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

[Osvir]

Exactly, but having the control of your characters life and death adds even more story. It'd make mortality a bigger business for sure, whilst I did kind of present the idea as a "global" thing I kind of revisioned it a little bit. Something that could be more valid/legit at the end-game dungeon or at the final boss both mechanically and narratively. Maybe being able to make a mod of it, write some fanfic ending~ <- which is my fear xD

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[Karkarov]

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.

But there is no DM Osvir. This isn't D&D, we aren't at the tabletop, this story isn't about the party which is comprised of five real human beings with their own characters. This is a single player CRPG and the story is only about MY character because I am the only actual player.

 

I am only saying this to reinforce the common sense reality of the game.

 

Again your idea can work, but it would have to be highly scripted and the game would have to be designed around it happening from the ground up. Also it doesn't really work well in blank slate games like this one. Games where it is less about you role playing your character and more about you experiencing the story and the world through a character (again example: Mass Effect's Commander Shepard) it can work. But this isn't one of those games. If it were then there never would have been an Adventurers Hall in the first place.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Karkarov

[Adhin]

See now it being the 'end' of the game not a 'anytime' thing... that's different, that they could add as any number of mid dungeon like consequences and you keep with the party to the end. Dead at any time causes some giant hurtles so... yeah. Either no player made protagonist and it's all 'party members' that're interchangeable (even with great personalities are stories of there own). Or this dying near the end (as a possibility), one of those 'better get your **** done before we go, this'll probably be the last opportunity' things.

 

-edit-

@Karkarov: That, and I wouldn't of kickstarted it at aaalll. I want me some BG2, PST masterpiece goodness in story and whatnot. Not another IWD game heh.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Adhin

[Sacred_Path]

The game is designed to be played with a party but it will have player created protagonist, so it's exactly like BG. It's not designed around a set party (like IWD), in that case we would be given the party at the start or assemble them in mandatory way like in JRPG.

 

You don't get the point, obviously.

 

P:E (and yes also BG) isn't a single character game (unless you choose to play it that way and go against the developer's intentions). It's party based. Yet you are more attached to one character (because you create it). That means it's a hybrid type of game, there's no denying that.

 

In BG, this was done badly, and we don't know about P:E yet but it could have the same flaw. Despite you depending on a party the game is simply over should your character die. No proper ingame or meta-game reasoning is given for this, ever. If you don't care about such glaring holes in the mechanics you aren't a good critic.

 

I'm a sane customer that actually understands why the game ends if my character dies. Again with the chess reference if you insist that you should be able to play on after loosing the King "because you have other pieces" will give you only a "weirdo" label no matter how many insults you throw at opponent or how "logical" explanation you give.

 

Bitch please, get rid of the completely wrong hyperbole of comparing this game to chess.

 

So if he have two ways of being dangerous and you have three ways to prevent them is suddenly not p-r-s? You just wrote the same thing as I have, it's the matter of how many types of p-r-s you have, but at the bottom that's all there is.

 

If I go into an encounter with an enemy group comprised of strong melee enemies that charge you right away, of sniping archers that may concentrate their fire on one character or maybe spread their attacks between your mages to interrupt casters, and stealthy assassins that may sneak up to you to backstab you or unstealth to go into melee, and casters who can cast all types of debuffs or damage spells at your party or single characters, this situation ísn't rightly labelled rock-paper-scissors. That should be obvious to you.

 

He is a PC where others are NPC that's "mechanic wise" difference is it not? Also story wise he is different from other characters. In game terms he is the chess equivalent of the King. End of story.

 

I see that this is all you need in your mind (my PC is the chosen one, awsum!), but don't go and think that this is good reasoning or a good argument. The only difference in mechanics is of course the very fact that this character is the only one that's vital to the story, and that's the entire problem I have with it.

 

 

What the hell you blabbering about? Every game is about keeping the PC alive, from River Raid to Far Cry 3. But that's the PLAYER job.

 

I haven't played Far Cry 3, but in Far Cry (as in so many other games that have nothing to do with this argument FOR THAT VERY REASON) you only control one character. Is the difference obvious to you?

 

Why every companion should be concerned with PC staying alive? In p&p RPG my concern would be to keep my character alive, but why other player should be concerned? He could throw me to wolves if it would save his skin. The same with companions, some are there because it's convenient other can even betray or kill you. It was done in many games. Ignus or Vhailor in PS:T could kill you if you pissed them of, still it would end the game! Imagine that, despite PC death meaning game over a companion can do it!

