Main Character Dies... Game over or...?

[Osvir]

I guess another way to look at it is, is the game going to be more:

 

- "I have to protect this character!"?

or

- "I have to protect this world!"?

 

Is the Event substantial enough to allow motivations for the companion characters to continue on the struggle? Is there a reason they can't continue because of the main character? Would they just "Oh noes, he be dead, can we maybe use his body and carry it with us... just to play hardcore okay?".

 

Or does the "Event" matter anything to the companions at all? Do they want to continue to fight on or will they address another situation that is of greater value to the world in their view? Could someone else suddenly take on the role of "leadership" and direction? How deep are they edged into the Event of the world or whatever?

Edited December 25, 2012 by Osvir

[Sacred_Path]

Keeping the character alive and being prepared for anything is the whole charm of Ironman challenge.

 

You think that keeping exactly that arbitrary one of your 6 characters alive is the whole point of Ironman? Excuse me when I say lol what.

 

There are many reasons to play Ironman. Living with the consequences of your choices: Thinking two to three steps ahead at all times. Carefully organizing your characters, your inventories, the gold you spend, the items you use (up). Thinking about if you really need to rest/ travel somewhere if you might be attacked. Thinking about exactly what you want to say to an NPC. Considering if an attempt to pick someone's pocket is worth the trouble it can get you into. Trying to carry on when one or more of your characters died (!!!). Trying to get your characters into favorable formations/ positions. Always scouting ahead because you want all the information you can get on enemies.

 

As far as we know now the game is designed in such a way that characters can be relatively easily replaced. You'd have to come up with a very good explanation why exactly one character out of all characters in the game world is an exception to this. "He IS the story, stupid!" falls flat both in ingame terms (isn't there actually a quest that the party is on as a whole?) as well as meta-game (meh, I should have kept that one character twenty feet behind everyone else. Silly me).

 

The whole point is to know a tactic for every creature and every major dungeon and being prepared.

 

Seems like I have to repeat myself, but here goes:

 

1.) Having a strictly rock-paper-scissors system (attacks and defenses) doesn't challenge my skills at all tactics-wise. I've been through the game once, I know that "protection from death magic" will make that beholder a whole damn bit less challenging.

 

2.) If there are no fail-proof ways to keep characters safe, then it becomes entirely a game of chance in many cases. I've already mentioned death magic and high-damage spells. But it could be anything really, like maybe smart (gasp) archers concentrating their fire on one character in a way you couldn't prevent (let's say you did not send this character up first). You might have to pull one tank back and that ogre tramples right over your mage. All of that is cool, adds to the challenge. I hope it will happen in the game, death is ok, perma-death is ok. What sucks is a restriction that says "it just cannot happen to that one character!".

[GrinningReaper659]

I guess another way to look at it is, is the game going to be more:

 

- "I have to protect this character!"?

or

- "I have to protect this world!"?

 

It really has nothing to do with this, "I have to protect this character" shouldn't be the mindset, it should be "I have to protect myself and my companions." You're simply not grasping the concept of playing the role of a character. Of course, if you were to permanently die, your companions may go on without you to accomplish your shared goals (depending on their motivations), but you wouldn't be around to see it, that's the point. You are playing the role of your character, so if they die, the story is over for you, not for the world or your companions. It has nothing to do with prioritizing yourself over the world or any other ego-related nonsense, it's about perspective and roleplaying. You are an individual, and in games such as these (BG, PS:T, etc.) you are playing the role of an individual.

[GrinningReaper659]

What sucks is a restriction that says "it just cannot happen to that one character!".

 

That "one character" is supposed to be you... It seems that you guys just don't want to play games where you're playing the role of an individual. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's an entirely different sort of game when you see a mass of replaceable characters being controlled by the player vs. the player assuming the role of an individual. There's nothing illogical about the game ending when the main character dies, that is the end of your (the player's) story. It doesn't mean that the quest that you and your party were on has ended, just that your life has.

 

That being said, I agree that random insta-death mechanics are often pretty lame and are not tactically challenging, so I'd agree with doing away with them in most cases. However, doing away with playing a single character that causes the game to end upon death is not something I'm okay with, it changes the entire nature of the game.

[Sacred_Path]

The bottom line is you have one save you die the game is over. Ergo - keeping the main character in BG or the party in IWD alive, it depends if the game is about a party or a single character.

 

Except that a game like P:E (or in fact BG) doesn't fit into any one category for the exact reason that, while you have one main character, the game is also balanced around a party of characters. Well, scratch that for BG, balance wasn't a strong point of those games.

 

This is one reason where I hope P:E will be different, I hope the game is well balanced on all difficulty levels, but punishes you harshly on higher difficulties if you make sub-optimal choices. That includes sort-of-frequent character deaths. I hope it has become clear to you by now that there's a slight logical problem with a character whose death ends the whole game.

 

Being the main character, the leader, the chosen one etc. is a reason enough.

