Party Member Death

Lumpy · Jan 23, 2008

This topic is derailing the latest derailment of some retarded topic, so: it is impossible to entirely avoid resurrection in BG2!!! But nevermind that. How should RPGs handle PMD?
In a modern RPG with tons upon tons of combat, permanent party member death would be bad for a very simple reason - there's no emotional connection to having your companion be killed by a Rat's critical bite. It's not an example of fun failure - it lessens the story overall. Note that I'm ignoring Save/Load.
So, do you add Resurrection, and with it a ton of logic problems? If you add resurrection to a setting, you should better be prepared to do away with many things we in the real world take for granted, like assassinations and the such. The FR designers were lazy bastards though, and the best example of the stupidity can be seen in Baldur's Gate.
NWN2 had a hardly elegant, but hardly problematic solution. There is no resurrection - when someone falls in combat, they just go unconscious. I think it's a good system, and it doesn't necessarily make the game easier - so long as you balance the encounters with expendable PMs in mind.
This system could be taken one step further, so as to allow deaths in certain encounters. For example, having Ian die while fighting the master is much more dramatic than having him die because both Scorps attacked him instead of you.

Alternatively, just make combat rarer, and all deaths permanent.

JarlFrank · Jan 23, 2008

Well, yea... it's something I recently thought about, too. I have been developing the best RPG ever [in my mind, of course] and came to a certain problem. It would have party-based combat, turn-based and extremely complex, with 12 characters in your party, and each of them with a unique personality and all. And in the grand finale, your whole party will die in a great battle. But, as you're going into fights more often than once, there's always the chance of one of your party members dying. And losing a character with a great personality to some cheap lesser enemy isn't fun. But resurrection sucks, too. What's the sense in your whole party dying in the end when there are means of resurrection? Where's the sense of killing important NPCs then?

Well, there's the dilemma. I'd like the game to have challenging combat that can be fucking hard at times, but also want the party to survive till the end. And resurrection is not an option, because it sucks and isn't dramatic. Also, getting unconscious after being critically hit with a spear through the heart isn't very believable either. So what's the solution? I'd go for critical hits which make the character disabled *and* bleeding, so he's shortly before death, and the next hit they recieve can be deadly. So you know that that character is endangered and needs healing and you have to protect him. He can still die if you don't protect him well enough, but it's a good system for a party based RPG to add more dramatical situations and better combat overall.

thesheeep · Jan 23, 2008

Ressurecting for a really hight cost and in connection with other severe penalties (people being weaker after being ressurected, for example) always is an option. Of course it has to make some sense

Ressurecting in a Fallout-like setting would be retarded.

Frustration is the worst enemy of every game.

Anyway, if you really want to avoid it, do as you said, make it NWN2-like. There is no death, only the inability to fight. And if all party members are unable to fight, you die.
This, however, has the problem that it doesn't really make much sense...
I mean, seriously... why doe severyone beat you to unconsciousness and not to death?...

JarlFrank · Jan 23, 2008

thesheeep said:
I mean, seriously... why doe severyone beat you to unconsciousness and not to death?...

Your skin is too thick so their blades can't cut through it, your bones are too thick so their hammers can't smash them, so you just go unconscious because of all the beating.

DraQ · Jan 23, 2008

Lumpy said:
(...)
Alternatively, just make combat rarer, and all deaths permanent.

I opt for the latter.

What is it with batalistic shitfests in most cRPGs? Why is your typical player character expected to literaly slaughter number of enemies equivalent to a small nation?
I can understand that in FPS games, where running around killing things is the core aspect of gameplay. I can understand that in diablo-likes and all types of dungeon crawls, but since when does "role playing" equate "running around killing things"? Even in FPS games it's often beneficial to reduce the number of enemies, but make them stronger, faster and smarter. Why should PC in cRPG casualy slaughter three bandit camps when going behind a rock to take a leak?

Lumpy · Jan 23, 2008

Strangely, Morrowind did very well in this regard. By the time I was leader of two guilds and defeated Dagoth Ur, I had only killed 20 or so people. And most of them in the Main Quest.
One quarter through Oblivion, my body count was over 100.

Cassidy · Jan 23, 2008

Why not make it only possible to raise dead NPCs from the party by doing morally objectionable quests to a necromancer? That would definitively make it a less black and white situation. Then add some note that there is no afterlife in your low fantasy world, and then the moral dilemma even furthers as now you either keep your friends dead forever or raise them as self-aware undeads in a former shadow of their previous existence.

