Can a player created character still be a "character"?

[Meccanical]

Can a player created character still be a "character"?

I think one of the things that intrigues me about this game is the possibility of the inclusion of some iteration of the Lifepath system. I like how the Mike tried to get players on board with making more than a name and a stat sheet when it comes to their characters, how he tried to make them think about their history, and how that history shaped into the person they are now in. This goes a long way into drawing the player into the world and make them actually roleplay the character rather than just play the game.

Is it possible to meaningfully translate this system into a computer role playing game in a way that actually has consequence that is meaningful at the start of the game all the way to the end without forcing the player into a "predefined" character?

How would you like this idea to be handled?

We probably talked about this already, I leave the sorting to Sard if he feels it belongs somewhere else.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I don't know why it couldn't. The lifepath is not mechanically different from choosing traits and backgrounds in Pillars of Eternity (for one example). What needs to follow is the ability to express those things and have the reactivity. It doesn't need to be heavyhanded and all over the place either, just clearly visible where it is expressable.

Also, I'm not sure the point should be to close the gap between predefined characters. Just allow the player to build and express various character types.

I once made a suggestion that since the lifepath system in 2020 is quite comprehensive, it could be divided into two smaller categories. Minor and Major. Where major choices are quite potent in providing content and reactivity, and minor less so (some options might just be for flavor). Say, for examples sake, 5 major options and 10 minor options.

Major options being stuff that might've really affect the characters set of mind, like if his parents got murdered. And minor stuff like if he used to have a pet cat that died. There were quite a few choices to roll from in the rules, I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue.

No need for too many options here if you remember that the chracterbuild otherwise too is an indicator of the characters past and can be drawn reflections and reactivity from; e.g. a solo with combat senses and other skills that are common with other roles, can already be leashed for expressing a characters past as that is basically what the initial character build represents.

This would also make the rest of the skills useful beyond their practical applicability. Handguns wouldn't just be prowess in using a handgun, but the knowledge of both the tool and the trade.

 

[Rawls]

Is it possible to meaningfully translate this system into a computer role playing game in a way that actually has consequence that is meaningful at the start of the game all the way to the end without forcing the player into a "predefined" character?

I think a lifepath mechanic could absolutely work in a cRPG. I definitely think it would have to be something a bit less comprehensive than the 2020 version. Here was my suggestion on it - https://forums.cdprojektred.com/for...character-customization?p=8537050#post8537050.

I also like the idea of having a butterfly effect of sorts for dialogue. Really the dialogue is where the character comes through the most. I would like it if the lifepath you choose, the prior information obtained and the prior choices made in the game can effect the current dialogue options available to the player. Have you shown yourself to be a jerk most of the time? Well then you get 3 jerky dialogue possibilities, 1 neutral and 1 nice. Have you been a paragon of virture? Well then you get 3 nice, 1 neutral and 1 jerky. Something in the middle? You get 3 neutral, 1 jerky and 1 nice thing to say. Also have some dialogue if you've found x piece of information etc etc. The problem with such an approach is volume of dialogue and the amount of work this creates.

Bottom line - I think it is possible to have the player help develop the character and do it well. However ... if something like that can't be made to work from a technical standpoint, I much prefer a "fixed" interesting character like Geralt to a bland character with more options.

 

[Suhiira]

I'm a big proponent of Lifepath.
I think including it, and making sure there's at least a comment about every event in your characters Lifepath somewhere along the way during CP2077 would do both for replayability and showing the modern RPG-lite crowd what an RPG can/should be.
Choices and your past do matter ... just like RL ... what an amazing and novel concept.

 

[4meg]

I think the Lifepath is completely appropriate for a cRPG. You could expand the path to a much greater extent than pnp as the maths are hidden from you.

One wayt to expand the system would be to offer a quirks and flaws path as well, a la the Hackmaster system. In Hackmaster you can take quirks and flaws in your character to modify other aspects of your character. In the pnp system that takes a lot of effort and time. In the crpg a lot of the tediousness can be eliminated. It could be interesting as well. Hackmaster is a game that allows for some interesting creativeness. Something that is a quirk or flaw can be adapted into a benefit by the crafty and quick thinking player. I don't see why a CP Lifepath couldn't adapt and include this as well.

In the end, though, the numbers are only a framework. It's the way you play those numbers that make your character a Character.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

I also like the idea of having a butterfly effect of sorts for dialogue. Really the dialogue is where the character comes through the most. I would like it if the lifepath you choose, the prior information obtained and the prior choices made in the game can effect the current dialogue options available to the player. Have you shown yourself to be a jerk most of the time? Well then you get 3 jerky dialogue possibilities, 1 neutral and 1 nice. Have you been a paragon of virture? Well then you get 3 nice, 1 neutral and 1 jerky. Something in the middle? You get 3 neutral, 1 jerky and 1 nice thing to say. Also have some dialogue if you've found x piece of information etc etc. The problem with such an approach is volume of dialogue and the amount of work this creates.