 

You're not exactly a discerning customer, are you? ô.O

 

 

There are no other tactic than paper-rock-scissor. You can only have several types of papers, scissors or rocks to choose from, that's it. That's called tactics replying to opponents paper with the best pair of scissors you have.

 

good to see you ignored my point (or maybe bad to see you didn't get it).

 

- making a monster dangerous by giving it exactly one way to be dangerous (insta-death-ray) and exactly one way to prevent that = rock paper scissors. A system that is vastly more complex than that doesn't deserve this labeling, obviously.

 

 

You never played chess haven't you? You can loos a rook, a knight, bishop etc. Loosing the King makes you loose the game, that are the rules.

 

Except that mechanics-wise, your character isn't any different at all from other characters of the same class and race (as far as we know now). Even if you are special in any way I suspect it will be along the lines of those special abilities you had in BG (IOW p. useless). So don't even try to compare it to chess (and hell, I'm not even bringing up the point that for this comparison to be viable, the whole combat system needs to be built around the fact that your character is at the center of it all. Seriously!).

 

Also I'm not sure you understand the implications of this as it would affect the entire game. If that is the premise, every companion's dialogue must be centered around what they can do to keep the "glorious leader" alive. It's just flippin hilarious to imagine that the premise should be that this one character must survive at all costs why everyone else is pretty much throwaway material.

[Althernai]

Actually, the main character is mechanically different from all of the others and that's why I'm almost sure that his/her death will mean Game Over (unless it's scripted). Think about it from the point of view of the people scripting the various conversations and events. Mechanically, the protagonist is the interface by means which the player interacts with the world. If he or she dies, someone else has to become this interface. Even if the character is not irreplaceable (i.e. if the game does not revolve around a Bhaalspawn or a near-immortal or something of the sort), there is no good way to do this if all of the companions have personalities. It would lead to absurd situations because the player's choices may be at odds with this personality.

 

Of course, a scripted death (i.e. at a predetermined time and place in the plot) is different -- Chrono Trigger did the most extended version of this. Jade Empire did it too and (debatably) so did Baldur's Gate 2. However, a random death in battle will mean Game Over.

[AGX-17]

When the player character dies, that's generally called "game over" in most games.

 

If your character dies, your game should blow up in your DVD tray so you can never again play it. Now that's hardcore RPGing.

 

But this is a PC game, PCs don't run games off of discs (at least not for over a decade.) And most players will be playing via digital download. It should fry your HD in hardcore modes.

Edited December 25, 2012 by AGX-17

[AGX-17]

When the player character dies, that's generally called "game over" in most games.

 

If your character dies, your game should blow up in your DVD tray so you can never again play it. Now that's hardcore RPGing.

 

But this is a PC game, PCs don't run games off of discs (at least not for over a decade.) And most players will be playing via digital download. It should fry your HD in hardcore modes.

 

Maybe if the PC get killed then the game should send the coordinates and someone should come to your home to kill you. That would be super hardcore and really immersive.

 

Obsidian can't afford to hire assassins or the legal fees they'll need to defend themselves from all the mass murder and conspiracy to commit mass murder charges.

[Karkarov]

If the main character dies, why wouldn't I be able to continue on the story? Forton died, but I can still continue the game. Why is the main character and Forton different in this case? Obvious answer is "Because Forton isn't the main character". I'm looking for some "common sense" in some sort of form...

 

"Because he isn't the main character" is common sense...

Common sense rules the day at the Friendly Arm Inn.

 

Forton is a NPC who is a member of my party. He is important, but he isn't MY character. Or to borrow my own words "... who is a member of my party". In other words my character is the boss, not Forton.

 

It doesn't matter if there is some super power or not that makes it imperative that my character is there to defeat the baddies. What matters is that the main character is MY character and this is MY characters story. Not Forton's.

[Failion]

hard to care and get attached to to a silent protagonist. It would be better instead if they have fleshed out neutral mercenary companies that can die, you can choose their fate.

[Osvir]

What if you don't need your character, but merely his body?

 

This way, if the main character dies, your party has to carry around the body everywhere or stash it until needed in plot. Hardcore?

Or to be able to resurrect as an undead later

 

I am not advocating for this idea because I want an easy game, but an interesting game with lots of options. You're talking to me as if I don't know how to roleplay a character... I prefer to roleplay a story, rather than an individual character. What is the threat of the world that makes the party move forward? Why is the main character so important? In Baldur's Gate I felt the Candlekeep guy that was thrown at us was rather uninspiring and hard to have fun with (which is why I made up my character, a second character, in a multiplayer game who follows the Bhaalspawn around. Now that's roleplaying folks!).

