A roleplayer's case for multiple characters

Rusty, I was directing those comments to the folks who primary like to roleplay. You can consume the fantasy content of any game, including SotA, without having to roleplay. But since you can learn anything and everything on one single character, the pure content consumer won't have the need for multiple characters.

 

Personally I am all for RG's single character idea, although I understand why people want the ability to alt; from rp, self-sufficiency, and variable gameplay reasons.

Since it seems that there may be some level of "cash shop" (per this reply from FL - https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum...lease-read-dev-replied.1391/page-7#post-17125) what are peoples thoughts of allowing RG & the team to make the game single character as they envision it, and then sell additional character slots for a separate charge ($5-10)? This allows those that are truly insistant on having alts to do so, prevents the necessity of re-purchasing the game in order to alt, and will hopefully still minimize the possible negative effects of alting because it won't be the default available to every player.

 

See, this discussion gained legs when certain design discussions hinted at the contrary. There is every indication that your single avatar will only have access to a constrained subset of skills, the balance being sourced via market, (guild/public), or companions... which is great because the all-singing-all-slinging-spell-caster-sword-master is as dull as industrial soap...

Even if the only effect of the avatar is cosmetic, this still presents an immersion challenge. I may elect to roll a beer-chugging psychopath with all the raw sex appeal of a 10-car-pile-up, a penchant for light banditry and +10 to pigeon abuse but this does not mean this is the same character I will want to be playing in 4 months time...

At which point the consensus appears to be hurl the sod from the nearest barbican and start again - from scratch - or "better yet", buy the product again and start again - from scratch.

No, I do not identify with fictional characters. They're fictional. For the same reason I tend not to attach excessive meaning or emotional weight to them either. Which means asking me to invest in them on a permanent basis is like asking me to accept that soccer shouldn't be banned internationally... not something I'm likely to embrace as a sensible option.

 

*sigh* Once again, "oh look a majority that suits my personal leanings! It MUST be good!". No. The majority rule card is not something to be played at the expense of intelligent debate - only when it suits.

As for profound personal experience, yes. A story that involves you, that delves into questions of morality and makes you think about your own actions. That is the very definition of a profound and personal experience.

Congratulations on thinking. Unfortunately, your thought does not equate to the manifestation of reality itself. Just because you think, does not change the reality because you put forth a highly debatable and unrelated statement, again relying on the precious and ethereal majority card to add any significant weight to an already flawed argument, which looks very much like a potato sack man filled with copious amounts of straw.

Let me indulge you...

A. What does the length of a session have to do with the profoundness or personal nature of an experience? If I read a book too quickly or make love too slowly am I denied by cosmic forces from having a personal and profound experience? No. You're just haphazardly hanging your dissatisfaction on the nearest hook and making the place look untidy.

B. Google "Average length of game session". You'll notice two things. Firstly, the average length of a game session is most frequently quoted by most sources as being around 4 hours. Secondly, the length of play sessions does not only vary greatly depending on the type of game being played, but from country to country, demographic to demographic and from individual to individual. Let me just pass that majority card back to you ... no doubt you'll need it again.

Just not varying approaches to game design.

Yeah! You tell them! - So this debate has gone from, can we please have multiple characters because XYZ to ... You SHOULD play BOTH good and evil and by gosh you'll darn well enjoy it too! I guess we shouldn't mention that the presence of 8 Virtues and 8 subsequent anti Virtues have always been pillars in a world that is steeped in shades of grey to test the avatar and therefore the player, not to directly offer night and day gameplay experiences.

Nothing is being suggested here. As we've known for quite some time that this has been an intended gameplay decision. As Richard has stated, if you don't like the way your character is... play it differently. But at the end of the day you're not playing "Generic RPG", this is SotA , you're supposed to Role Play one of many potential Avatars and that is intrinsically part of the story you will no doubt experience - you're not supposed to min max or squeeze the story so you can fully experience it whilst repeating large portions of filler content, you're supposed to be immersed and invested in ways not present in other "time in service" MMOs. If you think that's simply a "novel design decision" rather than the significant departure from the drab MMO formula that it actually is ... then it simply looks as if you're downplaying it to up play it's severity. ... this may very well annoy some people, but looks obviously intended to improve the nature of the experience. It's as if some people want an apology written in blood for even daring to implement a positive feature with negative side effects, ... ya know, like all those other intended gameplay features with deliberate limitations that define what games are and how they're played.

You do understand that this is a fantasy roleplaying game... seriously, are you just here to troll?

