735 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...
So, I'll just say, I, personally do not feel I have enough control in games "LIKE" BG/DA/BG2 or ect for the character to actually feel truly mine, with only my perspective on the character.

And that, my friend, is an absolutely fair assessment.

The thing that bothers me about people tossing out moldy chestnuts like "cRPGs can never give you the table-top RPG experience" is mostly that each person mimicking the statement probably means something completely different than most everyone else who says it.

But, yes, a good end to the discussion.  From where you were coming from you never feel like you have enough control.

For me, I accept the limitations of working in a pre-created adventure (same as I would for a module or a DM's own world/adventure - you can't just do whatever you want in those, either, as the game is limited to a certain place and scope and set of prepared characters and events.)  The difference between table-top and cRPG at that point is how much of a jerk does the player want to be in pushing at the boundries of what the DM created/is running... how big an a-hole they are in "I don't wanna be railroaded - I'm going to the opposite side of the continent from your dungeon!  My character, my choice!  Nyaaaa!"

[joriandrake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Rompa87 wrote...
I can understand the will to wait and see what the actual result will be, and reserve judgement until that day. But I cannot understand the rabid unwillingness to show even an ounce of concern over the possible setbacks in the end-product. It's like Gloria Allred has been hired by BW to discredit any form of critizism or worries

Oh, I have my concerns. I just don't see why there should be any really dire concern over something as superfluous as voice acting or artistic styel.

I agree, the game won't succeed or fail on that (alone) and as for myself, I can see that if properly done anime style humor would as exa mple fit well into the game, being "mature" and such it shouldn't cause problems

http://www.playdota....&pictureid=7474

[Meltemph]

I agree, its just that in so far as the emotion icons and paraphrases go, you can't really interpret the writing anymore. What I enjoy with the full text is the ability to read all the responses and make a decision off of the writing and even admire the choices that I won't make.

But with the paraphrase and icons, you get rid of the ability to see all the dailogue choices available to the PC and any nuance that may be present. If you've got the emotion icon, whats really the point behind even having the paraphrase? I just worry it turns into an ME2 style paragon/renegade instant win button.

It seems to me, like you are trying to do everything you can for the character to remain "you", so to speak as much as possible, where as me or the_one(do not mean to speak for you so correct me if I am wrong), for instance, we didn't recognize the character as truly ours because we recognize the limitations and accept that the character is not ours.

For me, the control in these types of games are not enough to be considered mine, so I don't wan't them to try and fill that for me. I would much rather make me feel like the world(Thedas) is real, and is "mine". I think that is why some of use are perfectly fine with VO's and others are not.

I should note, that I don't think VO's are a must, because if you want a large variety of races then VO's make less sense. However, I do not want them to hold off VO's to try and give me a feeling that the character is me/mine in the full sense of it.

Modifié par Meltemph, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:47 .

[the_one_54321]

Brockololly wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Somewhere at some time someone wrote this dialog. And if you analyize it enough it becomes very very clear what that person intended for the exchange in terms of wording and tone. You can deliberately interprate it differently, but the writing is still the writing is still the writing.

I agree, its just that in so far as the emotion icons and paraphrases go, you can't really interpret the writing anymore. What I enjoy with the full text is the ability to read all the responses and make a decision off of the writing and even admire the choices that I won't make.

But with the paraphrase and icons, you get rid of the ability to see all the dailogue choices available to the PC and any nuance that may be present. If you've got the emotion icon, whats really the point behind even having the paraphrase? I just worry it turns into an ME2 style paragon/renegade instant win button.

That's fair, but look at the flip side, too. With nothing but paraphrases, you won't actually know what the character would have said differently by choosing other options unless you actually choose them. Thus in continuing the story without that knowledge of the variables it is a little bit more realistic. You have less of the "well if I had say X instead, maybe it would have been differne...."

[tmp7704]

Brockololly wrote...

Wait, so the shakycam gameplay video thats been floating around was not the exaggerated bit? Or are you just saying that BioWare hasn't officially shown anything DA2 yet, so technically that footage has been disowned by BioWare?