 

If my Luke Skywalker dies, I'd like to be able to (as an option) to continue with Chewbacca, Han Solo & Leia, I'd like to try and defeat Darth Vader without him. Likewise, if Han Solo dies, I'd still like to move on. If my entire party gets obliterated (which should be often on Hardcore, if you do not play carefully/tactically) then that should be (in my opinion) game over. So encounters in P:E should be difficult as is that getting a new companion, and loosing a new companion, should both be difficult stuff to manage and deal with. This means that your character should be mortal as well, just as much as Forton is. "Mortality is a big business" to quote Josh. And unless the main character is some generic "Key to the Future!" type character then I can understand "Game Over". If not, we could get something new or something that twists the story depending on "chance". The point*

 

Game A: Main character dies early game

Game B: Main character dies mid-game

Game C: Main character dies late game

Game D: Main character doesn't die

 

All 4 of these would create new situations, Game A (as an example) would play the story you are playing differently from Game B.

 

I hope that Hardcore makes it difficult for me, regardless if the main player dies or not. Making a poll about this -> (Economy & Difficulty) it is related to this whole idea and thread:

 

With a higher difficulty, wouldn't everything cost much more? Some mods with BG made the Iron Crisis, Bandit Raids and Iron Items all more difficult to handle (weapons/armor breaking more regularly, bandit raids actually matter through the entire game and all Iron/Steel weapons costs a fortune). If a Short Sword costs 15 Gold on a regular mode, with these "Tactical Mod" settings the Short Sword would cost around 100~ gold. Not to mention that it'd probably break in the first fight against those more difficult bandit raids. It made the game challenging and way more immersible.

 

Why is this interesting? It'd mean that, if companions cost anything at the Adventurer's Hall, on Hardcore difficulty it'd just be too expensive to buy a new companion just because one of your companions died, it'd be an economic choice "Should I sacrifice all my gold for a new companion or should I spend it on making the current party stronger?" <- a valid question in my opinion.

 

What with souls being able to travel from one being to another... couldn't the main character embody a new character if he/she dies? Could the main character's soul cloak a new body/vessel? What is so special about the main character, after all?

 

*The point is the possibility of this happening. If you love your character to death you'd reload, but if you want to progress the story, you could. That's what I'm advocating for. You could transcend "Roleplaying my character" and enter the world of "Roleplaying my story".

 

Pulling out the "Option?" argument/question. Could there be an option or a button that I could flick On/Off somehow? "Main Character Mortality" type of thing where I can continue the game even if the main character dies.

 

I remember reading.... was it at Formspring? For Fallout: New Vegas, one of their beta testers managed to create a situation in the game that was not designed or thought out but with the assets in the game he managed to do it. Got in bad favor with one faction that began hunting him, and another faction as well (they began sending assassins after the character). Both of these factions are enemies in the game, so when the beta tester chose to rest in the game, the factions (who were enemies) spawned (assassins) and began fighting each other instead of fighting the main character.

 

That is kind of what I hope, take it with a pinch of salt, that the game would be designed to be able to continue without the main character. Perhaps a "Game Over" screen that allows you to choose "Continue with Current Party" or "Perma-Death/Restart/Reload".

 

Also, all of you who talk about being Hardcore... how Hardcore would it be for Leia, Chewbacca and Han Solo to defeat Darth Vader+Emperor? It'd be pretty tough for them without Luke, no?

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[Osvir]

@Sharp_One: not interested

 

EDIT: I think your thoughts are valid, I'm just not interested in the tone.

 

2nd EDIT: Oh whatever~ I'm taking a full dose of passion.

 

Role-playing so I get what you are misunderstanding. I meant write the story rather than write the character's story. Be a part of the creative process and create your own story in the world with the assets provided, rather than create your unique character in an already pre-generated story.

 

Linearity is also part of this topic, with the possibility of the main character dying you remove tons of linearity.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[PrimeJunta]

@Osvir, do you have any idea how hard it would be to write any kind of story arc that would adapt to the protagonist dying anywhere during it?

 

Insanely hard. There are going to be enough weird story hiccups anyway in a game with free-form parts. Hell, there often are even if it's not so free-form; The Witcher's Chapter 2 for example became almost impossible to follow if you didn't do things in the "right" order. And that's a near-linear game, albeit with branches to the narrative.

 

 

On my first playthrough I stumbled upon Maarloewe's body before I had figured out anything of what was going on, simply because I was really curious about getting into the graveyard and made that a priority. That just basically set the quest bits as if I had played through the entire investigation, with Geralt acting like he knew evvverything leaving me, the player, going what is this I don't even.

 

 

Most importantly, all that effort is removed from making the story with the protagonist alive richer and better. So I'd bin this idea with the roguelike dungeon and the dynamic world economy in the '...and the kitchen sink' bin. Make a great game with an exciting, branching story arc with choices and consequences and a real sense of agency, then get rid of every last bug, and then consider this kind of stuff.

[Osvir]

I agree. Err, not entirely on with the kitchen sink thing but mostly with your thoughts.

 

Basically I am discussing this idea/thought with lots of "IFs" in mind.

