A roleplayer's case for multiple characters

I still think there's only one "you". I'm perfectly OK with being able to inhabit multiple different bodies. An "avatar" is a projection of oneself into another world. But it's still the same person on the other side of the computer. To this end, I think it's right to have one "main" which goes through the central story. But beyond this, I'd be perfectly happy to see any number of alts, companions, pets, or whatever that you can take the form of and play.

You are something of a god to this world. You can take the form of a warrior or a beggar or a mouse. But it's still you, and there's still things about your reputation which should follow you everywhere.

 

The alts cannot be full characters in their own right. That would violate Garriott's chief objection. A glorified NPC who can only tend bar in your pub, maybe, as Seneth Somed suggests, maybe, but no more.

 

When RG says he's willing to allow multiple characters if people want it.. don't you think it's a bit much to keep telling people what HE wants as an argument against multiple characters?

 

It's a valid objection but completely ignores the fact that it's a trivial task to identify the offender. I mean, it's the same account. How is this an insurmountable obstacle?

Good point.

We should be discussing what would be best for the longevity of *this* game. We all get how things work in UO. This game is not that game. Having the discussion peppered with the sycophantic ranting about the gospel of RG and the unassailable perfection of UO leaves me feeling somewhat ambivalent about the sort of community these individuals are looking to engender. It's an exclusionary, elitist, attitude which has poisoned more than one community in the past and for that very reason should not be encouraged*.


*Personal opinion

 

If Richard has changed his mind on this subject, I've missed it. I was going off his remarks from one of his podcasts. Do you remember in which podcast he changed his mind?

This is one of the problems with the SotA design; there isn't one that we have seen. What we have is diffuse tribal knowledge, gleaned from contradictory podcasts. What would be of immense help, not only to us, but to them, would be for them to post an overall design document here outlining fundamental things like this. A single line entry reading, "Each player SHALL be able to create X character(s) for online play", or "Full loot SHALL be possible under the following circumstances: (a), (b), and (c)."

Side note: The SHALL part of a phrase like that is what my organization uses in design documents to indicate a testable software feature. Our test branch then prepares test procedures based on the design document, and if the software fails a published SHALL from the requirements, a problem report is submitted. These SHALL examples are trivial to test, but they can be far more intricate, and provide a good way to verify that your software is doing what you want it to do.

Of course, the design document is subject to change at all times. My organization uses a cyclical design approach, where preliminary code is developed, tested, and if the design is found to be flawed, we prepare a design change request, change the design, update the documents, recode necessary modules, do regression tests, and repeat that process until the software is released.

It all starts with the design, though. It's hard to get to your destination if you don't know where you are going, or how to get there.

 

The issue isn't identifying the account. We aren't talking about someone using an exploit to cheat, or someone violating the TOS. We are talking about someone playing the game as designed within the rules, such as a thief or a PK. If the devs put stealing or the ability to kill other players into the game, it's because they WANT thieves and PKs in the game.

What Richard has said (although Bowen says he may be softening on this subject) is that since YOU are your character, he doesn't want you stealing and/or killing with one character, and then avoiding in game consequences for those acts from other players by allowing you to sleaze out and play a different character.

 

I think it is more likely that instead of saying SHALL, most of the statements would start with "The current plan, subject to change, is..."

But still, that would be helpful if we are to come up with ideas.

I work for an engineering company, and we have a system similar to yours. We can start with a list of requirements submitted by the customer, but then we are subject to feature creep as things start to take shape, and the customer suddenly comes up with more things they'd like to see.

I think there is a plan that Portalarium is following.

I also think we have less input on the process than folks are hoping to have.

 

+1.

So much of the fog of the discussions on this forum will clear up with a specific design statement.

 

I've been reading this whole thread and...

So, as I was avataring elsewhere, I noticed I dressed "myself" up to look like 'myself'. TBH I am only in that world temporarily and don't plan to contribute much, unlike the world of New Britannia of SotA (and onward) but with this realization, I figured....

