A roleplayer's case for multiple characters

Maybe RG doesn't want people to have 6 different characters controlled by 1 person on one account. I have confidence in their understanding of the gameplay and goals.

I won't be making more than 1 character myself even with multiple slots. I don't want to see someone playing another character each day. Becoming close friends with one person just in game, and not knowing they have another character seems extremely dishonest. No one is obligated to speak on their other characters and can take advantage of that and manipulate others in game. I don't want that to happen. Finding out 6 months down the line, someone is someone else, seems oddly perverse, and would frustrate many players. Pretending to not be a traitor but being a traitor is an easy way to lose confidence in the community and game. It's not worth it.

If they are open enough to discuss with others the alternate character it takes away from the sincerity. How is that virtuous? As arrogant as it may seem, I sincerely think it's a little silly to have more than 1 character (at a time). Of course no matter the rules laid out, nothing would stop someone from getting two accounts. I don't see how they would spend time enforcing that.

Can't we just accept, 1 Character per account. You want more, get another account. If you think that's a bad idea and don't want to spend another 40-60$ on another account than good. It clearly wasn't a big enough deal to you in the first place.

Edit: Is the last name idea something like: You make a character/account with a first and last name. The last name is now the default for each new character created. You can have 4 characters but they all have the Same Last Name. I think that's a good idea. Not sure if others were implying that? So one family/account.

 

Multiple characters were often a detriment to our role-playing guild. A frequent pattern was to log into a character and see if there was anyone around. If not, then log into a different character. The next person came on 15 minutes later, saw that there is no one around, and then logged into a different character. Repeat throughout the night. The result was that many evenings our town was uninhabited despite several players being online.

If, for whatever reason, multiple characters per account is considered detrimental to the game then there will be disincentives. These disincentives don't have to be 100% effective, they need only be effective for a critical mass. Whether it be PKing, gold farming, multi-character abuse, scamming or thieving the trick is to keep it rare enough that it doesn't significantly harm the game.

 

Another potential compromise (which doesn't fully fix what Bowen is asking for) is to have two types of characters you can have:
<strong>A single "Avatar (aka Hero)" character </strong>, this is the one that skills up and progresses the story.
<strong>Several "supporting roles" characters.</strong> These would be non-skilled characters, filling the supporting roles of story and roleplay.

This is to address the Roleplayer issue, which is, in roleplay, you might have the 'rat catcher' or 'parent' character that shows up for a particular roleplay session. This character isn't really there to go out and become the Avatar, finishing the story line, but instead is there to be a part of a story being told within the game, between roleplayers.

Supporting roles characters would not be characters out developing skills, but they could fill the roles that the RP community would want. If you want to make Grizelda the tavernkeep, and have her hang out in your house that you've made into a tavern, then you could do that with a supporting role. She doesn't need any skills within the system, she just becomes a character within the game, that plays a role.

Your main character, the "hero" of the story, is the one that's out adventuring, learning skills, etc.

If you want another "hero" character, then I think at that point buying another account is in order.

Supporting Roles characters would be to add flavor to the role player community, and to everyone else. I'd love to go into the Tavern and see Grizelda, have an ale and continue on my adventure. But when that player wanted to progress in the story, Grizelda would "retire for the evening" (aka log out) and then they could log into their "hero".

I believe that this would meet a lot of requirements people have:
You'd still be locked to one "effective" character per account. You couldn't have the "evil/good" issue.
LB is happy as your Avatar/Hero character is the one progressing through the story.
Role players would be able to create a myriad of supporting cast to enhance the overall world. And heck, non-roleplayers might actually try it out, since any of those characters they create would only be good for playing a role.

I would add that supporting roles characters would need the ability to go "pvp". They'd be worthless in a fight, but mainly it would be to complete some stories where a character dies as part of the story arc. It's a role play thing.

 

An interesting suggestion but one I think needs some modification. You see Grizelda there is serving food and drink. She at least ought to be able to cook.

There aren't many folks who want a character that's completely useless. What if you wanted a character who was little more than an artisan? That still requires skill to paint, sculpt or whatever other art based skills wlil exist. Having no skills at all is extremely limiting to RP. I can't RP a chef with no cooking skill or a painter who can't paint.

Having some skills doesn't automagically mean you must go through the main questline. They could limit it to non-combat skills if they were to take that route.

 

That is a possibility as well. Non combat, maybe even limited quantity of skills as well, allowing you to be the 'chef' or 'painter' (and actually be able to do those things).

