A roleplayer's case for multiple characters

<blockquote>I like the one avatar limit. Richard is all about giving us what we need, not what we want. It?s called tough love. If you want everything handed to you on a platter, go play WOW. Sota forces you to make tough decisions and live with the consequences. You can?t have a host of alts farming for you and storing your stuff. You?re going to have to work with others or find another way. Time to be creative?</blockquote>
Actually what we need is a bit vague. If a game only gets what we need and not what we want, then would it still be a game? We could also use some learn program or do some work then. But a game is for experience what we want to.
Second point, go play WOW. Well, that are points, who actually let me tend to think more of the single player game mode. But i hope, that there are not so many player out in the game like you.
Farming and storing the stuff. There will most likely be a bank, you can possible have a home, so no real reason for storing the stuff on an alt. Of course i haven't ever done it. And farming can be done with one account aswell. So no valid argument.
Last point "be creative" what is creative to be forced to one single character? You most likely stay to this chracter, do the things you made him for, but can't create another one to test something completly different. This would most likely limit your creativity in this area.

<blockquote>One character limit is fantastic. So much win. You can threaten to not play the game all you want, you?re liars, you?ll play, and you?ll love it. Give it a chance ? if it doesn?t work? Easy enough to add another character slot AFTER we try it out. Right?</blockquote>
The argument was not to play the online part. Because with the mod tools and the abilitiy to create more as one chracter, we can really be creative then. And this was not a threaten to not play the game. Its the natural result, that we only can test specific things then offline and not online, if you are restricted to one avatar.
I will most likely play the online part aswell. Question is only, how often. But for now with only 1 chracter slot and the mod tools, i tend a bit more to the single player version. But this shoudn't be seen as threaten around, more as how i want to play the game. Its not very different with Star Citizen aswell. But i will try to keep a foot in the online version of both games.

<blockquote>I come from the single player world and therefore I want replayability, I want to be able to try the castle siege with an archer shooting out the bridge and then again as a thief stealing the key to get through the secret passage etc. I?m not interested in PVP so the objections others have raised about being bad then switching to another character don?t apply to me</blockquote>
Well, actually to be honest, thats one of the points you can do with one character aswell, because you can skill him on both.

<blockquote>And being told to just delete my character in 6 months when I have finished the game and want to try again from scratch BEFORE the next chapter comes out are annoying.</blockquote>
Thats a good point. The game could become boring, if you finished the story and if you liked it, you can aswell only play it again, by deleting the character, aswell you only can test something only offline, without deleting your online character, if you want to do it online. But you most likely don't want to delete your character if you have leveled him already.

<blockquote>My opinion if you want to play one character only whats stopping you? but for those of us who want to play more than one your imposing YOUR views\playing style on us.</blockquote>
Possible to imagine, that the avatars are the players. Real self or how it was called. I personally don't like the idea to well and see it as a bit dangerous. Its yust and avatar you play. Not your self. And for people where it is only an avatar, they don't need a one avatar limit. Ok we want to recognise the player behind the avatar. Therefore we need something to sign or group them together, what would aswell prevent griefing. But this was already mentioned enough.

Let's go to the last part from more as one game copies. For me its not a good way. I pledged for the Collectors edition to get all 5 episodes. If i would need to buy a second account with all 5 episodes, i would have to pay over 150$ again for the game. Would be a bit expansive for a single character slot.

Star Citizen has gone the same way of only 1 character, but found some compromise in this topic. A second character slot. You would most likely still be focused on one character, because if you want to experiment, you only have one additional slot, you have to test around. So you will most likely keep the one as your main, but you still can test around. I for myself would prefer about 3 slots, this would be something i would be fully happy, but 2 would be at least something what would give me room for some experiments. And i think this could most likely keep the one self experience.

 

I'm not quite as much into RP as some of you guys, but what worries me is the economy if there are lots of alts, which means mostly self-sufficient players.
Even though I get OP's idea, I still hope it'll be a single character game. Unfortunate for those who wish to play many different styles/characters simultaneously, it'll be quite hard. I'm just very much into the idea of focusing on only one avatar and developing him / her.

 

This is also a single player game. If I can't replay the story with different characters and see all the different options/endings, then that is a deal breaker for me.

 

Actually main reason for only one single character is, that many people don't want, that others can run around with different chars, so only use one single character, who represents him.

For the single player part, there isn't any reason for only one single character. If somebody aswell only want to use a single character there, he can do it so. But because in single player, there is only one player in the game, there isn't any need for any restriction of the number of usable chars and i think for the single player should be a list, where you can create as many avatars as you like to.

If this would be aswell one character restricted, i would protest aswell. But don't think we would do it. No reason for.

