Reality and fiction in RPG
I have heard and read so many different approaches to playing RPGs, so if you don't mind, I would like to see an overview of the different perspectives. So, here are my questions:
1. How do you play games like the BG saga? Like a spectator, or do you get immersed and identify with the character you play?
2. If you like to get immersed in the role you play, do you manage to play different characters? I don't mean if you only play yourself. I mean if, instead of some variations of good, or playing mage instead of cleric, you manage or perhaps even like to play characters or alignments that are completely different from yourself?
Or is this only possible if you play in a detached, spectator kind of way?
I'm looking forward to reading your perspectives.
1. How do you play games like the BG saga? Like a spectator, or do you get immersed and identify with the character you play?
2. If you like to get immersed in the role you play, do you manage to play different characters? I don't mean if you only play yourself. I mean if, instead of some variations of good, or playing mage instead of cleric, you manage or perhaps even like to play characters or alignments that are completely different from yourself?
Or is this only possible if you play in a detached, spectator kind of way?
I'm looking forward to reading your perspectives.
7
Comments
2. Of course I can role-play as a different characters, even if both the surface traits and internal traits of the character I come up with are utterly different to my own. That's the fun in role-playing, although my role-playing limits to videogames. I'm just coming up with a character and then try to act like the character in-videogame.
Worth noting, in videogames when you have established character I tend to act based on what I know about character and about circumstances around said character.
So yeah. What I love is to actively become a completely different person than "the real me". I already play as myself in Real Life after all... so why would I do the same in games as well? Wouldn't that be kind of boring?
For example: How did being physically weak affect him as a child?
Was he bullied by his peers? Is he now resentful and vindictive because of that?
Or: Did he, through resourcefulness, learn to overcome his physical shortcomings and excel in other areas?
In other words I build a backstory to the character and play to that.
I'm one of the apparently few people who like to immerse myself by playing myself in the game. Most of my crpg characters use my own name, or a variation of it.
I see my games as a form of artistic self-expression. The fun for me is in imagining, if I found myself in this magical world, with the power of super-strength and agility, and/or magical powers, what would I do, and how would I live?
I like to imagine that I retain my meta-awareness that I have been transported into a game, and that I am in no real danger. That means I'm not as afraid of the dangers in the game as I would be in real life. That would give me the courage to fight and try to help that I would lack in real life. Moreover, I have now been gifted with super-hero like powers and abilities, so there is quite a bit I can do to fight monsters, protect the innocent, and right wrongs.
If I commit evil acts in games - murdering innocents, robbing people, stealing everything not nailed down, motivated only by gold and schadenfreude, then I feel just as dirty in my conscience as if I had actually done those things. You'll never find me playing "Grand Theft Auto".
Often my characters are named "Todd", and they're me. Variations I use are Todarius, Todangelus, Todd al Thor (or other deity name), and Todd of Thor (or other deity name).
I'm almost always a cleric or a paladin, but occasionally I like to explore my more intellectual side by being a mage. I don't like playing squishy characters who have to avoid melee combat at all costs, and have to kite and run from physical danger all the time. I discovered that about myself after years of playing games. It's in my base nature, if I must fight, that I want to feel strong and well-protected, and I like to just face my enemies directly and have it out blow-by-blow. I feel dishonorable and like I'm doing something wrong if I take the sneaky-sneaky approach to solving problems and fighting, or the glass cannon "launch the nukes and then run away" approach.
I can't imagine myself burning someone to death no matter what they've done. So I think twice before using or allowing to be used any fire spells. I can't stand the thought of slicing someone with slashing damage and blood splattering everywhere, so I rarely use swords or axes, although I understand their necessity in the D&D world, and I don't mind fighters who can stand the consequences of those weapons using them. For some reason, I can stomach the thought of piercing a deadly enemy with a spear, or an arrow, or smashing into them with a blunt weapon.
While in a state of adrenaline-pumped battle rage, I strangely find satisfaction in crunching bones and smashing into armor and helmets, and the sounds of that resonate with me on my most primitive level, plus the stunning force of blunt trauma seems the most merciful way to dispatch an enemy, especially if deadly force is being used, since they will usually die from a fatal blow before they feel the pain. It would also be easier to apply non-deadly force, say, breaking their arm, if the situation called for that, in a way where they might be able to recover later, be reformed, and go on with their lives. So, I'd probably fight best with blunt weapons. That works out pretty well since I play clerics so often.
