential derp, I just enjoy thinking up of character concepts and having a massive array of options for character generation. That said, I also do like the idea of having a fixed history/backstory to ground the character in the game world.

Basically, I'd cum buckets if we could combine Darklands/RoA character generation with AoD's backgrounds or the Origin stories concept from Dragon Age.

I would like to add that PST is essentially a PLAY on the blank character sheet. With all the previous incarnations you have chance to choose how your current one will be. This was very refreshing considering most DnD games make the blank character sheet characterless without any motivation.

 

[octavius]

I think the Baldur's Gate games got it more or less right. Your companions had motivations and backgrounds, and were not just bunch of numbers, while you were more free to mould CHARNAME in your own image.

 

[Lubulos]

From role playing, gameplay and/or story perspectives which is better and why?

My 2 cents:

- from a gameplay perspective, you want to have the more freedom possible (if we are talking about rpgs). I think it's p. self-explanatory.

- from a role-playing perspective, a semi-fixed approach would be ideal. You get a particular character and you have fun LARPing around. Examples would be the Ultima games or PS:T, BG, etc.

- from a story perspective, while in theory any approach could work, the only one that actually works is the fixed one. This is because the more control the player has, the more the author finds it difficult to employ plot twists, plot directions, plus a whole lot of plot devices become pointless or uneffective in an open approach.

I would also add the there is no "open" approach from a programming and design perspective. Everything is scripted and is part of the system. It's not like the player creates new options that weren't there in the first place. It's good to discuss these topics as long as we keep this in mind.

 

[DraQ]

TNO is somewhere between fixed and semi-fixed.

TES protagonists OTOH are somewhere between open and semi-fixed.

 

[suejak]

I would also add the there is no "open" approach from a programming and design perspective. Everything is scripted and is part of the system. It's not like the player creates new options that weren't there in the first place. It's good to discuss these topics as long as we keep this in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay

 

[Cool name]

For me it would be Open/Free. Every detail of my character that I am not free to pick moves me closer to getting bored with the game after an hour or two. I do not care for 'personal' stories in role playing games. I much prefer if the player character is not the story's protagonist but merely an observer. The story happens around her as she tries to complete her quest. At times she is forced to participate on it. At times the story intrudes on her path. But it is not her story, it is the story of the location and of its inhabitants. Her story and personality are defined by how I decide to interact with the enviroment and the characters through her.

 

[Lubulos]

TNO is somewhere between fixed and semi-fixed.

TES protagonists OTOH are somewhere between open and semi-fixed.

Which actually makes them both semi-fixed, if you think about it.

I would also add the there is no "open" approach from a programming and design perspective. Everything is scripted and is part of the system. It's not like the player creates new options that weren't there in the first place. It's good to discuss these topics as long as we keep this in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay

I said that, not Captain Shrek. Also, emergent gameplay is exactly what I was talking about. It's not like games like Dwarf Fortress let you define your approach. That approach is already hard-coded in the source code, being it intentional or not. This is actually a broader topic which includes what computer programs can and cannot do.

 

[suejak]

I said that, not Captain Shrek. Also, emergent gameplay is exactly what I was talking about. It's not like games like Dwarf Fortress let you define your approach. That approach is already hard-coded in the source code, being it intentional or not. This is actually a broader topic which includes what computer programs can and cannot do.

Yeah, this site blows. Fixed.

I'm not sure what point you want to make. The designers and programmers intend to give the players a lot of freedom, and construct a loose system to serve as a framework for the player. But that doesn't make everything the player does, by extension, an intentionally designed outcome. The freedom is intentional, but the outcome itself is player-generated within the system. I think that's worth calling "open" or "free".

 

[Minttunator]

Good topic!

Aside from the obvious - i.e. different games requiring different approaches, etc. - I tend to prefer characters that are not completely fixed. I feel it adds to the replayability if I can play a completely different character every time (not just the same character with different stats).

It also seems to me that games with a lot of character customization are easier to sell, because many people like to project their real-life persona into the game, i.e. play fantasy versions of themselves. I've heard many women and trannies complaining about how they couldn't get into the Witcher games or Risen because they can't identify with the protagonists. I don't necessarily agree with this myself, but it seems to be a fairly common sentiment.

Clearly this requires more effort from the developers to pull off well - i.e. there's not much point to playing characters of different sexes/races/backgrounds if the game world and NPCs aren't going to react to it.