Yeah, many of us are vets of games we've played for anywhere been 2-8 years or more and of a series that's lasted longer than some fans have lived. Obviously you know how this works >.> ... Hey Richard, maybe we can borrow this guys fantasy world, there's already a majority of one who seems to enjoy living in it.

 

You assume that content consumers only care about being able to get all skills.
Even in a game like Secret World, where your character can have all skills (and it is trivial to swap), people still create multiple characters.

I think the point about guild leaders wanting some respite is also a good one.
And then there is the elephant in the room. Is RG himself going to adhere to his design vision? He typically plays at least 2 roles in Ultimate RPGs. So if I can expect this to be an Ultimate RPG, I can expect him to break his own vision.

 

Unlike typical games, you aren't going to be constrained skillwise based on a choice made at character creation. You acquire those skills through play and choose the direction you want to go in. The active skills available to your character in any given combat situation can be changed on the fly. So of all the available skills, you may have learned blade, fire magic, healing, and archery. For solo play, you slot your blade/healing skills for survival. For group play, you may go into fire magic/archery for ranged dps. If you later decide you want to learn axe skills, you won't have to make a new character, you can add those skills into your existing pool of knowledge, and then slow them into whatever deck you want. From that perspective, given enough time put into the game, your character can learn all the skills...but it may not be able to use them all at the same time (to avoid the all-singing-all-slinging-spell-caster-sword-master you mentioned). The system sounds very similar to The Secret World in this regard. I don't believe that this will be a WoW style game, where you roll up a tank, roll up a separate healer, roll up a DPSer and actually need to have multiple character slots in order to experience all the combat roles.

So 4 months from now, you decide you want to RP a character with a different personality. So you reroll or have to buy another account/character slot. How else do you handle this in other games? You have to start from the beginning skill wise in all of the major MMOs when you start another character right? I suppose the ability to rename your toon, change gender/physical features could do the trick. That way you have your new character without having to start over from the beginning.

 

Well there are three character slots and three factions in the Secret World. Each faction has its own perspective on the storyline, and there are a few "faction-only" quests. It's no coincedence that the number of character slots in the Secret World exactly matches up with the number of different factions. I also see a lot of people start making alts in order to get around the dungeon/raid lock out timers. Assuming that SotA doesn't have factions with exclusive content, or lock out timers, there isn't as much need for multiple characters.

I'm not saying that the game needs to force people to only play one character through IP tracking or anything like that. If someone wants to buy a second account, or buy an extra character slot (to bypass multiple logins), that's fine with me. I like the idea of encouraging players into a single character path by only offering one slot at the get-go.

Single player online mode would give guild leaders respite, no?

 

How about giving them tools to run their guild better and more pain free, rather than giving them ways to rebuke, neglect or otherwise ignore the people they set out to manage and support?

 

Impartial overreaction?
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...-pleases-the-majority-still-a-good-game.2420/

Nope.

With less than due respect, because none is evidently required: /ignored

It's a game. There's a point there. No need to get angry at the internets over it.

 

I like single the single character idea.

 

@marthos: A skill-tree is not generally the primary defining attribute of a char, (for me).

Roll an alt and start again? ... Point being the facility to roll the alt is there without the necessity of scrubbing the original. Additional cost does not engender positive attitudes but I would concede that a nominal fee for extra slots could work.

Yes and no. Not really RPG at this point. I have no trouble committing to a build. Exploring alternate builds can be hugely entertaining, especially when some effort is put into skill viability, (ala Path of Exile). The WoW approach of respeccing has never appealed to me. Respecs with risks and rewards, however, would....

 

why not just start another account? I personally like the idea of a single player. It fits with SotA. You don't roll an alt, because in the beginning of the Ultima games you go to a gypsy and they ask you a series of questions that shape what your abilities will be when you start. It also makes the character after what you believe is the right answers to those questions (so the character is you)

Lord British has already stated that's the direction he wants to go in this game. I think that's a great idea too!

 

Essentially buying an extra character slow is the same thing as buying another account, except its a bit easier on the player to not have to remember a second login and password. I like the single character idea, and I strongly feel that the account should start with just one slot for the reasons you cite above. However, running alts is popular. If people have to buy a whole new account, with separate email address, credit card billing line item, password to remember, etc, it may turn them off from the game completely, whereas they might be quite happy to drop $5 per extra character slot in one account.

I have always viewed the available character slots as encourage to roll alts. A game has 6 classes, and wouldn't you know, it has 6 character slots for you. It kinda pushes you towards having a character of each class.

 

There certainly are a wide range of opinions on the subject aren't there? Everyone seems to have their own reasoning they think makes the most sense. At this point I'm content in my arguments which you'll find starting at post #1 and will wait and see what they decide.