He's saying that the demo is composed in way which shows both the exaggerated bit and the regular bit and has explanation for difference between them. While the captured bit only shows the exaggerated beginning without the explanation it is, in fact, exaggerated. Which can easier confuse people that the whole game is like that.

While i can see "on paper" the appeal of wanting to provide such cross-cut of sorts through entire concept of DA2, i think it's in practice a mistake to start with the exaggerated part in the demo, as it ignores that you only get to make the first impression once, and expects the player to stick around long enough to actually go through the exaggerated part to get the explanation... while in our insta-gratification and snap judgement times it's equally likely a player will just throw controller away and storms off with firm conviction "they turned this game to ****!", especially if they came in with preconception "they're probably going to d the ME -> ME2 thing with this one" to begin with. That even if it took one few hours of wait to get to the presentation.

edit: (as for difference between exaggerated and real mode, presonally i simply expect the enemies to take more than one hit to die in regular gameplay, and perhaps deal reasonable damage themselves as well)

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:49 .

[MerinTB]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
With a silent PC (or with ME), those tones were never knowable in advance, so they can't have been relevant to the selection.

No, they left you trying to figure out what the tone would be without many clues. Your specific interpretation of dialog is even less than a minority view. I am starting to wonder if there are even up to 5 or so people that played the game in the same way you did.

Well, add one to the tally.
I imagine my own character, my own tones...
and while I don't go to some extremes that Sylvius will talk about (walking to the base in ME1 "because my character would") I certainly do make choices based on a personality I created, and I "interpret" NPC reactions to me, and a heck of a lot of "off-cameara" stuff, to fit a narrative playing in my head as I go through the game.

It's probably a generational thing - we "old-timers" developed our imaginations before graphics and sound "gave you" what you could have otherwise imagined yourself.

It is the same thing as people who prefer books to movies - they like what their mind creates far more than what a director and actors and such can bring.

[Meltemph]

For me, I accept the limitations of working in a pre-created adventure (same as I would for a module or a DM's own world/adventure - you can't just do whatever you want in those, either, as the game is limited to a certain place and scope and set of prepared characters and events.) The difference between table-top and cRPG at that point is how much of a jerk does the player want to be in pushing at the boundries of what the DM created/is running... how big an a-hole they are in "I don't wanna be railroaded - I'm going to the opposite side of the continent from your dungeon! My character, my choice! Nyaaaa!"

And this part is probably the hardest part for me to get away from. I don't mind that I am limited to an area or a setting. However, when that setting or area forces me to start making actions or choices that would force me to dictate certain "traits" of my character, is when it no longer becomes mine, to me.

So it is not as much the direction in CRPG's that bother me in terms of having "my character" but in the limitations of, I can only say a few certain lines, and the responses from everybody around me can never change, based on my tone/meaning/personality.

Modifié par Meltemph, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:45 .

[the_one_54321]

Meltemph wrote...
For me, the control in these types of games are not enough to be considered mine, so I don't wan't them to try and fill that for me. I would much rather make me feel like the world(Thedas) is real, and is "mine". I think that is why some of use are perfectly fine with VO's and others are not.

My thoughts are very similar. I want to know about the world and the story. I have some strong attachment to the character but it's not along the lines of "he must do exactly as I wish to do." I'm interested in seeing progression and development even if it is not driven or inspired by my own actions.

This is completely the opposite of the approach I take in multiplayer or tabletop games. The difference being that in one it's just me, a computer screen and the story that someone else already wrote. In the other it's me playing with other actively participating people, creating the story together.

[the_one_54321]

MerinTB wrote...
It's probably a generational thing - we "old-timers" developed our imaginations before graphics and sound "gave you" what you could have otherwise imagined yourself.

Exactly how old do you think I am compared to you and Sylvius? 

I prefer all the same things you do. In their applicable place. Choices don't actually exist in any single player games, so for me they aren't necessary. They are necessary in places where they can actually exist. Which is the same reason why I enjoy both movies and books in very different ways.