 

In a way I think that strengthens why I want multiple characters. I'm me in real life, why would I want to be me in a game where I could be anything. Hell, I'm even happy with 2 character slots, a main and an alt. One good one evil, or one fighter one crafter, ect ect. I feel lit lets you experience the game more, as yo ucan exploar all it has to offer without sacrificing your roleplaying experience or time you've spent developing a char.

 

Sry for the late answer. Thinking this aswell. But i see the problem, other player have, more on the other side. They want a specific player to be a specific avatar and not running around as something completly other.

 

I think so many people are viewing the experience through the lens of previous games without considering how it might be in a new gaming context.
Having a single slot will change how people play. You will internalize decisions more, you will interact differently, you will experience the game unlike other games.
I'm not even saying it's better or worse, but I have to say for myself I think having a world where everyone has this new experience would be novel and frankly after dozens of games which are the same, something novel is exciting.
From what Richard talks about in regards to 'playing you' or experiencing the game as the fantasy version of you is only obtainable through a single character slot.
I think it's remarkable that so many who have enough faith in him to contribute money sight unseen are so quick to reject this idea.

Joe

 

Many folks are viewing a lot of different ideas through the prism of previous games. A lot of the arguments made here on both sides seem to do this.. but for the role player the need transcends game mechanics.

You can't really say what an individual's experience will be like any more than you can say how they'll play any differently than they would otherwise. Speaking only for myself, I won't internalize decisions more. I won't interact any differently than I would. Why should I?

There really is nothing novel about playing with only one character. Single player games do it all the time and have for decades.. well yes but this is multiplayer.. yes and no.. SotA is being designed as a single player game with multiplayer options. It's meant to be playable as a single player game. Plenty of people also play only one character regardless of how many slots there are. Having multiple slots doesn't force anyone to fill them up.

Everyone's experience will be different and they'll act the way the act.. not because of mechanics.. but because everyone's an individual. You can't simply assume everyone who's forced into a single player will ultimately enjoy it because it's a new experience.

 

Very well written, Bowen. Thats actually, what i was thinking aswell. You can experience the this is me experience aswell with more as one character slot. If you chose to take only one avatar, you improve him, get him up and so you end automaticly with this character as your main and your ingame soul (how it is told so often here).
But if peoples want to play some other character aswell, then it should be possible. Its a RPG so you should be able to play the rule you want. And not only with one character, you should be able to test around with it. We already had discussion about ways to avoid griefing characters, by giving the consequences to the other avatars by some sort of relation, what seems to be fine for me.
Another way would be to give only one character the titles, the goodies, etc. who is your main and the rest of your avatars would be only common folk. If you delete the main, you would be able to promote one of the other chars, or create one new as main. That you would aswell have your one main character, but could test around aswell with common folk. This would take care also, to have always enough common folk.
For the Single Player experience, You can always start a new game and have more as one characters then. And for the single player game at least, this has to be possible. And there is nothing, what would speak against it.

 

I'd just like to chime in my thoughts. I have complete faith in RG and company so if it's going to be JUST one character, so be it. I'll still try it out. BUUUUUUT.....

I utterly and completely agree with Bowen. I am myself in real life plenty enough and I'm not playing a game to be myself. Far from it. Actually, in almost every RPG or MMO I've played, if there was ANYTHING other than a human race, I was that... NOT A human. Being human is kind of a bore. I am aware that we're only going to be humans in SotA and that's fine.... BUUUUUT.....

I, along with many other people, would like to be more than just ourselves. We want to play through Single Player Mode as Good Guy Greg and then go through it again as Scumbag Steve. Replayability is everything. Being able to play through the game and getting different results based on your actions will definitely increase the replay value. This leads me to multiple characters in Online Mode...

Some days I am a social butterfly, others I am brooding and want to instill fear into the hearts of the citizens of New Britannia. Players switching between characters shouldn't be considered an "exploit" or "malicious intent", not everyone does it for that reason. Sometimes we just have split personalities.

5 characters is a bit much, 2 should suffice.

Yes Owain... I said "I" a lot *grins*

 

I might have said or implied this before.. but I would be more than happy with 2 or 3 character slots. In fact, if I had a third I'm pretty sure they'd be something along the lines of an alchemist/artisan. Just because I feel like those skills would be fun but don't quite fit into a ranger or standard crafter. We'll have to see. IF we start out with just the one.. well obviously I'm still going to play. There's never been any doubt about that.

 

I also wanted to add that having the ability to have multiple characters allows you to socialize with a lot more people. Sometimes you can't "hang out" with a guild because of association with another guild or faction. Obviously this can open up some espionage and intrigue which is actually pretty fun.

