150 réponses à ce sujet

[PorcelynDoll]

Maybe I'm an oddity but I always play as myself. I like playing the game with choices I would personally make and saying things that I would.

[slimgrin]

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Maybe I'm an oddity but I always play as myself. I like playing the game with choices I would personally make and saying things that I would.

It's how I usually play as well, which is why I don't place the same emphasis on things that people who assume a role do.

[Mello]

I roleplay because I wouldn't have the balls to face a dragon in real life. 

Modifié par iPoohCupCakes, 11 novembre 2012 - 12:47 .

[highcastle]

Even role playing as a character, there are still instances where I just won't make some decisions. Like siding with the templars in DA2. While my own feelings definitely lean towards the mages (and then some), I would've tried this ending if I could've come up with a character who would actually make that choice. But considering Hawke themselves either is a mage or comes from a family of mages (in which their sister is canonically close to them given the starting friendship value), I couldn't justify that choice. I couldn't find a way to believe my character would actually buy into Meredith's rhetoric about mages not being people when they were surrounded by mages their whole life.

Now, possibly I could've created a character with severe daddy issues. There'd still be no overcoming the Bethany friendship spike, though. Unless the relationship deteriorated in Kirkwall for unknown reasons. But since it takes a lot for me to justify that choice, I end up just not making it. And that's how roleplaying for me tends to work. I come up with a character concept and background and make choices that fit their story, not my own personal morals. If I can't--or if the only character I can come up with is unpalatable to me--then I don't make some choices.

[Dysjong]

Most of the time, i go with the good guy option, mostly because i stil dream about being the hero and many games support that trend. Even in Pathfinders open games, where strangers can meet for some fun, Pazio has statede that it is not allowed to play any chars with a evil alignment (i do understand there reason for it.)

Sometimes different things can make you change your opinion. In my case, i startede out as a human noble rogue, my idea was based on Artemis Entreri, so i was going to play with evil intentions. However, when i came to Lothering, i began to feel sorry for the fugitives. As if the maker had sense it, Leliana showed up, with the red hair and that beautiful voice, i had to reload from the begining, for the sake of getting her.

Now, the few times i have played evil was in NWN: HoU and NWN2, Mask of the betrayer include. That was fun, mostly because i got sick and tired of being the knight in shining armor. Out came Korag bloodseeker, barbarian/red dragon disciple, whirling his mighty greatsword around himself, with one thing in mind, no one would or should be above himself.

Now, i am in a P&P D&D(3/3,5 edition)group where i play a wizard. I startede out as lvl 1 wizard lawful good. But as things happende, he began to change, from a lawful good gardner wizard, to a lawful evil necromancer/palemaster and stil he continues to worship the goddess of healing and birth and he views immortality as a curse. To make it even more funny, i made a list of how many humans he has killed (6 so far, lvl 11), each with a little note about where, when and why, sinds i have planed that someday, it would haunt him.

So why the role playing? To escape the reallity, to be the hero i dreamed ot being, getting the chance to try something different, being faced with my own moral compas versus the moral compas of the role i play and most importently, because i like to see the worlds that people have used many hours and thankless nights on.

Modifié par Dysjong, 11 novembre 2012 - 02:57 .

[TMZuk]

Because it is difficult.

Playing as "my self" is easy. Or rather, a romanticised, idealized version of "me" doing all the things I believe to be right. An "upstanding" guy with a healthy dislike of authorities but willing to go out of the way to do the right thing. Snarky and sarcastic but never siding with evil. Chaotic Good in D&D tems. :innocent:

Playing someone who is a firm believer in law and order, no matter the cost, is very hard for me. One who'll always sacrifice the few for the many, who'll never allow the bad guy to escape, even if that means sacrificing a bunch of people caught in the crossfire. So, it's very rewarding to try. Especially in games where it matters and makes a difference.

Same with playing a female character. Or a vile selfish bastard. Or just add it all together and play Ilse the Shewolf.

The first NWN2 expansion: Mask of the Betrayer was awesome like that, because it was the first time I had more fun being evil than good. The evil path was so awesome in that game. ( Chris Avellone rocks! )

Hope that made some sense.

Modifié par TMZuk, 13 novembre 2012 - 01:59 .

[StarcloudSWG]

I've chosen to side with the Templars, *as* a mage, before.

The reasoning is, that Hawke had learned enough about how tainted the city is, that it was likely most of the mages are, in fact, blood mages, abominations, or demons. Despite eliminating one ancient and powerful demon trapped beneath the city, Hawke still feels that Meredith has a degree of right on her side. Orsino seems to be unable to control the Circle, and personally let forbidden texts go to the blood mage who murdered Hawke's mother.

