A roleplayer's case for multiple characters

@Molina "So, if they had a different character to log on to, then when they logged back to their bad character, they?d face the consequences anyway? I don?t see what the problem is...".

The problem, according to Lord British (and I agree with him) is that you shouldn't be able to commit a crime with one character and then play a different character as if you hadn't committed that crime before. The problem isn't with the character, the problem is with YOU. The character didn't hold a gun to your head and make you do something bad, you did that all on your own, and YOU are the one who needs to face the consequences of YOUR actions. Lord British doesn't want you in the game until you have faced those consequences.

 

I think the argument for multiple characters reeks of one of two things:

1. Multiple personality disorder
2. Evil intentions

Since skills are uncapped one character is plenty sufficient. If you REALLY want to pretend to be a woman or whatever it is roleplayers do (MuddyWaters your post about a rat poisoner really did make me LOL) then you can always buy another account. Yes it is inconvenient but I don't like the idea of having more than one avatar.

 

Ah, alright. Now I finally understand the other side of the argument. I still don't agree with it, nor do I like it, but I suppose all I have left to do is wait for the ones in charge of the game to make their choice.

 

I fully agree with Bowen, and don't have much else to add. I definitely want more than one character.

 

Ok, so for all of the people that want to have multiple characters per account, would you be comfortable with having the virtues / karma system be account-wide, and not character specific?

Not advocating one way or the other, just a quick poll on this thread.

 

I would personally. It's not "realistic" per say but there are no perfect catch all solutions.. and I think without witnesses people will lean towards the same behavior regardless.. All my characters would certainly do the same interactions with NPCs.. at least I assume so.. sometimes they surprise me.

 

@Owain "The character didn?t hold a gun to your head and make you do something bad, you did that all on your own, and YOU are the one who needs to face the consequences of YOUR actions."

I completely disagree with this. Unless YOU are cheating, no YOU are not the one that needs to face the consequences of YOUR character's actions. The character needs to face those consequences. You seem to be concerned about the "bad" character logging out and logging back in with a "good" character but you haven't sufficiently explained why. What is the difference to you if the player logs out from his "bad" character and goes to the gym or plays World of Warcraft or eats lunch or plays solitaire or plays SOTA as his "good" character? Now when the player does log back in with the "bad" character then that character needs to face the consequences of his bad deeds.

I don't think there is a big downside to allowing one player playing through the story with multiple characters simultaneously having each character at different points in the story.

 

IF people are truly roleplaying their virtues as well, then per-character consequences makes sense.

It's the players who have trash characters and don't care for them. That's when the account-wide karma would be more effective.

But I take it that Richard's vision is for you to only roleplay your profession and skills, but bring your IRL virtues in-game. That may be the wrong assumption, so we're just speculating.

 

Smack if that is the final decision then yes, it would be nice to be able to rollplay both good and evil (like infamous) but if its a choice between having multiple characters and having your karma across them all or not having them then I would chose the multiple characters.

It would be nice to be able to complete the game and then kill LB for example though

 

@Mercury74, you can disagree, but you should take it up with Richard Garriott, not me. I think HE is the one who thinks that your character is a reflection of you, and HE is the one who wants you to take responsibility for YOUR actions in game, role played or not.

 

@Owain ,Richard Garriott did say that he wants only one character and for that character to be a reflection of the player. The point of this thread to make a case for allowing multiple characters per player account. I think that the original poster knows Richard Garriott wants one character, that is why the title of this thread is "A roleplayer's case for multiple characters". You have not provided anything new to the discussion. If you want to join the discussion then make some actual points against multiple characters. Here, I'll get you started.

1. Requires more server space.
2. If character names are required to be unique then multiple characters will use up names more quickly.
3. Player can use one rich character to buy land for their other characters that haven't earned the gold themselves which will use up precious land deeds.
4. Allowing players to be self sufficient through the use of multiple characters diminishes overall community interaction.

 

If people really want a second character they can easily do so by buying another license. The biggest reason people want multiple characters is so they either can exploit the virtue system or because they are too cheap and want to share their account with other people. One character is the way to go. If you dont like your character just reset back to level 1.

 

I'd be very interested in examining Ironman's evidence for the above statement.

 

@Mercury74. I am aware of the purpose of the thread, but I am aware of no requirement for agreement in order to post in the thread. As it so happens, I disagree with the purpose, and I make the case against the suggestion. So thank you, but I will remain in the discussion on that basis. Debate in the community will give the dev's the information they need to arrive at a final game design.

