Preview Dragon Age sightings at 1UP

[Naked Ninja]

Incorrect. The two are mutually exclusive due to the nature of the characters involved. Its possible in those genres BECAUSE the characters are throw away. Losing a character in those games provides the same sense of loss as losing an expensive tank in an RTS, one you have spent time and resources building. Its a strategic set-back, but little more. It is not the same as losing a unique character, one who cannot be replaced, not at all. The little Sim people don't even come close to the emotional connection of a well written NPC in an RPG.

 

[dunduks]

Just a few posts back:

There's no reason why death can't unlock various story or future interactions. Where you have NPCs with story, it'd be quite possible to provide story in the event of their death. (yes this is more work, no it's not twice the amount for the game, yes it's possible - it'll just mean a shorter, richer game).

And you even agreed to that, so I don't understand why you are bitching. If you don't like such design in games - so be it, however this does not make such games impossible.

 

[Naked Ninja]

I agreed in the case of a pre-scripted plot point, not if you were wondering around in some cave, forgot to check for traps and half your party wipes. Or someone gets eaten by ghouls.


Ok, so say you've got a party of 6. You run into trouble, the trolls were tougher than you thought, 5 of them die. Cue some sort of backstory, which, because the devs can't possibly predict which exact situation they died in, is kinda vague and general. Ie, not related to how they died, or where the plot was at that point. Its probably not as good as what you'd get if they were in the party at certain plot points, because the devs would know the context then and be able to give more meaningful dialogue and whatever, but hey.


So now you pick up 5 more guys. Lets pretend you didn't take the other guys because you liked them more, and are fine with these ones. They die too. Forgot to get the rogue to check for traps (or maybe all the rogue types were in the first group), BOOM, nasty. Another couple of death plots here.

Ok, so lets say both these events happen in the first 30% of the game. Now...you've run out of NPCs. Scripting good NPCs takes a lot of work, the supply is not inexhaustable. So now what? You continue through the rest of the game, but because it was designed to be challenging to a party of 6, you get your ass handed to you so often you get frustrated and restart.

The devs clap themselves on the back, what a great design.


*edit* You're also assuming that having some extra story is more fun than actually interacting with those characters while they travel with you during your adventures. While sure, you could interact with some extra world NPCs during the death plot, its not the same as having a interesting character as a party member.

*edit 2* Also, if you're chasing down the lost Bauble of Awesomeness on the continent of Blahdiblah, maybe going on a trek to take his body back home for burial is annoying. While that is certainly the players choice, in this case, because your offered death plot involves annoyance, he'd just reload around the death. You haven't offered him a good enough reason not to, in ALL possible scenarios. But you guys have been saying its possible to make every case such that he doesn't want to do that. Good luck fulfilling that impossible criterion.

 

[Zomg]

I think you're out of the loop on the context of some stuff we've talked about before. For instance, galsiah is probably not predicating his fantasy death system on being a feature in a standard order combat heavy/small unit tactics RPG with a linear plot, but on some conjectured game that could obviously work with a stricter death system; maybe a short, low combat IF-like RPG or a heavily procedural one.

We also have a few known death system ideas, like incarnated plots and personalities. Incarnated meaning that instead of every NPC being a prewritten plot and personality complex, which you lose in entirety if they croak, you instead recruit generated NPCs as needed which are assigned prewritten personalities and plots when arbitrary thresholds are crossed, like e.g. you enter a town and the NPC pipes up and says it's where he was born, and old man Pervert touched him, and he's gonna go hack the guy up.

 

[dunduks]

I agreed in the case of a pre-scripted plot point, not if you were wondering around in some cave, forgot to check for traps and half your party wipes. Or someone gets eaten by ghouls....

