Defined personality vs. Blank Slate

[CTPhipps]

Defined personality vs. Blank Slate

One of the big questions of this board is whether or not the main character of Cyberpunk 2077 will have a defined personality or not. This is interesting because Cyberpunk 2020 is notable for being an RPG which heavily focused on "roles" before with classes having a direct effect on how you interacted with people. There was the Rockerboy, Corporate, Solo, and others. It'd be cost-prohibitive and also probably ruin a lot of the game's fun to have everyone react to your character differently based on their role but some games had some decent playarounds with this. For example, Vampire: The Masquerade had people react you differently if you were a Malkavian, Nosferatu, and sometimes Toreador (with specific clans having specific dialogue).

The thing is that a lot of the strength of good writing for a game depends on you having a character who will react in a certain way to certain events. Shepard, Geralt, and Mike Thorton from their games are all well-defined in their roles enough that they can react from a series of choices presented to the player but all of them feel organic. For example, Geralt can be snarky, respectful, or pleasant to people but he's always Geralt. OTOH, that might not work as cyberpunk can and does have a history of very different sorts of people. Hawke from Dragon Age balanced things by having Aggressive, Respectful, and Sarcastic with Mike Thorton having something similar.

However, others may want more extreme variations like Star Wars: The Old Republic where Revan could be a homicidal psychopath and a saint with something inbetween. Voiceless protagonists have a reputation for being easier to mold but, even then, there's actually not that much difference (IMHO) because you're still choosing from 3-4 choices. It's just you can headcanon whatever inflections you want on the speech. This can even effect non-RPGs with Ajay from Far Cry 4 deliberately said to not have much personality by developers so people could project themselves. I felt that weakened the character, overall.

So, what's your preference? A more defined character or a more blank slate kind of character?

 

[CTPhipps]

On my end, I'm going to go with an unpopular opinion and want a pre-defined character to an extent.

Say, "Mister/Ms. Smith" who wakes up in a grubby Hotel Room and has a bunch of contraband there.

I'd like a character with a past and a place in the world as a Edgerunner that has people they know too. Yes, it's going to impact replayability and yes, it's going to be something which "forces" players to act in a certain way but the simple fact is that sort of thing is predetermined in a way: After all, no matter what, you are going to be the sort of person who wanders around Night City and kills people for money or because you think you can make the situation better or both.

I'd rather be a well-defined Edgerunner like Nico Bellic or Geralt than I would be just a random dude doing things for dude reasoning.

 

[Sardukhar]

I'd rather be a well-defined Edgerunner like Nico Bellic or Geralt than I would be just a random dude doing things for dude reasoning.

I played this when it was called Deus Ex. No thanks, been there. Would really like to make my own Cpunk character.

Given that CDPR has twice mentioned the build-your-character approach, including their hope to transport your PC to PnP, I'd bet on blank (ish) slate.

Also, I really hope to have the option not to be wandering around NIght City killing people, thanks. Excellent example of why a blank slate is better.

And as we've discussed elsewhere, you can certainly have way more character-flavouring speech choices if you have more speech choices.

Although VBL let me play a sleazy corporate sell-out, a sneaky rebel or a hardcase neutral party with ease. That wasn't headcanon.

 

[Suhiira]

I'm still enamored with my idea concerning LifePaths.

Build your own blank-state character then choose (or ignore) their LifePath to add pre-defined elements to your game. Of course there will be a default character/LifePath combination predefined for those that just don't care or want to be bothered.

 

[CTPhipps]

I'm still enamored with my idea concerning LifePaths.

Build your own blank-state character then choose (or ignore) their LifePath to add pre-defined elements to your game. Of course there will be a default character/LifePath combination predefined for those that just don't care or want to be bothered.

I dislike that for Cyberpunk 2077 because it means you'd have to play more than once in order to experience all of the game's content. I'd like to have a "canon" run versus trying to do it multiple times.

