265 réponses à ce sujet

[Jukaga]

Sion1138 wrote...

Jukaga wrote...

I'm a hetero male and I get grief from friends for playing Femshep, or a female Dunmer in Skyrim, or in liking the new Tomb Raider. I have to wonder how comfortable they are as males that they can't even imagine playing as a female hero. Their loss.

Note: I am not accusing everyone who prefers ManShep over FemShep as having gender issues.

How much of yourself do you project into the character?

It depends on the concept. I don't always need to impose my worldview on a character. The thing about role-playing that many rp-ers forget, is that it means taking on a role, not just imposing your ego onto the toon.

[Han Shot First]

RangerSG wrote...

To me, 'projecting yourself' is the antithesis of role-playing. A RPG exists to be something you are not. To 'project yourself' into a narrative is one of the cardinal sins of writing. And while it doesn't hurt a computer game, it definitely is painful in a tabletop RPG as well.

I agree with this.

I never view an RPG protagonist as being an avatar for myself within that world. Setting up a RPG character as being an avatar for yourself in that world is at once both narcissistic and the antithesis of roleplaying. Whether pen-and-paper or a video game RPG, I view it almost like reading a book except you have some authorial control over that character's fate and deeds.

[AlanC9]

I'm not a huge fan of making a hard binary distinction there. None of my Shepards are like me by their backgrounds, and I'm neither a space marine nor any other kind of soldier. However, some of them are like me in a lot of ways. I find it's easier to play someone who's mostly like me for at least the first run of an RPG. So I suppose one could describe those PCs as a sort-of me.

[Kingthlayer]

I had no problems doing a female Shepard in Mass Effect 1 or 2, but in 3 I actually just finished my first femshep last night.

A problem I have is, I just can't make it look right, with Male, I can usually come up with one that fits what I want at the time within 5 minutes.

Only reason I did femshep just now was for Traynor romance, doubt I'll be playing as a female character again for awhile since DA:I will probably be all bi again so I won't have to go female for specific romances.

[Jukaga]

Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...

I had no problems doing a female Shepard in Mass Effect 1 or 2, but in 3 I actually just finished my first femshep last night.

A problem I have is, I just can't make it look right, with Male, I can usually come up with one that fits what I want at the time within 5 minutes.

Only reason I did femshep just now was for Traynor romance, doubt I'll be playing as a female character again for awhile since DA:I will probably be all bi again so I won't have to go female for specific romances.

It's not possible to make a nice looking femshep without a headmorph. Head over to masseffect2faces.com and get some codes and morphs. The top rated femshep one is magnificent, and comes in 3 varieties for each game. I use her plus a mod that makes the female faces look more like ME2 designs, which were far superior imo.

[Sion1138]

Jukaga wrote...

It depends on the concept. I don't always need to impose my worldview on a character. The thing about role-playing that many rp-ers forget, is that it means taking on a role, not just imposing your ego onto the toon.

I know that, but I can't do it, I have absolutely zero interest in that for some reason.

That's why I never picked up any of the 'Witcher' series for example, even though the western RPG is my favorite kind of game.

[congokong]

StreetMagic wrote...

I find a lot of roleplaying potential just in the origin stories. Most of my character concept comes from that. The only thing I project myself a bit is Earthborn, and how he/she got out of gangs. I can relate to that. I even had a "Finch" in my life. lol. More than one actually.

That's why I like the "ruthless" reputation. Unlke sole survivor and war hero, ruthless not only gives your military highlights but actually describes your character's personality; hence the term "ruthless." It represents practicality, focusing on the greater good, and being able to make the hard calls. War hero and sole survivor could fit any role really.

The 3 backgrounds (colonist, spacer, earthborn) don't really say much about who you are but just give some history.

[congokong]

StreetMagic wrote...

congokong wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I find a lot of roleplaying potential just in the origin stories. Most of my character concept comes from that. The only thing I project myself a bit is Earthborn, and how he/she got out of gangs. I can relate to that. I even had a "Finch" in my life. lol. More than one actually.

That's why I like the "ruthless" reputation. Unlke sole survivor and war hero, ruthless not only gives your military highlights but actually describes your character's personality; hence the term "ruthless." It represents practicality, focusing on the greater good, and being able to make the hard calls. War hero and sole survivor could fit any role really.

The 3 backgrounds (colonist, spacer, earthborn) don't really say much about who you are but just give some history.

When you combine them, it says a lot about who you are. Colonist/Ruthless is different than Colonist/War Hero. It's like the difference between Avenging Demon and Avenging Angel.

The colonist/war hero background doesn't say anything about your character except that they have a lot of bad unintentional encounters with batarians and a very impressive service record. But the colonist/ruthless background says a lot about personality. My canon Shepard is colonist/ruthless because that background makes for a damn good story. Everything leading up to the final battle on Torfan and Shepard's ruthless pursuit for victory even with heavy costs was largely motivated by Mindoir. She never wanted another Mindoir to happen again which is why she joined the long and bloody campaign to rid the Skylian Verge of slavers.

[Jukaga]

StreetMagic wrote...
The other thing I like is how the origins place you. Colonist/War Hero is stationed at Elysium. While Earthborn is on Shore Leave. Earthborn gives me an entirely different idea. That's more like Die Hard or something, where an outsider gets thrust into a situation unexpectantly. And since he's Earthborn, he's probably the relucant hero.. it probably pisses him off that he fell into that situation.

Interesting. Where are those differences mentioned, I don't recall any mention of shore leave for the EB.

[Han Shot First]

The other thing I like is how the origins place you. Colonist/War Hero is stationed at Elysium. While Earthborn is on Shore Leave. Earthborn gives me an entirely different idea.