In a story heavy game you will have at most 2 or 3 important NPCs, others usually just hang around PC for almost no reason. If the game has proper balance, some random ghoul will not be able to kill your party members so easily and even then random events can also be tracked, like "your dear friend XYZ was killed by <Beast45>. So the important ones will have deep backstories that would open up quests, or as someone mentioned earlier, some burial rites, different responses from other NPCs and so on. Besides the combat system can built in a way that deals with near death experiences, where you will need to retreat or provide cover, first aid, etc, to save the poor schmuck, so that trivial character death will not occur that often.
At any rate, it is possible to make a story heavy game, which would account for the death of party members, either they die randomly/in a boss fight or by script.

*edit* You're also assuming that having some extra story is more fun than actually interacting with those characters while they travel with you during your adventures. While sure, you could interact with some extra world NPCs during the death plot, its not the same as having a interesting character as a party member.

Well, yes, because in 90% of games I play, I wish there was a way to strangle those "deep" NPCs in their sleep, or poison their food supply so that they die from explosive diarrhea. That's especially evident in Bio games.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Generated content is nice, but it hasn't got to the point of competing with a well done human written script. Some of the best in the business have tried, but the human mind is incredible at picking up patterns, and it quickly becomes evident when something is generated procedurally.

The incarnated idea still holds the same problems with the death situation. While the NPC can change, there is a limited number of plots. If you were to somehow generate a character that the player got attached to, when they die you need to provide a motive not to reload. You can't have an infinite number of backgrounds, unless you generate similar characters, which becomes cheesy. Good characters stand out. The whole point of a good character is that they provide UNIQUE interaction.

Imagine if you walk into another town and a second party member pipes up saying he was touched by old lady pervert? The pattern is quickly revealed, and the impact lessened.

 

[Naked Ninja]

n a story heavy game you will have at most 2 or 3 important NPCs, others usually just hang around PC for almost no reason. If the game has proper balance, some random ghoul will not be able to kill your party members so easily and even then random events can also be tracked, like "your dear friend XYZ was killed by <Beast45>.

Having a few superficial changes, like beast names etc, isn't the same as actual context. The plot will be exactly the same apart from that.

Oh, and as to random events not killing your guys, I don't get where you guys come with this and the idea of balance. A balanced encounter should be a challenge. The very definition of challenge requires there to be a risk involved. In the case of combat, that risk is losing the combat, which means death. Unless you have some way of preventing that....which brings me to....

Besides the combat system can built in a way that deals with near death experiences, where you will need to retreat or provide cover, first aid, etc, to save the poor schmuck, so that trivial character death will not occur that often.

YESSSS!!!!! Yes exactly. Thank you. Thank you very much. A system where they don't just die immediately, but you have a chance to save them!!! Yes, exactly that, well done. Thats exactly the design philosophy behind having your characters fall down during combat if they reach 0 hit points! They are disabled, barely clinging to life, but you have a chance to save them as long as one party member survives to staunch their wounds. To avoid pointless deaths in arbitrary combat. That is exactly what everyone has been calling me an idiot for defending. Saying that a system which doesn't let trivial death happen is not necessarily going to make the game a complete disaster, a game purely about watching cut scenes. Now, you can argue about the exact implementation of this system, but I really hope one of you has enough sense to see how both ideas are aiming at THE SAME DAMN THING.

 

[galsiah]

@Naked Ninja
First this isn't an argument about current implementations of death/"death". It's a discussion about the possibilities in design of this element. Examples serve only as illustrations - e.g. of what's possible, what tends to happen (under some circumstances), what's difficult etc. An example is never going to demonstrate that anything is impossible.

The point isn't for you or I to pick apart each other's particular examples, but rather to think for ourselves. It makes no sense to argue the finer points of existing systems where it is clear that those systems either have a different focus, or are flawed.

Also, I never asked you to argue against the best feasible implementation of a feature I can imagine. I asked you to argue against the best feasible implementation of a feature YOU can imagine.
Note that you're free to interpret "feasible" as you wish - I'm not asking you to imagine a perfect system - just the best reasonable solution you can come up with. If your examples so far have been of the best feasible permadeath solutions you can imagine, your imagination sucks. [I don't think that's the case - I think you're not bothering to try]

Pointing out flaws in implementations where you can think of fixes to those flaws, is pointless. Not bothering to consider fixes for those flaws is lazy. By all means raise flaws for which you genuinely can't see any viable solution - that's useful. It does require you to think for more than five seconds before posting though.