[Rhipz]

The Prize

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

For me, I accept the limitations of working in a pre-created adventure (same as I would for a module or a DM's own world/adventure - you can't just do whatever you want in those, either, as the game is limited to a certain place and scope and set of prepared characters and events.) The difference between table-top and cRPG at that point is how much of a jerk does the player want to be in pushing at the boundries of what the DM created/is running... how big an a-hole they are in "I don't wanna be railroaded - I'm going to the opposite side of the continent from your dungeon! My character, my choice! Nyaaaa!"

And this part is probably the hardest part for me to get away from. I don't mind that I am limited to an area or a setting. However, when that setting or area forces me to start making actions or choices that would force me to dictate certain "traits" of my character, is when it no longer becomes mine, to me.

So it is not as much the direction in CRPG's that bother me in terms of having "my character" but in the limitations of, I can only say a few certain lines, and the responses from everybody around me can never change, based on my tone/meaning/personality.

But....
again, have you not played in a store-bought module before?  You kinda have to go to the events in the module, else the module is so much a stack of stapled pages good for, I dunno, protecting a table from your can of soda's sweat?

What is your table-top experience?  Do you have a game master who sits down at the table and says "Ok, Player A, where are you right now in the world?  Ok, Player B, where are you?  Player C... ok, that's where you are.  Well, since Player A is in London working on his new album, Player B is in Japan hunting down and killing gothic lolitas, and Player C is on Ceti Alpha Six in five thousand years in the future, I'll take you each in turn... Player A, what do you want to do next with your album?"
My experiences, running and playing, are 85% the DM having some pre-planned locations, NPCs, and encounters - to the best of his or her ability that try to have contingency plans for if things go a little awry, but the DM expects the players to try and follow the story set before them.  The other 15% rely of maybe 2% all-random-encounters stuff (which I quickly stop playing) and just over 10% of the DM asking the players for their characters and background stories (hey, kinda like the origins in DA:O) and then shapes those into an adventure idea he or she had, but NOW that adventure melds bits and pieces of the players's backgrounds and important NPCs into the story the DM was already going to tell (kinda, again, like DA:O.)

DA:O may only give you "6" starting points (I'd argue each of those origins, though, gives you a lot of leeway of how you come into the main story) but, again, I accept the "limitation" as it's a game being created for me by a team of designers and they can't program for my every whim (or even most of them) and, just like when I sit down to play, say, Robotech I am accepting that I'll be fighting Zentradi and probably flying a giant transformer mecha (or fixing one (or driving a non-transformable - you get what I mean))) while stationed in the SDF-1... for DA:O I accept that I'll become part of the Grey Wardens and have to help stop the blight, and that Duncan was only going to "6 places" to recruit from (like a DM saying "your character can have come from these six towns, and you can have been nobility or a slave, but no commoners or merchants for this story")...

Again, I think it comes to your experiences and what you "need" for it to have that table-top feel.

Honestly, 7 times out of 10 I feel more freedom in the old Gold Box SSI AD&D games than I do in most table-top games I play in.

[the_one_54321]

MerinTB wrote...
...

In my games I always developed as much of a world as possible, created a plot within that world for them to take part in, gave them a spot where their character begins and then let them do whatever the hell they wanted to do. Beyond that I just interacted with them and gave them gentle nudges toward paying attention to the plot for the game to progress. Most good players will want to take part in the plot anyway, so it's not hard to get things moving in that direction. Beyond that, their characters were always free to behave in whatever way they wanted to behave because those characters belong to those players. I adapted to them. I didn't force them to adapt to me.
Though, yeah, once in a while as the plot is progressing onwards I would give them certain problems or tasks that were mostly outside their control to dictate. After all things like that happen in real life all the time, right?

[Meltemph]

You kinda have to go to the events in the module, else the module is so much a stack of stapled pages good for, I dunno, protecting a table from your can of soda's sweat?

I am not talking about the overall events. I am talking about the specifics of talking to certain characters and my actions having to go a very certain way(Dwarf Commoner for instance). When I create my character, my character has to match the setting. So when we decide on a module(if we use them), then I create a character based on the model(as does everyone else) and then the DM bases the events on that.

The reason I don't feel the characters are mine in a CRPG, is because I don't get to choose everything until the model presents itself, so the only personalities/traits/races/backgrounds are only what the creators allow room for.