 

I'll try to steer this into a more productive direction, hang on:

 

The story premise as far as we know right now is that your character experiences an extraordinary event and then tries to come to terms with what he has witnessed/ resolve its mystery. There's nothing here so far that would force your character to be irreplaceable. Quite the contrary IMO. As soon as you have picked up companions, you can relate to them what has happened, and therefore they could continue the quest without you. Maybe some of them even experienced the same thing you did. This would be much superior to BG's premise that the entire game only revolves around you.

 

Why they should be concerned with keeping you alive if you're the "chosen one"? Because you have tremendous importance to the game world, obviously. The only thing that could counter this is if every companion is a chosen one in their own right, so their quests can be deemed equally as important as yours. You should see why that would be crappy. OTOH it's just as crappy if you have supreme importance but noone notices it (oh hello BG!).

 

So there are two options:

 

a) The PC is a character like many others in the game world, set apart only by the fact that he has witnessed/ experienced something extraordinary. He functions like other characters of his class and race would do. If he dies you can choose to carry on with the other characters, because they were all on this quest together. Mechanics wise you can also use this character like any other to his fullest effect, because death is an acceptable outcome (as long as you are skillful and use your ressources well).

 

b) The entire game revolves around the PC and builds on the notion that you are yet another tired version of the "chosen one". You only pick up companions to help you fight your way through the story. They are either completely oblivious of your importance and never refer to it (although they follow your every command!) or the entire dialogue revolves about you and your well-being and success. Mechanics-wise you buff this character all the time in any way you can and never put him into harm's way, it's a much better choice to always keep him two screens behind everyone else.

 

Which is superior and why?

 

Goddamn retarded internet arguments stealing my precious lifetime.

[Sacred_Path]

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.

 

You are describing Baldur's Gate, but we don't know yet if the game will play out like BG so your point is moot.

 

There have been some threads on this topic (like "should your character be the only conversationalist or can everyone chime in") and I'm obviously preferring the latter. It's more realistic, it's more versatile, and it allows for more choices & consequences. Think Storm of Zehir, only that one character is the focus of the narrative.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Osvir]

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.

But there is no DM Osvir. This isn't D&D, we aren't at the tabletop, this story isn't about the party which is comprised of five real human beings with their own characters. This is a single player CRPG and the story is only about MY character because I am the only actual player.

 

I am only saying this to reinforce the common sense reality of the game.

 

Again your idea can work, but it would have to be highly scripted and the game would have to be designed around it happening from the ground up. Also it doesn't really work well in blank slate games like this one. Games where it is less about you role playing your character and more about you experiencing the story and the world through a character (again example: Mass Effect's Commander Shepard) it can work. But this isn't one of those games. If it were then there never would have been an Adventurers Hall in the first place.

 

Obsidian is the DM, they create the world. But I see what you are saying I guess, they aren't active DMs but in a way more robotic representations of the developers creation. Still makes them the DMs. Developer Master by the way, if you were wondering xD

 

I think Sacred_Path has some great points generally and I'm pretty much on page with that.

[Failion]

They could have your character choose to die, sacrifice yourself, at some point of the story or not. Maybe to save someone you love. But if you do sacrifice yourself. You die and reincarnate. All your story companions treat you as a different person. And you the player have to assume the role and accept your new incarnate and your old one, portion of yourself, as being permanently dead FOREVER.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Failion

[Dream]

P:E (and yes also BG) isn't a single character game (unless you choose to play it that way and go against the developer's intentions). It's party based. Yet you are more attached to one character (because you create it). That means it's a hybrid type of game, there's no denying that.

 

You're still playing the role of the PC. The ability to give orders to your friends doesn't mean you have some hive mind that persists through death. If you went a trip with some buddies in real life and then fell off a cliff you wouldn't continue the trip by taking over one of their bodies; you'd be dead.

[Althernai]

You are describing Baldur's Gate, but we don't know yet if the game will play out like BG so your point is moot.

 

There have been some threads on this topic (like "should your character be the only conversationalist or can everyone chime in") and I'm obviously preferring the latter. It's more realistic, it's more versatile, and it allows for more choices & consequences. Think Storm of Zehir, only that one character is the focus of the narrative.

