Only one character slot? (Please answer poll)

Hey! How dare you call me a Goblin King! I am much uglier than that.

 

What if I were every other person on this board that wasn't you? What if I was every person on the internet that wasn't you? What if I created this whole world just so I could have this single conversation with you...right now? Would that change anything?

 

Not necessarily. I just don't want to play a rigged game.

You know it occurs to me and I don't know what I didn't think of this before but.. the story Richard and Tracy are crafting is meant to include the many avatars. At least for multiplayer purposes. They've said as much in one of the dev chats talking about how it's a different challenge incorporating everyone. If this is the case.. then how does multiple characters negatively impact the story if the story is designed to handle many protagonists?

Plus I see there are still plenty of people who's logic for single character only is still in part based on not wanting to see muling or self sufficient players. Oi oi..

Ok it may be against my better judgment but I'll play around round here. Variety my friends.. is the spice of life. I'll just speak for myself being the RPer that I am. The benefit to you.. if you happen to run into me in-game.. for me having multiple characters.. is that I will enrich your experience through roleplay. I at least.. will normally remain in-character and keep some fairly interesting characters.. and not to toot my own horn but people really seem to enjoy interacting with them. Ranging from the intelligent but secret character with a hidden agenda.. to the stupid but honorable little ugly spud of a goblin chief wannabe. The aging and often cranky master crafter or a slimey little midget necromancer to undead paladins and playful clerics.

No I'm not planning on having that many.. or those in particular.. but I guarantee my characters will have the potential to entertain you. What I bring to the game as a roleplayer is a variety of interesting characters for you to interact with. Will they be self sufficient? Heck no. What a pain in the rear that would be.. if that was my goal I'd only need one character. On the contrary.. it means I will have that much more need to interact with other crafters. This doesn't hurt damage for crafted items.. it increases it.

Will any be used as a mule? Gah.. no! besides.. if the design goal of the game is to not need multiple characters.. that includes storage.

Will everyone play like this? No of course not.. but there are a lot of us who will.. a lot of people out there are dying for a game to provide a good roleplay environment. After all this time I still hear that NWN did the best job of this and they've been looking for a new place to call home ever since. These people will enrich the world with their creativity in character design and story telling and yes many of those will conform to the world lore.. myself included.

I and can probably promise you this. Limit me to one character and there will be one less crafter in the world to provide you with services and we're going to need all the crafters we can get.

 

I understand the desire to have alts. Every MMORPG I've played, everquest, everquest 2, wow, starwars galaxies, conan.. etc.. I've always created characters, played, created more characters.. played.. on wow i had two accounts and maxed out the character limit across multiple realms on both of them. (yes there is a max), i believe it was 50.

So I know first hand how detrimental to the roleplay experience having access to other characters can be. Within a single realm, it was difficult to play the characters without thinking about how each one might benefit the others. Sure I enjoyed it, but it wasn't a singular gaming experience. And each time I changed characters I had to try to reconnect with friends and whichever characters they are playing at the time with that role..

In tabletop, unless you're the DM, you don't play more than one character. The DM's characters aren't players, the DM is just acting out all the NPCs for the group.

If we're trying to have the best roleplay experience in this game, one character that you stick with to the end is vitally important. Living with your actions, experiencing what effect your choices have on your future gameplay, that's what you miss out on if drop your commitment to your character.. and the value is lost.

If I meet your character in the world, and I get to know you.. chances are very good that I'll continue to see you throughout the game if you only have the one player.. If everyone is able to have multiple players, we'll constantly be running into players that wind up getting deleted, because they didn't like that build and wanted to try another one, etc..

I think the New Britannians are upset enough to be invaded by us players.. if that number is multiplied by 2 or 3 or 4, isn't that beating a dead horse?

I don't want to see a guild with 40 people in it, just to find out after I join that it was really just 10 people with 3 alts each..

etc. etc. etc..

 

Then you would be the AI of the game and in reality it would be no different than if I was playing with NPCs which I intend to do anyway, I only invisiage myself playing SPO or friend only anyway so what you chose to do has apsolutly zero impact on me with the exception that me with 2 characters will be a much higher level than your 50 characters so if we DID fight I would have the advantage

 

With no skill cap there is no reason to delete characters.. simply change the skills you use and try a different way. Trying different builds is a poor argument in the absence of classes or a skill cap. Deleting a character to start over would be a huge waste of time and effort.