 

I'm liking the idea of single character. It's something new to me, I've played many mmo's with lots of different characters. It was ok to have the possibility to switch characters but now I'm excited of being able to focus on only one character.

What I find interesting aside roleplaying one character is that having one character limits the number of different crafting skills, for example. To me it makes sense as the choice of profession may actually be meaningful instead of just making several characters in order to be self-sufficient with everything.

 

Someone brought up the idea of espionage earlier in this thread. I think it could be cool to have some sort of incognito for your character (similar to Ultima Online). This way you could spy on another guild, but if they find out then they would probably kill you. Obviously this will require a guild to declare themselves as full time PVP, even to themselves. A traitor, once discovered, could be instantly slain and all of his belongings taken -- this adds to the risk associated with roleplaying a spy.

 

There's no RP-wise reason to have multiple characters, ever.
I've never had more than two characters in roleplaying games. It's something only powerplayers do. I myself come for the immersion, not for all dem shiny artifacts/gold hoarding/any other worthless fetish that breaks the immersion so much.
But there should be a way to disguise your character - something like the disguise kits for thieves from UO.

 

I'm sure a lot of RPers would appreciate it if those who don't kindly refrain from assuming motivations. You're basically saying that everyone who wants more than one character is a 'power player" and there are never any other reasons to have more than one. I know a lot of people who would take exception to comments like that.

Some people just enjoy telling and living out the story of their favorite characters. Power gaming is not roleplay.. the two have nothing to do with each other.

 

"You?re basically saying that everyone who wants more than one character is a ?power player? and there are never any other reasons to have more than one."
True. Nah, I'm not against the idea of having many characters. All other mmos have it, fine, have lots of them twinks, whatever.
I simply despise it. I despise it when someone creates a second character for example to train Tailoring, so he never ever does have to go to a tailor again.
Basically, I despise anything that separates MMO players from each other and breaks the immersion for the sake of one's convenience.
People are so afraid to "lose time" looking for a smith, a tamer, a tailor, but the only thing they lose is immersion. Funny, huh.
When I create a character it's my avatar. Trough him I'll make this magical journey real, this hero WILL be real - with his own history. This will be something to remember.
I suppose the only memories many people have from MMOs is leveling up twinks, grinding skills and items, but actually going nowhere, doing it for no real purpose other than the illlusion of convenience.
Also, I understand that some people would like to have more characters for roleplaying, maybe that's okay.
I myself usually use only one character. One character for me is more than enough.
Cheers.

 

I personally feel like some folks in this thread may be missing the general point.

Firstly, I wasn't even born with the first Ultima game came out, but have played them all in varying degrees, and I also recognize just how impactful that series was on the RPG genre. There's no means to deny that. RG has done something truly amazing.

I even read through all 4 of these pages and composed this post for over 30 minutes.

That said.

I would also implore the consideration of multiple characters from RG in this MMO. Why? Simply that. It <i>is</i> an MMO.

RG's recorded largest concerns have in fact been that he feels that he would love for you, the person, to really become the avatar... the "hero" or "anti-hero" as the case may be. I'm sure there will be story splits. This is truly amazing as well, but is limited mostly for <i>only</i> for the story aspects! Consider the following couple paragraphs.

There will be more content to this game than I've ever seen in any other MMO. Things that I've been craving for literally years on end that I'm incredibly excited about -- chests that are one- or two-way, that have passwords, that have logs, the logs are importable to your notepad/Excel etc -- all incredibly simple but really powerful tools to do things that most MMOs simply have never given us the opportunity to do, all in the effort of making a real social world, where you're able to organize people you enjoy being around and most importantly doing stuff besides the story to really keep you invested in the game for more than that.

If I have my character, Lupus the laid-back kind paladin go out and save some folks from a terrible monster about to kill them, and then a few hours later I decide I'm going to play my snarky anti-social rogue Arne and go pick a few pockets before heading to bed, that's flavor for me. That ability to say, yes Arne is a somewhat evil person, but Lupus does good things, is equally as powerful to keep me invested in the game. Am I like either of those characters? Actually I'm a bit like both, but I play the game to not be me, just something I recognize aspects of. The long and short of that is, if someone wants to play themselves as their hero? They already have that option. I'm just asking for the option that allows me as a player to get more enjoyment of the game, <i>without</i> limiting the abilities of people on other side of the fence.

Basically, I want the option to experience ALL of the content - story, vendoring, social - in different ways for me to feel like I've gotten the true value of the game.