On top of that, that particular Hawke was an 'apostate' by the Templar definition of 'not living in a Circle,' but she was brought up to believe in the Chant and still believed in it.

There was also the hope that Hawke could save the few who weren't demon-touched, yet. And Hawke did, with Cullen's support.

The end result was one of the odder permutations of the outcome; a Mage Hawke as Viscount of a city that was under the jurisdiction of the Val Royeax Chantry, WITH the support of the Templars.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 11 novembre 2012 - 05:15 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

slimgrin wrote...

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Maybe I'm an oddity but I always play as myself. I like playing the game with choices I would personally make and saying things that I would.

It's how I usually play as well, which is why I don't place the same emphasis on things that people who assume a role do.

Playing as "myself" give greater immersion and personal connection to the world and story to me. Playing as puppet master behind the toon, not so much. I could focus on my character internally and less concern about how NPC response that bother most of third person roleplayers. I normally do that on my first playthrough only. To gain  better understanding how the word and characters work on personal level. After knowing the story arc, I would then switch to third person roleplaying just to view from different perspective and to discovers things that I could possibly miss on my first playthrough. So, the first 15 minutes inside the game is very important to me. If I can't roleplay as "myself" then I wouldn't be interested to continue the game. This one of the many reasons why I avoid an RPG with a set character like Assasin Creeds, The Witcher series, Deus Ex, Final Fantasy series etc..Heck I don't play ME 3 solely because I felt Shepard was nothing more than a set character in ME 2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Maybe I'm an oddity but I always play as myself. I like playing the game with choices I would personally make and saying things that I would.

Do you?  Do you flee when threatened by gigantic monsters?

People say they play as themselves (self-inserts, they're called), but they don't.  They're playing an idealised version of themselves.

[PorcelynDoll]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Maybe I'm an oddity but I always play as myself. I like playing the game with choices I would personally make and saying things that I would.

Do you?  Do you flee when threatened by gigantic monsters?

People say they play as themselves (self-inserts, they're called), but they don't.  They're playing an idealised version of themselves.

What's your point? I don't have actual magic so yeah I have to decide if I did how I would use it. I know exactly who I am and what I believe. I don't need to idealise myself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PorcelynDoll wrote...

I know exactly who I am and what I believe. I don't need to idealise myself.

There's more to you than that.  There's how you solve problems, how you deal with people, your instinctive responses to danger, your risk-aversion.

That last one is a biggie.  I hazard that any character you play is vastly less risk-averse than you are.

My point here is that everyone who plays these games as you do is at least trying to roleplay, even if they don't see it.

[SgtElias]

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Maybe I'm an oddity but I always play as myself. I like playing the game with choices I would personally make and saying things that I would.

I always play my first character this way, but all subsequent characters I end up giving distinct personalities and motivations. Sometimes I have charts reminding me who was imported into what game, so I can remember what was done where for DA3.

Then again, I'm crazy.

[Plaintiff]

I only play "myself" insofar as I apply my own morals and beliefs to the hypothetical situations the game presents. I am a weak, cowardly person, and would probably wuss out of such situations IRL.

Whether I friend or rival characters depends on how I, as the player, feel about them. I Friend Anders because I agree with his philosophy and actions, and I friend Isabela because she amuses me. I rival Aveline because I find her to be a preachy, hypocritical nag, and I rival Fenris because he started it by being unnecessarily antagonistic about my mage friends.

Some of my decisions (letting Carver join the Templars, allowing Gascard DuPuis to live) are based on what I think would be more narratively interesting.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 11 novembre 2012 - 05:55 .

[PorcelynDoll]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

PorcelynDoll wrote...

I know exactly who I am and what I believe. I don't need to idealise myself.

There's more to you than that.  There's how you solve problems, how you deal with people, your instinctive responses to danger, your risk-aversion.

That last one is a biggie.  I hazard that any character you play is vastly less risk-averse than you are.

My point here is that everyone who plays these games as you do is at least trying to roleplay, even if they don't see it.

I see what you mean. I would flee if there was that option or try and sneak around. I always go with my gut reaction. I really try to get my character as close to myself as possible. Sometimes my gut feeling has horrible personal conciquences like how my mage in origns pushed Alister to be king because I felt that was the right thing to do only to have him break up with me afterwards. That was a sad day for Warden Amell.

I take archery in rl so I'm an archer in game. I only use short bows because I found out I am not strong enough to pull back the string on a longbow so I had to trade my bow to my nephew for his short bow.