JarlFrank · Jan 23, 2008

Cassidy said:
Why not make it only possible to raise dead NPCs from the party by doing morally objectionable quests to a necromancer? That would definitively make it a less black and white situation. Then add some note that there is no afterlife in your low fantasy world, and then the moral dilemma even furthers as now you either keep your friends dead forever or raise them as self-aware undeads in a former shadow of their previous existence.

Necromancer? Hmm, good idea. Your raised-from-the-dead characters should be undead after that, though, which could add a completely different dimension to the game, too.

DraQ · Jan 23, 2008

Lumpy said:
Strangely, Morrowind did very well in this regard. By the time I was leader of two guilds and defeated Dagoth Ur, I had only killed 20 or so people. And most of them in the Main Quest.
One quarter through Oblivion, my body count was over 100.

But, was Morrowind bad at all? For me it more than made up for abysmal character interaction, underdeveloped C&C, exploitable mechanics and overall bugginess with it's atmosphere and lore. It *felt* like a world, even if NPCs were about as lively as wooden posts.

Still, I agree on combat against NPCs it was sparser than usual and usually completely optional, especially given the lack of "zomgXPs!1" temptation.

Cassidy said:
Why not make it only possible to raise dead NPCs from the party by doing morally objectionable quests to a necromancer? That would definitively make it a less black and white situation. Then add some note that there is no afterlife in your low fantasy world, and then the moral dilemma even furthers as now you either keep your friends dead forever or raise them as self-aware undeads in a former shadow of their previous existence.

Necromancy, or whole "resurrection with a twist" concept in general is nice, but doesn't really cut it as it's only applicable to particular settings rather than being a universal solution.

Destroid · Jan 23, 2008

You could also implement a more believable version of the unconcious system by having certain rules for resurrection, maybe you are supernatural creatures and require certain conditions to be lain to rest permanently, or to steal from various scifi settings, perhaps a body can be cloned and then have the personality reinstalled from memory banks in the brain (this would also allow you to attach a lengthy time penalty for having your NPC buddies die).

Really it is tied to the setting of the game.

Zomg · Jan 23, 2008

Dynamically characterize NPCs. Think X-Com soldiers + Real Lives sims + Darklands characters instead of Minsc. Boom, you can now both care about them and not destroy half the content in the game by allowing them to die.

Murk · Jan 23, 2008

Time frame, perhaps?

You basically get mortally wounded and once killed you can only be ressurected in super epic quests, otherwise if your characters fall in battle or from a trap they are mortally wounded and must be treated to stop them from drying, and eventually nursed back to health.

The severity of both can be dependant on the situation.

Batlle with lord Doom the Greater Lich Lord of Raven Frost will maim your party so that only the super healer in the game can bring them back, involving you killing a white dragon and bringing its heart back to the healer in question who's just not going to question where you got that heart from.

Or take vandal hearts route "OH GOD I'M HURT I HAVE TO BAIL!!!" and the character doesn't come back until you win the battle. Though that was in a game that was 90% battle so each battle was basically a stage... that might work differently in a more fluid world. I guess you could jus thave a "oh god I'm hurt, I can't fight anymore, have all my stats reduced to minimums, and the next town we get to I will spend some in-game-time there to heal up".

Or give 'em 3 lives, with a "freeman" everytime you complete a chapter or some shit.

mushrooms, whatever.

OSK · Jan 23, 2008

Permanent death all Fire Emblem like.

But give lots of possible party member options.

Murk · Jan 23, 2008

OldSkoolKamikaze said:
Permanent death all Fire Emblem like.

But give lots of possible party member options.

that are all repeats of one another

I do like fire emblem though

mirrorshades · Jan 23, 2008

JarlFrank said:
Necromancer? Hmm, good idea. Your raised-from-the-dead characters should be undead after that, though, which could add a completely different dimension to the game, too.

I've seen resurrection work OK in some games where a severe "cost" is given, not unlike what you mention. If a cleric in your party can cast resurrection, have him age 10 years or have some stats permanently lowered; have the resurrectee not just spring back to his/her former self... lower stats, change alignment, tweak skills, etc... (all for the worse).

Could also assign some sort of stigma to the character... the simpletons in a fantasy setting (lower-class, uneducated peasants) would suspect some sort of witchcraft. Thus, could assign some sort of "cursed" status that would seriously damage NPC reactions to the resurrected character.

Lumpy · Jan 23, 2008

DraQ said:
Still, I agree on combat against NPCs it was sparser than usual and usually completely optional, especially given the lack of "zomgXPs!1" temptation.