Having a few superficial changes, like beast names etc, isn't the same as actual context. The plot will be exactly the same apart from that.

There are many degrees of "context". The options are not simple name insertions, or total plot branches. There is a continuum of cases in between, which once again you are choosing to ignore.
Do stop with the black&white thinking.

A balanced encounter should be a challenge.

Or form part of one. It needn't be challenging when considered alone, so long as it adds something to the bigger picture. [As a simple example, meeting certain enemies in an area could provide useful information: their presence, their direction, something they're carrying.... That information could be useful for many things: indication of futher attacks, indication of motivations of their bosses, indication of larger local enemy presence, specific quest related info (e.g. if they're carrying a note...)]

And yes - I know that in a simple dungeon crawl with a load of non-context based random encounters, the above doesn't apply. However, we're not talking about dungeon crawls, and we're not talking about bad games.
Encounters, whether "random" or otherwise, have many uses in an RPG beyond the challenge involved in a combat.

The very definition of challenge requires there to be a risk involved.

First, no it doesn't - it requires something to be a non-trivial task, so that it's difficult/challenging. Most interesting challenges present some risk to the player, but there are many which don't (usually more trivial challenges, but challenges nonetheless).

In the case of combat, that risk is losing the combat, which means death.

Again - this is a black-and-white view of things.
The risk of combat is not simply of losing - it's of coming out of it better or worse off. In particular, there's a gradation of possible health loss, mana (for example) loss, equipment usage....

Combat gives many obvious ways in which to give more than black/white outcomes. This is a good thing, since it incentivizes the player to do as well as possible, whatever the challenge involved. If almost dying carries no penalty, then relatively easy combats will be very dull. If there's a continuum of penalties from full health to none, then the challenge in an easy combat becomes to avoid such penalties.
If the only threat from combat is death, then you have a badly designed game - since either most combats will be dull/deadly, or you have to turn the world into nonsense Oblivion-style to keep things interesting.

Add to that, that there are other possible success/failure criteria in combat, e.g. winning quickly / being delayed at some cost; capturing an enemy alive for information / killing them all and losing it; pushing the enemy back without killing them / slaughtering them and being vilified as a result....

Just looking at combat as an isolated challenge with win/loss results is to lose almost all its potential.

Yes, exactly that, well done. Thats exactly the design philosophy behind having your characters fall down during combat if they reach 0 hit points! They are disabled, barely clinging to life, but you have a chance to save them as long as one party member survives to staunch their wounds.

As I've said before, this is credible if it happens a few times. It is not credible if it keeps happening. It is also not conducive to a reasonable experience if a player finds it useful to exploit this non-death by putting characters into otherwise absurdly dangerous positions. The world loses all credibility once that starts happening.

To avoid this, you need to severely penalize near-death. To avoid reloading, you need to do this in interesting ways.

...To avoid pointless deaths in arbitrary combat...

Will you get it into your head that combat in an RPG need not be "arbitrary".
Many combat situations can be specifically specified by the designer.
A combat situation not specifically specified can be generated procedurally without any randomness.
A combat generated using randomness will still generate results from pre-designed, context based tables.

Again, a designer will not have full control over exactly when a character can die, but he has huge control over the odds of major character death. He even has the option to cheat in some circumstances by not permitting death - provided there are severe penalties for extreme injury, so the player will not be able to exploit this, and is unlikely even to notice it.

That is exactly what everyone has been calling me an idiot for defending.

Most people calling you an idiot (or similar) are not doing so on the basis of your position, but rather because your arguments are weak.

This is a controversial issue with good arguments on both (or more) sides.
You need to start making some.

...Saying that a system which doesn't let trivial death happen is not necessarily going to make the game a complete disaster...

