As Special As You Make Them

I'd like for Ryder to be important because they are capable, not because they are "the chosen one." That's what I liked about Fallout New Vegas. The Courier was just a normal person who people started taking notice of because they could get stuff done. Don't make us the hero, let us become the hero.

I think I'd rather our influence remained, on the whole, middling. We've command of a ship, and our position as Pathfinder - going by the leak, anyway - gives us the authority to decide which planets are worth establishing a greater presence on, and which are not. That's a lot of power, right there, but it's couched entirely within our role as a scout for the expedition, and so we're ultimately beholden to a greater authority, whether that's the expedition's scientific, military or political leadership.

With that, I think I'd rather we felt somewhat powerless when it comes to anything outside of our direct influence as a Pathfinder. As in, the player should have agency over Ryder - what she says, does and thinks about a given situation, at least to a greater extent than, say, Mass Effect 3 - but Ryder herself - and therefor the player - should feel that her ability to influence things in the wider world is limited, by both the forces arrayed against her - the Khet, I suppose - and more powerful individuals within the expedition, whether they be political leaders or her military commanders.

I just find that, when my power as the player character is limited, the world tends to feel substantially larger and more significant, simply by virtue of it not revolving entirely around me. Dragon Age II is a flawed, but still good, example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, as is The Witcher 3.

In such a world, whenever you do actually manage to change something, even if it's something 'small' in the grand scheme of things, like improving the life of a single individual, that change tends to feel more significant - well, provided it's done well; say, the individual in question is actually a well-established character who you've come to care about, as opposed to simply 'NPC #22' - than you'd think. Or, at least, that's been my experience. It lends itself to a more personal form of storytelling in games, where smaller stakes can feel every bit as meaningful as the fate of entire galaxies.

EDIT: Rereading it, my answer has more to do with the character's level of influence than the source of that influence, which was more the spirit of the original question. So, I'll say that I'd definitely prefer that what influence Ryder does have is more derived from her own personal prestige - her accomplishments and, more specifically, how she went about achieving them/who they most benefited (I'd like a quasi-reputation system) - her relationships - just as an example, you do a favour for/befriend an up-and-coming politician, and later they're in a position to help you out - and her rank/position as Pathfinder. BioWare protagonists are almost always 'marked by fate', somehow, and while I don't have any particular problem with that kind of protagonist, I've played as so many of them by now that I find it refreshing when the concept is avoided/subverted, as it was with Hawke in DA2, and Geralt in TW3.

Shepard was double special: the Beacon and then, you know, resurrected by Cerberus. Pretty hard to top that.

Another vote for balance: not Captain Kirk, but not a red shirt either. Maybe a bit like Cyrano Jones?

This - particularly the bit about being faced with tough choices on obeying/disobeying orders on missions, with a follow-up in the debrief -  sounds great, and that's speaking as someone who loved snarking the Council, and who loves playing snarky arseholes in general. Facing consequences for our actions is a massive part of making the world feel alive, and like it's reacting to the player. That said, not all of these consequences should be negative; each potential attitude you can adopt should come with it's own advantages and drawbacks.

For example:

"If Ryder is caught defying orders enough times then Ryder is locked out of certain options later on. One such option could involve Ryder needing their superiors to believe Ryder but because of Ryder's previous disobedience, they don't. A non-story consequence could be that something is detracted like credits if Ryder disobeys an order and is found out."

This should definitely happen. But, as some options are locked out, others ought to open up. Say, one of Ryder's superiors needs help with a project they're running on the sly; if Ryder's been a by-the-books soldier the whole game, there's no chance this superior would let her in on it, 'cause she'd know Ryder would just report her to the others. However, if Ryder's demonstrated a certain... Flexibility when it comes to the rules, said superior might be willing to take a chance on trusting her.

That's just an example, of course, but you get the basic idea. Discouraging specific styles of roleplaying should be, well, discouraged, but that doesn't mean we should all simply be treated the same, no matter how we play. Instead, different paths should open and close based on the kind of person we roleplay.

Also, and this is partly a concession to resource constraints, not all consequences should be severe--in plenty of cases, a simple change in dialogue will suffice. For example, if Ryder's generally good at following orders, but is also kind of a sarky prick, I think it'd be fine if she just had a somewhat less congenial relationship with her superiors - they're exasperated by her; she sometimes takes the piss out of them - than a more polite Ryder, but with a similar level of trust/respect.

Like many posters here, I'd like to have a break from more "special by circumstance" protagonists in favour of someone who is normal and achieves their reputation through their own character and actions. I don't have anything against those stories, but I'd like a change.

Personally, I never found Shepard as special as some did, simply because the Cypher only came up a couple of times, mostly in the first game, the resurrection barely enhanced them, and they were already famous when ME1 started. I'm not saying those things weren't there, but I always thought Shep's charisma, willpower, and natural leadership were more important in-story. Like Hawke. The Inquisitor was a bit much with the awesome power of the Anchor and being a religious icon to boot. Sure, Shepard has been called Space Jesus, but Quizzy was literally Fantasy Jesus.

So next round, let's take one of DA2's more interesting aspects and expand on that. Let's have someone who starts small (whose father had some degree of notoriety, and who has a sibling), then slowly gains reputation and influence as the story progresses over the first game and beyond. Sometime through the game, possibly after the first act, they might be instrumental in doing something heroic (whether they have a heroic personality or not), like saving a colony from a Khet assault. "Ryder, saviour of Eden Prime [something], hero of The Citadel [insert planet name]!" So then they'll be about on par with how Shep was perceived before the Prothean Beacon or stopping Saren. By the end of the first game, they'll be equivalent to Shepard after ME1. Et cetera.