I also have a secondary as a healing mage because with a background in care giving it feels natural to be the one looking after the others.

I pass on warriors because I like being the furthest away from the target and I know I wouldn't have the strength or confidence to get in some one's face and try and lop it off. It's little details I find fun that make my character very personal to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

I only play "myself" insofar as I apply my own morals and beliefs to the hypothetical situations the game presents. I am a weak, cowardly person, and would probably wuss out of such situations IRL.

Based on a discussion very much like this one on the old Mass Effect forum (pre-BSN), I actually created and played a DAO who was weak and cowardly, someone who always talked about having big plans but never followed through on them - basically, an ordinary non-hero.  And it was the most rewarding RP experience I had in DAO.

Some of my decisions (letting Carver join the Templars, allowing Gascard DuPuis to live) are based on what I think would be more narratively interesting.

This is something I think a lot of people do, but it's unequvocally not roleplaying.  There, you're choosing options based on what you want to see happen, not based on what your character would choose in that moment.

[Accipitrifa]

I roleplay because it gets me into the game 

Modifié par testytest, 12 novembre 2012 - 05:24 .

[Nurot]

Why do I roleplay? Simple answer: because it is much more fun than playing myself.

I used to play as a character with my own morals (not really as myself since I have neither courage, nor beuty), just like most people probably do. I had never even considered playing as someone else. Then I read about people's role-playing experiences in the "Alistair Gush-thread", where poeple gave very detailed descriptions about their different wardens and what motivated those wardens into making the decisions that they did. I was immediately hooked. I realised how these people could play through the same game multiple times and get vastly different experinces every time, not only in gameplay but also storywise.

I am still new to roleplaying, but I have since discovered how fun it is to try and figure out what each character would do in every situation and planning the the personality of a character before playing is also great fun. It adds another layer to my gaming eaxperience. I can't see myself playing as myself again ever...

About making harsh decisions.. I guess I feel like I am watching a great movie or reading a good book (although interactive). The most interesting characters are almost always the gray ones. And my character always has a reason for doing what he/she does. It actually forces me to try and see every conflict/choice from all sides. My first playthrough in DA2 was as a mage siding with mages. After living as my very ****y mage I thought that siding with the templars would be difficult. But I created a diplomatic templar-friendly warrior that had reasons to be wary of mages and sympathetic to the templars and Meredith. By seeing the story play out through her eyes I got a much better understanding of the templar side. Siding with the templars also gave me information that my promage never had the opportunity to discover, as well. After playing both sides I can't really see one side as more "right" than the other. Just as Bioware intended, I guess .

[DarthLaxian]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

That's just it. Loghain is not a traitor to Ferelden. He's a traitor to Cailan, but not Ferelden; everything he did, he did to preserve the Ferelden he'd spent his life fighting for.

Plus, sparing him requires that he join the Grey Wardens. That's a pretty harsh sentence in itself.

well in the feudal system of lords and all such, betraying your king equals betraying your country (!) - but today it is the same, if you betray your general/defense minister/chancellor/president then you betray your country (except if it is just a "private" betrayal like telling the press he/she is cheating on their partner etc.)

well, reading on (might comment some on - my - topic, too

greetings LAX
ps: sometimes i think i am more soft ingame then in RL - maybe i am acting this way because i know more about the actions i take ingame then when acting in RL (because the decisions i have to make are mostly done without knowing the consequences)...or because my consequences (if i do not know the results - yet) cant be more dire (lives are at stake, which is almost never the case outsiden in RL (i had one situation up to now were i thought a humans life was in the balance compared to hundreds in computer games!)

[Rawgrim]

I mostly make up a basic character in my head, before creating the character at all. I start with a name, and then I begin thinking about what kind of personality, motives, and sometimes the background of the character. then I create the looks for the character in the editor. If my character is a scoundrel or something, he might get a tatoo or something like that. And end up as a rogue. Then I just try to immerse myself into that character, and play the game based on what that fellow would do in whatever situation. I also leave it open for things changing as well. If something happens in the game, that might change his views considerably. things like that. I feel it gives my character some development, instead of him just being a collection fo numbers about healt, ac, and damage dealt.

[Plaintiff]

Persephone wrote...
You did not just make this comparison. Because it couldn't be any less apt.

My point was to show that "asking me to choose = wrong" is a weak justification that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

But Alistair is a friend and confidant who's stuck by me in life-or-death situations, while Loghain is some jerk who:
 
1) Falsely accused me of regicide.

2) Put a bounty on my head, and then

3) Sent personal assassins to attack me on top of that.