 

[Lubulos]

I'm not sure what point you want to make. The designers and programmers intend to give the players a lot of freedom, and construct a loose system to serve as a framework for the player. But that doesn't make everything the player does, by extension, an intentionally designed outcome. The freedom is intentional, but the outcome itself is player-generated within the system. I think that's worth calling "open" or "free".

Of course you are right, if by openness you mean that. My point (which isn't actually mine) was that "true freedom" is impossible in games and in computer programs in general. Also, in regard to the emphasized sentence, I said:

That approach is already hard-coded in the source code, being it intentional or not.

What I mean is that an unintentionally outcome doesn't make a game truly free or open, because if you examine the source code, you can predict what will happen. Everything is contained in the source, even if the programmer didn't intend to be so (which actually happens very often when programming). Thus everything is deterministic in nature. There is no real freedom.

 

[octavius]

It also seems to me that games with a lot of character customization are easier to sell, because many people like to project their real-life persona into the game, i.e. play fantasy versions of themselves. I've heard many women and trannies complaining about how they couldn't get into the Witcher games or Risen because they can't identify with the protagonists. I don't necessarily agree with this myself, but it seems to be a fairly common sentiment.

Heh, I always though the point of role playing games was to play someone other than yourself. To me one of the best things about the TES games is that you can play all kinds of different characters, and I've played everything from a Khajit skooma addict to a nord barbarian wielding a huge hammer to a chaste female Dark Elf follower of the Tribunal Temple.

 

[Marsal]

I'm not sure what point you want to make. The designers and programmers intend to give the players a lot of freedom, and construct a loose system to serve as a framework for the player. But that doesn't make everything the player does, by extension, an intentionally designed outcome. The freedom is intentional, but the outcome itself is player-generated within the system. I think that's worth calling "open" or "free".

Of course you are right, if by openness you mean that. My point (which isn't actually mine) was that "true freedom" is impossible in games and in computer programs in general. Also, in regard to the emphasized sentence, I said:

That approach is already hard-coded in the source code, being it intentional or not.

What I mean is that an unintentionally outcome doesn't make a game truly free or open, because if you examine the source code, you can predict what will happen. Everything is contained in the source, even if the programmer didn't intend to be so (which actually happens very often when programming). Thus everything is deterministic in nature. There is no real freedom.

Are you trolling? This is brilliant stuff! On the other hand, it's also completely retarded, if you're serious.

 

[Lubulos]

Are you trolling? This is brilliant stuff! On the other hand, it's also completely retarded, if you're serious.

Because, you know, a computer program is totally free to do what it wants and its outcome is not determined by its code in any way. In my world determinism != freedom.

 

[Scruffy]

it's always fixed

 

[Captain Shrek]

Are you trolling? This is brilliant stuff! On the other hand, it's also completely retarded, if you're serious.

Because, you know, a computer program is totally free to do what it wants and its outcome is not determined by its code in any way. In my world determinism != freedom.

That is not entirely correct. I am loathe to agree with Suejerk here, but there is always emergence. But you can't apply that to character development, only to the way gameplay develops. For example in Morrowind you had an opportunity to do a lot of things that did not contribute to or even opposed the main story. It is indeed theoretically possible to create a game where this can be taken to ridiculously stupid levels by keeping the number of NPCs constant and what Bethesda always lies about (Radiant AI). This is still "deterministic" as you call it, but can diverge.

BUT.

This does not apply to character development. I might be using a very strict definition of character here.

 

[Alex]

I think a game with a fixed protagonist, with a specific personality and mannerism, which is also mostly about the interactive story it presents, can hardly be called an RPG in first place. The Nameless One, while having a fixed situation to deal with, could be any kind of character you imagine, so he didn't fall in this category. In fact, I would say you get to determine what kind of character he is better than most RPGs manage. On the other hand, The Witcher and Alpha Protocol with their fixed protagonists looked more like badly done adventure games in that regard.

 

[Lubulos]

I agree with you Captain Shrek, and in fact I was talking only about gameplay mechanics. At the "player level", of course the emergence kicks in, but that's more in the realm of the roleplaying experience than that of the actual underlying system (which is still deterministic, no matter how many branches it can take).

 

[Excidium]

Probably semi-fixed, where the character has a background that ties to the narrative but you have freedom to develop his abilities or personality in any way you want.