Well, I was sitting in JHU's library, trying to peacefully read for the paper I need to write for tomorrow, when I had an idea that would not leave me alone until I share it. So, here it is: One of the questions that gets at me most about MMORPGs is the lack of "perma-death" to create "history" in the game. I don't mean the kind of death where a monster kills the player and then they are either respawned or permanently lost (or something in between). This death is the kind of death that gets noted in history books and has the potential to seriously change the gameworld. So the question is this: Would a player ever willingly end the life of his character, in a permanent fashion (Dead, kaput, never to be seen again)? Scenario: The game is a MMORPG with the usual fantasy/midevil background. In one of the major regions a King reigns, who the people have violently different opinions of. One side believes that he is a good (Or at least what they consider good) king. The other finds him to be underhanded and secretly evil and coniving. For a period of 2 weeks to a month (starting with) NPCs and characters start organizing revolution/reaction against revolution among the players. After this period a revolt breaks out across the land, with players declaring a side in the battle (or neutral, I suppose). Of course, many of the players on both sides will rush to attack/defend the King himself, and I would bet these characters would be either the most powerful or the most rash. After so many players of each side have managed to invade or enter the castle the Palace ground guards manage to control the outside, making it impossible for all but the very powerful characters to enter or leave. That leaves the players inside doing their very best to actually get to the King, through whatever trials await them. The trials would be difficult but reasonable, as a good number of players should make it to the end. The trials are mostly to remove the weak willed or non-communal of the players. Once they reach the end, both sides break into battle. Now, the battle will rage, but it will also be slightly fixed (he he). Either side will have a power that intervenes for them (The invaders a sort of spiritual presence, for the protectors the actual King). The purpose of the presences is to balance the battle, and also move along the plot line (Whoa! God is on our side! L33tness!). Finally the King, weilding some great and terrifying power, just wipes everyone out (including his protectors). At this point everyone is just thinking "Oh crap, I'm dead. Time to respawn!" At least up to this point, I think it is obvious how this battle would lend to game history. Epic battle, horrible end. Everyone hears the rumors that the King killed off everyone. After the battle, we find out that the King really IS quite evil, and everyone is quite glum because the revolt is put down across the region. Quite simply, everything should be going to hell. Now, back to our dead heroes and (accidental) protectors of evil. They haven't respawn back outside... and all they want to know is why. Both groups are in a seperate place (One light, one dark). There some kind of mystical backdrop for a war between good and evil is outlined, and every character is simply told that their permanent death will help the cause of either side. The players are then tempted by both sides to die for them, however it is characteristic for good or evil to convince. If players do not take either offer, they are automatically respawned in the game world. Otherwise, their player is gone. Dead. Fin. The players are then given (either randomly or through some process) a new character. It is pre-defined, and has a role to play in this coming war between good and evil. They are the "Generals", and their goal ranges from countering the other side's Generals in this war to progressing their sides cause. They will be more powerful than the character they gave up, but there will be requirements placed upon them: they must actively participate in the unfolding plot, not reveal what has happened to them or their old characters until told to do so, etc. Where it is taken form there is up to the designer. I invision the generals being undercover while the King becomes tyranical. The generals may even be kept off world for some amount of time, instead in a training facility to go over their powers and such. They would return to the game world as any other character though, unable to immediatly use their new found ability. They will begin mobilizing their sides, etc etc. At some short time later, the real war between good and evil will begin. Maybe make each general appear differently (A la KOTOR). Maybe allow Generals to support troops by temporarily sharing their powers. Most importantly probably, is making it so that either sides generals can counter each other so that they add to the war while still making the other characters vital. So, I've rambled. The main question is would any players agree to kill their character at the decision point to move along the story? Any comments on the general idea overall? Thanks ^_^.

I'd sacrifice my player character to advance the plot if I cared about the game... I can think of a great many games where I care little to nothing for the story, so I wouldn't want to really assist it. So I guess my answer is, it depends, but probably yes.

