When you play a party-based cRPG, do you have one character that represents you personally?

[ZedClampet]

And, if so, what class do you make him/her?

In this situation, I always role play that I'm one of the characters. Back when I first started playing RPG's, I'd always make that character some sort of magic user. Now I make him a melee character unless the game gives you the option of having a blended magic/melee class or multiclass.

 

[Zloth]

I did that once, waaaaaay back when I played Asheron's Call for the first time. AC is a fantasy game, but it supposes that people are being pulled out of our world into the fantasy world, so there's no elves or dwarves - just humans. I made the character look somewhat like me, then found that I looked pretty much like everybody else in the game: a white guy with facial hair. Everybody was playing themselves, and we were all a bunch of suburban nerds!

I haven't made myself in a game ever since, whether single or multiplayer.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Usually yes. Sometimes I spend a few minutes making something that approximates me, other times I'll make something completely different but I always loosely think of myself as the main char, and roleplay as 'chaotic good' if possible.

The class depends on the game, first playthrough of an unfamiliar rule set I'll go fighter/Tank for survivability. If I'm playing something familiar I'll go with a DPS mage. Almost never make the main char a Rogue or Cleric, never really considered it.

Always try and make the party balanced with a little of everything, but I need a security blanket of two melee characters, even if that has to be a hybrid Cleric or something in a party of four. Weird how rote it is now I think of it.

 

[ZedClampet]

Always try and make the party balanced with a little of everything, but I need a security blanket of two melee characters, even if that has to be a hybrid Cleric or something in a party of four. Weird how rote it is now I think of it.

This is me exactly, and I don't really like it, tbh. I wish the standard party size hadn't become 4 characters.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

This is me exactly, and I don't really like it, tbh. I wish the standard party size hadn't become 4 characters.

Is it standard now in games apart from Larian ones? Guess I havent played an isometric RPG apart from Divinity OS or a BG type in a long time. 6 has been standard in all the Infinity Engine clones, I think also Pathfinder.

But yes, 6 is nice when you're able to have a couple of fighters couple of ranged/healers then a DPS mage and a buffer/debuffer.

 

[ZedClampet]

@mainer & @Pifanjr ? Thoughts?

 

[mainer]

@mainer & @Pifanjr ? Thoughts?

Sometimes. Although thinking has often gotten me into trouble in my past.

But seriously, a character I create in a party RPG always reflects my basic personality. I mean, I'm not a fighter, a ranger, or a wizard in real life; but the actions I take and the choices I make almost always reflect my personality.

There are variables of course, depending upon the party-based RPG. Take the Mass Effect games. I'm always Commander Sheppard of course, but I'm also always male, a soldier, and follow a Paragon life path. It's just who I am and how I would react (plus I love sexy, blue-skinned aliens).

In the Dragon Age games I'm usually a human, though occasionally an elf, with the same caring personality as in the Mass Effect games. Profession-wise I'm still usually a fighter, although sometimes I'll take the rogue just for the skill sets. It was the same in BG1 & 2 as well as the Pillars of Eternity games, but in those games I usually took a ranger or archer build, even though my personality and conversation choices were on the compassionate side.

Then there are those party-based RPGs that have no central character, like the Icewindale games and Solasta that I'm currently playing. Professions vary a great deal, but the first character I create is "me". Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue (or a variation of those) are always my choices for skill sets. Personality traits aren't as relevant in those games (although they can make a big difference in Solasta), but I still roleplay as a "good guy" even if playing a rogue. I've never been one to play as a spellcaster.

but I always loosely think of myself as the main char, and roleplay as 'chaotic good' if possible.

This exactly for me, and if we're talking D&D games, I'm always Chaotic Good if given a choice (which basically reflects any decisions I make).

Always try and make the party balanced with a little of everything, but I need a security blanket of two melee characters, even if that has to be a hybrid Cleric or something in a party of four. Weird how rote it is now I think of it.

This is me exactly, and I don't really like it, tbh. I wish the standard party size hadn't become 4 characters.

Is it standard now in games apart from Larian ones? Guess I havent played an isometric RPG apart from Divinity OS or a BG type in a long time. 6 has been standard in all the Infinity Engine clones, I think also Pathfinder.

But yes, 6 is nice when you're able to have a couple of fighters couple of ranged/healers then a DPS mage and a buffer/debuffer.

I really miss not being able to create a party of 6 characters, it was much easier to have specialized characters, whereas now with a party of 4 you almost have to hybridize at least a couple of them. I'm sure it must be a combat balance thing. Divinity OS 2, Solasta, and BG3 have gone to the 4 person party and it works well (although I've yet to play the EA version of BG3), but it's also kind of limiting on who you create.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

It definitely works in Divinity OS2, great game, but still a bit annoying you cant have more than 4. I would normally want to get most of the back stories and side quests in one playthrough and they made that impossible.

The way they handle it does encourage replayability, but having finished the game once and having spent about 100 hours there I didn't feel like jumping back into to a second run immediately. Dont know how long it took other people, maybe I'm slow, but that's not short enough for me to want to head straight back.