But "trivial death" are your words - no-one else's. Non-scripted death is very different from trivial death. Also, if death itself were made an interesting plot device, with entertaining consequences, then death would never be trivial - even if its cause were.

If you want to argue that "trivial death" is a bad thing, go for it - I'd agree with you. You haven't done this so far, but have continually worked on the basis that non-scripted death necessarily allows trivial/random death. This isn't true.

 

[Naked Ninja]

It's a discussion about the possibilities in design of this element. Examples serve only as illustrations - e.g. of what's possible, what tends to happen (under some circumstances), what's difficult etc. An example is never going to demonstrate that anything is impossible.

The point isn't for you or I to pick apart each other's particular examples, but rather to think for ourselves. It makes no sense to argue the finer points of existing systems where it is clear that those systems either have a different focus, or are flawed.

Gigantic cop-out that.

I asked you to argue against the best feasible implementation of a feature YOU can imagine.

You don't seem to understand that that is exactly why I was laughing. You asked -me-, the person who was debating against your points, to first imagine a system, and then debate the system -I- had just come up with. Can you not see how circular that is? You are asking me to argue with myself. It is your job to prove YOUR point, not mine.

Its the same as me telling that guy to imagine I'd made a sarcastic retort, and respond as if I had said that. Its silly. Mental masturbation. Its your job to prove me wrong/provide a counter-argument. If you can't, don't try and cover it by saying "oh, you just aren't imagining it well enough".

If you believe there is a better system, that simply isn't enough. You need to clarify it, to set it down in concrete. All you're doing is expressing your belief that such a system exists, you're not actually giving any proof. Anything you hold up as proof, I am willing to debate, such as X-Com, or ideas about random generation, or whatever.

But this argument you have, where you say "why aren't you debating against any possible imagined system?", I'm sorry, no. Come back to earth, and deal in real design, not simply the potentiality of a possible design. Honestly, I've not heard such crap since I got into a debate with a masters philosophy student in varsity. Do you, by any chance, wear a beret?

I am thinking for myself. I have a lot of experience both with programming and scripting, and I know what it takes to implement the ideas you're talking about, and how feasable they are, and how the reality of what you're saying won't match this grandiose vision you have in your head.

There are many degrees of "context". The options are not simple name insertions, or total plot branches. There is a continuum of cases in between, which once again you are choosing to ignore.

Again with the hot air. You need to actually categorise these options, this continuum, so that your opponent, in this case me, can respond. Saying that there just "are" these possibilities, and I am stupid for not seeing them, is just shooting your mouth off. Concrete ideas guy, not simply claiming that these ideas exist and I must be stupid for not seeing them. Again, you don't propose a design, merely the idea that a design exists, without anything to really back it up. Besides a bunch of back-patting Codex members.

First, no it doesn't - it requires something to be a non-trivial task, so that it's difficult/challenging. Most interesting challenges present some risk to the player, but there are many which don't (usually more trivial challenges, but challenges nonetheless).

Challenge requires there to be a less benificial path, and the risk is you take the less optimal one. If all paths are equally beneficial, and there is no risk in you taking the lesser path, then it doesn't matter which path you take, and there is no challenge. Challenge means the possibility of failure to achieve a good result. Ie risk. If you disagree, please, go ahead and post an example.

The risk of combat is not simply of losing - it's of coming out of it better or worse off. In particular, there's a gradation of possible health loss, mana (for example) loss, equipment usage....

Indeed. So you admit there is risk? And, if you take that example further, you will see that at some point, risk of health loss = risk of health reaching 0, since your health is a finite number. Ie death/disabled. You don't have to be in a life or death struggle every single combat, but taken over a number of combats, there must be a chance of failure or it becomes non-challenging.

Just looking at combat as an isolated challenge with win/loss results is to lose almost all its potential.