In a tabletop you create your characters and then the DM chooses how to deal with it, in CRPG's they choose how to deal with your characters and then you create your character. Obviously in tabletop it would vary from DM to DM, but at the end of the day, that is the biggest difference to me.

Also, if we ever play store-bought module, I don't really consider the character as "in character" me.
I consider him a character with-in the module that I chose to play.

Modifié par Meltemph, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:13 .

[MerinTB]

the_one_54321 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
It's probably a generational thing - we "old-timers" developed our imaginations before graphics and sound "gave you" what you could have otherwise imagined yourself.

Exactly how old do you think I am compared to you and Sylvius? 

I prefer all the same things you do. In their applicable place. Choices don't actually exist in any single player games, so for me they aren't necessary. They are necessary in places where they can actually exist. Which is the same reason why I enjoy both movies and books in very different ways.

Drop this illogical "choices don't exist in single player games" nonsense.

Choice means picking one of several options.

If I picked the Dwarven Noble origin in DA:O, was that a false choice?  Did I play the same beginning as the Dalish Elf origin?
What, no, wait... I picked on of 6 options, and the options were identical?  Really?

Stop it.

Everyone.

Stop saying "choices don't exist."

Choices don't have to be arbitrarily made up by you to really be choices.  That's not any sane person's defintion of "choice."

If I pick to play Halo over Gears of War today, is that a false choice because others made the games and not me?

If my wife says "we can have pasta or pizza for dinner", am I not making a choice because someone else limited the options (and then cooked the meal, based on ingredients that someone (probably several someones) else provided) ?

Stop. It.

Your choices in BioWare games are CHOICES.

The only time choices are truly illusions of choice - i.e. they make it seem like you have a choice, but they give you the exact same result, is when regardless of your choice you are immediately given the same exact thing.

You are given two buttons to push... but pushing either one shocks you.
You are given two doors  - both opening into the same exact room.
You are offered one of two sack lunches - only to open them and find both contain tuna on wheat and a single chocolate chip cookie.

Because someone else provided the options for you, even provided the end results of the options, as long as the end results of your choice are different, you made a meaningful choice.

So stop it.

Stop saying "Choices don't actually exist in any single player games."   There are limited choices, with pre-programmed results...

but choice doesn't mean "not provided options" nor "unknowable consequences."

<_<

Modifié par MerinTB, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:10 .

[the_one_54321]

MerinTB wrote...
...

Well then stop suggesting that role playing can't be effectively accomplished without a customized character.

You don't view that as being given the control of the character you want? Well, I don't view a set number of options as having any real choice in a single player game.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...
I am not talking about the overall events. I am talking about the specifics of talking to certain characters and my actions having to go a very certain way(Dwarf Commoner for instance). When I create my character, my character has to match the setting. So when we decide on a module(if we use them), then I create a character based on the model(as does everyone else) and then the DM bases the events on that.

So, by your definition then, people playing Buffy or Supernatural or BSG or DC Super-Heroes or any other game where they are using pre-created characters, they are NOT playing a table-top RPG?

Otherwise, I'm confused where this is going from the original discussion of cRPG's not like table-top ever.

I usually let my players make their characters - but have on numerous occasions in the past made characters for them to use.  And even when I let my players make characters, depending on the world there are usually restrictions.  For example, in my Ruinscape game there are no psionics and no divine powers.  There are also no shardminds, no drow, no warforged, no githzerai, and many other race limitations.
A good portion of the games I've played in the GM/DM has limited choices on what we could play, or nixed proposed characters or backgrounds...

I honestly can only think of handful of games I've ever played where "anything in the books goes" and those games always either fell apart or I left early due to chaos and purposelessness.

The "limits by design" in a cRPG  often emulate exactly similar limitations that many GMs put on their players based on setting and story.
This is not a real difference between games.
Play Oblivion.   Within the game rules you can put stats anywhere you want, make up your own classes and spells and equipment, go anywhere on the map at pretty much anytime - more open sandbox than ANY table-top game I've ever even heard of mentioned.  While there are dialog limitations, Oblivion provides much that even the best GM would be hard pressed to compete with.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Meltemph wrote...