Also what you're describing isn't roleplay.. it's a limit of the game's design and your own jumping around different characters that creates the problem for you. And there is the catch.. is causes the problem.. for YOU.. so choose not to do it and there's no more problem. Everything you're describing is how your style of play affected you. Not how someone else's style of play affected you. See the difference here?

Table top is not particularly a fair comparison as the game dynamics are very different.. the DM could allow you to play multiple characters if they wanted to.. but how often does a DM tell you that you have to play as yourself? Or how often do they say you must play as a certain kind of character and you must use that character in every campaign.

So see my biggest beef with the single character is that in order to enjoy all the skills I want to try... if I can only use the one character to do it.. I'm creating a character of someone else's design. Bowen would not be Bowen if I have to use him to play around with crafting for example.. of if I want to try a school of magic. Bowen can't cast a spark to save his life. That's how he is.. the instant a game mechanic forces me to change that.. he's no longer the character I wanted to play. THAT ruins the roleplay for me.. it also ruins the immersion because it's a game mechanic doing this and not my own decision. It reminds me that I'm just playing a game and deprives me from also enjoying interacting with another character I find interesting. It would destroy the purity of my character.. forcing him to be something he was never intended to be.

A single character limit actually encourages to some degree that self sufficiency because everyone is capable of doing it with one character.

I also take some exception to the assumption that I'd be less committed to any of my characters.. and why should anyone care what *I* miss out on if it's my choice?

Plus.. did it occur to anyone that your friends list could possibly be by account rather than by character? Besides the argument about how often you see one or more of my characters implies the assumption that everyone will play for the same amount of time. You're naturally going to see some people or some characters more often than others.. this remains true in reality also. Why should you be so conscience of it that it becomes an argument. The same thing will happen if everyone has a single character.. and unless you're aware of the people you know well having different characters then you aren't going to notice this at all.

Then join a guild that doesn't allow alts. Mine never did and we had 50+

 

Who said anything about playing more than one AT THE SAME TIME, when your playing table top do you ban people from playing one person today and a different person tomorrow?

 

I've put this in other places, but to save you going back and reading through all of it, here are the list of whys.

Multiple characters change the way players interact with the game via stats, story and stuff, and their expectations about them.

STUFF:
This is an easy one, but it's also an unknown quantity at this point.

1) Trading starting gold equipment, taking advantage of early game rent limits, or other such tactics that take advantage of starting character bonuses. It's unknown if these are in there, but a flag to raise now. There's ways in game to avoid this, but we haven't heard to know how exploitable this is yet.

2) House ownership. With limited land locations this could change how houses are given out. I'm not sure if we'll see a hard limit like one per account. Maybe, but again, an unknown and something to consider.

STATS:
1) There's talk of no skill cap, but that is still vague... because he also says there will be a reason for people to play crafters and seek them out as weapons degrade. You can't have both, because if I can do everything, and build everything myself, then not only do we not need other people to do that, but we really don't need to talk to other people at all. So we're missing something here, and my guess due to the social nature of the game will be that there's some other mechanic that keeps you from branching out too widely.

2) I've also pointed out that skills aren't going to be earned via use has been brought up. There's not a lot of other ways to make that work. With all the talk of level the guess seems to be that we'll get points per level to assign as we see fit. Since early levels are earned faster (again, speculation on my part, but reasonable...) then specialized characters will allow you to hit higher skill levels in multiple trees faster by making alts than by sticking with one. You may not need to make alts, but it's definitely in your best interest. Where one character means each level balancing all these things against interacting socially with others to make up for where you're not stronger because you had to chose where to put that last point between sword repair and sword fighting, and didn't put any into armor repair.

STORY:
The reason these get brought up the most is because they're the most obvious.

1) Playing a single character forces you to weigh decisions differently than if you have multiples. If you have multiples one guy steals the gold, the other gives it to the orphanage. One guy attacks the city, the other guy defends it. If you have just one guy, and one chance to make the choice, the character ends up being much deeper. He may steal the gold, but still defend the city. The choice will effect them, and you can't just flip a switch and not deal with it. That a handful of people say "But I won't play like that." isn't convincing. Gaming culture is one of extremes. You have one guy max out one path, another max out another. One character means making the call on who you want to be and being stuck with it, and it's consequences. Even just knowing the escape hatch is there can change your feelings and interaction with the world.

2) Playing a single character is part of the story being presented, and is a Garriott staple. YOU, not someone else, came through the portal. That's the story.

PLAYER EXPECTATIONS:
1) When you set up how a character is created in the game, you're teaching the player how you as the developer expect them to interact with it. If you put more than one character slot in place, you're not saying they have to have more than one character, but you're letting them know that it's within their intent that you do. They've said that's not how they expect the player to play the game.