Not really. Believe this or not, most gamers enjoy combat. Most of the fun is in the combat itself. You might not think like this, but whatever. Almost every human game or sport is based around the win/lose principle, the struggle against an opponent, because deep in the human psyche, we ENJOY it. That is why action RPGs sell so well, even though they strip almost everything else away. I'm sure you will look down on me for this statement, but when I'm playing a wizard in this game, its fun just to blow shit up sometimes. Not every combat has to be a plot point. You say that means bad design. Thats your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Personally, I enjoy a bit of action, just for the sake of that action. Oh no, I have professed to heresy on the Codex!! I can see the comments coming.

As I've said before, this is credible if it happens a few times. It is not credible if it keeps happening. It is also not conducive to a reasonable experience if a player finds it useful to exploit this non-death by putting characters into otherwise absurdly dangerous positions. The world loses all credibility once that starts happening.

Do you even understand why people play RPGs? People play to experience exactly that absurdity, of being the hero/villian/whatever(which in real life leads to early death).People put themselves into exactly such absurdly dangerous (virtual) situations, because its fun. Its fun because there isn't actually real danger, only a viscereal thrill, one which isn't too problematic if you fail. You get to reload, and try again. Notice no one plays themselves in these things. Its always hardened fighter, sneaky assassin, martial artist, crime lord, street fighter, wanderer in the wastes. Its not middle manager in a book keeping firm. Its not the guy whose idea of fun is to sit on his ass for 8 hours in front of a PC. This is escapism guy. Its entertainment, not actual real life. People only want versimilitude as long as its fun, and supports their game experience. If you make those experiences actually dangerous, people would avoid them, as they do in reality.People are looking for an enjoyable experience, not a real one. In real life, people can take a single wound and end up in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives. Yet no games simulate that feature. Why? Because you're creating an abstract construct for people to enjoy. And no one enjoys the very real penalties associated with these types of risks in real life. No one enjoys being disabled, so it doesn't happen in games. Credibility isn't lost. No one enjoys dying either, so it doesn't happen, except in games where you are removed from the characters by some degree, or if its a major plot point. Credibility doesn't come into it. I've yet to hear you complain that you can't play someone who spends the rest of his life confined to a bed, eating through a tube?

You have to grasp this, its only good as long as its fun. Having your NPCs dying is not fun, unless you can come up with a system that makes it fun (I've already mentioned that I don't think you've done that, only proposed that such a system could exist, and would be great). Don't talk about the world losing its credibility. We abstract away to things like hit points and backpacks you can store a full suit of armor in and whatnot, and people accept it without whining the world isn't credible. Because having to hassle with your backpack aint enjoyable. Your party members never urinate either. People don't care. The world doesn't lose all credibility. No one forgets they are playing a game. Entertainment trumps verscimilitude. Its just FUN to be in the middle of what you'd see in an action movie, whereas in real life you'd be wetting your pants and crying and trying to AVOID it.

To avoid this, you need to severely penalize near-death. To avoid reloading, you need to do this in interesting ways.

Again with the hot air. The more severly you penalize someone for an action, the more they will desire to reload to avoid it. But you're going to make it so interesting they don't huh? You talk about what you need to do, not -how- to do it. We also need to end world hunger and war. I will leave it up to you to imagination as to exactly how to do this. You can't? Oh, your imagination sucks.

A combat situation not specifically specified can be generated procedurally without any randomness.
A combat generated using randomness will still generate results from pre-designed, context based tables.

Oh heaven help me, I'm arguing with a loon. You actually have no idea what you're saying, do you? Have you ever actually procedurally generated anything?

He even has the option to cheat in some circumstances by not permitting death - provided there are severe penalties for extreme injury, so the player will not be able to exploit this, and is unlikely even to notice it.

oh sweet angels of mercy, help me, you are completely batshit fucking crazy. If you get into a combat, and you make a mistake and are losing, and something deals you a fatal blow, and you're still standing, you won't notice? And then he hits you again, and you're still standing. And then you realise, with glee, that you can't actually die. And, penalty or not, since you are still alive, you proceed to chip away at the enemies health until they peg, exactly because he can't actually bring you down. Great job guy. You think players won't notice this? My word but you are naive. It will be all over the internet within 2 days of your game shipping.