I've also learned about myself through games and the kind of self-reflection they provide me that I prefer a highly defensive fighting style, striking with deadly force only when I absolutely have to, and never at the expense of my defense. So, I tend to choose heavily armored types, and I prefer shield fighting, preferably with a tower shield, to two-handed weapon fighting or dual wielding.
Well, that post got a lot longer than I intended. I'm pretty passionate about my gaming characters, but I also kind of consider it a guilty pleasure that I don't expect people I know in real life to understand or sympathize with. Most other adults would say I spend way too much time playing games instead of doing more productive adult kinds of things. But, I'm content the way I am. And, I'm glad I can talk about my hobby of gaming with people here in this forum.
There is some of me in every character I think, some more than others depending on my ideas at the time. Those characters closer to myself have usually been burned badly and/or have some type of mental illness I can easily identify with and work into the story.
I also like to play non-standard races quite often, and one of my favorite ways to go. These are played more from a combination of a different mindset based on their particular race and view of the world. That is primarily from how I think they would view the world, and how they themselves think the world views them as different. Most often kobolds and orges, and with these it's less me (other than picturing myself as one of these races over the play through) and more about them and their unusual upbringing, at least in BG.
I play a variety of characters but primarily neutral of some sort (closer to myself), and more often than not, shamans and rogues. Mages are a bit tougher for me, as well as the Paladin, which I have never played. I think I just get bored more easily with the fighting classes, and need classes where I myself have to work a little harder to survive and come up with hit and run strategies to keep playing.
2 - Do you know the Hecate Goddness? She has many faces. Just like humans in a metaphoric way. I can fell imersed playing with an lawful evil character that uses the law on his favor and don't care about the others as just i can play as an chaotic good character that cares about everyone and ignore the rest. Mainly because i believe that everyone has some degree on evil and good, chaos and law in himself. And that good and evil are human concepts.
2- I am no actor, but I try to reflect on why and how my character became what he/she is and how he/she acts. Me blade bard may be dark and tauting and my half orc barbarian may be playful and outgoing because it seems natural for me to roleplay them as they are.
So, the point is - for me, at least, - that whether the game is fully 3D, or not, and whether you're playing as a set character, defines the outcome.
In TES games, I always identify with the character I play. 2 factors matter: the game lets me see everything very close and clearly, and the game doesn't pre-define my role/character.
In Witcher 3 I got immersed because of full 3D, but at the same time, I couldn't fully identify with Geralt. So it was me playing Geralt, my own version of Geralt.
Same in ME 1-3: I got immersed because of full 3D, because of the story choices, and companion relationships, but again I couldn't fully identify with Shepard because she was a soldier, and I can't imagine myself in an army.
It was even more difficult in Andromeda: the low age of the protagonist made it unrealistic for me to identify with her.
In DA 1 and 3 I identified fully with the characters I played because the games let me choose everything.
In DA 2 I, however, couldn't identify myself with Hawke - maybe because a lot of the presets were pre-defined, maybe because it was a story-driven game.
In Divinity Original Sin 1 I couldn't identify myself with 2 main characters, obviously, because there were 2 of them, and also because their stories also seemed pre-defined (even with all the choices during quests).
In Divinity Original Sin 2, however, I identified fully with the custom character when I played one. However, I preferred to play this game as Fane, i.e. choose a character the devs created, and play my own version of Fane (quite similar to Geralt).
In old Might and Magic games, where you have to create a party of 4 (or 5) characters, I always played as a strategist, as if I was commanding this group of characters.
In BG and IWD games I never identified myself with the main character - mostly, due to the isometric, distant view. I like these games more for their tactics and battles, for building characters from Candlekeep to ToB. However, in romances and such I usually picked the options I would pick myself.
I couldn't identify with characters in NWN and NWN II either.
In Pillars of Eternity 1 I never identified myself with the main character - for the same reason as in BG.