So I think it's actually a very apt comparison.

Oh and btw, if said partner insisted on killing her/his rival, I'm sure you do that too, right?

That depends. If this situation were transposed to a relationship metaphor: I am me, Alistair is my wife, and Loghain is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. Except I didn't sleep with Loghain, so he's just trying to murder me for no reason. I would have no problem putting him down.

I am not siding with anyone. I won't be guilted into killing. Then there is mercy, pragmatism  etc.

If someone who supposedly loves me can't see that, I'm glad to be rid of them.

I don't see anything merciful or pragmatic in sparing Loghain. He's directly responsible for so many deaths, even if you justify Ostagar as a morally right or strategically sound choice. There's really no defense for his actions. I've never heard a decent rationalisation for them yet.

I'm not saying Loghain isn't complex, I'm saying that being complex doesn't make him any less terrible.

As for pragmatism, Loghain has a history of personal betrayals, and while that might be meta-knowledge, the man has been trying to kill me for months, not to mention his obsession with Orlais that borders on paranoid delusion. I can't trust him, he's a danger to myself and to people I care about. My mercy ends where my self-preservation instinct begins.

People will point to the fact that he magically, and with no explanation, becomes sane if you let him join the party, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a chance he doesn't deserve. He doesn't get points for exhibiting the bare minimum of basic human decency in the eleventh hour. That's how he should've been behaving all along. The fact that the people of Ferelden will have their faith in him renewed only proves that they have the memories of goldfish, or are incredibly gullible.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 19 novembre 2012 - 05:03 .

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is something I think a lot of people do, but it's unequvocally not roleplaying.  There, you're choosing options based on what you want to see happen, not based on what your character would choose in that moment.

I'm aware, I wasn't trying to claim otherwise.
 
I play roleplay games because they typically offer engaging narratives, not because I'm looking for a particular kind of gameplay experience.

[Eire Icon]

For me if I'm playing a game more then once, I'm not going to do the same thing over and over again, as it becomes boring.

If a choice is there which I wouldn't make myself, or the run of the mill hero wouldn't do then I tend to ask who would make such a decision - once I answer that I then apply that personality to the main character and have him act accordingly.

I basically do it for variety but whilst keeping myself immersed.

[MassEffectGirl19]

I usually make the choices I would make. But as I play it more, I choose different choices to see how they affect my game.

[Momiji.mii]

I've always been headcanoning stuff about the games I've been playing, especially when playing the Zelda games and some adventure games. I believe that it helped me figure out how to roleplay RPGs eventually, though that actually took a while because I usually had more to work with (set character traits etc) than with more open characters like the Warden. It was actually a lot easier for me to roleplay Shepard in my first playthrough than my first Warden.

As some pointed up, roleplaying makes it easier to try out different ways to play the game since I'd never make some of the choices if I played myself. ^^;;

Modifié par Momiji.mii, 19 novembre 2012 - 03:01 .

[Aleya]

I do it because the human mind fascinates me. That includes everything that makes us who were are, but especially cultural and environmental influences. Why would another person have different beliefs or opinions than myself? What causes the same household to produce both a social rockstar and and a painfully shy introvert? How could a city elf possibly accept a bribe to let her cousin's rapist get away with his crimes? Why would a mage Hawke want to lock up her own kind? What kind of life, what kind of thought process would it take to allow someone to make those amoral choices you mentioned? 

My two favorite playthroughs are probably my Perfect Daughter Cousland and my Powerhungry **** Cousland. Because it was just so interesting to take the exact same story and look at it through the eyes of one girl trying to be the just and wonderful lady her family would want her to be, and another who resents her lack of prestige and influence compared to her significantly less worthy elder brother. Both are viable interpretations of a younger sibling in the world of Ferelden nobility, but they produced very different characters. It was actually quite fun to look at all the good/diplomatic/charming lines and view them as a way to get in someone's good graces so you could use them later on. The resulting dialogue is still the same of course, but my perspective on it was completely different.

Another reason is to push my own boundaries. When I first started playing I had a lot of trouble picking dialogue options that resulted in a strong negative response because I'd feel unbelievably guilty afterward. And I figured that doing things that you find difficult is always a good way to stretch the mind, so I forced myself to do it anyway. I did have to make my first "evil" PC male so I could better distance myself from the game and the character. By now I'm well used to walking in someone else's shoes for hours at a time and it doesn't bother me so much anymore.

Anyway, the idea isn't to make amoral choices. The idea is to imagine what kind of person your PC would need to be to see the amoral choice as the best possible option. That's what I find fun, challenging, and even educational.