 

IF other party members can act as "Front figures" in conversations, if the game is designed to allow the companions to continue the story with or without the main character, then being able to continue the story "A.D." should come naturally and automatically (a.k.a. it could mechanically/physically be possible). Now, not saying that the dialogue should be entirely different if your main character dies, simply that another character could act as the "Leader" of the party and make the decisions with some minor narrative bouncing back to the character in question that's already designed in there to a start.

 

Perhaps even... -wild idea- being able to have the "Soul" of the main character with you still, but his physical body dead, so you'd be able to continue the narrative as a mere "Spirit", but you wouldn't be able to fight with the main character anymore... yes yes I know, I'm just throwing a thought out there, even if it is quite horrible xD interesting, in my opinion, but horrible.

 

If other party members can't act as "Front figures" in conversations this is a "in the sink" idea as there wouldn't be anything that could progress the story, or if the companions don't have enough motivation to go on without the main character. Would Minsc & Dynaheir stop fighting to save the world from Sarevok? Maybe not, but would Xzar and Montaron? Probably. So it'd require every character to have enough reason to continue without the main character.

 

The narrative would be, of course, way less without the main character so that'd be something to sacrifice. I can imagine the game turning very grey in decisions without a main character, and it'd probably be a little bit more clunkier dialogues.

 

All I'm really trying to get at is the possibility of it happening, and not having an "End of the World" scenario because the main character was the "Last Shining Ray Light of Hope" which has been overplayed countless times, but more of a "Catalyst" type of Main Character "He was there man!" kind of. Perhaps even the one who "started" the whole thing... is the main required to end the whole thing as well? Is Sarevok beatable without the Bhaalspawn? I'd like to say yes.

 

In some ways I also want to see this happening (as a possibility) as a random event. You play the game then.. sh... your character died! But you can continue on the story and progress the game. Albeit a little bit rougher now, likewise something totally random just happened. Like I said in the other post (Game A-B), some could experience this early-, mid-, late-game. Or maybe not at all.

 

I can see how it totally can't work too, but that's related to how the game is designed. Like, if the main character is the generic "Jesus" savior then sure, then it gets difficult to progress. Unless (like I also said further up and in another post) you could simply just carry the body around (perhaps a Cipher could puppeteer the body, a Necromancer Wizard animating the body?). Maybe the "Body" is special somehow, and you don't need the "Mind" of the Main Character, but the "Presence" of the Main Character (physically). Maybe by carrying the "Body" around you could still make decisions (communicating "Soul" to "Soul", kind of Demon Souls-esque) and "in spirit" (heh, unintended pun) you'd still have your character around, but physically (for combat etc. etc.) you wouldn't, so it'd up the difficulty naturally as well. <- That probably goes in the "Resurrecting Main Character into Undead?"-Pile as well.

 

Finally, I am ambivalent, as always. These thoughts/ideas/topics/threads are mostly "Is there anything insightful to learn from this?"~

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[AGX-17]

What if you don't need your character, but merely his body?

 

This way, if the main character dies, your party has to carry around the body everywhere or stash it until needed in plot. Hardcore?

Or to be able to resurrect as an undead later

 

I am not advocating for this idea because I want an easy game, but an interesting game with lots of options. You're talking to me as if I don't know how to roleplay a character... I prefer to roleplay a story, rather than an individual character. What is the threat of the world that makes the party move forward? Why is the main character so important? In Baldur's Gate I felt the Candlekeep guy that was thrown at us was rather uninspiring and hard to have fun with (which is why I made up my character, a second character, in a multiplayer game who follows the Bhaalspawn around. Now that's roleplaying folks!).

 

If my Luke Skywalker dies, I'd like to be able to (as an option) to continue with Chewbacca, Han Solo & Leia, I'd like to try and defeat Darth Vader without him. Likewise, if Han Solo dies, I'd still like to move on. If my entire party gets obliterated (which should be often on Hardcore, if you do not play carefully/tactically) then that should be (in my opinion) game over. So encounters in P:E should be difficult as is that getting a new companion, and loosing a new companion, should both be difficult stuff to manage and deal with. This means that your character should be mortal as well, just as much as Forton is. "Mortality is a big business" to quote Josh. And unless the main character is some generic "Key to the Future!" type character then I can understand "Game Over". If not, we could get something new or something that twists the story depending on "chance". The point*

 

Game A: Main character dies early game

Game B: Main character dies mid-game

Game C: Main character dies late game

Game D: Main character doesn't die

 

All 4 of these would create new situations, Game A (as an example) would play the story you are playing differently from Game B.

 

I hope that Hardcore makes it difficult for me, regardless if the main player dies or not. Making a poll about this -> (Economy & Difficulty) it is related to this whole idea and thread:

 

With a higher difficulty, wouldn't everything cost much more? Some mods with BG made the Iron Crisis, Bandit Raids and Iron Items all more difficult to handle (weapons/armor breaking more regularly, bandit raids actually matter through the entire game and all Iron/Steel weapons costs a fortune). If a Short Sword costs 15 Gold on a regular mode, with these "Tactical Mod" settings the Short Sword would cost around 100~ gold. Not to mention that it'd probably break in the first fight against those more difficult bandit raids. It made the game challenging and way more immersible.