2) It sets up what the developers expect to do for the players. Since they're expecting people to use the tools they give them, they'll build the game around the concept of multiple characters. One of the big things I see in this arena is that the devs can say "Yep, after they max out we just expect them to start their second character." This means a significant difference in what most MMO's know as 'the end game'. When you max out, what do you still do? The devs have to pay a lot more attention to this when the alternative is "go to another game".

THINGS I FORGOT:
There's some things I forgot in all that (I'm definitely sure in the stuff and stats) there's probably some reasons the RG and the dev team (they should start a band) have that we don't even know about yet. But that was their impression of how this game would best be presented.

CONCLUSION:
Lets say I'm wrong about story, and I'm wrong about stuff, and I haven't forgotten anything and the dev team has zero other reasons for doing this other than story, the story is still changed from what RG wants to present. So if you want me to back you on making a change to the game, you have to give me some reason that something else improves, either in story, stats, stuff, or that it brings player expectations even more inline with the desired final product.

So far, there's been nothing presented other than "But I won't abuse it, I promise, and you'll get two characters from me! Won't that be awesome?" Not really? I mean, I can only see one of you at a time, so it's not like I'll get to talk to two of you at once. And the characters presented simply won't be as deep. This isn't someone who wrestled with choices, they just followed the formula of "I'm all about honor", this is the guy I play when I want to be a thief, etc. Quality over quantity.

Some of that is opinion, but none of it was just crafted out of thin air... there's reasoning behind all of it. So, I'm open to discussion of something I forgot, or missed, or have logically wrong up there and you can show me, I'm all ears.

 

Err freeman why did you respond to a post asking a specific question of a SPECIFIC poster?

Or are you Goblin King and have invalidated your own argument?

 

Which is why I want to know the rules. You're playing Calvinball here and putting new pieces on the field every time going "Oh, but it only sounds like I said that, I really think...." all the while glossing over large sections of logical reasoning with the fine rebuttal of "Yeah, well that's your opinion." Maybe, but unless my logic is flawed, the opinion I've come to is solid.

In short, you're rigging the debate, and it stops now.

I'm not going to talk about the rest of your post until you tell me, are their things within this situation I should consider beyond Game Play and Story? A bishop of graphics or anything? A knight of immersion? Here's your chance to define the rules.

 

You quoted him and asked why. If you only want him to answer, I can delete it. Or leave it. Whatever.

I don't see how it invalidates each other though.

 

That was aimed at getting at what Goblin was actually thinking rather than the standed "I don't like it so it shouldn't happen" which is the same sort of stupid argument which people make against marriage equality and every other issue but sure lets debunk your list

Stuff? what stuff?

your digging the bottom of the barrel if you think selling the starting sword for 1 gold, then deleting your character and doing it again is a more viable method of making money than playing the game

Its not 1 house per account and even if it was so what? if any secondary characters are on the same account then the limit would apply to them too. Also we can already share houses if we chose with "kin" and give full access to the house so how is this game breaking for you?

Its not vague its specific, Chris has said innumerable times that the "skill cap" is going to be that there will be to many choices for you to ever take everything, NOT that you will hit level 60 and that's it. Also he has said that crafting and combat will come from different trees so you can already have a mage blacksmith

the skill progression is going to be flat, not exponential the way other games are, don't know how many times this has been said

Actually it relegates the story to obscurity, you really think people are going to only play the game for 4 hours and then never again because if you have your way the story will be lost because it will become effectively a tutorial, something you get to play when you first start and then never again, the exact OPPOSITE of what the game SHOULD be

Interesting to see how many people make this argument here and then in the turn based combat thread turn around and say "but its not you, its a character your playing" hypocracy much?

Have to? really you have that little self control that you HAVE to do anything?
Fine ask for it to be a switch turned on or off when the account is made and permanent, if you want one only you simply disable that feature and then noone can force you to play 2

You cant max out so again irrelivent and shows you haven't been reading anything

If it was THAT important to them they wouldn't have said that it was easy to change if WE wanted more

Replayability

replayability, so far I have read harry potter (all the way through) 6 times, I couldn't even tell you how many times I have read Terry Prachett and David Edding's books. Even Ultima 7 and SI I have played through 20 or more times. You don't bring a famous and brilliant author into a game like this and then use him for what amounts to a tutorial. They want us playing this game in 10 years time, yet the 40 hours of story is locked away in a see it once and then never again. That's as big a waste as the way Oblivian used Sir Patrick Stewart.