Also, if death itself were made an interesting plot device, with entertaining consequences, then death would never be trivial - even if its cause were.

You just never stop with this do you? You need to make concrete designs, not talk about how cool it would be if X were the case.

but have continually worked on the basis that non-scripted death necessarily allows trivial/random death. This isn't true.

Sigh, hot air, no proof for your statement, again.


I tell you what I'm going to do, because I'm so generous. Why don't you go create a NWN module or suchlike, which implements your ideas, and then come back to me. I will, out of the goodness of my heart, play it. And if it comes out as well as you imply it will, I will graciously and magnanimously admit that I was wrong, and you were right, and I'm so damn stupid. So go right ahead. I want a good RPG mind. One with a strong main plot not centered around your characters (no rogue-likes), but one in which they never the less play a role in, and affect, assuming they are alive. And you've got to make all death really interesting. Enough so that I don't want to reload to get my dead char back. No cheating either, and making your story about visiting the afterlife or something. Cause thats a once off way to get around the issue. I want to see a -system- that will work for RPGs in general.

I'll be waiting right here. Bring me something besides hot air.

 

[The_Pope]

The easiest solution to losing story via character death is not to let the player control story critical characters. Let the party be a bunch of randomly generated mercenaries (with enough stats etc. to make them worth something, but still expendable). In fact, their death has benefits - you don't have to pay them, and can help yourself to your share of their gear. You don't need all the characters waiting on the player all the time - Lord Nasher never followed you around smacking goblins in NWN2.

 

[Naked Ninja]

That is one solution, but then you don't get party members with personality. A lot of people like that they do. Lord Nasher doesn't make as much of an impression on the player.

I can still remember the names of my party members from BG2. And certain enemies, Like Irenicus. But few other characters stand out. Who was the head of the thieves guild? What was the name of that pirate/mage guy who took you on his ship? Buggered if I remember. But I remember Joheira, even if she was an annoying cow a lot of the time.

 

[MountainWest]

But I remember Joheira, even if she was an annoying cow a lot of the time.

I believe her name was Jaheira...

 

[The_Pope]

Plenty of people remember the characters of Half Life 2, and most of them didn't follow you around. Non party characters don't have to merely be quest dispensers. In fact, having them show up when they're needed could be even better, as you don't miss out on stuff based on who you have with you at the time. You can have separate characters for fighting and plot development quite easily.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Ah, my mistake, thank you. So you remember her too eh?

@ Pope : Yes you can. No one is saying you can't. I simply prefer my characters to talk in a party based RPG. As do a lot of people. Having 6 guys who just follow you around mutely beating things up, yawn.

 

[MountainWest]

Ah, my mistake, thank you. So you remember her too eh?

Yep, remember them all. Or at least their "personalities".

 

[The_Pope]

Ah, my mistake, thank you. So you remember her too eh?

@ Pope : Yes you can. No one is saying you can't. I simply prefer my characters to talk in a party based RPG. As do a lot of people. Having 6 guys who just follow you around mutely beating things up, yawn.

A fair few RTSs have managed to get quite a lot of character into their units - Dawn of War and Starcraft spring to mind. Anyway, thats just a personal preference, not a reason you can't make a good game with permanent death.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Of course you can make a good -game- with permanent death. Whether you can make a good RPG with it, that remains to be seen.

I'd like to remind you that in Dawn of War, any hero who died in battle was easily restored by building him from your base. So no perma death there.

And in Starcraft you couldn't lose your heroes or you'd lose the stage and need to restart. So they enforced you having those characters until the crucial plot points when they died (human Kerrigan, although you only thought it was death )

And in both games, the memorable characters would make comments at scripted points in the stages. It is in fact the exact mechanic you guys are arguing against. Forced chars, with personality through scripted speech.

 

[galsiah]

@Naked Ninja

I have no interest whatever in having an argument. I'm interested in having an interesting discussion. That requires all parties to do their best to see all sides - to come up with the best implementations they can of each idea, not pick holes in the worst ones.