 

Why is this interesting? It'd mean that, if companions cost anything at the Adventurer's Hall, on Hardcore difficulty it'd just be too expensive to buy a new companion just because one of your companions died, it'd be an economic choice "Should I sacrifice all my gold for a new companion or should I spend it on making the current party stronger?" <- a valid question in my opinion.

 

What with souls being able to travel from one being to another... couldn't the main character embody a new character if he/she dies? Could the main character's soul cloak a new body/vessel? What is so special about the main character, after all?

 

*The point is the possibility of this happening. If you love your character to death you'd reload, but if you want to progress the story, you could. That's what I'm advocating for. You could transcend "Roleplaying my character" and enter the world of "Roleplaying my story".

 

Pulling out the "Option?" argument/question. Could there be an option or a button that I could flick On/Off somehow? "Main Character Mortality" type of thing where I can continue the game even if the main character dies.

 

I remember reading.... was it at Formspring? For Fallout: New Vegas, one of their beta testers managed to create a situation in the game that was not designed or thought out but with the assets in the game he managed to do it. Got in bad favor with one faction that began hunting him, and another faction as well (they began sending assassins after the character). Both of these factions are enemies in the game, so when the beta tester chose to rest in the game, the factions (who were enemies) spawned (assassins) and began fighting each other instead of fighting the main character.

 

That is kind of what I hope, take it with a pinch of salt, that the game would be designed to be able to continue without the main character. Perhaps a "Game Over" screen that allows you to choose "Continue with Current Party" or "Perma-Death/Restart/Reload".

 

Also, all of you who talk about being Hardcore... how Hardcore would it be for Leia, Chewbacca and Han Solo to defeat Darth Vader+Emperor? It'd be pretty tough for them without Luke, no?

 

...This is a game about souls, not corpses. What kind of... just... The gravitational pull between my face and my palm has just increased by several orders of magnitude. That was a painful impact.

 

How does this even make sense to you? Your party continues your quest, a quest driven by a soul no longer present, while carrying around your rotting corpse? Even if it were a good idea, which it isn't, they would have to write a bunch of ludicrous justifications for companions you just met to want to finish your journey without knowing what it was about.The information currently out suggests that the PC's soul has been changed in some way that is world-changing due to a chance encounter/witnessing some event of mythic proportions.

[Osvir]

^Likewise, if they've been around the entire game, what drives them to not finish the quest? You're in the final dungeon, about to face the last boss, but the main character died. What is the reason the party just can't defeat Sarevok by themselves? Is there something special about the Bhaalspawn that is required in the slaying of another Bhaalspawn? I'd say the companions in BG are enough by themselves, roleplayingly it would be difficult for them of course, mechanically not so much (really).

 

What is the story? What keeps the main character going on, and why is the main character the only one who can fulfill it, some sort of knowledge, some sort of "bond" with the world? (The character dies = the world physically ends?) What is the companions agenda to even begin traveling with you to start? What makes them interested in the journey or whatever reason they find to join the group? What do they hope to achieve by joining bands with the main character?

 

Basically motivations, what is the motivations for the party to not being able to continue? If you just met the party and got offed, and they barely know the reason why you are out on your quest, would that mean that the Event or the Story is only related to the main character and doesn't really pose a danger to the world? How important is the Event and what happens to the World if the main character dies?

 

As I've said, if the character's soul is a key to all answers and the unlocking of Pandora's Box, yes then this entire idea is out of sync and into the sink. If the character's body is a key to all answers instead, then just carrying it forward should be enough for the companions to progress without the main character (and use the body as the "key" for situations). If the "Body" is simply harboring an important piece of a "Soul" perhaps that is all that is needed to "unlock" the mysterious unknown "wtf????" secrets. Like carrying around an artifact.

 

What makes the main character so important in the world, apart from being the main character? If the reason for the character to be alive is flaky (Like Baldur's Gate 1), I don't see why I wouldn't be able to progress forward.

 

In PS:T I 100% don't see the main character dying because the main character is important enough and for the resolution of the story, but then again you get resurrected on the slab when you die (Don't know higher difficulty modes, haven't played in a while now but I think I'm playing on Core rules). In PS:T the Nameless One is pretty much the story, and figuring out who the Nameless One is. In BG your main character doesn't really matter, for BG2 it does, but not for BG by itself and many characters fulfill the reason to progress (Jaheira+Khalid most definitely, Kivan too, Xan goes into that bin as well). Jaheira+Khalid would investigate Nashkel without the main character, Minsc would save Dynaheir, Kivan would kill Tazok on his own (or try).

 

Many characters have motivations to keep treading on without the main character, yet you can't. Sure, you're trying to figure out who the "Bhaalspawn" really is but in the end you don't need that to defeat Sarevok.