 

[Suhiira]

I dislike that for Cyberpunk 2077 because it means you'd have to play more than once in order to experience all of the game's content. I'd like to have a "canon" run versus trying to do it multiple times.

And therein lies the difference between "action" and "RPG" types.
One expects to experience everything a game has to offer in a single play of a game, and the other expects to miss content because of their play.

 

[Sardukhar]

I dislike that for Cyberpunk 2077 because it means you'd have to play more than once in order to experience all of the game's content. I'd like to have a "canon" run versus trying to do it multiple times.

This is my sad reality as well. I wish to experience it all, but some Roles don't interest me that much. On the other hand, there is a bittersweet pleasure knowing that as in Real Life and Cyberpunk PnP, I will never see it all. Even in winning, I lose.

Very Cyberpunk!

 

[BjornTheBandit]

I concede that some of the best stories with the most feels and memories start with a defined character. When I look back, it's usually from a masterful writer anticipating what the player would be feeling having the character react exactly as you would in that situation, so that it's not only empathy for the guy/gal, but you can live vicariously a little.

However, the very roots of this game don't have well defined characters; you get to pick your own background, skills, etc... I'd bet all the money in my wallet that anyone who's participated in a PnP with a solid GM finds it memorable, and at times feelingy. Conversely, I've been under some AWFUL GMs, and those are memorable for no bueno-ness.

So, I guess in summation, my vote is for blank slate. CDPR isn't going to pump out a garbage story empty sandbox; it's painfully obvious that they are taking their time and getting it right (which makes me smile and scream simultaneously, I'm just getting impatient)

 

[Helmic]

Having played PnP games and having regular access to PnP games, I don't like video games that try to do what PnP games will always do better. I don't want "roleplaying" in Cyberpunk 2077 to mean what it means in a Bethesda open-world RPG. It means jack shit, the GM isn't willing to work with you to create a character arc, any background you've thought up could be contradicted within minutes simply because you don't know all the lore beforehand, and roleplaying is simply better in a social setting where you're able to present your story to someone else.

I'd much rather have a defined character that's actually written well, as I know CDPR is capable of doing. If they did exactly what they did with Geralt in the Witcher series, I'd be more than happy; choices that are difficult and reflect what you as a player may value, but no choices that make your character stop being themselves.

I think of it like this: would I rather play a shitty "freeform" character that I would be openly mocked for bringing to a real tabletop session, or would I rather give up the ability to just merk someone unprovoked in exchange for a character that I could actually appreciate? I say play to the medium's strengths and leave actual roleplaying to the inevitable PnP 2077 reboot.

 

[Night_City_Native]

On my end, I'm going to go with an unpopular opinion and want a pre-defined character to an extent.

Say, "Mister/Ms. Smith" who wakes up in a grubby Hotel Room and has a bunch of contraband there.

I'd like a character with a past and a place in the world as a Edgerunner that has people they know too. Yes, it's going to impact replayability and yes, it's going to be something which "forces" players to act in a certain way but the simple fact is that sort of thing is predetermined in a way: After all, no matter what, you are going to be the sort of person who wanders around Night City and kills people for money or because you think you can make the situation better or both.

I'd rather be a well-defined Edgerunner like Nico Bellic or Geralt than I would be just a random dude doing things for dude reasoning.

Fully agree with this.

Blank slate protagonists in video game RPGs are never anything but boring. To be clear I don't consider the ability to build a backstory at character creation to be a blank slate. By the time you come out of CC that character is no longer a blank slate.

A blank slate is a character whose background is left mostly to player headcanon and with no impact on the story, and rarely (or never) comes up in dialogue. Presumably that won't be the case with V.

 

[4meg]

I'm still enamored with my idea concerning LifePaths.

Build your own blank-state character then choose (or ignore) their LifePath to add pre-defined elements to your game. Of course there will be a default character/LifePath combination predefined for those that just don't care or want to be bothered.

This works for me. Have a 'base' character that we can flesh out to customise the game experience. Of course the whole thing is pointless unless our customisations have an impact on the outcome of game events.