I am fairly certain that we do know how the game will play and it will be like BG and PS:T. The basic idea is to have a player-made character and companions with personalities (yes, there's the Adventurer's Hall, but the game will not be designed around it). All of the characters will no doubt chime in to conversations, but the player can only speak through the protagonist. It would not make sense to have a character with a personality written by the developers and at the same time have the player speak through that character (well, unless you were trying to produce the impression of an insane character).

[Adhin]

We don't know the exact details of the story but we do know that your playing your character, that an event happens at the beginning that your character is effected by (and really only your character before you get party members) and that's what the story revolves around. That's the main reason your character is 'important' to the main story, it's around this supernatural phenomenon. We also know they want to structure the general game like BG2 but with some extra wilderness exploration like BG - that being a mix of the 2 games general exploration types.

 

Now, generally speaking, I don't think the NPC party members (aka, ones you don't make) should be something YOU have control over, conversation wise. I do think they should chime in though. Either forcibly on there own and/or as something you can initiate by directly asking the party for advice or to help out or whatever. But in the end, your playing the PC, not the Party in the RP department (the non-combat). The NPC have there own lives, there own personalities, and you have no control over that... so when they speak up, it should be 'them' speaking up (that being, Obsidians lines, not you picking lines for them).

 

-edit-

Edited for some clarification - also just read up on the game and premise, a lot of these 'we don't know or we do know'... we really do know, they've stated as much.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Adhin

[Osvir]

Maybe the player simply can't speak for the character at [Point of Death], and the characters will simply speak for themselves as pre-written (as they would with the player), excluding [Player] from conversations with some sense of purpose to why they are going on, perhaps no more banters but more "silent protagonist party" basically who seek vengeance or is in sorrow/confuse. I can think of it as.. kind of a earlier era Final Fantasy party style. You didn't play your character, you were playing Cloud, Squaresoft's character.

 

If P:E will be as customizeable as it could be, chances are that Obsidian's character story will differ way more differently than ours will. Kind of having "railroad" dialogue choices, more of a "casual" laidback approach to get the cannon story. Where there are minor choices in dialogues and the dialogues pretty much run on their own railroad. "Slacker"-mode!

 

The game becomes more like a movie in that sense, you are watching/reading the story unfold, rather than abruptly ending it.

 

*idk* armchair suggestion.

 

P:E (and yes also BG) isn't a single character game (unless you choose to play it that way and go against the developer's intentions). It's party based. Yet you are more attached to one character (because you create it). That means it's a hybrid type of game, there's no denying that.

 

You're still playing the role of the PC. The ability to give orders to your friends doesn't mean you have some hive mind that persists through death. If you went a trip with some buddies in real life and then fell off a cliff you wouldn't continue the trip by taking over one of their bodies; you'd be dead.

 

That could be pretty cool. Maybe the main character is a follower "Spirit", really, some spectral being who guides the party forward. The Event could be related to the "Soul" character and the character you create, maybe? And you'd be able to play good hive mind or bad hive mind (Black & White)

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[GhostofAnakin]

On a more serious note, I do think it should be game over if the main character dies. I think it makes more sense that way since that's the character you're roleplaying, the character you're controlling. The other party members are more like minions or hire hands that come along for the journey.

[Sacred_Path]

The parable is perfect, in other case you would argue why it isn't instead of going to insults.

I've already done that, but it seems to have passed you by.

 

 

 

I am fairly certain that we do know how the game will play and it will be like BG and PS:T.

 

No we don't, you might want to check this thread http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=58186 for a good summary of known information.

 

(yes, there's the Adventurer's Hall, but the game will not be designed around it).

 

We can assume that not only the game will be balanced around the option of the AH, but also designed with it in mind. Everything else would mean players creating their own party would miss out on a good chunk of content.

 

You're still playing the role of the PC. The ability to give orders to your friends doesn't mean you have some hive mind that persists through death. If you went a trip with some buddies in real life and then fell off a cliff you wouldn't continue the trip by taking over one of their bodies; you'd be dead.

That's entirely an ingame explanation, doesn't work on a meta-game level.

 

You could also argue the other way around, you get to create only one character who won't be noticeably different in any way to other characters of the same kind, and you can add 5 more of those characters. Seems like it is a party-based game, rite? The only question is what the devs intended and what options they gave you. If the game is balanced around a party of characters, your point is moot mechanics-wise.

Story-wise it's a different matter, and we don't know yet what role the companions will have in the story and how central you are to it. But I'm not arguing about story much (although I still haven't seen someone making a case of why chosen one stories are superior to others).