While I agree with you and others about the Life Path providing options to define aspects of the PC's path, I don't know if extending these decisions into hard limitations during gameplay is that much of a good idea.

Problem with dialogue options for instance, is that then if you are an asshole, then you get asshole responses, but that means you can't do any kind of deeper role-playing such as a character that was an asshole and is trying to change, or one that just pretends to be nice sometimes for some advantage, among dozen other situations in which a person doesn't always act as a transparent direct representation of who they are/have been or how the truly feel.

For this I'd prefer the "internal" type of role-playing to take care of it instead of "external"; that is, to just have the game allow as many options as possible to give the player freedom, and just let them know why they make those decisions, not have the game instead telling you who you are, and dictate what is fitting for your char or not.

 

[Rawls]

Problem with dialogue options for instance, is that then if you are an asshole, then you get asshole responses, but that means you can't do any kind of deeper role-playing such as a character that was an asshole and is trying to change, or one that just pretends to be nice sometimes for some advantage, among dozen other situations in which a person doesn't always act as a transparent direct representation of who they are/have been or how the truly feel.

I disagree. The concept could be molded to ensure you still had a nice and neutral option. Just fewer of them like I outlined in the part you quoted. As many possible options is unfortunately often cost prohibitive if you want the PC to be voiced. Which I do.

 

[Suhiira]

As many possible options is unfortunately often cost prohibitive if you want the PC to be voiced. Which I do.

And that's the biggest problem with voiced games, they can't offer multiple dialog options due to practical/financial constraints.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Don't voice the main character. Use those resources to voicing the reactions and additional lines for NPC responses to a more varied set up of PC expressions.

You can get quite a lot if you think that the voiced PC is almost inevitably times 2 the lines planned (per gender) and sometimes more if there's unique gender specific lines.

 

[4meg]

About voicing, there there is the partial solution of using a synthesized voice for characters that might have voice altering implants. An NPC might want their voice changed to avoid being voice printed so a synthesized voice would be a perfect choice for these types of NPCs.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

I disagree. The concept could be molded to ensure you still had a nice and neutral option. Just fewer of them like I outlined in the part you quoted. As many possible options is unfortunately often cost prohibitive if you want the PC to be voiced. Which I do.

It's true that you can implement the concept with varying degrees of limitation vs. freedom, but even then, there will always be a significant sacrifice of types of characters and behaviors you can represent. No game, no rule system or model, especially for something as dynamic as individual responses in conversations, can even get reasonably close to predict more or less how someone would act.

A neutral option is more like a side-option that doesn't help or hurt my preference, its a must have to be able to refrain from choosing a more active posture, but that's about it.

I'm sorry but I don't understand why you mentioned the whole "prohibitive costs" part, what I meant didn't include any kind of additional costs, we're dealing with the same conversational possibility-space, same amount of options and so on supported by the game as a whole, It's just that I'd prefer id you'd have most of them available at most times. I want nothing extra added.

Perhaps a middle-ground could be the development of a system that does limit (or expand) what you can do as a PC based on decisions, stats, lifepath, etc.; but only does so on actions that aren't as dynamic and varied as each dialogue line in each conversation, since that's extremely specific and precise. But at the end of the day, you always lose potential of role-playing.

Best case scenario though, and one that's actually feasible in terms of production: Just make it optional, add 2 modes. One that does limit your options, and one that doesn't. It's far simpler than it seems, unless CPDR really prefer one over the other so much they just can't justify the extra work. But in term of assets, options, voices and so on, its equal.

 

[4meg]

Something occurred to me that might be an interesting possibility. A dynamic skill set.

By this I mean that you can take any and all skills you want and use them. As you use your skills your chances of success improve. This is what happens when you practice something. The more you practice, the better you get. However, there is a caveat. Skills you don't use will diminish in ability.

So you've taken a gun skill and a medic skill, but spend all your time killing corporate ninjas so your gun skill improves, but if you never try to save those ninjas your medic skill fades. But if you change your outlook and join a combat trauma unit to save lives and never touch a gun again, your gun skill would fade.

It would be a way to stop characters from massing up crazy, unrelated skills the way some mmo characters do, but it would also offer a flexibility in development that could lead to some interesting gameplay.

 

[Suhiira]

Something occurred to me that might be an interesting possibility. A dynamic skill set.

This sort of system inevitably leads to characters that do everything at mastery skill levels (i.e. Skyrim), so no, just no.

As to skills fluctuating, yes, they could to an extent ... but how much? How quickly? Do you have to use a skill every day/week/month else it fades? If it's monthly chances are CP2077's game time scale won't be that long, so why bother? If it's weekly ... isn't that a bit unrealistic?