Replacing ZOMGXP with ZOMG Guild Rank was a good decision for Daggerfall. Some RPG grampas might complain, but lack of quest XP hardly meant less incentive for doing quests.
And indeed, killing a goblin cave to loot it and killing it because someone said so should never grant you more experience. Nor should the last goblin be more rewarding than the first 20.

I like the necromancy idea, because:
- It brings the fighter back, so the game doesn't get imbalanced.
- It makes death matter, because the person is pretty much dead.
- It isn't a loss for the player, because the zombie has his own personality.
Yes, it's pretty much perfect.

SmokedWolf · Jan 24, 2008

Ideas I like:

Ressurrection should be costly, otherwise the value of any death is cheapened.

Unconcious system, fighters can be out of the fight, with out them being lost.

Further Ideas:

Some kind of emergency first aid option, party members are possible to saved if a paramedic type character is on hand who can resuscitate the downed character.

No xp for trivial combat. Would encourage player to be more conservative in deciding whether it is worth fighting or not. May be a good thing. May be not.

Party member perma death leads to alternative interaction in the world, perhaps affects other characters, making some want to try harder, in honour of dead member, or perhaps makes others more nihilistic. Could lead to interesting religious story line.

A land of the dead, Greek style? Where, if there is some reason you want a specific character you have to work to get them back. Similar to Necromancer ressurect as before where penalites/quests probably occur to get them back.

Edit: Finishing post, was interrupted by my own dodgy clicking.

sqeecoo · Jan 24, 2008

Lumpy said:
Alternatively, just make combat rarer, and all deaths permanent.

This. I want to see a RPG where combat is dangerous and deadly. A RPG where you have to think carefully before resorting to violence, and where planning, surprise, and achieving any kind of edge over your enemies is crucial.

Gothic is not bad in that respect, mostly regarding human vs. human combat. Many quest have combat solutions that are very dangerous, and backing down is often a good choice.

EDIT:

Zomg said:
Dynamically characterize NPCs. Think X-Com soldiers + Real Lives sims + Darklands characters instead of Minsc. Boom, you can now both care about them and not destroy half the content in the game by allowing them to die.

Yes! Xcom is absolutely perfect in that regard. You start caring for your soldiers, but they are replacable. That's the main problem with JA, in my opinion. You just can't allow your mercs to die with any regularity, as opposed to xcom where your soldiers *do* die a lot, especially in the beginning.

DraQ · Jan 24, 2008

sqeecoo said:
Lumpy said:

Alternatively, just make combat rarer, and all deaths permanent.

Click to expand...

This. I want to see a RPG where combat is dangerous and deadly. A RPG where you have to think carefully before resorting to violence, and where planning, surprise, and achieving any kind of edge over your enemies is crucial.

Seconded.

Other than that, resurrection-with-a-twist and, in some instances, random NPC generator seem viable.

DiverNB · Jan 24, 2008

I hate to hop on the bandwagon of liking the necromancy idea, but I think it could be implemented pretty well.

However, I think that the penalties shouldn't be too harsh. Although we definitely want the character death and ressurection, I feel that screwing with stats/alignment too much would cause a lot of frustration and just end up with people reloading their last save.

Maybe tack on the cost of another mortal life. To bring back your dead comrade, you must find another living host body for them to inhabit, effectively sending the soul of that bodies current host to the nether.

This could be further complicated by that person's moral alignment. So you do all this for a paladin that fell in battle, only for him to realize that you've made a dark bargain. Then a couple things could happen, he could attack you, kill himself , or just go mad.

Other characters (say maybe a necromancer) that you bring back could actually become stronger due to there experience with the dead.

Death shouldn't ONLY produce negative effects. It could easily make sense for a person to gain abilities in the right context.

sqeecoo · Jan 24, 2008

Yep. And a fallout-like setting or game would be perfect for that type of game imo.

Such a combat system would finally erase the diplomat/fighter/thief distinction, because being charismatic would be crucial in combat. You'd need to put your opponent off guard in dialogue, and concealment of weapons, positioning, distraction, attacking etc. could be handled in part through dialogue. A big brute armed to the teeth would put everyone on guard, and you shouldn't be able to kill more then a single opponent reliably.

A well dressed, calm and charismatic character could move close to an enemy, put him off guard, and slip a concealed dagger into his gut. Attacking hostile, alert groups of enemies should be avoided like the plague unless you are superior in weapons, numbers, and, above all, tactics.