They were very smart to allow you to choose the class of characters you meet to suit how you want to balance your party. Otherwise it would be really annoying to lose out on a personality you wanted to get to know because their skill set wouldn't suit your party.

 

[Pifanjr]

I usually create a character that resembles myself whenever I play a RPG. For cRPGs and other games where I have a party of characters, I give the other characters the names of my friends. In For The King my party consists of myself, my wife and our best friend.

My own character is usually a ranger or a rogue and each of my friends has a character class based on their favourite D&D class or their personality.

I'm not really anything like a ranger or rogue in real life though, it's just the class I typically prefer playing as. Which was a bit of a problem in Pillars of Eternity where I made the main character a ranged build but all the Watcher abilities had very limited range.

 

[Zloth]

This exactly for me, and if we're talking D&D games, I'm always Chaotic Good if given a choice (which basically reflects any decisions I make).

Seems like I've got a different definition of chaotic good than you folks. In today's society, I would expect a chaotic good person to be in jail a lot of the time because chaotic good means having no regard for laws at all. If a CG sees some construction going on that is "evil," that person is likely to sneak in at night and break as much machinery as possible. In a fantasy setting, they can be out in the woods where there are no laws.

(although I've yet to play the EA version of BG3)

OMG, EA took over.... oh, no, you mean Early Access. Sheesh, that coincidental naming is bad for my blood pressure.

The way they handle it does encourage replayability, but having finished the game once and having spent about 100 hours there I didn't feel like jumping back into to a second run immediately. Dont know how long it took other people, maybe I'm slow, but that's not short enough for me to want to head straight back.

Took me 200. I don't know if they are encouraging replayability or if they are just making it less painful, but I haven't really felt much need to play it over for the other companions' stories.

They were very smart to allow you to choose the class of characters you meet to suit how you want to balance your party. Otherwise it would be really annoying to lose out on a personality you wanted to get to know because their skill set wouldn't suit your party.

That was a great feature! I thought it might hurt the storytelling, but it worked out very well! I hope more games use that feature.

I usually create a character that resembles myself whenever I play a RPG. For cRPGs and other games where I have a party of characters, I give the other characters the names of my friends. In For The King my party consists of myself, my wife and our best friend.

I was surprised to see so many people doing that in XCOM!

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Seems like I've got a different definition of chaotic good than you folks. In today's society, I would expect a chaotic good person to be in jail a lot of the time because chaotic good means having no regard for laws at all.

I'd say Chaotic Good will follow the law, as long as the law aligns with what they think of as good. If it doesnt suit them they'll have no qualms doing what they think is right.

Took me 200. I don't know if they are encouraging replayability or if they are just making it less painful, but I haven't really felt much need to play it over for the other companions' stories.

I was a bit over 100 more like 120 but also didnt feel like playing it again, so maybe its not encouraging replayability for some of us.

I do though, have a friend who has played the first two chapters as every origin character and never gone any further so it worked for some people, kind of.

 

[Pifanjr]

I was surprised to see so many people doing that in XCOM!

Definitely did that for XCOM as well. It just adds a little bit of attachment to the characters that noticeably increases immersion for me. Brains are weird.

 

[mainer]

Seems like I've got a different definition of chaotic good than you folks. In today's society, I would expect a chaotic good person to be in jail a lot of the time because chaotic good means having no regard for laws at all. If a CG sees some construction going on that is "evil," that person is likely to sneak in at night and break as much machinery as possible. In a fantasy setting, they can be out in the woods where there are no laws.

I'd say Chaotic Good will follow the law, as long as the law aligns with what they think of as good. If it doesnt suit them they'll have no qualms doing what they think is right.

Doing a Google search, the D&D definition of Chaotic Good:
Chaotic Good definition
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations.

So I think by that definition, both of you would be correct. I feel that my true nature in real-time-life reflects a CG personality, but I certainly don't act on that, because as @Zloth said I would probably end up in jail if I didn't like certain laws (which I true), but we're talking about a D&D game world, not real life. And in the "game world" what @Kaamos_Llama said is true; I follow the law as long as I feel it's good, but won't hesitate to go against laws that I feel are evil. But we cannot, ever, apply that to real life.

OMG, EA took over.... oh, no, you mean Early Access. Sheesh, that coincidental naming is bad for my blood pressure

Mother-of-all-that's Holy-and-precious-in-the-world-of-gaming, please never let EA (Electronic Arts) buy out Larian. Devastating for your blood pressure and mine, and a crime to gamers worldwide; with the gamer-gods watching over us, it will never happen. In short, when I typed EA, I did mean Early Access.

It definitely works in Divinity OS2, great game, but still a bit annoying you cant have more than 4. I would normally want to get most of the back stories and side quests in one playthrough and they made that impossible.

The way they handle it does encourage replayability, but having finished the game once and having spent about 100 hours there I didn't feel like jumping back into to a second run immediately. Dont know how long it took other people, maybe I'm slow, but that's not short enough for me to want to head straight back.

