A good example would be skyrim vs oblivion. This is not about which game is better it’s about the role you play. If you don’t follow the main questline in skyrim you don’t even know about your fate but when you do it becomes basically the typically you are the chosen one yada yada. In oblivion you are a nobody and you have earn ev everything by yourself to become someone which is my preferable way in rpgs. I’m not against this typical hero scenario but it feels more adventurous if you are just a random guy like in rl. Or another example would be new vegas and fallout 4.

I feel the exact same way.

That was actually the main reason I loved Dragon Age games so much. For example, DA2 might be a bad game in multiple ways but I loved it anyway because I was just a random guy, trying to run away from monsters. Trying to save my mom and sister.

"The Chosen one" or "only you can save us" type of games became like jokes to me. It doesn't feel like I am accomplishing success against the odds but doing something that I am supposed to do where not doing is a failure.

I think Heartless are the more serious roleplayers, but that's because Nobidies tend to be moody and standoffish.

No, nobodies are not better to roleplay, because when the concept is implemented, 99%+ of the time, writing the character to be a "random guy" means that your character is not even a character, and it has no personality or characterization to it whatsoever.

So it doesn't even feel like you are playing as a real person.

More like a cardboard cut-out, or a mannequin, or an android with no personality programmed into it, or something like that.

And that is true of a lot of the so-called (but not really) "best" RPGs, like Vampire Bloodlines, and Fallout: New Vegas, and any other games that follow that horrible templates of not bothering to give any characterization or personality or depth to the main character.

Yeah, absolutely.

I very much prefer the Elden Ring approach, ie "a Tarnished of no renown" making their way through countless foes and incredibly strong bosses, just to become the new Elden Lord. Or kill everything in the process.

Now compare this to the "chosen one" approach, used for example in Diablo III: it's utter, ridiculous, annoying and stupid garbage, this one.

Because serious rpgs give you the options to play the character you want. You choose the personality in dialogues and what you do. You probably are more into movie games where everything is written for you. Rpgs aren’t for everyone Yeah same. Well hero stories got its place too but ist already over-done at this point. Same goes for prewritten charactes…. games basically become action adventures instead of rpgs. True rpgs always give you as much freedom as possible. Building your own canon

You're just a random guy. Are you not a character with a personality?

Crap writing is crap writng, and Bethesda is the cream of the crap. Plenty of self made heroes with no fate around!

Not always.

Fated one/Chosen one/etc is a hackneyed trope, but still can be done well and an entertaining story.
The same is true of the Bob Nobody farmer/criminal/exile/whatever.

Oftentimes, the latter one is better for world development because it excuses info dumps, exposition, and learning about the world without disbelief of "Why WTF doesn't my character know this?" (Well, the player wouldn't, and the player needs to learn of it!) This is why so many jRPGs and the like use teens, too. "They don't know about the world yet."

While not RPGs (though adjacent and close), Aloy was a nobody -and- a chosen one in HZD, but also a teen, and an exile. It made exploring the world and learning the history (and what a great setting it is) great. In the sequel, HFW she's kind of the "I know about as much as anyone can" expert, and her reputation precedes her basically everywhere. They had to use some twisting to bring some novel elements in. It wasn't quite as awesome (though still good).

On what ARD alludes to, the "fixed character" vs "variable player chosen character" also has a lot of similar distinctions. Very careful writing is needed to make it work, and this can much more easily fall flat. [Still not RPGs, but adjacent] Nioh 1's pretty damned fun story (where you're a set character) vs Nioh 2's pretty crap story delivery (where you're a player-created whatever) is an example of this distinction.

As Enebias said, though -- crap is crap. It's all about the quality of what's put into it. And oftentimes being the wizened, already-famous fated one is going to be way harder to write and develop around.

But then there's the whole "self insertion" aspect. That's down to personality. If you can find yourself identifying as the pre-defined awesomesauce character and enjoy it still, or if you need a beige mannequin to be able to bring yourself into the game. I'm good with both, but I have a lot of time spent playing tabletop RPGs that might help with adaptation to the former.

Strictly speaking, from what I remember, you hardly "roleplay" at all in Elder Scrolls games. You just play an RPG type of game. For the quality of actual "roleplaying" it would not matter much whether the role you play is given to you or one of your own invention, what matters would be how you play it (how you talk, what choices you make).

It seems to me the real topic of this thread is: "Don't you prefer it as well if the character in an RPG is a blank slate and you are not restricted by any Chosen One type of storytelling?" Admittedly, that would be too long for a title ... ;D

And my answer would be that I prefer something in between. A backstory that is more personal and more exciting than the same old Chosen One / Save the World cliché, yet open enough to allow me to play or roleplay my character any way I want.

Depends on the mood, sometimes I want to write my own story and other times I want to hear a really good one. So, I think both are good.

As a general thing, I would like to see more games that take a more grounded approach to their settings and stories. There are so many games in which you are the prophesied savior who will obtain the Ultimate Whatsitcalled and save the universe from the Dark Overlord, but relatively few in which you play as a relatively ordinary person who enters a new place and has to adapt and simply survive whatever it throws at you. Basically, there are a lot of epic fantasy Lord of the Rings ripoffs, not too many Conan-like games.

Its much more interesting to build the character by your own and if your decisions actually matter. Its way more immersive that way but i get if someone prefers everything pre written

Honestly, I wish there was more variety in how the player character is defined without sacrificing open ended roleplaying. Maybe in a medieval fantasy game, I'm an established lord of some sort who becomes a knight-errant and does various things, kinda like in Sword of the Samurai, but I'm not tied down in terms of characterization, or a wanted criminal that has to keep a low profile, something other than yet another Guyman Manguy who wakes up and then adventure happens and is also secretly a powerful godlike figure, but only after murdering a series of betentacled dino-apes and oddly powerful bandits.

Reminds me of a scene from early Dragon Quest 5 (when the protagonist is still a kid, I believe a 6 year old at this point). You example a sign, and it says something like "Danger! Keep out!" (and the game tells you this), but it's then followed by the message "But %charname can't read!" (replace "charname" with the name you entered at the start of the game).