But I want them to do it not because of luck, but because of skill, whether than means intelligence, combat-proficiency, negotiating skills, whatever. Something about them, not a fluke occurrence that could have happened to anyone, like getting the Cypher or the Mark. Maybe they'll even acquire something "special" in a subsequent game, and if they establish themselves before that, I won't even mind. Which, again, is partly why I didn't mind Shep's Cypher: they already did noteworthy things themselves before getting it, already proved themselves.

Let's not go there.


Different classes have differences in carrying capacity because of tech, not inherent strength.
Okay, even ignoring the sexist overtones that would cause (sorry, I don't buy the "not weaker, just different" thing), I don't think that would make sense within the lore. I'm not calling you sexist, by the way, I just think that if they did that, the game would appear that way.

Every Alliance soldier goes through mandatory genetic augmentation, the extent of which is not clear. These soldiers also wear power armour, which augments their abilities as well, even more if ME fields are used (though it's not confirmed exactly how). Carrying around 5 small-arms and a heavy weapon was never even something close to an issue for female Shepard before, nor was carrying 5 weapons for any other character in ME1, so why should it be for female Ryder? The weight mechanic makes no sense anyway, it's just a gameplay thing. Guns should be very light in ME, but that's ignoring the ME fields every gun has and uses to operate, which could easily negate the entire mass of the weapon, and thus the difficulty of carrying it.

With strength coming from many factors that don't include the body itself (armour, strength enhancers, biotics, mass effect fields [indirectly] etc.), I can't imagine the difference between a fit male and a fit female making any substantial difference in combat in the ME verse.

I've never seen an example of a smaller character with a smaller hitbox actually working well. And the size difference isn't very large anyway, so female Ryder would be at quite a disadvantage there. Regardless, I don't want to have any gameplay changes depending on which gender I want my character to be. The only thing that should change is itself. It should be about roleplaying, not gameplay.

Aside from the fact that that wouldn't make sense, that type of thing would only possibly be good in a dual-protagonist game where you alternate between people. It's not the same in a roleplaying game where you make a single character. It limits choices. And actually, it does sort of make her look weak, yes. "Why not do the same for gender?" It's not at all comparable to picking a class, because each gender can pick any class. It isn't comparable because it shouldn't make any significant difference anyway. It's not comparable because class is mostly a gameplay choice, while gender is an RP choice.

As much as I wouldn't like gameplay changes based on gender-selection, roleplaying depending on that would be infinitely worse. Not to mention that I think having things like diplomacy and bonding be worse for a male protagonist, for no other reason than because he's male, is a huge problem. I'll leave it at that for now. Further, it's a crime against roleplaying. A player shouldn't have to choose between playing a character as the gender they want to and... well, anything. It should be its own choice, separated from any other choices. Each should have equal opportunity and skills, as it currently is.

Having things be this different doesn't do anyone any good, for roleplaying or for being progressive, which, like it or not, is something Bioware tries to be. At that point, you might as well have set personalities - no, you already do. It's no longer an RPG, it's a shooter with RPG elements. That's not what ME started as, and it's not what I'd like it to end up as.

Uh... It already is more than "adding hips and breasts to character design and swapping out voice actors" (and I'll ignore the androcentrism there - wait, I technically failed), it's choosing gender. Choosing the gender of your character is its own meaningful RP choice, it doesn't need to be anything more than it currently is. It shouldn't influence personality, just as choosing class shouldn't. Class/gender recognition is a separate discussion entirely. Luckily, I doubt Bioware is going to do this, though, so it's academic.

OMG.
I just realized...
Notorius father...
a sibling from the other gender...
a mother which we (as the players) know very little about...
...
Are we going to play as the Human version of The Vakarians? 

Having gender account for a wide variety of differences in stats wouldn't improve the game mechanics in any way; it would just create needless complication that just feels arbitrary, especially when you get to stuff like non-combat stats like the ability to pass certain persuasion checks, and considering that this is a futuristic backdrop with augmentation, advanced body armor and weapons and "space magic" powers. 

I think the most likely scenario, given what we already know about the game, is that Ryder will be fairly young and inexperienced compared to someone like Shepard. I'd like it if there was nothing to set them apart from anybody else at the start of the game, but as it progresses, your actions gain you more recognition and respect. It could be making a discovery, it could be saving somebody/something important, but it should be as a result of the things you do as opposed to being "chosen" for something (i.e: the mark in DAI, the cipher in ME1).

I've also been thinking about the relationship between Ryder and her father for a while now (I don't think the sibling will have a huge part to play). It would be interesting if, as some have suggested, the father has gone rogue or gone missing and people react to Ryder in different ways because of it. Ryder might be out to prove herself and show she's not gone bad like her father, or she might be defensive of him and insist he's done nothing wrong or was justified etc. This could maybe lead to some of the authority figures treating Ryder in different ways, depending on your choices.

I really hope the words ‘Ryder has orders to’ and 'superiors reprimanding' are few and far between. In frontier setting I really hope main objectives given by the Pathfinder division are more general(find out what's going on with Khet etc)and the means flexible, rather than rigid sets of specific mission by mission directives, after which we are patted on head or scolded.

I would like the protagonist to have as much influence as they can justly claim to take... that is to say... everyone they can persuade con-sensually the sky is the limit. 

Well I think that's literally what you just said. 

The credit to exercise that power, the one of "consensual cooperation" I suppose comes from an even higher power.