Took me 200. I don't know if they are encouraging replayability or if they are just making it less painful, but I haven't really felt much need to play it over for the other companions' stories.

I was a bit over 100 more like 120 but also didnt feel like playing it again, so maybe its not encouraging replayability for some of us.

I do though, have a friend who has played the first two chapters as every origin character and never gone any further so it worked for some people, kind of.

My Steam hours for Divinity OS2 are 524, but that's 2 partial playthroughs thru chapter 2, and one full playthrough. As much as I loved it, I really have no desire to play it again, mainly because I felt the final battle was a bit over-the-top, just my opinion. The first 2 chapters were great, but I did miss not having the party interaction of 6 characters.

The other thing that's always bugged me, was that all the characters you took with you had to be chosen in that opening chapter. It seems that will be the same in BG3, and I don't like it. A party-based RPG (outside of those that you create all characters), should have the player create his/her own character and then find the others along the paths that they travel. I've always found it fun to find those odd, eccentric characters along the road, and either accept them into your party or not.

Larian's method worked well in DOS2, but I think that creating your own character and meeting/joining various companions along your journey is a better approach (with a party size of 6 as well).

 

[Withywarlock]

I tend to model characters after who I would like to be ideally, because I don't fancy playing an obese, unskilled autistic with zero charisma and unscrupulous morals. I play Chaotic Good characters because they tend to be heroes who buckle all manner of swash and have pearly white teeth, when on a good day I'm - like most people - neutral good in real life, because I'm not daring enough to be anything more chaotic than putting an extra sugar in my tea. I realise that real life and morality is a lot more complicated than the eight pointed star of chaos will permit, but bare with me for the sake of this discussion.

I do like to play as wizards and rogues and other sorts of characters who can achieve extrordinary feats that we can't in real life, probably to cater to some psychological desire to have some sort of parlour trick or useful talent. I could go on about balance in video games, but that's neither here nor there.

But beyond that, I tend to enjoy making humans. I enjoy that, in a typical fantasy game, their racial feats are as mundane as the stereotype they're given. That in a game where you can be anything, you choose to be what you already are, except I - John of Earth - am not in a world occupied by longer lived races and magic and gods (well, let's not get into that last one.) I enjoy seeing how a human would interact and survive in such a world. If the game's settings humans fall into the "human fighters are boring" stereotype, that's on the developers, not me. Do it properly or not at all.

Finally, my characters tend to be named after history's warlocks, witches, and alchemists. My first name is common with one John Napier, so his is a name that I frequently use as a default charname. I tend not to name characters after family and friends, I get easily upset by the idea of loved ones meeting a horrible fate, even in a video game. I think the last time I did that was when I did a Let's Play of Hogs of War, where I named my pork patrol after subscribers. I love the smell of bacon in the morning... smells like... victory.

TL;DR My characters tend to be chaotic good classes that bring something important to the group. In other words, nothing like myself apart from being (typically) human.

 

[ZedClampet]

But beyond that, I tend to enjoy making humans...If the game's settings humans fall into the "human fighters are boring" stereotype, that's on the developers, not me. Do it properly or not at all.

I like the fact that humans are usually designated as well-rounded rather than good at one thing. I used to make all my characters human, but recently started branching out on characters that aren't supposed to represent me.

 

[Krud]

I don't usually make myself literally, though I often use the name Krud in games. As for class, there are particular classes that I gravitate toward and "associate" with myself, whether I would actually be those or not, including Ranger, Bard, and Rogue. Generally those three, not necessarily in that order. (This applies to both CRPG's and TTRPG's).

And much like @mainer had said, my actions and choices will often closely mirror how I might react in the situations. Unless the game doesn't lend itself to that, like "Tyranny" or "Planescape Torment" or "Disco Elysium" or something else similarly unique and/or gritty. But even with pre-fab characters like Geralt and to a lesser degree Shepard, I'll play them in a direction closer to myself (within the boundaries of the character, of course.)

As for Chaotic Good, I interpret that alignment as "will follow the law [or rules/code] as long as it suits them, makes sense, and/or isn't broken/evil." If they happen to be law-abiding for a time, it's only as a means to an end and not because "it's the law."

 

[Withywarlock]

I like the fact that humans are usually designated as well-rounded rather than good at one thing. I used to make all my characters human, but recently started branching out on characters that aren't supposed to represent me.

I do too, but that's from a mechanical point of view. The most background they get to justify this is that they're typically diplomats and ambassadors, and don't really have any sort of long-term enemies (elves versus demons, dwarves versus goblins) besides the main one.

 

[ZedClampet]

I don't usually make myself literally, though I often use the name Krud in games.

Isn't Krud from a novel you wrote?

 

[MehdiBestGamer]

yes the handsome man

 

[reffa023]

What a good question. Haha actually I always try to make "myself. "

 

[Krud]

Isn't Krud from a novel you wrote?

Yep, well remembered! (Never completely finished it, and now I've used it as a username for too long to be objective about the character...)