I'm asking you to think, with an aim of coming up with good ideas. I really don't care about winning/losing so long as everyone is thinking, is open-minded, and has interesting ideas. You are not taking an open-minded view - rather you continually polarize issues with no regard for finding a good solution, only for "winning".

I'll freely admit that most of what I've been talking about would be difficult to achieve - most interesting goals are. That's fine, but doesn't make them impossible. Also, note that I've been proposing ideas both for permadeath and non-death: I want to see either system done well, whichever is chosen.

Coming up with a complete, solid implementation of any system would be pointless in this kind of discussion: different games would work well with different systems, and we're not designing a game - just talking about ideas [if we knew much more about Dragon Age, we'd be in a position to talk specifics - but we don't].

I really can't be bothered to point out the problems in your previous post. You're polarizing pretty much every issue and failing to consider any possibility which isn't immediately obvious to you. I can't have a discussion with you on that basis - only an argument which will be quite pointless until you start thinking.

With regard to your NWN module "challenge", first it should be obvious that tackling this area properly demands design consideration from the ground up. It's very possible that doing this well isn't possible within the framework of a module for an existing RPG - I never implied that it should be. Constraining your thinking to what is possible in a NWN module is clearly not reasonable.
Also, the notion that an idea is invalid if one person can't create a solid implentation of it, is ludicrous.

If you're going to bother replying, think first, and aim to make some interesting points about design. What you're doing at the moment is (still) pointless.

Again - to make a convincing argument against permadeath, you need to argue that even the best feasible implementation would not work well. To do that, you need to be clear about what properties such an implementation could possess. Perhaps this is somewhat inconvenient, but a load of examples demonstrate nothing (though they can be useful illustrations). I'm talking in general terms because it's necessary, not because it's convenient.

 

[Human Shield]

This is like the agruement people keep bring up for "statless" RPGs, they keep thinking it is possible but ignore the design flaws brought up with "it would be different" without mentioning how.

Like has been brought up before, trying to reward NPC death with "death stories" ignores that there are a limited number of interesting NPCs and such things would mess with the overall pacing when they happen any time against random enemies 5 minutes after you met them.

I think permadeath for NPCs should work off a destiny system. The NPCs are scripted, or generated, a destiny either in a Bioware type story or a sandbox game that they will die for a certain reason (protect someone, save the group, killed by their brother, betrays the group, etc...). Then when it comes up after the player is attached to the NPC they will die.

A way to advert it would be the player spending his own character's points (would have to be valuable), this gives the player a moral dilema. You could also spend fewer points and transfer the death to your own character, giving you a tradgic end.

Besides that death works like other games and just encourages the standard reload and try another approach if you want. With more likely pass out into critical condition that requires med or they die.

This means that NPC deaths will always be meaningful and avoids the reloading mess.

 

[The_Pope]

Of course you can make a good -game- with permanent death. Whether you can make a good RPG with it, that remains to be seen.

I'd like to remind you that in Dawn of War, any hero who died in battle was easily restored by building him from your base. So no perma death there.

And in Starcraft you couldn't lose your heroes or you'd lose the stage and need to restart. So they enforced you having those characters until the crucial plot points when they died (human Kerrigan, although you only thought it was death )

And in both games, the memorable characters would make comments at scripted points in the stages. It is in fact the exact mechanic you guys are arguing against. Forced chars, with personality through scripted speech.

I wasn't talking about the heroes, I was talking about the regular grunts. I found the grumpy redneck Starcraft marines, for example, had far more character than most RPG NPCs. Plus those games are mostly played for multiplayer, where none of the mechanics you describe exist but you still have troops with character.

As for "But you can't do it in an RPG", I doubt that. However, it is unlikely to ever be done because RPG devs are probably the worst in the industry - they don't even innovate in teh grafix. It's just chosen one again and again with whatever graphical buzz word FPS players were throwing around last year.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

Of course you can make a good -game- with permanent death. Whether you can make a good RPG with it, that remains to be seen.