I remember when I was a Shard Reporter for UOSS I would get invited into different roleplaying communities and even PK groups. I ended up joining the Clan of Vampires as well as their nemesis guild the CBR, but no one but the guild leaders knew I was from UOSS and I would NEVER reveal any information or steal anything from guild chests. I just enjoyed being part of these communities and helping them thrive.

 

Yes, actually one large problem. With only one slot, you can't RPG so well like you want. You have one single character and want him to play a specific rule. So he will be this, has this job, etc. With one character slot, you will have this one character and you won't get all aspects of the game, because you play this one rule. Or possible you switch so offline, because you can only play another rule there.
With multiple slots. 3 would be completly fine, you can make more as one character, you can possible delete on, if you don't like the profession, without killing your main character. Don't think many people would be able to test something completly different, because they don't like to take down the one and only char with a decent level. So they stay by playing a character, they don't like. Otherwise they would start again and when they get them high enough, they can switch completly. Aswell one of the points for better having one main and some alts, where the main only has the titles and special items and the others as some basic folk, as having only one character slot. If you don't like the main anymore and you are fine with the second one, you can delete the main and make the second one to the main.

This is actually a suggestion to accommodate with the peoples, who don't like others to be around with multiple characters. So you would actually indeed have only one main.

Edit: switched alt with main by the last word.

 

I like having a single character.

 

I think the best argument I saw on here centered on the fact that one character per account just penalizes the wrong folks.

Personally, I look at it from a different perspective.
Unless there are some surprise tech features, one character per account isn't going to really do much to enforce LB's vision. It is more likely to alienate the people who have good intentions, because it will be so easy for those with poor or neutral intentions, or different values, to game the system.

Lets be pretty clear here. Assume you have to buy each episode for each account.
That is 60 dollars per character per year.
Many folks had 2,3,4+ UO accounts. That's 30,45,60+ *a month*. So for the cost of 4,3,2 months of UO (for a lot of people), someone can play both good and evil and circumvent the design vision every year.

Thus, if the price of accounts is meant to deter people looking for loopholes in design intent ... it is actually less effective than previous implementations. (ex: accounts to limit housing).


As far as an RP case, I haven't seen anyone mention people who want to have an RP character and a non-RP character.
You want me to RP me RPing in a world? Okay - I don't even like unmanaged collisions in social networks IRL.
So, I would just create multiple accounts.

 

Kind of why I haven't participated in this conversation really. I think its a moot discussion. If you want more then one character get more then one account.

I understand limited income, I really do. I have some family members that have fallen on some really tough times and their spare cash per month may be 10.00 a month or even -100.00 a month. I lived on minimum wage for many years - When I played UO and had 5 accounts so I know its possible to do so if its what you want to do (cheaper then most hobbies!!!!). So scraping up enough cash just for one account can be rough for some. On the other hand, the value of me having a family member in the game is pretty cool and so I have purchased an extra account for one of them, figuring if they don't play it ill use it for an alt.. if they want to play it, the cost out of my pocket to have them play is worth it for me alone. Good deal for them. I guess where im going is that even those with a limited budget may be able to get help and options. There will be cases for some people when one account is all they can come up with no matter what they do... That is going to be a minority and unfortunately you do all you can for as many people as you can, but you cant always make a product to meet the needs of everyone. Bottom line is the game has to make money.

So putting aside the limited income aspect of the issue, which above is how I see it and why when you break that down you put it aside, you leave the majority. For the majority.. if you want more then one character just buy more then one account. I haven't bought any extras for myself yet, as I've shelled out a lot for family members and I will wait to see if they stick with it first as if they don't ill get those (I've registered 4 accounts, 1 for myself and 3 for family members. My mom bought her own which would be a 5th account). Long term though I will probably have 3 accounts, as I see the need to have 3 characters minimum, very possibly 4. The purpose for that is for 4 different aspects of the game I would get into that I wont want to do on one character.

As a guild leader I am sometimes going to just want to play a little lone wolf and NOT be known by others, so I need a 2nd character for privacy. Lord British and the Dev's will probably have private characters to avoid being bugged... I think they are forgetting that there will be a lot of people in game that will have that same need. OR with it not being a monthly paid game, they need the account sales for alt's - which is also ok! I want them to do what they need to ensure they are getting enough money to support the game, paying their benefits, salaries, and supporting their spouses and children! If part of that model is an account per character business model, then awesome!

Just one example. Another may be that I want to play an evil virtue based character also. Sure, the story is about playing "you", well we all have a dark side and delving into that in a non harmless fun in a game can be rewarding. In RPG's I usually play the hero.. ive also ran campaigns when we played "ourselves".. But ive also played homeless people, gay, fat and ugly, etc.. Its rewarding to try different things.