 

Me too, seems to me another example of ironman's attitude to those not as well off as other people

Lets look at this logically, Diablo 3 cost me $150 and I can play 8 characters with it before I concider deleting one
Path of exile costs me NOTHING and I can have as many characters as I want

This game on the other hand so far I have sunk $200 for my partner and $750 for me, and am looking at upping that to $1500

I COULD have taken the "cheep" option and bought however many $120 options I could have got for that, in fact if I really wanted to exploit the system I could then have sold those licences on EBay the way some are talking about selling houses and THAT would have been exploiting the system.

Did I do that? No instead I am looking for the best personal experience for ME and the best experience for my partner who is also PAID for

So explain to me how expecting to be able to explore different options with different character is the CHEEP way out?

Really wish there was a block button on this forum because Ironman's attitude to everyone not as ritch as himself is really sickerning

 

Let's keep the personal stuff to a minimum please. Though, I think everyone here will appreciate it if we all avoid generalizations about other people's motives.

Yes it's true multiple characters will be abused however they are aquired. I agree it's not a desirable outcome by any means. However I don't think the problem is as severe as others seem to think it is.

The best arguement against having to buy multiple accounts is the principle of it. Once the game is released it'll likely cost around $60 and that's what the majority of people will have to pay. In the absence of a plan to buy additional licenses a discount, this is what it will cost per account.

Most folks wouldn't be able to justify the cost and that is the arguement for this option as a deterant. On the other hand a lot of people still would which defeats to purpose behind a one character limit. So I find this angle to be moot from both side right from the get go.

It feels like there's a double standard here. If people are happy with folks buying multiple accounts so they can have multiple characters then why argue against people having multiple characters? If they're not happy with it then why suggest it as a solution? Either way it flies in the face of the intended one character limit.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall anyone saying "I'm not happy with it but at least the cost is a deterrant" (though I think it's been implied by some, just not specifically said?)

I don't buy the skills & muling arguement against multiple characters for a couple reasons.

1: We don't have enough information to speculate on skills so the arguement is premature.
2: The trend in comments that have been made so far imply there will be no skill cap. If there's no skill cap then skilling up 2 characters for the purpose of self-sufficiency will actually be more work than skilling up one. This is a deterrant against multiple characters when the motive is simply self-sufficiency.. Why go through all that extra effort?

The strategy for keeping people from mastering every skill has been given as simply having too many skills to master them all. So in other words they're counting on the average player simply not having the time and then continuing to add new skills as the game progresses. This being said by RG himself. Now I would remind folks also that you don't have to master every single skill in order to be self-sufficient.

So with the information we have at the time the self-sufficiency arguement doesn't hold much weight.

The only credible concern I can see is the abuses from griefters and the like, which I might add we can opt to not have to see. Especially if we're able to ban characters and/or accounts from our perception. Remember that we're not being forced to play with people we don't want to play with here.

Unique name reservation is a good stab.. to which my solution would be to require only the full name to be unique since there appears to be a first and last name option which the last name is only displayed once your reach a certain notoriety. I think that's been eluded to in a few places including a ks perk where we can display our last name right from the start. Either way I don't think it's a major concern.

 

@Bowen
I think the flip side is we don't know if we'd even want multiple characters. As I've said, every game I've played I pretty much fill up all the character slots for one reason or another. But I'm certainly open to the idea that I'll never need to. In Ultima IV-VI I only created one character because I could just use the companion characters for whatever else I needed.

 

BTW when did it suddenly become so wrong for you to buy a game ONCE and for everyone to be able to play it? Tertris didn't ask me to buy one per person, nor did hero's quest, D&D or even all the ultimas themselves. Zelda on all the consoles including the Wii only requires one purchase per house hold and so do all my PS3 games (though the DLC is only per account). So why EXACTLY would it be so wrong EVEN IF that was the reason to expect that you should be able to buy ONE game per family?

 

Sir Asguard, it is common with MMOs to buy more than one game if you have multiple people in the same house playing. That way, family members can play together. both my wife and I bought Lord of the Rings Online, for example. You can't compare a single player console game to a multiplayer game.

 

A roleplayer's case for multiple characters is plainly simple. To take our stories in different paths. I'm here as Dargalin, but i'm also known as Azaran, Frenvalis, Garalthen and Velerak to name but a few. Each are clearly different personalities with different wants, ambitions, likes and dislikes.

A lot of people miss the fact that a roleplaying game does not just mean assuming a role to play a game, it also means creating a role to play a game.