Bandits would suddenly become a serious and realistic threat, not a source of xp and loot. Caravans, guilds and parties would be a source of protection, not an invitation to more powerful enemies. Faction and NPC relations would be crucial, so that you actually have someone on your side when all hell breaks loose. Safe resting places would be very important. Being a coward would be smart, not missing out on xp.

I do think all of this can be achieved with little frustration to the player, if he is made to realize right away how the game is structured.

EDIT: of course, a crucial thing is to make resources and information important and scarce. The witcher handles this well, although the combat is nothing like what I describe above.

The glimpses of the importance of being informed in the games we have are not enough. I want to see you pay dearly but gladly on information about the layout of a bandit camp and the number and equipment of the bandits, or gain that information yourself by scouting and stealth. AoD does quite well in this regard, I would guess.

EDIT2: the necromancy idea is good too. And it might finally see magic move away from wands and combat casting to strange and dangerous rituals. Less Harry Potter more LOTR (I mean the book).

DraQ · Jan 24, 2008

DiverNB said:
Maybe tack on the cost of another mortal life. To bring back your dead comrade, you must find another living host body for them to inhabit, effectively sending the soul of that bodies current host to the nether.

Nifty. I like the elegance and simplicty of life for life mechanics. While it's utility is still limited to specific settings (as opposed to making combat Sirious Buisness(TM)), it's just spot on.

I dislike the host body approach, though, as it doesn't make any sense stat- and apperance wise. Make it some sort of full lifeforce transfer or something. It just might make sense in a fantasy world.

DraQ · Jan 24, 2008

sqeecoo said:
Yep. And a fallout-like setting or game would be perfect for that type of game imo.

Such a combat system would finally erase the diplomat/fighter/thief distinction, because being charismatic would be crucial in combat. You'd need to put your opponent off guard in dialogue, and concealment of weapons, positioning, distraction, attacking etc. could be handled in part through dialogue. A big brute armed to the teeth would put everyone on guard, and you shouldn't be able to kill more then a single opponent reliably.

A well dressed, calm and charismatic character could move close to an enemy, put him off guard, and slip a concealed dagger into his gut. Attacking hostile, alert groups of enemies should be avoided like the plague unless you are superior in weapons, numbers, and, above all, tactics.

Bandits would suddenly become a serious and realistic threat, not a source of xp and loot. Caravans, guilds and parties would be a source of protection, not an invitation to more powerful enemies. Faction and NPC relations would be crucial, so that you actually have someone on your side when all hell breaks loose. Safe resting places would be very important. Being a coward would be smart, not missing out on xp.

I do think all of this can be achieved with little frustration to the player, if he is made to realize right away how the game is structured.

EDIT: of course, a crucial thing is to make resources and information important and scarce. The witcher handles this well, although the combat is nothing like what I describe above.

The glimpses of the importance of being informed in the games we have are not enough. I want to see you pay dearly but gladly on information about the layout of a bandit camp and the number and equipment of the bandits, or gain that information yourself by scouting and stealth. AoD does quite well in this regard, I would guess.

If I wasn't an atheist, I'd swear there is a spark of divine inspiration in your words.

sqeecoo · Jan 24, 2008

DraQ said:
If I wasn't an atheist, I'd swear there is a spark of divine inspiration in your words.

Thanks :D

I'd want a fallout-like game (not necessarily setting), where survival is your main concern (see Betrayal at Krondor for good food management, Darklands for a dangerous world).

You should be able to either align yourself to a powerful but morally questionable ally like Vault City in FO2 and try to further it's cause, while making enemies in the process, or wonder around doing "good deeds" but ultimately not being able to do much because you have only a few friends that directly support you. Or be an opportunist mercenary or a bandit yourself.
At the same time, the situation should gradually change (the mutants are advancing!) whether or not you try to fight for or against that, or ignore it (see Space Rangers for a good implementation of that).

Human Shield · Jan 24, 2008

If you want more story and less wargame you can't just tie survivability to HP, repeat:

You can't tie survivability to HP.

Think outside the box, tie story elements into stats that effect combat. You have to use meta mechanics if you want more then a mini-wargame.

Party Member Death

Arcane

I like Thief THIS much

Arcane

I like Thief THIS much

Arcane

Arcane

Arcane

I like Thief THIS much

Arcane

Arcane

Arbiter

Arcane

Arcane

Arcane

Liturgist

Arcane

Scholar

Arcane

Arcane

Liturgist

Arcane

Arcane

Arcane

Arcane

Augur