But for various things im going to want 3 minimum, possibly 4 characters. Its nothing to do with skills or builds, its everything to do with different things that I will not want to do on my main. Stile, will be my main. 100%. Will see the majority of my play time, work, efforts, etc.. It will be the "one character" that Lord British envisions people having. I will however have other needs and I will pay to have them.

Bottom line though is, with Stile.. im paid up for 5 years on content based on my pledge level (for the main game and expansions of course, not counting any other payable content that may come out). So say at the max I pay 180.00 a year for the other 3 accounts + maybe some misc additional content.... That is less then I have paid for subscription fees + game costs for other games I didn't like half as much. Heck, that's around what ill be paying for my domain, hosting services, and TeamSpeak server!

So.... moot point for me. Really don't understand why its such a highly debatable topic for others. Let them do it how they feel is best for their business plan... and if that doesn't fit your need get more accounts. Anyway, not a debate from me, just my 10 cents and thoughts on the topic. As far as the minority that cant find a way to do that, it sucks but if they cant make money there wont be a game. Not having a sub fee, and each character requires tech resources, so I can fully get behind a buy an account per character format. I know that's not why they have stated they are limiting it to one per account but not every aspect of a business can be transparent to the public either. Or as they say in psychology - consider the opposite.

 

This is a Roleplaying game. About Roleplaying an Avatar, a person swept up through time and or space to be deposited into a fantasy world, who has to live with the consequences of their choices and how they effect the world around them.

If anyone wants to meta or water down their otherwise profound personal experience, where they have to actually care about the actions they take and the impacts they have - buy another account or reinstall the game (or backup local saves). Feel free to relive the story from an alternate perspective. But it's seemingly harsh to automatically expect that everyone else wanting to enjoy the experience of roleplaying ourselves taken from this world and put into a vibrant fantasy realm should have to put up with a majority of characters who aren't as invested in the experience, because "I want".

 

Re-iterating what I stated in another thread, this assumption is not only horribly flawed, I would be surprised to discover it was in the majority. This degree of immersion in a game is abnormal.

"Profound personal experience"?

I think not. Not even close. Gaming is at most, for the majority, a temporary form of entertainment. An hour or 2 a day would be an above average investment of time for them. Anything more should be rated as obsessive.

As an RPG gamer of old I enjoy experimenting with varying approaches. Good and Evil offer two very distinct playing experiences which can, (and *should*), be enjoyed by everyone. Limiting this does nothing other than alienate a large portion of the available market for nothing other than novel design decisions. Interesting, certainly, but when you start carving out no-go areas in the content, prepare to get the hairy eyeball. And that is *exactly* what is being suggested here.

"Pay for this part of this new game. Want to play as another race? Start again or cough up. Pay again for this other part because complicated-pictogram you!". What a fascinating approach to marketing. The pro-single char campaigners may need to work on explaining the benefits to me again. Work on the assumption that I am intellectually and emotionally stable and unlikely to feel any form of investment in anything imaginary.

At the end of the day, it's a game. Entertaining for a while - sure. But we're a capricious bunch and will likely abandon it within a year or two for the next BigShinyThing!™. That's how this works. Always will be.

 

For the roleplayers here, I think it needs to be stated what makes Ultima a bit different than your average game. In most RPGs, your characters belong to that fantasy world. They are born and raised in that fantasy world. In Ultima games (except UO) and in SotA, your character is not part of the world. Your character must come from planet Earth. Your character is far more likely to be an accountant, salesman, mechanic, or mid-level manager, than a ranger, blacksmith or alchemist. SotA gives you an opportunity to take your roleplaying to a much higher level than just another cookie-cutter dwarven blacksmith who prides himself on the length of his beard. Your half-elf torn between his love for a human and a elf-maiden just doesn't fit in this world.

Do you need more than one character? Maybe, but I think truly embracing the story, and roleplaying as a fire-fighter from Cleveland that was thrust into this alternate dimension/planet is going to be so fresh that you won't need a second character. But if you do need to play as a struggling musician from L.A., there is no limits on how many accounts you can have.

Please think about RPing from this perspective, and not the perspective of RPing your skill trees.

 

I'd dearly love for this to be true, but it isn't. I don't read books or play games because my imagination is a mind-boggling font of creativity. I do so precisely because it isn't.

Your argument appears to be "the missing pieces will magically appear in your head because your imagination will click its heels three times and make it so".

Last time I saw my imagination, it was soaked in 12yr old whiskey hurling verbal abuse at an itinerant preprocessor. It is most assuredly *not* up to the task. If you argument is solid, this is not the game for me and the hordes of others out there like me. We're fantasy consumers.

Consumers.