 

How I see the story In Baldur's Gate and it is "open ended" in a way that anyone could fulfill it (Bhaalspawn or not):

1. There is trouble in the world

2. Figure it out

3. Solve it

[motorizer]

Personally i want this to be a game about my character..rather than about some huge "save the world" quest...I would be quite happy if the main quest was simply about saving yourself, rather than being the chosen one yet again

if that was the case then if you died there wouldn't be any main quest any more....you've failed it

[Osvir]

"Save yourself". I like it a lot great reason not to die, "Soul" related? Sense of -early game- urgency?

 

Reflecting a little bit more on the thread... I think I'm just expressing some "disgust" for generic plots.

 

What about mid-game, or late-game? Is there a point in the game where the "state" of the world is great enough for others to be sucked into it?

 

A possible martyrdom mid-game? A point in the game where stuff is just "bad" and companions are deep into the mess that they'd continue without the main character (possibly affecting the epilogue differently & multiple endings?).

 

red dead redemption spoilers

In a sense, being able to survive as John Marston. Read the "Epilogue", pretty much something akin to that narration. If you haven't finished the game, so in a Red Dead Redemption sense, I'm actually advocating for the function to survive instead of meeting an end, John Marston could survive depending on your actions-kind of. But the real cool thing about Red Dead Redemption is that the game doesn't end there, it carries on./spoilers

 

 

The "Goal" has not been met and there are others who have reason to carry on and can do it without the previous main character, a certain point where the character is possibly expendable (specially at the very end boss fight/dungeon). Unless (like stated) serving an even higher purpose (for sequels). Baldur's Gate does this best in my opinion, where the character can be anyone on both BG1 or BG2, so you can start from scratch (either disregarding whatever happened in the first one making your own backstory, or you can continue on with your previous character). In ME (with the front figure~Commander Shepard... which the party probably would have done well without too).

 

Od Nua Level 13 to 15 "All Possible 'Make-this-game-Hardcore' Options/Mods On"-Difficulty on Ironman? Keeping one character alive through that. Okay, pretty hardcore, I've got to admit. Story-wise, such as at the end-game final boss, and you've fulfilled all tasks except beating the final boss I don't see why not. Or like previously said, that there comes a point where the companions are dragged into the mess well enough to continue and possibly succeed without the main character.

 

EDIT: I haven't played D&D and don't entirely know how it works but, if you play a party with a DM, you make a character and he dies (permadeath), does that mean the game ends for your other friends as well, or do you re-roll by yourself and jump in with a new character?

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[Karkarov]

A possible martyrdom mid-game? A point in the game where stuff is just "bad" and companions are deep into the mess that they'd continue without the main character (possibly affecting the epilogue differently & multiple endings?).

 

red dead redemption spoilers

In a sense, being able to survive as John Marston. Read the "Epilogue", pretty much something akin to that narration. If you haven't finished the game, so in a Red Dead Redemption sense, I'm actually advocating for the function to survive instead of meeting an end, John Marston could survive depending on your actions-kind of. But the real cool thing about Red Dead Redemption is that the game doesn't end there, it carries on./spoilers

 

Glad you posted that Osvir, because while I think what you are posting could work in specific situations (such as a Mass Effect style game) and I don't think it would work in any form of "blank slate" game (IE: Project Eternity) there is always a catch. It has to be highly scripted and pre planned. It can't happen in some random encounter and then *shrug* if it did then the game would have to be based on the idea that your character can die and be replaced at any point which is also blatantly going to result in a weaker story arc.

 

Why? Because nothing can be written to be specific, everything has to be crafted under the assumption that "anyone" can do this (which cheapens your characters accomplishments by the assumption) and everything has to be generic. People will be coming to this game for a well crafted story too, and your entire idea hinges on the concept that the main characters identity is unimportant in any way. When the main character doesn't matter (at all) then it is going to be hard to have a deep engrossing well crafted story.

 

Red Dead Redemption is the perfect example of what you want out of this idea. The thing is like I said, this only works in a highly scripted game where events in the one like Read Dead are planned from day one. Not where it is a random event that can happen at any given moment at any time.

 

What a better example of why this also makes no sense? A group of heroes with a great leader go on a quest to save the world! A year later the leader has died and been replaced 7 times and only one of the original band is even alive. Two years later all the original and even 2nd - 3rd gen heroes are dead and it has had 13 different leaders. Year three....

 

This is perfectly possible in the type of game design you want and quite frankly anyone who joined the party I just described is likely a suicidal lunatic, so I could understand the party wanting to stop after the leader died perfectly fine.

[Osvir]

Absolutely, but would it stop Han Solo & friends?

 

Revenge? Cowardice? Honor? Struggle on? Common quest and goals? You've reached the final lair and your character dies, would that make the party run away like chickens or would they end what has been started and is at a climactic location?