 

What you're failing to take into account is that your average player doesn't want to go through all the effort. Do you seriously think that just because everyone is capable of being self sufficient.. that a majority of the players will just do it themselves? When it's so much easier to pay someone else who's willing to do it for them? I know from long experience that a great many players simply don't enjoy harvesting or crafting. Naturally they will have to seek out those who do.

Forgoing the admitted assumptions.. this too is an example of thinking where your arguments pretty much lump everyone into one group. In several years as a NWN DM.. we learned the hard way that mechanics can't force people to play the way we wish and let me tell you this.. Those who want to interact socially will do so.. those who do not.. will not. It's not a matter of how many characters you have.. or what mechanic is in place that you think encourages socializing. It just plain, simply, does not work.

Now the RPer will normally choose to socialize to their own character's detriment if there are others of similar mind to interact with. They'd rather spend their time chatting away drinking ale in the local pub than have their armor repaired. Where as people who are focused on skills or armor will prefer that to socializing. If you try to force them into down time assuming they'll use it to socialize.. what many will do is simply log out until that down time is done.

This is an assumption that varies per individual. I assure you that this statement does not apply for me or others like me. This is a psychological factor that you the player have control over. More so than any mechanic.

Now you're assuming what devs will do. You're not on the team for one.. secondly this assumption is falling back on a skill system we know SotA won't be using. RG has made it quite clear that the intended skill system will not allow you max everything because you won't have time.. and any skill cap that may be in place will be raised when new skills are added. So your example of what "devs CAN say" is clearly contrary to what we've been presented.

There's also no incentive for devs to create features based on the idea that players will have more than one character. They've made no indication of going in that direction. Besides.. this is pretty darn vague. What features will they be compelled to change or add that will change story or game play? You seem to think they will but do you have any idea what those changes would be?

RG didn't expect players in UO to systematically target and steal from newbies through the use of macros either and look what happened. The point again is that players won't play the way you always expect. Mechanics or no mechanics. I'm not saying it's always right.. but it's a mistake to think that just because a mechanic is in place that players will just naturally follow along. Besides, this is a pretty weak argument if the team is willing to change it. If it were that important we wouldn't have this debate.

Basically the response I expected and why I didn't care to bother. You assume now that character depth is something that is dictated by the game? A level 10 character has more depth to it than a level 1 because they ran through some quests? If you ask me that's some pretty darn shallow thinking. I'm hearing no real appreciation for actual character and the assumption that characters are little more than stats and gear. Who are you to say what choices any character has wrestled with?

Here's a very nasty habit I see you doing. You are constantly justifying your position on the assumptions that people will behave according to your expectations. Oh I have two characters and therefore they're not as "deep" as your one? This is based on what? The assumptions that I took them through the main story just to try out different paths? An assumption that would be incorrect in every way shape or form. Character 'depth' comes from the player behind the character.. not a quest line or how they play out someone else's story.. and not their stats. The player. So I would thank you not to simply assume my characters will be less 'deep' than someone else's simply because I have more than one.

Someone counters all your arguments and you say they're ignoring them. You ask for theirs and you pass them off with more assumptions about how they play even when you assure you of the contrary. You're not "all ears".

 

You'd really like to think that but with your reading between the lines and trying to tell me things I didn't actually say.. of course I have to explain it to you again. You see I can counter pretty much anything you argue.. but you just come back and say the same old things.. make the same old assumptions and accuse everyone of ignoring your logic. We're not ignoring your logic.. we disagree with it. Even when we address it directly.. nope.. we're ignoring it.. we ignored it even though we didn't.. we told you how we disagree with it but we ignored it.. yup.. you said so. Just like you say things about how *I* am going to play or how the devs are going to do.. something to change something else that you probably won't like because it changes someone's expectations..

It's all about how YOU think everyone else is going to behave and you think they shouldn't. We disagree so you reset the board and around and around we go. Then tell us you're all ears. After all.. you explained your case.

 

You actually haven't said much, and in this case, won't even answer a direct question. Is there any other piece you'd like to add to the board. But yup... you're right. It's me.

 

I figured the end result would be the same so it wouldn't matter.. besides the question was pretty darn vague at the time. I think it's best if we're done here.

 

Having more then one character in a game where choices make differences is important to me especially if I want to see if I could possibly end up with a better character. I am fine if they only have 1 character at launch because I would need some time with my character first but if I get bored it's always nice to jump in as someone different especially if they don't plan on it taking hours just to get into the actual game.

 

Why ask if you address it in 3 seconds.