I'd like to remind you that in Dawn of War, any hero who died in battle was easily restored by building him from your base. So no perma death there.

And in Starcraft you couldn't lose your heroes or you'd lose the stage and need to restart. So they enforced you having those characters until the crucial plot points when they died (human Kerrigan, although you only thought it was death )

And in both games, the memorable characters would make comments at scripted points in the stages. It is in fact the exact mechanic you guys are arguing against. Forced chars, with personality through scripted speech.

I wasn't talking about the heroes, I was talking about the regular grunts. I found the grumpy redneck Starcraft marines, for example, had far more character than most RPG NPCs. Plus those games are mostly played for multiplayer, where none of the mechanics you describe exist but you still have troops with character.

As for "But you can't do it in an RPG", I doubt that. However, it is unlikely to ever be done because RPG devs are probably the worst in the industry - they don't even innovate in teh grafix. It's just chosen one again and again with whatever graphical buzz word FPS players were throwing around last year.

How's everything in Vatican City?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

The easiest solution to losing story via character death is not to let the player control story critical characters. Let the party be a bunch of randomly generated mercenaries (with enough stats etc. to make them worth something, but still expendable). In fact, their death has benefits - you don't have to pay them, and can help yourself to your share of their gear. You don't need all the characters waiting on the player all the time - Lord Nasher never followed you around smacking goblins in NWN2.

This is what I want. Some people say "But what about all the greatly written characters-" and I say "Stop right there". These are videogames. When are characters well-written? To me they seem to suck all the time. I'll take randomly-generated and replaceable ones over the annoying people I can't kill even though I want to in most games. I don't complain that other players in p&p rpgs aren't well "written", with romance options and plot integral stories. I'd hate to see Naked Ninja make a Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu game, but then again I think I'd hate to play anything he designed.

 

[Zomg]

Well, the whole Bioware/Square-Enix format of having this coterie of heavily characterized NPCs that orbit a nominal PC and also fight together as units in a squad tactics game is a mutation of a mutation of the player party format archetyped by D&D. I don't write off the possibility of interesting characters in that configuration, but it's obviously not the only way to work things. In P&P, it's an adaptation to the fact that GMing is too much work to do for the benefit of just one or two players, and also somewhat creepy.

 

[kingcomrade]

I found the grumpy redneck Starcraft marines, for example, had far more character than most RPG NPCs.

Final Fantasy Tactics' 'generic' (non-character) soldiers made me feel the same way and I do agree. Also I would point out many of the little things that made PS:T great. Not characters, typically, but just little stories behind items or places or the various sidestories.

 

[elander_]

And in both games, the memorable characters would make comments at scripted points in the stages. It is in fact the exact mechanic you guys are arguing against. Forced chars, with personality through scripted speech.

That is your best argument so far. If the writer can predict better what is going to happen he can do more tricks with his writing. Forced npcs, pre-made biographies, all of these result in better plots and better adventures. But you are missing the point.

The world will be less believable with forced npcs. The problem is more evident on rpgs that are more about the world than linar storytelling. Then forced chars is only a solution to a problem created by the game designers who want to use a linear main-quest structure. When we are talking about an rpg a companion quest is just another quest and your companion is just another npc that can give you or not an interesting quest.

How do you know if by killing someone in a rpg you will miss a good plot you may ask? This is part of the fun of using your brains to evaluate the ground you are standing *for rpgs*. For one if the game is a killing feast then it's a bad rpg (it may be a good something else game) and if not then you should know from dialog what are the consequences of killing someone just because you want to play stupid. This would be stupid in real life so it would be very stupid in a crpg too.

This obcessive concern with forced npcs only shows that Dragon Age while not trying to use the ressurection scheme used by D&D games, but in an hypocrit way is copying all the game mechanics from previous D&D games that is a very linear plot and a stupid gameplay ala Zelda where you kill everything in your path without thinking in order to finish quests. If this is the way in which DGaider wants to step away from D&D then bah.