Next, there's also of course the realism aspect of this. I personally work at a pharmacy. Does that mean I also fly jet-fighters? Would it be reasonable to say I <i>could</i>do both? Sure. Would an average person? No, not at all. And in that perspective, I might even say that single-character options would break <i>my</i> immersion... well more than a guy killing skeletons for hours on end or the mule that does all the craft skills and nothing else (which, btw, they're going to do on that single character anyway).

And lastly yes, griefing exists. I actually laughed out loud at RG's anecdote about the fellow he had to stop 3 times trying to kill a poor newbie who just wanted to go outside the town even after threatening him with a ban. Would I personally do something like that? Never. However he's already come up with an ingenious way to allow people to never see griefers at all -- in fact several different ones! Even more fascinating I think would be to set the bans such that you can block just a character, or block an entire account. Building further you could even make it so that if you have more than X characters of their slots blocked character-wise to just account-ban them. So, for example, if I'm feeling charitable and I hop on Lupus (who would clearly be somebody you can see is good karma'd because that's advantageous to his style of play), I could save your ass from being roasted, but you'd never see that shady Arne by your horse's packs again. That adds more in of the risk versus reward that you want people to do anyway.

And as for the folks who really do want to grief, they will. You take away their semi-auto, they'll just go after the shotgun. More importantly though, you've already given the people the magic to allow those people to shoot nothing but blanks. <b>Let them use that power.</b>

Everything else about the development of this game has been so incredibly open-ended and truly refreshing and downright empowering to the player to do these social things that are part of an MMO. I just really hope that it won't be crimped by something like a character slot limitation! ;;

 

I'm with TemplarAssassin mostly. Besides having a responsibility for your actions, you should also have a responsibility for your PRESENCE. I want to be able to find your character and not have to remember or watch out for the list of names you go under. The immersion breaks when you're not there because you're being someone else. In this way, I also sympathize with Mugly Wumple. In the end, we'll have to ride with whatever Garriott chooses, but because I've never played a one-character MMO, I have NO problems with that whatsoever. I'll just have to make sure I get my character's face right the first time.

If I were to be Pro-Multiples, it would only be for the reason of not wanting to miss out on different experiences.

I saw a brief mention of "family last names". Since I'm in the business of baby-making, what do you think of a "legacy" system? Although I had already quit "Star Wars: The Old Republic", I was sad I was going to miss out on a design of tying characters together through family/story relation.

What if you had the option for one character to have a child, die of old age/other circumstances, pass on skills and items, and then play as that child? The child could still carry the karma/reputation and then choose to go the other way/live life differently, and the story progresses. Very "Sims"-like, but at least you get to do something new/be someone else.

 

There are serious time-related issues with having generations of characters. One person has a child.. he dies.. the child grows up and takes over.. rinse and repeat... meaning their neighbor who hasn't died once is still the same age. You can do it in SPO but online it not only breaks immersion for you but also for everyone else.

 

I think people are forgetting that this game is coming out over 5 + years

When I say I want to play different characters to explore different ways of solving the same puzzles and what not and the response is "thats fine, just delete your other character and make a new one" that might work IF forsaken virtues was a single game but that cuts off the ability to play that same character through all 5 chapters

 

In Lord of the Rings Online, I have 9 characters, 3 on max level. So you could call me a Twinker there. Why did I do it? Because the classes in Lotro are so different, that playing with a completely other class can be fun and a different gaming experience.

For SotA, I don't see that necessity yet: I always play myself in games, since I don't like (and mostly can't) act like another person (acting in a way that doesn't feel right to me, is somewhat strange and brings me out of immersion very fast). And since Richard Garriott wants us to play ourselves, I have no problem with that.

And as Lord British said, it will be possible to change your skill setup in game, so you can become a wizard, even when you were a fighter or rogue or some mix class before, when you want to and are willing to put some training in it. So, there's no need for me to reroll another character.

And for the quests, I'd probably always answer the quests in a similar way (since they will be tests of your virtue).

An advantage, that was mentioned several times, would be: with one character it's impossible to make a paladin and a evil bad guy at once (with the paladin and the evil dude exchanging items, etc.). But if someone really wants to play that way, the one char by account setting won't stop him, because he will simply get a second account.

But I can see why roleplayers, that don't want to play themselves but different characters, want to create multiple account. And like Lord British said, this would be one of the easiest things to implement, if people really want it. And the probability is quite good, that this is coming.