 

[lelxrv]

Blank slate doesn't allow subtle storytelling, nor cinematic approach (voice acting included) that we love from The Witcher games.

 

[Rawls]

It sounds like there going for a mix like Shepard in ME Trilogy to me, but perhaps a little less well defined. It's all about balancing freedom of choice with good storytelling.

 

[Guest 4211861]

Would be cool if CDPR added like 20+ different starting stories to choose from.

They tried that with Dragon Age, but that particular implementation was superficial.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I think the issue with total player freedom in creating character background is making the character fit the story. Most RPG's consist of a pre-determined narrative, or story line, with various arcs thrown in and a multitude of tangents to this main story the character can choose to explore. The problem comes when you try to fit any of this to a character with no pre-determined background. It frequently doesn't turn out well, or feels unnatural at points because what the story wants and what the character would want don't line up.

In the past some games have created a pre-defined story, given the player complete freedom in character design and basically said screw it from there. It's fine if your character is a thieving, murdering lunatic. As long as they arbitrarily decide to be a hero at some point and stop the big bad guy from raining destruction upon the lands.

The past solution seems to have been well written story arcs, where the choices the player makes dictate how the rest of the story will unfold and, ultimately, how it ends. This only works if the choices have significant consequences, however. CDPR already had pretty good success with this concept in a game like W3. The difference is W3 had a pre-defined character to start with. Doing this when the player can create whatever they can think of is a different animal entirely.

So to answer the question.... both, sort of . Giving players freedom to shape the character personality is ideal provided there are some limitations in place, the story is written in a way so the player is faced with choices throughout the game with real consequences, and you can't end up in a situation where all of those choices make absolutely zero sense for the character personality.

About the best example I can think of where your character personality was almost completely in your control, and the game did it exceptionally well, is Planescape: Torment. Granted, this likely worked as well as it did due to the way the story itself was designed. It also didn't have the typical "character save world from Apocolypse" narrative.

 

[Suhiira]

It's really a problem with the nature of RPG video games.

While a human GM can adapt to the character a player creates it's impossible for an RPG video game to do so to any significant extent. Every permissible action and response has to be to be generated during game development. While the origin stories in Dragon Age: Origins were spectacular the other 95% of the game was pretty much the same (a few dialog alterations) regardless of the race/class of the character. The amount of work/time/money needed to create the five origin stories is difficult to justify to bean counters and stockholders. And even many players aren't going to replay the entire game five times. I know I didn't. I played the first time as a city elf rogue, and again as a mage (since those two classes are significantly different), while I created a dwarf, human, and dalish elf JUST to see the origin stories I never did a complete playthru with them. What would be the point? The other 95% of the game was exactly the same.

 

[atomowyturysta]

I'm not a fan of blank state characters, like in Elder Scrolls or Baldurs gate or , where the story has absolutely nothing to do with the character or is written for specific type, but fails to deliver fully with different characters (like in BG where you could play as Dwarf, chaotic evil Barbarian, raised by monks, who spent entire life reading books and being nice). I also hate strictly predefined characters. Like Adam Jensen, George Michael from Gothic (which was the woest of both worlds) and, yes, Geralt. The latter was saved by great writing, the previous were meh... I like Mass Effect/Dragon Age approach, however that still needs more choices and consequenses for those choices. That allows to build quite unique character that is still firmly rooted in the story. From what the devs are saying we can expect just that.

 

[AJAX2020]

Having a blank slate may make character personality creation fun, but how that specific character interacts with the story and NCPs is going to be more complicated.
Unless of course CD have somehow devised a vast subset of story narratives that cater to various personalty types. Would be an incredible technological and organisational leap in RPG structure if that were to happen.

 

[Night_City_Native]

Blank slates only truly work if your game is a MMO and the player is going to have an opportunity to potentially fill in the blanks by RPing that character with other players.

If it is a single player RPG however the lack of a backstory and some degree of a defined personality just makes for boring interaction with NPCs, who will often seem more interesting than your bland protagonist.