[Archmage Silver]

If you die, you have to start the game over again, cause we're hard core RPG players.

What, no format C:? I think I'll have to insist on it being included...

[Dream]

That's entirely an ingame explanation, doesn't work on a meta-game level.

 

You could also argue the other way around, you get to create only one character who won't be noticeably different in any way to other characters of the same kind, and you can add 5 more of those characters. Seems like it is a party-based game, rite? The only question is what the devs intended and what options they gave you. If the game is balanced around a party of characters, your point is moot mechanics-wise.

Story-wise it's a different matter, and we don't know yet what role the companions will have in the story and how central you are to it. But I'm not arguing about story much (although I still haven't seen someone making a case of why chosen one stories are superior to others).

 

IWD is like that; you make 6 characters and play a party. In P:E that isn't the case; you're playing a character. One character. The party is just a group of people who are along for the ride. They have their own motivations and goals and all you do is control them in combat (you're the leader). They're NPCs for a reason, not co-PCs.

[rjshae]

On a more serious note, I do think it should be game over if the main character dies. I think it makes more sense that way since that's the character you're roleplaying, the character you're controlling. The other party members are more like minions or hire hands that come along for the journey.

I concur, but more importantly the events that follow your witnessing of the supernatural occurrence are what shape the plot. Hence, it's really your character's story that is being told.

[Althernai]

No we don't, you might want to check this thread http://www.sorcerers...ead.php?t=58186 for a good summary of known information.

I don't mean that Obsidian has explicitly said it, but it is pretty clear from the other things we know (i.e. the nature of the companions).

 

We can assume that not only the game will be balanced around the option of the AH, but also designed with it in mind. Everything else would mean players creating their own party would miss out on a good chunk of content.

There is absolutely no doubt that players creating their own party will miss out on a good chunk of content. As you can read in the page you linked above, a lot of the effort in making a game like this goes into writing the companions. If you choose not to interact with them and make your own party instead, you will miss out.

[NOK222]

If you die, you have to start the game over again, cause we're hard core RPG players.

What, no format C:? I think I'll have to insist on it being included...

 

I didn't go into those details cause i was too busy number crunching my skills in Fallout 1.

[AGX-17]

They could have your character choose to die, sacrifice yourself, at some point of the story or not. Maybe to save someone you love. But if you do sacrifice yourself. You die and reincarnate. All your story companions treat you as a different person. And you the player have to assume the role and accept your new incarnate and your old one, portion of yourself, as being permanently dead FOREVER.

 

And you could just make the exact same dialogue and tactical choices you would have made anyway and you'd still be playing a hyper-casual game where you can't lose. Ridiculous idea, no different from the ridiculousness of "narrative second wind."

 

It takes more than 15 years for a human offspring to reach some semblance of "maturity" such that they would be a viable combatant. You are proposing that the player's companions are immortal and will all sit around waiting (along with the big bad threatening the kingdom/peace/world/universe) for 18 years waiting for the reincarnated Chosen Hero of Destiny to learn how to swing a sword or sling a magic missile again.

 

This is me ridiculing it right now. Ridiculous.

Edited December 27, 2012 by AGX-17

[Dream]

They could have your character choose to die, sacrifice yourself, at some point of the story or not. Maybe to save someone you love. But if you do sacrifice yourself. You die and reincarnate. All your story companions treat you as a different person. And you the player have to assume the role and accept your new incarnate and your old one, portion of yourself, as being permanently dead FOREVER.

 

And you could just make the exact same dialogue and tactical choices you would have made anyway and you'd still be playing a hyper-casual game where you can't lose. Ridiculous idea, no different from the ridiculousness of "narrative second wind."

 

It takes more than 15 years for a human offspring to reach some semblance of "maturity" such that they would be a viable combatant. You are proposing that the player's companions are immortal and will all sit around waiting (along with the big bad threatening the kingdom/peace/world/universe) for 18 years waiting for the reincarnated Chosen Hero of Destiny to learn how to swing a sword or sling a magic missile again.

 

This is me ridiculing it right now. Ridiculous.

 

I think Failion has been playing too much Infinity Blade

[motorizer]

They have said that they want to make expansions or sequels where you continue as the same character...how does that work then if he/she's dead? how many games could be the story of someone who died ages ago?

