Why Death is important

[Monte Carlo]

Hello.

 

I'm not playing many games at the moment. Posting on this forum is, ironically, eating into that but I'm cool. What I am playing is a game of Icewind Dale with a party of evil desperadoes. I am being fairly strict: no re-loads.

 

By the time I got to Kuldahar I had two characters left and had to spend 400gp on Raise Dead. This was fun. Why? Because the route to Kuldahar was tough. I made some crap decisions (I swapped out my normal ranged fighter specialist for a Ftr/ Drd and paid for it, she's awful at level 1/1).

 

Death as a mechanic can make or break a game. Having a party get smaller and smaller, making you think more and more (to the point where you might just quit and start again) is good.

 

I'll say that again: Getting your ass handed to you because you were crap is good.

[Merin]

I'm assuming this is a thread about not allowing "beaten" companions to just pop back up after the end of combat?

 

If that's the gist of the message - I'll add a +1 to the sentiment.

 

There could be a "casual" difficulty that allowed it, I'd be okay with that. But, yeah, dying in a fight should be possible.

[Monte Carlo]

I have no problem with difficulty sliders. Folks should be able to play the way they like, but IMO normal setting should at least give people the chance to experience a difficulty setting that makes them think and use the options the game offers.

[Tamerlane]

Counterpoint: I hate Raise Dead.

 

I really, really do. Does terrible things to a setting. Cheapens death. C'mon, Jaheira, we raised this guy a billion times in the last game. And with PE's small cast, I dunno how well perma-death without a raise dead option would work. Works in Xcom or Fire Emblem with their randomly generated/huge-ass casts, but PE... eh.

[Knott]

Death is dramatic, and it makes for a good story.

 

In a game however, the main reason that characters don't die and are simply knocked out is because a step is skipped. A majority of people will reload a save game if there is a death and many of them will get annoyed about it for some reason or another. Thus in modern games that step is skipped. Instant regeneration of health and other perishables are also the result of skipping a step.

 

I think that there can be found a middle ground here on some things and the rest should be covered by the difficulty options.

 

My general and rather pragmatic opinion is to let the masocists have it their way, so long as their way is not sadistically forced upon everyone else.

(Also customizable difficulty options have already been acheived with the 2,3M strech-goal)

[Tale]

Counterpoint: I hate Raise Dead.

 

I really, really do. Does terrible things to a setting. Cheapens death. C'mon, Jaheira, we raised this guy a billion times in the last game. And with PE's small cast, I dunno how well perma-death without a raise dead option would work. Works in Xcom or Fire Emblem with their randomly generated/huge-ass casts, but PE... eh.

I'm about here, too. However, if we get the Adventurer's Hall, I can see a scenario where I'd actually enjoy death. On a second or third playthrough, I may actually stop reloading from companion death. And use the opportunity to create replacements from the hall.

[Tamerlane]

Aye, very fair point about the Adventurer's Hall. Forgot about that.

[Enoch]

Counterpoint: I hate Raise Dead.

 

I really, really do. Does terrible things to a setting. Cheapens death. C'mon, Jaheira, we raised this guy a billion times in the last game. And with PE's small cast, I dunno how well perma-death without a raise dead option would work. Works in Xcom or Fire Emblem with their randomly generated/huge-ass casts, but PE... eh.

 

I mostly agree. Although I do think it is possible to allay this concern by taking replacing what used to be called "dead" with "functionally useless."

 

Serious Injuries are Fun! And I'm not talking about any of this mamby-pampy Fallout- or DAO-style "you have a leg injury-- 20% movement speed reduction and -2 to Reflex Saves!" I'm talking more "You have a compound fracture of your left femur, and you are feverish from the infection of the associated flesh wound-- the party straps you to the back of their mule, and you cannot participate in combat, spellcasting, conversation, or any other adventuring activities beyond breathing and feverish delirium."

 

The game-mechanic results are functionally the same: unless you have access to high-level healing abilities in the Party, you've got to haul that guy and all his stuff back to town for some expensive and/or time consuming healing. But you get that result without shattering too much of the relateability of the Human Experience between the player's world and the gameworld.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Enoch

[Tale]

I don't know why I haven't seen any games steal from Star Wars Galaxies. If you were incapped, when you got back up, there was a penalty on maximum health/stamina(?)/mind. And if you triple incapped in a short period of time, then you die.

 

I would be okay with that kind of death system. Maybe they take some serious hit to their HP stat after being downed once. And another serious hit. And by the third, they have no more max HP to hit, so they die. Then there's a strategic consideration. Do I go back to town/camp and heal it? Do I waste limited resources to heal it? Do I just push on and risk worse? You're penalized for the failure still, but it's not permanent until you keep failing. And each time you fail, it becomes harder to push on, so there's a continuing element.

[Tamerlane]

I don't know why I haven't seen any games steal from Star Wars Galaxies. If you were incapped, when you got back up, there was a penalty on maximum health/stamina(?)/mind. And if you triple incapped in a short period of time, then you die.

 

I would be okay with that kind of death system. Maybe they take some serious hit to their HP stat after being downed once. And another serious hit. And by the third, they have no more max HP to hit, so they die. Then there's a strategic consideration. Do I go back to town/camp and heal it? Do I waste limited resources to heal it? Do I just push on and risk worse? You're penalized for the failure still, but it's not permanent until you keep failing. And each time you fail, it becomes harder to push on, so there's a continuing element.

That sounds vaguely similar to... Breath of Fire 3, actually. At least, I think that was the only game in that series that used that kind of system. Minus the "three and you're dead" rule, that is.