But if I create a certain character and I have in my head a very specific type of personality, and then the actions go AGAINST what I would normally dictate my personality would do, then I would have to assume that there are some implied tones or meaning behind the dialog.[/quote]
Why do you keep doing that?  Why do you think the PC is acting contrary to your preference?

I can see thinking this was a problem in ME, but in DAO the tone isn't represented.  Why do you think your PC isn't behaving as you would prefer?

It is only because I don't have an answer to that question that I can roleplay my character.
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

No, they left you trying to figure out what the tone would be without many clues.[/quote]
Which was impossible.  The clues may as well have not been there; it would have made no material difference.

This has been my point all along.
[quote]Your specific interpretation of dialog is even less than a minority view. I am starting to wonder if there are even up to 5 or so people that played the game in the same way you did. [/quote]
How could you possibly roleplay a character of your own making without doing it as I do it?
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

I'm not normally a man of "popular vote is correct vote" but I honestly doubt even one other person played this game with the same frame of mind that he did. I don't think I've seen even one other person claim, or even just sympathise with his claim that the dialog text is just a UI and the PCs actual words can be composed differently. To be among a group with a certain preference that from all indications can't number above 50 across all of the games sales and to expect that your preference will be attended to is .... implausible. [/quote]
CRPGs have traditionally accommodated my playstyle.  I think early CRPGs can only have worked using my approach.  And since it is the traditional way to roleplay in a CRPG, there's no reason not to keep allowing it.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

It is like the other thread I brought this up in: as the game is constructed, progression through it is independent of effective roleplay. [/quote]
Effective roleplay = progression through the game.  Roleplay is the point of the entire genre.

You're defining progression in some way I don't understand.
[quote]The fundamental point of disagreement is whether a character in game can misunderstand you and what it means for them to do so. [/quote]
Really?  So you're arguing that the NPCs can always read the PC's mind, and I'm the only one questioning that?

That seems implausible.
[quote]The argument is whether you can. And my contention is that you cannot. I grant your criterion, just not that you can meet it. [/quote]
I insist that I can, but as long as I think I can meet it, it's a fun way to play the game.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

In addition, the claim is further than a non-VO system can still place you in a situation where you do not know what your character is going to say.[/quote]
And it is my position that this is a wholly absurd position.  The full text of the line is available to you, there are no time pressures on the selection of that line, and the game never contradicts whatever tone you choose yourself.
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

Consider that in DA][ we will told what the tone of a response is before we give it.
How does the VO effect your interpretation of your character when you are informed of the tone that will be used before you make the selection?[/quote]
I don't see how that makes any difference.  All it will change is that the game will break our character concepts before we deliver the line rather than after.
[quote]Meltemph wrote...

Yes, this has quite a few points of it in it. For instance if you are a human mage and you tell the Elf(forgot his name) sitting in the library studying, "Good luck with that, you will need it" He responds with, "Well if that is how you feel, good day" which means you said it in a way where it was demeaning.[/quote]
Or it could mean that's overly sensitive because he's an elf and thinks all humans are racists.  Or maybe he's overly sensitive because he's dumb and he's starting to realise it.

Why would you assume the misunderstanding is always your fault?
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

To paraphrase: this is how it's always been, only now you're being forced to aknowledge it. [/quote]
If you weren't forced to acknowledge it before then it wasn't necessarily there.

Only if it were demonstrably present would it be necessarily relevant to gameplay.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
To paraphrase: this is how it's always been, only now you're being forced to aknowledge it.

If you weren't forced to acknowledge it before then it wasn't necessarily there.

Only if it were demonstrably present would it be necessarily relevant to gameplay.

Being permited to ignore something does not abolish it's existence. In fact one could easily argue that by the very definition of the statement it distincitly existed outside of the observers perception.

[MerinTB]

the_one_54321 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
...

Well then stop suggesting that role playing can't be effectively accomplished without a customized character.

You don't view that as being given the control of the character you want? Well, I don't view a set number of options as having any real choice in a single player game.

I don't think I've ever suggested you can't role-play without a customized character.