On a side note, I like the idea overall, though one problem I see is giving players too much power for essentially no reason. Players may not have been actually deserving of this 'General' status, and yet you give it to them simply because they were victims to this slaughter, and got to choose to be heroes afterwards. Just a thought.

As ever,
**Cosmic**

Quote:

Original post by Cosmic One I'd sacrifice my player character to advance the plot if I cared about the game... I can think of a great many games where I care little to nothing for the story, so I wouldn't want to really assist it. So I guess my answer is, it depends, but probably yes.

Yes, it is definately true that an emphasis would have to be placed on Game World Story and Plot woul dhave to exist form the beginning and always be visible to the players. If something like this were to happen in the middle of a plotless game a year after it started to revive it, it would definately reek of "Our game sucks, and the only thing we can think of to make it better is basically make it a new game".

Quote:

On a side note, I like the idea overall, though one problem I see is giving players too much power for essentially no reason. Players may not have been actually deserving of this 'General' status, and yet you give it to them simply because they were victims to this slaughter, and got to choose to be heroes afterwards. Just a thought.

Yeah, that is definately true. Part of this would definatel yhave to be dealt with by having the trials for getting in and through the castle be difficult enough to weed out the players that don't know what they are doing. Another possibility is releasing rumors of the importance of the castle through channels that te serious players would tap into.

Also, when they are given the choice to opt in and out, it would need to be made very clear that by opting in they are taking a serious role in the world and have to perform it. At the same time, effort has to be made to counter the power of the "Generals". For example, the more power a general uses the more generals in the vicinity who will see them. Especially in the early hiding stages this could be very bad for the player, as the opposing generals would know who to hunt.

There could also be a power transfer system, where generals draw their power from an imbalance between the two sides: IE, the more light power is used the stronger the dark side becomes, and vis-versa.

in my past UO staff member experience I relized that very good players don't like premade plots; they likes good background, but they want to bring up the shard story as they want.
This "general" class is intresting, but why you have to put players in a blind death? Let them know that the staff has to chose some very good player from each side to make them heroes, but the chosen ones will have to kill, in a dramatic plot posted on the shard forum, their pg. I've done some similar thing, and it worked out.
So you will have few good players made heroes, and the mass standard pg.

(p.s. sorry for my english, I'm not quite sure some of the words I've written is written correctly)

Quite an interesting idea, players dying for the game. I would if I felt part of the story. The problem seems that people may like the game for other reasons (as said by The Zeion) they would like to create their own story, or just 'hang out' - they aren't expecting, or wanting a storyline necessarily.

I actually would quite like a good story in an online game, one that involves races / civilisations at war. A story on a large scale. I think it would be awesome to take part in a 'Troy' (the movie) style battle. If my character was really good (think - no social life) it would be even cooler to be a hero. It is suprising, but people do like heroes. Even though they are better, and more powerful, they inspire pride... And if the hero died while fighting another hero, then that is great for the story. I'm a fan of, death - you're dead as well.

I think the other interesting idea in your post is players having more control than just their character. Do they have to die? What you are talking about sounds more like a way of selecting new gm's or admins to help with the story line. Couldn't it be a larger part of the game, from a certain level you can be a general?

I have written a few ideas on mmo rpg's (my take) a while ago, the influence idea sounds quite like your generals. I think if done well it could work. There are a few other interesting ideas there as well.

This reminds me a lot of my thread "just let them play", but in this context I've thought of another idea. What if players did suffer from permadeath, but the only thing they lose through permadeath is their characters identity, while they are able to keep their progress.

This way, they could still become historic characters through dying, as they would start the game from scratch in terms of the name, appearance, class etc of their character. There could even be a ladder of progression.

Not that I condone the idea of levels, but for the sake of arguement, if a character made it to level 5, then died, they may be allowed to start their next character automatically from level 5 as a result of the previous work they have put in. The next progression save point may be at level 10, the next level 15, and so on. Of course I'm just pulling these figures out randomly, but you get my point.