 

-edit: I am changing focus of this idea towards being either an "Option" (as a mod) or end-game possibility, when the other characters are so dug into "it" that they are devoted individually to finish "it". They are part of the "Rebellion" now, or maybe not but they've got a score to settle! This I think was good in DA:O, where at first you are helping the companions with their quest, then they help you with yours. Some, like Alistair & Morgana (specially Alistair) are woven into the plot from day one, or day two considering the prologue and also would have motivation to continue A.D. (which he does for all I know). When you've gotten to the point of the game where your relationships are established and bonds or whatnot have been created, I think there'd be lots of motivation for the companions to continue, unless the character is really really needed narratively for the end-boss. Like I said, end-game final dungeon (not Od Nua, unless, both of them are interwoven) or from a certain later game Chapter.

 

Also, thanks for your understanding & intelligent post Karkarov

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[GrinningReaper659]

I am not advocating for this idea because I want an easy game, but an interesting game with lots of options. You're talking to me as if I don't know how to roleplay a character... I prefer to roleplay a story, rather than an individual character. What is the threat of the world that makes the party move forward? Why is the main character so important? In Baldur's Gate I felt the Candlekeep guy that was thrown at us was rather uninspiring and hard to have fun with (which is why I made up my character, a second character, in a multiplayer game who follows the Bhaalspawn around. Now that's roleplaying folks!).

 

...

 

^Likewise, if they've been around the entire game, what drives them to not finish the quest? You're in the final dungeon, about to face the last boss, but the main character died. What is the reason the party just can't defeat Sarevok by themselves? Is there something special about the Bhaalspawn that is required in the slaying of another Bhaalspawn? I'd say the companions in BG are enough by themselves, roleplayingly it would be difficult for them of course, mechanically not so much (really).

 

What is the story? What keeps the main character going on, and why is the main character the only one who can fulfill it, some sort of knowledge, some sort of "bond" with the world? (The character dies = the world physically ends?) What is the companions agenda to even begin traveling with you to start? What makes them interested in the journey or whatever reason they find to join the group? What do they hope to achieve by joining bands with the main character?

 

Basically motivations, what is the motivations for the party to not being able to continue? If you just met the party and got offed, and they barely know the reason why you are out on your quest, would that mean that the Event or the Story is only related to the main character and doesn't really pose a danger to the world? How important is the Event and what happens to the World if the main character dies?

 

...

 

What makes the main character so important in the world, apart from being the main character? If the reason for the character to be alive is flaky (Like Baldur's Gate 1), I don't see why I wouldn't be able to progress forward.

 

...

 

How I see the story In Baldur's Gate and it is "open ended" in a way that anyone could fulfill it (Bhaalspawn or not):

1. There is trouble in the world

2. Figure it out

3. Solve it

 

So, you accuse me of incorrectly telling you that you misunderstand roleplaying, and then immediately say that you'd rather play the role of a story than a character, so I feel compelled to further explain what I believe is a misconception on your part. Roleplaying is playing a role in a story. The story itself is not a role in a story, it is the story. Your "now that's roleplaying folks" example of creating a character to RP that follows the Bhaalspawn around in BG, well, that is roleplaying technically, although you certainly weren't playing a roleplaying game correctly. That would be as if I rejected whatever setting and background was provided by my DM in a PnP roleplaying game and explained to him that I would be ignoring him and walking around as a character that existed within his story but not within his decisions for my character... so yes technically roleplaying but in the loosest definition, and not really playing the game at that point.

 

Roleplaying presupposes an individual perspective. You can not aptly play the role of multiple individuals and simultaneously feel as immersed in those roles as you would be in an individual role, which is a limitation due to the fact that we think as individuals. Inanimate objects, such as a rock or some dirt, can certainly have a role in a story; however, as a rock or a bit of dirt can not have a will of their own, that role can not be played. If you decided to animate a rock as an intelligent talking rock then, at that point, it could have a role that could be played. A god that has a high level of control over a story can be roleplayed, but not a story itself.

 

In order for anything to be roleplayed, it has to have an individual consciousness/awareness and it has to be a part of a story. A story itself does not meet these criteria.

 

Multiple people can be roleplayed in a single story, but it will invariably take away from the immersion/roleplaying experience as you do not have an individual role to play.

 

I suggest that you have not been RPing "correctly" to this point, the way you discuss motivations is always as if you are viewing your character from afar and controlling him as one would a puppet instead of attempting to truly occupy his position in the story.

 

I already explained my views on your questions regarding why the story shouldn't go on when the main character dies. It does. It's an important part of roleplaying immersion, though, that your part in it does not. If you were to die today, the story of those you know and the world around you would go on, but you wouldn't be around to see it or be a part of it. These games are intended to simulate an individual perspective, such as the one that we possess in reality, and I'm pretty sure that most RPers prefer this, I know I do.

 

 

As to your suggestions that you are simply tired of worn out, cliched story and gameplay ideas ("disgust for generic plots"), that's understandable. I'm not a huge fan of the "chosen one" archetype, I much prefer a game where I start out as a nobody and define myself through my actions. The typical "save the world" story isn't necessary, there are many deep ways to motivate a character to achieve something besides "the world will end if you don't" or even "you will die if you don't." These two just get the most play because people seem to like grandiose (world-ending) and direct (survival) motivations. None of these things being changed, however, would make it necessary for or even allow it to make sense for the player to assume the roles of multiple characters, especially without an RP reason as for why (and I fear that any such explanation would simply be a tool to employ this multi-role idea).