[Osvir]

This isn't talk about anything that is forced upon you, but an optional somewhat random situation. You are in the last dungeon, there is no turning back, your party has come this far and they could defeat the evil last boss or finish the last key without the main hero at this point. Which you, as the player, can of course. Or if your main character dies by chance in the last dungeon or against the last boss you would (as a player) be able to finish the game still (which is also a question of multiple endings or mod content). Now, Commander Shepard was required at the end... no he really wasn't why did they make such an ending to begin with!?!?

 

Anyways........

 

What I am just suggesting is the possibility for the main character to die, and you have the control of it from a non-narrative perspective (in-game designed) meaning that you hold the control of your characters life and death (Story-wise). In a sense I kind of not want an in-game designed death by Obsidian (they can handle the epilogue for a multiple ending scenario), but let me have that control of the death. The death of the main character doesn't often go good, I'd rather narrate it myself "My fault the character died" not "Obsidian's fault the character died" <- that's also why people complain about it.

 

If they make a sequel, then it should follow the cannon story rather than the cannon character~eeeh what I mean is that it could follow the main story rather than the main character from the first game. That depends on how Obsidian does it though.

 

Maybe in the sequel you follow the story of another one, who walks a different path but in the same world, perhaps at a parallel time which is a piece to unlock the big picture that unfolds when you've finished the Quadrilogy together perhaps you have to go back and play the First one when you've finished the 3rd one because there were clues that you completely disregarded the first time you played (non-important originally). Anyways that is just rambling.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Osvir

[Dream]

This isn't talk about anything that is forced upon you, but an optional somewhat random situation. You are in the last dungeon, there is no turning back, your party has come this far and they could defeat the evil last boss or finish the last key without the main hero at this point. Which you, as the player, can of course. Or if your main character dies by chance in the last dungeon or against the last boss you would (as a player) be able to finish the game still (which is also a question of multiple endings or mod content). Now, Commander Shepard was required at the end... no he really wasn't why did they make such an ending to begin with!?!?

 

Anyways........

 

What I am just suggesting is the possibility for the main character to die, and you have the control of it from a non-narrative perspective (in-game designed) meaning that you hold the control of your characters life and death (Story-wise). In a sense I kind of not want an in-game designed death by Obsidian (they can handle the epilogue for a multiple ending scenario), but let me have that control. The death of the main character doesn't often go good, I'd rather narrate it myself.

 

If they make a sequel, then it should follow the cannon story rather than the cannon character~eeeh what I mean is that it could follow the main story rather than the main character from the first game. That depends on how Obsidian does it though.

 

Maybe in the sequel you follow the story of another one, who walks a different path but in the same world, perhaps at a parallel time which is a piece to unlock the big picture that unfolds when you've finished the Quadrilogy together perhaps you have to go back and play the First one when you've finished the 3rd one because there were clues that you completely disregarded the first time you played (non-important originally). Anyways that is just rambling.

 

I could get behind the PC dieing in the very last battle and then you getting a different ending based on managing to still finish that fight (obviously you wouldn't be able to carry that save over to the sequel).

 

As for sequels I'd much prefer following the character (Baldur's Gate) rather than the story (Dragon Age).

[motorizer]

 

 

If they make a sequel, then it should follow the cannon story rather than the cannon character~eeeh what I mean is that it could follow the main story rather than the main character from the first game. That depends on how Obsidian does it though.

 

 

 

They've already said they want sequels to follow your character...and that's what I want, I want to create a character who has a series of adventures...not someone who stuffs up their first adventure and dies

[Osvir]

Dragon Age 2 is a bad example in my opinion because it wasn't a finished game. Or rather, Copy+Paste game. Baldur's Gate 2 can work without the backstory from Baldur's Gate 1.

 

@motorizer: I kind of want a red thread going across both games rather than a "figure" or an "actor" being the red thread. But I understand. If possible, being P:E2 being ambivalent somehow, that it could be a new hero just as much as it is the predecessor from P:E1.

 

Dragon Age 2 is also narratively a bad example, because it left the red thread and poked it some times when mentioning the "Warden". It was way too vague in my opinion. I never finished DA2 though, and obviously no multiple playthroughs, how much does the background you choose effect the story?

 

Opposing Force, Blue Shift & Half-Life is in my opinion a great example. In Blueshift you get to see Freeman once or twice running past you as well. Just finished Black Mesa <3 *relaxed* what a great game want Blue Shift, Opposing Forces mods naow! Haha

 

TL;DR: Discussing sequels

Edited December 27, 2012 by Osvir