This way, we get the benefits of permadeath, in that players will get attached to their character and upon the character's death he essentially gets his name in the MMOG's history books, but at the same time, the progress he has made is not lost as he regains some of it int he form of a new character. The character would lose any excess levels they have earnt since the last progression point however, so there would also be another aspect of death to fear, but not all is lost!

Would this perhaps be a good compromise to the whole perma/non perma death systems?

maybe if you die you could 'reincarnate' into a new (young) character?
and your deeds in your past 'lives' affect your status in the present?
just a random tought..

I don't think you should do this to unknowning characters.

It would be a VERY good option tho for a master or legend in the game. Say someone gets to like a really high level or has played the longest or done something spectacular. That type of person would be the perfect candidate for a sacrafice. BUT, you don't do it without asking, you should make sure he knows that hes not getting his character back. You make sure the battle is epic and large enough for everyone to see and give the guy a dramatic end.

You would really need to place an emphasis in that character though for them to actually go along with it unless they are willing to just give you a character. Like name something after him (like a town, castle, or country) or even make his dead spirit be a creature you can battle or give him a statue or large cemetery in his remembrance.

Hell, could even probably hold a large funeral for his parting. You should also give the real person some sort of benefit though like 5 months free or something so they know they are getting some benefit.

Actually, I was trying to stray away from the family member reincarnation idea. Something about it doesn't quite work for me, I think I'd rather just continue play as a completely new and unattached character... I mean what if you wanted to change race for your next character.. it just wouldn't seem to make sense to me unless interracial relationships were commonplace :P. I see what you're getting at, but it's at a slight tangent to what I was actually implying.

Quote:

Original post by umbrae I actually would quite like a good story in an online game, one that involves races / civilisations at war. A story on a large scale. I think it would be awesome to take part in a 'Troy' (the movie) style battle. If my character was really good (think - no social life) it would be even cooler to be a hero. It is suprising, but people do like heroes. Even though they are better, and more powerful, they inspire pride... And if the hero died while fighting another hero, then that is great for the story. I'm a fan of, death - you're dead as well.

The lack of these grandios e and coordinated sotries seems like the difference between the standard RPG and the MMORPG. I too would love a game where it felt like there was real current of plot running through the entire game, not simply a background. When I played MMORPGs, there was always a background to make me and my friends expect that there would be a progression launched from it, sort of a breathtaking and important story that we could be a part of. We were always disappointed when it seemed that the background story had been abandoned, and there was no cohesive plot throughout the game.

As far as people liking heroes, I agree. Especially if these heroes were given some ability to help rally the troops (Giving power to those who rally like a battle cry, or sending bright lights into the sky whenever they engage that let the whole world know that a major battle is on).

Quote:

I think the other interesting idea in your post is players having more control than just their character. Do they have to die? What you are talking about sounds more like a way of selecting new gm's or admins to help with the story line. Couldn't it be a larger part of the game, from a certain level you can be a general?

One, I think it is very important that their increased power is tempered by the other side. Thats to create a battle, however non-progressive, thats heated and visible. They aren't actually given any powers outside of being characters in the game, like creating quests. They simply become the battle standards to be rallied too, and make a sense that greater things are at work.

I don't want to make it just a thing that happens with level though. One, this is not a development that would last for the full game. It is just an example of one way that players could be pulled into the game to create ambience. After this quest, these selected players will probably fade, as one side is defeated their extra powers will wane. Just for the fun of it, we could bring back the "dead" players as a surprise, with some sort of powerup to thank them for being helpful and also not having their characters for some amount of time.

Also, not everyone can be the high level characters. Although we want to encourage the hardcore gamers, there would also be some value in bringing in some good players that might not be on 20 hours a day. You don't want to close the community to new players that are still involved in the game.