In JRPGs I usually just follow the story as a spectator, very similar to watching an animated film, I guess (Automata, Ni No Kuni). But I plan to be fully immersed in Death Stranding - most likely, due to me liking the cast, and beautiful graphics.
However, there was one exclusion with BG games - when I played MP with our fellow forum players. We each created our special characters for the run - probably, in this case, I was as close to being that actual character as possible. But still, not fully. Maybe because when I see a tactical game, I imagine myself playing as a strategist, as if it's not an RPG but a strategy. Oddly enough, in case of DOS 2 I didn't feel that way even while the game is fully tactical - maybe 3D can change my approach?
Playing different characters when I get immersed in the role I play - well, their classes can be different, but the actual quest and relationship stuff will be more or less the same. I find it very hard to RP a cruel, deceptive person. I find it difficult to even partially RP that approach (when I'm not fully immersed, like in BG).
BG1-2; I almost never RP. I always intend to, but when running directly for sirens or basilisks for the exp then grabbing Meilum and others just for the loot I quickly realize I'm most definately a power gamer. I too, I guess similar to Julius, take a more strategic POV on these games. It's like a game of chess, how do I best execute a certain strategy to clear areas/challenges with a minimal effort kinda.
ME1-3 were actually the most immersive I ever been in any RPGs. I became my Shephard and wept at the end.
NVN; Power gaming. I mean seriously, is it even possible to RP 3/3.5 edition
PoE 1 and 2; RP, great games for roleplaying, at least the first time through. I noticed already on my second playthrough of PoE1 I had moved into powergaming. My first run in PoE2 was amazing, I could finally create the most epic monk/druid multiclass I have been craving for so long! The only other option for that is NVN2 with kaedrin's pack (sacred fist PC)
Witcher 2; roleplaying actually, similar to ME1-3, though not as immersed.
DA:O; Roleplaying with a twist of powergaming. DA offers among the best dwarves in any game, though the more limited class options take some of the RP aspects out of the game, so kinda in between BG and PoE when it came to RP for me personally. Still one of the best RPGs ever made IMHO though.
So for me it seems it's not tied to the graphics or the isometric vs first person, though I can totally understand that point of view. I do always _want_ to immerse myself, but seldom manages to that. I have a long background of playing primarily strategy games so whenever the game becomes "strategic" I tend to take the "helicopter view", as we say in Sweden, and look at it from top down view, like a general executing the most efficient battle field commands. I think maybe it ties to the protagonists interactions with the world and the companions to a large degree; the more the characters choices matter for the world in-game, the more I become immersed. Playing BG, I don't see those actions really (and I never play ToB, so still have no idea how the game actually ends with the whole evil vs good approach), but playing ie PoE where the character's choices have a great impact it made me initially more immersed. Same with DA:O where the companions' talks made it very easy to play "me" in the game, though me with a twist. I'm a lot cooler in the game than the real me of course.
I'm definitely the immersion type. I get sucked into the story and imagine myself into that world. It doesn't depend on graphics (I get dizzy with full 3D and ego-perspectives), more on the flexibility of the game. I never got far in Planescape Torment, for example, because I just couldn't identify with the main character.
I always thought, great, I can play how I like, be who I like, but I always ended up being some variation of myself.
I absolutely can't play evil, I feel terrible about it. My conscience is the worst judge I can imagine, and it doesn't help if I tell myself it's a game. I cry with Wellyn's parents in BG2, and I feel terrible when, in the unmodded version, I have to sneak into a temple and steal a necklace. I don't steal, I only loot from enemies. I don't kill someone who surrenders. I feel bad when I leave party members behind because I want to try at least some other NPCs from time to time.
I always ended up playing fighter types, in the beginning berserker and such, lately I always end up playing a paladin. Last time I wanted to play a mage, to have a bit of a strategic challenge, not just hit everything, but I felt bad standing in the background hurling stuff at people while others stood there toe to toe with the enemies. Cleric might work, perhaps in combination with some fighter levels.
What @BelgarathMTH said about swords and blunt weapons is the exact opposite for me. Axes, no. But I prefer swords, crushing weapons like flails or maces make me shudder. Swords seem the cleaner, more "clinical" solution to me. Please don't take that as disgust at people using them in games, I understand the explanation. But the thought of a mace and a head... Morale failure: Hiding under desk.