One character isn't as bad as it sounds.

I originally was for multiple characters (and kind of still am) but in a world that is being created (in the long run over at least 5 episodes/years) by OUR actions... isn't it fitting that it actually is OUR actions that mold and shape the world? There hasn't been a MMORPG that has captured this essence and although it might not appeal to the "masses", that's why we KickStarted this project... with the respect, honor and appreciation we hold towards not only Richard Garriott, but the folks at Portalarium that will be making it happen!

I ("only") plan on playing in OPO mode, so if you see me, you are getting me. Regardless of mood, association or (anti)virtue, the game and players should respond/react to your "known" status. Obviously, as humans, we can change our intentions, perceptions and goals at a moments notice, so this will create quite the active and vibrant world we "all" want.

Alt accounts or alt purchased "kindred" are completely fine with me, but coming from one that enjoys alting (and not for *completely* nefarious reasons), seeing how this pans out will be interesting.

 

I would love to see a design doc that laid out all of the details of their current plan for this game, but I highly doubt it's going to happen, at least not at this stage of the game's development, and with good reason.

Problem is, if Portalarium was to put out any list of specific mechanics, then that in the minds of the reader *is* how it will be, regardless of how many disclaimers of 'this document can and will change' are stated. Those who read X is in and wanted it will throw a fit if it's removed; those who hate X will throw a fit and threaten to withdraw their funding.

I am sure they know what the game they're making is going to be already, but I also believe they want to hear our thoughts, ideas, and discussions about game mechanics/systems/playstyles/etc in general and in specific, and are willing to change their own assumptions about what the game should be based on that input.

So, sadly, let's continue chewing the same topics up over and over until we do get more detail!

 

Agreed. Though I think it would be both possible and beneficial to have an "Our vision for SotA..." post, so that people don't hang themselves on their expectations, so that the community has more direction in regards to what the game will be, and so that developments can be communicated and spoken about in context to this vision. Rather than creating a melting pot of implausible ideas and dissent, allowing the division of the community through non action regarding the aggressive supposition surrounding issues such as this, PvP etc.

 

If you want to profile those of us who want single player only, take my story in account then. In Ultima Online I not only had 5 characters I bought a separate account and had 3 more. So there's one vote for single player from a person who likes alts.

I want to try something new here and I think Lord British's idea of a single character is a good one. I truly believe it should go forward as is. If they make an effort to give people multiple characters they should charge the person as if it were starting a second account. Nothing wrong with that.

If they said hey you can have multiple characters on one account if you pay full price for that player... would that solve this thread?

 

He didn't change his mind. He made a statement of his personal preference and said it wasn't final. He also expressed that the rest of the team was not necessarily in agreement.
It was one of the dev chats between 4-8 and 4-12.

In an ivory tower world, I would agree with the request for a design doc.
However, to be more realistic, I think just a simple statement of intent and then a pro/con list of implementations to achieve intent would be fine.
I think it would be useful to clarify in the process, whether it is more important to positively encourage abiders to follow intent or to negatively discourage non-abiders. That frames implementation discussions better.

 

Exactly! The dev's have been very careful in their choice of words on all design features that aren't finalized. Even the single character per account right from day one. I never said RG had changed his mind.. only that he was willing to give a feature that enough people wanted.

As far as paying extra per character this is a matter of principle. Every other game I've seen has allowed for multiple characters at no extra cost. Why should anyone have to pay full price for 1 extra character? For a feature even the devs are not fully sold on?

 

I wouldn't mind if they gave a second character slot as in one to play the avatar and one to play the human.

 

The main problem here is the online game. I already stated the 2 class system for the online game experience. So you have one main with title, etc. (citizen rights, etc.) and the alts for testing, etc. could be the vagabonds. This would make the game livelier, because more players would prefer the online mode. And you would indeed only have one char as main. I woud prefer a system with 3 accounts you can do how you want. Ok, some relation to keep the griefing low woudn't be wrong. But well, we can't have everything and many peoples don't want others to have this possibility.