I've stated as fact that I prefer to make my own character, as much freedom in that area as possible.  That's not saying it's impossible for anyone to do anything, that's a preferece.
I've also said that I believe that the "definitive characteristic" of cRPGs is the ability to make your character.  That's not saying it's the only characteristic of cRPGs, nor that all cRPGs have it.  Just that (and here, AlanC9, I'm giving my contextual meaning again) the vast majority of cRPGs let you make your character (to varying degrees) and almost no games that aren't RPGs allow you to create a character.
I believe I've also said many times that I don't like the VO for my own character - but that's neither here nor there.

So, deal -
the_one_54321, you stop claiming that single-player games don't have choices (I really find it absurd that anyone can try and defend that argument - MAYBE "meaningful choices" or "many choices", but "no choices ever"?)
and I, MerinTB, will never again (as I'm 98.7% sure I never have) say that you have to have a custom character to role-play.  (good thing, too, cause the 4 years I spent "playing" Cyclops on an X-Men MUX sure seemed like role-playing to me...)

Modifié par MerinTB, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Being permited to ignore something does not abolish it's existence.

Good thing I didn't say that.

Stop assuming an excluded middle.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:26 .

[the_one_54321]

MerinTB wrote...

Deal.

In a single player game you are given a set of interconecting, but very distinct pathways that you may choose and interchange at will. In a multiplayer game you have actual freedome to take any direction you choose, whether there was ever a path designated for it or not. While there certainly are preferential pathways, none are strictly required in the same way you literally have plot rails in a single player game. Note, that by multiplayer I mean games like NWN or tabletop games, that have game masters.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Being permited to ignore something does not abolish it's existence.

Good thing I didn't say that.

Stop assuming an excluded middle.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you weren't forced to acknowledge it before then it wasn't necessarily there.

Um... what??

[Icinix]

All though I don't necessarily agree, I can understand why people would want to jump ship early, and I stress this is not necessarily my opinion, but just a point of view.



When ME2 was being developed and the trailers came out and everything focused on the gunplay, people raised an eyebrow and said:-

"What about the RPG elements and other pieces?" - BioWare replied that they had improved other areas but were only showing the gunplay. Most people were content, and went, oh yeah, thats allright then. Upon ME2 release, some peoples early fears were realized and ME2 had cut out a lot of those areas that people wanted to see, and had indeed focused on a more 'shooter' orientated game at the expense of those 'traditional' RPG elements. Not necessarily my opinion, but just some of the communities opinions.

Now here we are, 6 months out, and we haven't seen the RPG elements, but instead much more of the action focused 'swordplay'. Following a similar marketing path with ME2.

So I can understand why there would be some concern over what DA2 is going to look like, and why people would rather jump ship now. Fearful that DA2 is going to come out, and raise all the same debates that are still going about ME2, what is RPG, the direction of RPG and so on.



Once again, not saying I agree / disagree either way about anything in particular. But just that I can understand.

[Meltemph]

I can see thinking this was a problem in ME, but in DAO the tone isn't represented. Why do you think your PC isn't behaving as you would prefer?

So a persons ACTIONS give no insight into a persons personality or general tone? OR that no matter what, the NPC's will always give the exact same line, no matter in what way you say it? In fact, actions play a stronger role in a persons personality then what they say, so to assume one w/o the other is silly.



If you have a personality and tone, then your actions to should be reflective of that, however DAO forces you into many actions regardless of personality or tone. So you can only create a personality as far as the reactions of the setting placed before you. You can not create any type of personality you want, if you can not dictate actions. Your choices are limited to what they want you to have, and choices is what shapes a person. Even your motives are limited because of the reactions and consequences of certain parts in the game.

[Meltemph]

So, by your definition then, people playing Buffy or Supernatural or BSG or DC Super-Heroes or any other game where they are using pre-created characters, they are NOT playing a table-top RPG?

They could be, but I don't think that makes the character theirs, it just makes it the character they chose to use in the setting. The major difference being, you 1st created teh character and then the DM chooses how to deal with the created characters, so things are not predetermined for you, but you chose the limitations yourself.



In CRPG's they 1st decided how the deal with the characters they created for you to choose from, and then you create the character. That, to me changes the "my character" to the DM's character(And I just choose which one to play with the given choices). Sure, you can play tabletops like that as well, but then the character is not yours.