 

That being said, I think that you have some cool, creative ideas for a different style of game altogether. I wouldn't mind trying out such a game, but inserting these ideas into PE is out of the question, there would be a large majority of fans (and backers) upset by a change like this in the style of play. Like I said, it's an interesting idea, but it's as different from BG and PS:T as was Icewind dale, and the team advertised PE as taking "the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment." So, a central hero/protagonist as was in BG, and the combat and dungeon diving from IWD. Seems pretty clear as to what style of game was implied by this statement.

[Osvir]

Sorry bro, I am re-reading stuff because I saw this:

So, you accuse me of incorrectly telling you that you misunderstand roleplaying, and then immediately say that you'd rather play the role of a story than a character, so I feel compelled to further explain what I believe is a misconception on your part

 

And just thought "Wait what?"... give me a moment.

 

Here you go, my answer to Sharp_One regarding the roleplaying stuff, my bad. And here is your post where you say I don't grasp the concept of playing a role. Which was true, granted, I provided the wrong wording.

 

That would be as if I rejected whatever setting and background was provided by my DM in a PnP roleplaying game and explained to him that I would be ignoring him and walking around as a character that existed within his story but not within his decisions for my character...

 

Does the DM allow your character to face perma-death? If so, does your DM allow you to re-roll with a new character that isn't the Bhaalspawn this time? Does the game end for the character or for the world? I don't want to ignore the DM's world, I want to explore it and if there is a point in the game where it could be possible (towards end portions of the game) that I can explore the world even if I lose the most vital character, I would want to continue exploring, if reasonable to do so.

 

"That's roleplaying folks" was a merry joke I'm a sucker for that "bad humour" xD sorry haha

 

Also, on board with you on roleplaying, I went theater school. You'll have to excuse my grammar/English sometimes, or get frustrated and I'll see if I can explain with other words I guess. It gets frustrating for me too, "That's not what I meant!" type of thing sometimes.

 

Great post and thank you

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[GrinningReaper659]

I am not advocating for this idea because I want an easy game, but an interesting game with lots of options. You're talking to me as if I don't know how to roleplay a character... I prefer to roleplay a story, rather than an individual character. What is the threat of the world that makes the party move forward? Why is the main character so important? In Baldur's Gate I felt the Candlekeep guy that was thrown at us was rather uninspiring and hard to have fun with (which is why I made up my character, a second character, in a multiplayer game who follows the Bhaalspawn around. Now that's roleplaying folks!). ... ^Likewise, if they've been around the entire game, what drives them to not finish the quest? You're in the final dungeon, about to face the last boss, but the main character died. What is the reason the party just can't defeat Sarevok by themselves? Is there something special about the Bhaalspawn that is required in the slaying of another Bhaalspawn? I'd say the companions in BG are enough by themselves, roleplayingly it would be difficult for them of course, mechanically not so much (really). What is the story? What keeps the main character going on, and why is the main character the only one who can fulfill it, some sort of knowledge, some sort of "bond" with the world? (The character dies = the world physically ends?) What is the companions agenda to even begin traveling with you to start? What makes them interested in the journey or whatever reason they find to join the group? What do they hope to achieve by joining bands with the main character? Basically motivations, what is the motivations for the party to not being able to continue? If you just met the party and got offed, and they barely know the reason why you are out on your quest, would that mean that the Event or the Story is only related to the main character and doesn't really pose a danger to the world? How important is the Event and what happens to the World if the main character dies? ... What makes the main character so important in the world, apart from being the main character? If the reason for the character to be alive is flaky (Like Baldur's Gate 1), I don't see why I wouldn't be able to progress forward. ... How I see the story In Baldur's Gate and it is "open ended" in a way that anyone could fulfill it (Bhaalspawn or not): 1. There is trouble in the world 2. Figure it out 3. Solve it

Sorry bro, I am re-reading stuff because I saw this:

So, you accuse me of incorrectly telling you that you misunderstand roleplaying, and then immediately say that you'd rather play the role of a story than a character, so I feel compelled to further explain what I believe is a misconception on your part

 

And just thought "Wait what?"... give me a moment.

Well, not me necessarily but those disagreeing with you on this thread, I included myself...

 

"You're talking to me as if I don't know how to roleplay a character... I prefer to roleplay a story, rather than an individual character."

-Osvir

[Osvir]

xD I asked for "a moment". Oh well, yes I know but yeah, see the edited post

[JFSOCC]

Maybe the fear is that of loosing something you create attachment too?

For me that's precisely it. I think it would be incredibly cool that you could go on without the main character if he or she dies, but I simply wouldn't. I would reload. It's my story that I care most about, after all.