Cheers,
Andreas

 

Adding the ability to create more characters would certainly be easier to implement than trying to pare them down to one per player at a later date if the system doesn't work. It is certainly fun to play multiple story lines through multiple characters. I do think though that being forced to purchase items or crafting work from another PC will encourage our society to grow cooperatively and there will be a better chance of an organic and well balanced economy.

 

I am too lazy to read all four pages of posts but for one strongly support RG's idea to only provide users with one character. For better or worse you have this one persona and every choice you make matters. You can either be good or evil, you can either train in physical combat, the mystical arts, or a combination of each.

Some of you want to roleplay fictional characters and I get that but that is not what the avatar is about at all. The Avatar is you, maybe he/she doesn't look like you or even act like you would in real life but the Avatar represents all the choices you make in game and the paths you choose to follow all the same. It is vital that all your decisions are tied to this one character and that they are inescapable.

I think the ability to play only one character is one of the most important and game defining features SotA has and it would be a real shame if it was lost just so players can create a bunch of stereotypical fictional characters.

 

@ND3G Hey now! There's nothing sterotypical about MY characters.. well.. except for maybe the dwarf but that's what makes him fun.

I do believe you're the first to describe the one character limit as a defining feature. It's an interesting thought but begs the question as to how that translates into a vital aspect of gameplay. Sometimes forcing the player to consider their decisions because of a lack options can be a good thing. However, to do so over the scope of 5 complete games is going to be hard for more folks to phathom.

I admit I'm a little more intrigued by the notion than I was 10 minutes ago and I have always planned to take it stride no matter which way the ame goes. If they don't truly craft the entire scope of the game and story around the avatar concept though I think it's going to fall flat. Just how is a one character limit going to improve gameplay for the individual? I'd love to have an answer to that question. I just can't think of any. If it does then do that out weigh the benefits of multiple characters to gameplay? (Those benefits having been mostly discussed already).

 

Having a one character limit will improve gameplay for the individual by immersing them in a world where they must rely on their fellow players and even NPCs &amp; The World itself to provide for them. If you have to rely on others to help you sometimes then it will take true dedication to be a murderer, a thief or a solo player. Rather than forcing cooperation, this would <i>encourage</i> players through what could best be termed natural selection. Being unable to hide behind the mask of another character, a player's actions will have consequences, not only among NPCs like town guards, but also among other players. You can't go buy a bunch of buffs from the guy you are about to kill. We talk a lot about reputation systems and karma and other built-in mechanics to handle things like this, but having one character could help to build an organic system that handles these things <i>outside</i> of the code. I am honored to be part of this development process, but the true legacy of the players will be just that - <i>how we play</i>. THEY are building The World. WE are building Society, and these forums are the beginning of that.

We don't care about that single character yet, because he/she does not yet exist, but being immersed in The World and the identity of one's Avatar could change your feelings. I think the point is to make people CARE about their character and also about other characters, be they players or not. Having to care about how other people view you changes play.

This idea of immersion in one identity seems like it would be a true roleplaying challenge. In real life you can put on a disguise but underneath it you are still the same person. Many of us play for a kind of escape, but I must admit there's something a little bothersome to me about the player who needs to escape from himself in-game. Hell, this whole thing might just make me a better person. *chortle*

Please know that I am not attempting to (mis)characterize anyone in particular or making judgements about the right way to play. I do, however, agree with NDG3 that this could be an important and defining feature of the game. We should not be too harsh to judge something that we have not yet experienced, and given that RG has <i>always</i> delivered in beautiful fashion, we should extend some trust to his creative vision. That being said, this thread has been agreat discussion on philosophy of play and role-play.

 

@rild That position isn't really anything new and unfortunately has a counter arguement.. which is simply this. If multiple character slots are available.. you can always choose to play only one and get more or less the same result if that's what you want.

That also has a counter arguement which has already been made. That building that immersive community you're talking about is a group effort.. self sufficient soloists will detract from that because they won't take part.

And THAT is countered by sheer numbers. There's plenty of people who are simply too dang lazy to be self sufficient. It's so much easier and faster to buy your new sword than to go through all the effort to make it yourself. Don't understimate the laziness of the non-hardcode player.. who generally will outnumber the hardcore soloists.

Another problem I have with your arguement is that it's not really a direct benefit to gameplay. It's really indirect and reliant on the player to provide the result. Though I suppose there's no real way to answer my question from a mechanics standpoint.