Asking for only having one character in single player is something comepletly different. I don't even know one game for know, where you can create different character or testing around, where you can't make multiple games. So if we only have the possibility to play one game with one character in singleplayer, i would consider Shroud of the Avatar as only a half game. And i don't pay for a game twice, because its a half game. I would more likely pay nothing anymore for the company who made the game. At least not for a crowd funding game.

So what options do we have? Restincting the game for only one character in online game, this would possible lead, that many peoples would consider to jump on the single player game to test other characters, games and only use the online mode for some playing. I would consider most likely to do this then aswell, because in the single player game i could play the whole game aswell with other characters to experience the whole game concept.
If we aswell only have one character even in single player, i would consider to title Shroud of the Avatars as one of the worst game in the last years. But because i played at least some of the later Ultimas, i know, Lord British can make good games. So i don't think that it will ever happen, that we can only use one character in the single player game.

 

there is a single player OFFLINE mode where you can test things all you want.

It doesn't make sense to have a test character in an RPG... it takes the RP out of RPG.

 

As far as the single player experience goes, I don't really see the problem with "one character only", we don't have answers regarding companions in single player, but in general a single player experience will allow for multiple save points; so 'starting anew' and keeping different characters on different save slots will work for role players who want to try playing and building different ways. There's really no way to prevent this method of playing, and there isn't any reason to.

I can imagine RG's ideal persistent online world has people becoming more committed to the one character that they have. If someone feels like playing differently than they currently are, then putting in the effort to make changes to their character should feel worth it.

Those of us who feel like playing multiple personalities online on the other hand... I guess you're stuck buying a second account? Its unfortunate RG's dream doesn't accommodate this common RPG feature, but the dev team should know what they're doing, so I'm confident I'll have fun with what comes out.

 

Thats what i think aswell and i haven't heard something other. I only stated, how i would think and how it would happen, if we only have one avatar and even in offline play, because he stated: "or reinstall the game (or backup local saves)". This is definitly a offline thing. And for the offline game, there should be alt least infinite avatars.
Only problem i see is, that peoples who want play more as one character would have to switch to the offline mode to do so or test other game experience. I indeed know, that i would most likely play as one specific avatar aswell. I will create one, who represents me and thats it. But when i think i would to test something other or see, that this one isn't the right one (not only in skills), i am not able to test another setup, without deleting the whole character. So i have to switch to offline mode to test him and when i want to test a bit more or test some other play styles. Or even want to be another personality, then i have to go offline aswell. Possible is, that peoples end up very often offline then.
As again to avoid, people avoiding the consequences of their acting, there could be some relationship against the chars. Somebody other already stated aswell, that we can limit the other chars. Possible don't give them fully citizenship, etc. Already written this. There are enough ways to limit it and still give the testing ability. So i see no real reason to completly limit it to one char slot, expect to force peoples to play their game style.
You can always stay by a solo character and play this all time. The game should be aswell made to be able so and experience so much how possible. You would aswell most likely go way farer in the game. With the citizen restriction, only your main could own a house as example.
But there should be a way to start another alt in the game and test around with him. Even when he has the lowest rank (for the case, we have additional ranks and not only the one for pedge levels) and can only rise, if you take your old main down.

Edit: Ok, was written as i have written by myself

@Rampage202

Yes, indeed for the singleplayer, there is no reason to limit the character slots. It would be indeed more a bad move to do so. It would please nobody and anger the half of the community.

 

I agree with you Rampage202 on the single player stuff. However saved games will most-likely not be available in the "on-line" version of the game.

Here are a couple of reasons:
What if you gave away your most powerful magic item to a friend, and then restored to a saved game and you still had it? Or you give away 1million gold to your friend, and you restore to the saved game where you still have it?

Even if they resolved those issues I don't think they will make an allowance for save points in a game like this.