I don't play races like dwarfs, half-orcs or halflings, because I can't imagine how it would feel to be one, how it should influence my game. I usually play human (only possibility for paladin anway) or for other classes sometimes half-elf, because I can totally identify with the feeling of not really completely belonging anywhere.
So, although it limits the variations I can play, I play myself, sort of, or rather how I would like to be, if I had those powers in those situations. I find my challenges trying to survive without the lots of money from stealing, without the items that you can only get by evil means and/or meta-knowledge, and see if I can still beat the game that way.
I do have to note though that I find the idea that swords are clean killers a bit funny. I will spare you some graphical descriptions and just say that the only clean deaths are Hollywood deaths, where pistols produce little red dots, and blades produce thin red lines, even through steel armor.
Death by force is never pretty or clean. I would never play any of these games if I saw full screen what it did to the other person. The bird's perspective helps me keep my imagination from forming too many images. I don't mind blood in real life, but I deactivate splatter graphics when the game setting allows it.
I have never seen or treated wounded soldiers, I have never worked under tactical conditions, and I live in a peaceful place without street shootings or civil wars fought with machetes. The worst of intentional violence I have seen in reality were knife wounds or the result of fist fights. So, as long as I only know theoretically, I can ignore images. If I have seen them, they are burnt into my mind. And I have seen many examples of what blunt, crushing force can do to a human body (in accidents, not violence, but the result is similar). I really don't need those images in my head when I play a game.
So, if I ever see the effects of slashing weapons in real life, I guess you'll find me playing Pokemon and Lego City.
@Mantis37 (or others who do no-reload) a question about no-reloading, do you do that only with games that you already know well, or also on a first run? I can't imagine how this could ever work. If you get killed, you restart completely?
As soon as you start playing that way, you can approach it with 2 options: minimal reloads, or no reloads at all.
Also, the same character can have many different alignment and only one dominant. An elf can be an elf that is chaotic good with other elfs but by some plot reason hates humans and is neutral or even evil in another situations. I still remember my Arcanum playtrough with an elf that hates technology and races more inclined towards technology and is very good to elffolk. Was an interesting experience.
Baldur's Gate can be immensely unforgiving, and is one of the absolute hardest games to beat no-reload, whether you're new to the game or even a veteran. Icewind Dale is much more forgiving, like Pillars of Eternity; the game doesn't end if your main character makes one bad saving throw. However, if you read no-reload strategies from other players, you can probably pick up no-reload or at least minimal-reload gameplay fairly quickly once you've beaten the game just once and gotten familiar with the controls. This is a very supportive community and we're always glad to see new players.
We'd love to have you join the challenge in the "Maybe this time" thread, whenever you're ready. In fact, I'm kinda curious what a minimal-reload game would look like for a new player, if you wanted to share with us.
In BG1 I wouldn't stand a chance, I'm in my first EE run (had only played the old game once) and die all the time.
And I only play on core rules, I don't think I would survive in the higher difficulties.
Also, i like to try solo this games. I an not good enouth to make a solo - no realod run. Mainly because on starting levels, you are too dependent on "saves" and spells like charm.
i am also not a no reloader cause i am coward, i don't want to loose many hours of playing to start again for a single error, and as i try to play without using meta knowledge, i don't pre buff if there is not a in game evidence that is needed and so on, is more likely that the error happens.
but playing vanilla, on the hardest not lob setting, i very rarely have to reload cause i have lost a battle, in most of the few cases it happens is because i was too lazy and confident, avoiding some protections and/or avoiding to retreat to heal. probably i could do a no reload run of bg2 if i would, even if i should have to try and succeed before claiming it, mine is only an educated guess.
with tactics mod, that is my way to make the game harder, i don't think that i would be so proficient to do a no reload run playing insane as i usually do, from the first dungeon to the end of soa there are too much really hard battles.
i can be wrong but i think that a player that still play on core rules (nothing wrong in doing it
There's also a minimal reload thread that hasn't gotten much attention lately, if you want to test the waters before you dive in.
Later I transform into more of a "director", if you will. I construct certain characters, and play them the way I think fits their temper and beliefs. I prefer that approach, but it requires some knowledge of the game.