There is one new(?) thought I'd like to add though in response to the intention that Avatar's be from Earth. (I might have pointed this out before but I don't remember now)... why MUST they be from Earth? Lord British has established a universe where magical travel between multiple worlds is not only possible.. but has occurred many times with many people.

Earth is in this universe.. so is Britannia. Pagan exists in this universe as do the worlds in Underworld II. Since LB is in New Britannia then that's also the same universe. LB has made this interplanetary trip. The Avatar has obviously. Pretty much every companion of the Avatar.. and among those not all of them are from Earth. Shamino's origins are never disclosed in Ultima but I've read he's not from Earth.. neither is Gorn (Gorn was I think from Pagan or one of the other worlds conquered by the Guardian). The people of Pagan were descended from the people of Serpent Isle.. they did a mass exodus.

There is more than enough precedent to suggest that it is possible to come to New Britannia from worlds other than Earth.. unless RG & Tracy come right out and state emphatically that it's not possible because of X, Y & Z.

RG can testify himself that the designer's intentions are not always how things turn out. Even if they do say you can only be from Earth.. there's going to be plenty of people who ignore that and claim to be from elsewhere because they want to play their favorite character. "Oi was a dwarf blacksmiti in ma world.. 'ow in blazes am Oi human 'ere??"

It's going to happen where anyone here likes it or not.. but it's also nothing to your britches in a bunch over either.

 

Actually from the responses from the community it appears that having a single player per account is popular. From what I've seen most people like Lord British's idea about one player per account, or at least would like to see how that goes.

Fighting and Crafting skills are broken up so you will be able to do far more stuff than you could in UO for instance. I think the direction he wants to go is to have one character per account so that people will rely on each other as well as have the character be you. A world where people need to work together.

So I hope it turns out there is only one character per account. If they allow you to add another character to an existing account I hope they charge close to full price for the game all over again, and also charge for any special skills even if you bought them for your other character. Treat it like a whole new account. I would like it if they discouraged alts if they choose to add them. I'd rather they just say you have to buy the whole game again on another account, but I'm not them.

 

I'll admit I wasn't expecting quite the number of people saying they like a one character restriction.. but support for multiple characters seems equally popular. It makes me a little curious as to how many people who want the restriction generally prefer to only play with a single character anyway.

Also, what's with not wanting others to have multiple characters? I kinda understand not wanting people to engage in anti-social behavior but they'd do that anyway. Most of us just want to enjoy the game the way we want.

Isaiah that's almost like saying "I hope you they make you pay more to enjoy the game cause I don't like the way you play it".

 

That, as I understand it, is Richard Garriotts objection. He recognizes that people will engage in anti-social behavior, and he wants there to be consequences for those players, and doesn't want them to be the bad guy with one char, and then turn right around with another character as if he had done nothing, perhaps associating with the same players to whom he was previously being anti-social.

You can blame players like them for ruining it for everyone else.

 

I think we all understand that is the common objection.. and really it's the only one that has any traction in my mind. Yet people here seem to agree that limiting characters to one isn't going to solve that problem. All it really does is penalize the rest of us.

 

Well, I think the problem to Richard Garriott's mind is not that people are going to be antisocial. Some will, and they will do it within the rules and design of the game, so Garriott isn't trying to prevent antisocial behavior. The choice of antisocial behavior is going to be built into the game. What he DOESN'T want is people being villains with one character, and not with another character, because right or wrong, in his mind, YOU are your character, so if you want to be a villain, you better be serious about it, because with one character, you have one shot at determining how other players will react to you.

I actually think that is a good thing, and this is one more thing that differentiates SotA from other games. It teaches personal responsibility. I think the world could use a lot more of that all around, so here is Richard, doing his bit to teach it in a computer game.

 

An idea I had was to allow satellite characters. These would be extra characters who weren't avatars by the game's lore, and thus had limited skill potential, but could be used by players for RP purposes. You main character, your avatar, has no total skill cap reflecting their immortality. Satellites have a low skill cap (say only enough to master one or two skills) and cannot resurrect like avatars do. Whether that means permadeath or that they'd require a resurrect spell cast on them depends on the game's lore and mechanics. They also can't participate in any storyline quests.

So if you want to play as a humble innkeeper, or cook, or bowyer, or beggar or whatever, you could do that without having to fit your avatar into that role. However, you only get one character with immortality, limitless potential, and the ability to be the epic hero. Avatars are from Earth, satellites are from New Britannia.

Would anyone be satisfied by that?