If there is one argument that will never die in gaming forums, it's this: should your RPG protagonist be someone you create from scratch, or someone the developer created for you?
Baldur's Gate 3 gave me a revelation. I spent hundreds of hours perfecting custom characters, only to realise the RPGs I love most are often defined protagonists like Mass Effect, The Witcher, and Planescape Torment. That contradiction stuck with me, and it turns out I'm not alone.
The Creation Camp
Some players argue that creating and customising your own character is literally the entire point of an RPG, and what makes them appealing in the first place. The reasoning is straightforward: if you design someone from the ground up, you've invested in their journey before the game even starts. Every choice in the story feels like it matters more because it's your character making it.
Baldur's Gate 3 developers emphasised that the game reacts to your character based on who they are, with character creation defining identity and history in ways that shape unique experiences. Players spend hours customising not just looks but backstory and class, then watch those choices ripple through the entire game.
The Predefined Defense
Yet plenty of experienced players have shifted the other way. Many come to prefer premade characters in games because they generally have more personality and better stories attached to them. There's something to this. A developer can write dialogue, design quests, and craft narrative moments around a specific character in ways they can't when the protagonist is a blank canvas.
Games with more defined protagonists tend to make up for the lack of buildcrafting fun with more resonant stories and evocative writing. The Witcher's Geralt is voiced by Doug Cockle with distinctive personality, and while players make big decisions at key narrative moments, a consistent character thread runs through the story.
Where It Gets Complicated
The honest answer is that context matters more than ideology. Linear RPGs generally work better with preset characters, while wide-open RPGs focused on exploring a world rather than following a set plot suit player-made characters better. Some games find hybrid solutions. Mass Effect's approach of offering optional premade characters alongside full customisation is the best compromise, giving both options without forcing either.
There's also the matter of voice acting. Fallout 4's voice-acted player character created a disconnect for some; the gap between written and spoken lines made the game feel less like an RPG to many players. When a protagonist speaks, they take on a personality whether you want them to or not.
The Real Issue
What this debate really exposes is that RPGs are trying to satisfy two different desires at once. Some players want to escape into someone else's story; others want to inhabit a world as themselves. Both desires are legitimate. Both can make for unforgettable gaming experiences.
The games that work best tend to be honest about what they're doing. Baldur's Gate 3 is designed with an eye towards supporting a player's free expression and roleplay, telling players there is no wrong way to play. The Witcher knows you're playing as Geralt and writes to that reality. Neither approach fails; they just serve different needs.
Rather than settling the debate, the real answer might be simpler: play what calls to you. If you want to design your hero, go ahead. If you'd rather meet someone interesting and guide their choices, that's equally valid. Gaming is big enough for both approaches to thrive.