The Spacer/War Hero combo was on shore leave as well.

Interesting though...I never knew that changes in character origin could have a small effect on the details of the War Hero background.

Is there anywhere else where this occurs?

[congokong]

StreetMagic wrote...
What it says about War Hero is their inclination to rally the civilians. Much different than Ruthless, who will kill the Batarians at any cost. Even their own team. With War Hero, there's an explicit focus on victims, rather than just punishment.

The other thing I like is how the origins place you. Colonist/War Hero is stationed at Elysium. While Earthborn is on Shore Leave. Earthborn gives me an entirely different idea. That's more like Die Hard or something, where an outsider gets thrust into a situation unexpectantly. And since he's Earthborn, he's probably the relucant hero.. it probably pisses him off that he fell into that situation.

I noticed that change in the ME1 codex too but I don't see how it changes anything. Either way Shepard was thrown into the situation of defending Elyssium from the 10,000 batarians. It wasn't by choice. Either stationed or on shore leave the attack was a surprise. Any Shepard would rally civilians in that situation to try to defend the colony. Everything about "ruthless" is voluntary which describes Shepard's personality.

[congokong]

StreetMagic wrote...

I like Earthborn/Ruthless too. You were "assigned" to Torfan. Tha says something entirely different.

All that does is weaken your Shepard's personality clarification pre-game. Anything involuntary says less about who your Shepard is. In colonist/ruthess you chose to rid the Skylian Verge of slavers. That says a lot.

[Han Shot First]

congokong wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
What it says about War Hero is their inclination to rally the civilians. Much different than Ruthless, who will kill the Batarians at any cost. Even their own team. With War Hero, there's an explicit focus on victims, rather than just punishment.

The other thing I like is how the origins place you. Colonist/War Hero is stationed at Elysium. While Earthborn is on Shore Leave. Earthborn gives me an entirely different idea. That's more like Die Hard or something, where an outsider gets thrust into a situation unexpectantly. And since he's Earthborn, he's probably the relucant hero.. it probably pisses him off that he fell into that situation.

I noticed that change in the ME1 codex too but I don't see how it changes anything. Either way Shepard was thrown into the situation of defending Elyssium from the 10,000 batarians. It wasn't by choice. Either stationed or on shore leave the attack was a surprise. Any Shepard would rally civilians in that situation to try to defend the colony. Everything about "ruthless" is voluntary which describes Shepard's personality.

The War Hero background establishes Shepard as an excellent leader. Regardless of origin, he or she ends up like a futuristic Leonidas.

[congokong]

StreetMagic wrote...

congokong wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I like Earthborn/Ruthless too. You were "assigned" to Torfan. Tha says something entirely different.

All that does is weaken your Shepard's personality clarification pre-game. Anything involuntary says less about who your Shepard is. In colonist/ruthess you chose to rid the Skylian Verge of slavers. That says a lot.

They both say a lot. You're just preferring one over the other. That's the fun thing about the game. With Colonist, it seems a bit more personal if you're volunteering. With Earthborn, they seem to already what to expect from you. Like you're the guy called in to do dirty jobs.

Earthborn/Ruthless gets the highest starting Renegade bonus too. While Colonist/Ruthless gets a slight Paragon score. They haven't completely lost their good side, so to speak. That says a lot too.

Ruthless taken alone says you're the guy who does the dirty jobs. Earthborn doesn't contribute anything about Shepard's personality including views on slavers but colonist/ruthless depicts a Shepard who despises slavery.

Whoopie. Earthborn gets 5 more renegade points than colonist. 5 points doesn't say anything about a character. I don't know why they even bothered with such insignificant point variations.

[congokong]

Han Shot First wrote...

congokong wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
What it says about War Hero is their inclination to rally the civilians. Much different than Ruthless, who will kill the Batarians at any cost. Even their own team. With War Hero, there's an explicit focus on victims, rather than just punishment.

The other thing I like is how the origins place you. Colonist/War Hero is stationed at Elysium. While Earthborn is on Shore Leave. Earthborn gives me an entirely different idea. That's more like Die Hard or something, where an outsider gets thrust into a situation unexpectantly. And since he's Earthborn, he's probably the relucant hero.. it probably pisses him off that he fell into that situation.

I noticed that change in the ME1 codex too but I don't see how it changes anything. Either way Shepard was thrown into the situation of defending Elyssium from the 10,000 batarians. It wasn't by choice. Either stationed or on shore leave the attack was a surprise. Any Shepard would rally civilians in that situation to try to defend the colony. Everything about "ruthless" is voluntary which describes Shepard's personality.

The War Hero background establishes Shepard as an excellent leader. Regardless of origin, he or she ends up like a futuristic Leonidas.

It does but it doesn't say anything about Shepard's personality as I've already mentioned. I repeat, ruthless gives personality and military history. A war hero Shepard could easily be a big jerk but there's no believable way that a ruthless Shepard is a saint.

[congokong]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't understand why you're debating anything. I'm just saying people have a chance to sculpt their story differently through these origins. And you're making it an "either/or" situation, with clear right and wrongs. I don't understand.

I'm pointing out that ruthless is the only reputation that provides personality and military highlights. You're disagreeing. Hence the debate.

[congokong]

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm not sure what I'm disagreeing about.. if I am at all.

I'm saying all of these combos have unique pathways/story possibilities. Nothing more.

Then you should have just agreed. I'm reiterating that the only background option that says anything about who you are regarding personality is "ruthless." Colonist/ruthless adds to it because of the slaver connection. Spacer/earthborn contribute nothing.