 

I don't really remember how well it worked in that game because I haven't played it since I was, like, 13.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Tamerlane

[Cantousent]

Enoch's plan is actually pretty damned good. It manages a delicate balance between the jarring notion that every felled combatant simply hops up as long as one of the party survives and the 'reloading is frustrating' or 'raise dead sucks' crowd. In Pen and Paper, I never even give access to raise dead for many levels and it's always associated with not only hefty expenditures but also questing. On the other hand, having someone wave a hand to instantly heal someone of grave wounds instantly isn't that much less jarring than having someone wave a hand and rez someone. At some point, folks will have to suspend disbelief.

 

EDIT: my usual of typos, forgetting to put in words, and other nonsense.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Cantousent

[GhostofAnakin]

I'm one of those re-loaders, at least on my first play through, if a party member dies and it's a game with perma-death.

 

Mainly for me, it's because a]I chose that specific party member for their skills and want to see it through to the end and b]if there's a sidequest associated with the companion, or if there's background information associated with the companion, I'd like to learn about it.

 

On subsequent play throughs, the gloves come off though.

[TCJ]

I prefer that companions can die. In BG2, this may not have been a major problem because you can usually raise them with ease, but in BG1, your characters did not have the option of doing that. You had to get back to the temple and pay gold for it -- gold that I'd much have preferred to spend on a new suit of armor rather than raising a character I didn't want but have to raise because I'm playing a good party!

 

Make death a real possibility. Make raise something that is NOT easy to obtain. Those who wish to avoid the complications of it can just reload. Those that want to deal with it don't reload. Seems simple enough to me.

[Monte Carlo]

I think all of the comments and preferences in this thread are cool, because of course we are going to have all these funky difficulty options... but maybe on a second playthru some people might choose to take a walk... on the DEAD side.

[el pinko grande]

I'm definitely part of the crowd that hates any kind of ressurection magic. Death needs to be meaningful, IMO, and it isn't if a few thousand gold donated to the right god can reverse it.

[Nonek]

Walking wounded, dragging the corpses of their compatriots trumps regenerating health anyday. I'd also make a ressurection a miraculous event however, that changes the character given a second chance at life. Maybe a feat unlocks for that character weakening their souls efficacy, or they find themselves beholden to the deity who granted them their twiceborn status.

 

I wouldn't allow a second ressurection however: To lose one life may be considered to be a misfortune, to lose two must be attributed to carelessness.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Nonek

[Cantousent]

On my second or third run, I'm using every hardcore option there is. So I can come here and brag? Of course not. I'd never do that. So I can come here and brag while pretending I'm above such things? :Cant's shifty-eyed grin icon:

[Jaesun]

Counterpoint: I hate Raise Dead.

 

I really, really do. Does terrible things to a setting.

 

This eleventy million times.

[anek]

In a game however, the main reason that characters don't die and are simply knocked out is because a step is skipped. A majority of people will reload a save game if there is a death and many of them will get annoyed about it for some reason or another. Thus in modern games that step is skipped. Instant regeneration of health and other perishables are also the result of skipping a step.

 

But it's not the same thing.

 

If you reload, you'll have an advantage (you'll know exactly what the encounter is going to be, and can prepare well), but you're still gonna have to actually confront it again, and win. This can actually be quite an educative experience for new players, because it really forces you to try all options that the game provides, which you might not have tried so far, to push the outcome of the battle to your favor. For example, buff spells are something new players tend to blatantly disregard (a spell description of "+2 attack bonus for 6 rounds" just doesn't sound as exciting as "Fireball"), until they are confronted with a fight they simply can not win without them.

 

If on the other hand everyone automatically resurrects / regains full health after the fight, you get to move on without having actually properly won the fight even once.

 

So no, I don't think auto-resurrection/regeneration is simply a shortcut for the traditional save+reload mechanic.

It dumbs combat down to a whole different level.

Edited October 5, 2012 by anek

[Merin]

I think I actually, weighing one against the other, prefer the companions getting back up after a fight than the assumption that losing a fight and reloading to try again is desired.

 

If there's one thing I hate about games with staggered save points, or most platformers... is doing the same thing over and over again, trying to get it right.

 

I don't mind failing. If I lose badly and have to reload, so be it.

 

But advocating fail / reload to redo / rinse / repeat as a positive? Uhm, no.

[DocDoomII]

I think something like falling unconscious to the ground when HP is 0 and then you have a certain amount of time to be healed or you'll really die.

If everyone get knocked out then is game over.

 

By getting unconscious you could get a permanent injury that require something more serious on the healing front to be fixed.

Edited October 5, 2012 by DocDoomII

[Umberlin]

I can agree, to an extent, that death is important, but how death occurs, and what happens after are also important. Simple game over screens aren't as interesting as some of the . . . . shall we say 'postmortems' that many of the older games provided. An essential, "Why you failed" like watching the Fire Elemental destroy the city in QfG II if you don't stop it, or Iblis wreak havoc upon the land. Avoozl rising. That sort of stuff. Context sensitive death and game overs.

 

I do wonder if . . . simply going unconscious in battle might lessen the impact of death. Dunno . . . maybe less 'unconsious' and more a downed state, a fight for your life time, a last ditch effort? I'm not sure that has a place either though. It's hard to decide. I see the reasoning, I'm just not sure of its impact.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Umberlin

[DocDoomII]

Uh, a horrible though crossed my mind and I felt a chill down my spine.

You know, thinking about souls and how they are important in P:E world, about reincarnation, 'body-pooling' of souls...

 

I hope that to defeat the last boss the game won't pull a Saint Seiya on us with party members sacrificing themselves to boost our soul with their...

Edited October 5, 2012 by DocDoomII