I used to run Neverwinter servers back in the day. One of the things I added in was XP for picking locks, and to reset the dungeon I'd have doors relock 1:10 times when they shut, to help keep it random.

I watched players sit at a door, open and close it for anywhere from 1/2 hour to one guy who did it for 3 hours. Just because lockpicking XP was less dangerous and easy. Players are willing to throw time at grinding to have an advantage. So no... it's not as far down the barrel as you'd think.

A) You don't know that. and B) It's game breaking because of the limited amount of space available for houses. It's just one of the ways this creates complexity to the multi-slot situation. It's not the strongest argument, but it doesn't have to be, it just has to be 'an' argument.

Right... but how do you get them. As I spelled out in another post, if gaining your first level takes 100 xp, the next 200, the next three, and lets assume 3 skill points each level (doesn't matter the number, just to show the math) Then at level 3, going to 4 for another 3 skill points, is 400 xp. That same Xp on a new character will get you 6. Multiple slots let you get more skill points faster, thus encouraging players to create mules they can focus skills in.

And what they mean by that is a level 5 fighter against a level 10 fighter is at a disadvantage, but has a chance. This doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as flat XP rate.

Of course not. Do I think having a story that is more powerful and interesting because of the limits you play within is better for the game? You bet. Just because it doesn't destroy something doesn't mean it's not damaged in the change.

You really only get to claim hypocracy if I said that. Did I? I'd need to understand the context, to get what's going on. I could say the same thing about how many people here scream "Free choice!" then demand PvP for everyone. But it's a diversion in either argument. The point remains, that's the story presented... that you have to bring up other people being hypocrites, rather than refute it I think says it all...

Lets just repaste what I said:

So, no... that's not what I said at all. I am saying that people who are coming into this blind will see the slots and think "I'm supposed to make different characters to experience different story lines, and not "One character is the intended way to play". Yes... that matters. It changes how they interact with the game, and the game can be something different than every other game out there, and this change helps that.

Yeah... except: The story has an end that can be reached. A max quest completion. There will be a point that your stats are beyond what's needed. There will be a point where you've taken all the special skills and spells. There is a 'maxed out character' either literally, or effectively.

It originally was a debate how the character dialog would go down. It was important to RG, but was still a fight to make happen. Just because they're willing to listen to us, doesn't mean it's not important to them.

You will never truly be able to replay the story in the online component. Once every store has a throne of bone and maps to the third dungeon of the underdark, it's just not the same online. If you want that 'replay' feeling, you'll probably be doing it offline. And you will always have that option.

But really, what these guys bring to the table is not a world with a 40 hour story we have to rehash several times, but a 40 hour story that leads to an endless world crafted from their lore and imaginations. That you think it will be play through-play through-play through is exactly what I'm talking about avoiding. Building the game with the intent of it being an endless quest with no end, even if the main story does, that takes advantage of characters with no ceiling is something the devs won't have to consider, and probably won't, if they know people are just going to start again after so much time.[/quote][/quote]

 

Seriously? I read between the lines, make assumptions, and don't listen, when I call you out on not actually having a legit discussion you say "Yeah, well.... you wouldn't have had one anyway."

Thank you. Yeah... we're done here.

 

- min-maxing is a term for a reason.. because it's very common.

One piece of your argument is "I'll never be able to max out my skills, because there isn't time to max skills"..
That renders your complaint that 'if I have only one character, I'll finish the game and have nothing to do, so that's why i need more characters..' argument inaccurate, doesn't it?

-No one said 'have to', there's a NOT in that sentence..check it again..

There's no reason to 'assume' that having only one character will keep anyone from being able to replay any or all parts of the story. If they're designing the game with the intent of only one character slot per player, the expected playability, and replayability will be inherent in that design. It's all to do with expectations. The game can be made, and streamlined to specifically be fun for players with one character. Limiting this option simplifies the game design allowing the developers to ensure this is possible.

-Of course game mechanics that encourage players to be more social work. If it doesn't work, then it wasn't designed properly.
As an example: Why do you think they are creating this selective multiplayer game? To encourage players to socialize in-game with friends and family that they know, as opposed to playing in a realm with strangers where they commonly avoid contact at all costs. That's what you call a game mechanic that encourages socializing. And of course it will work. It will encourage many of us to socialize in fun and exciting ways we've never socialized before!

-If you had two lives in real life, instead of just the one, would you do anything differently in your current life? You're right, it is a psychological factor, but you don't have control over it. the very knowledge that you have another option changes how you make decisions. It's psychological fact.

As far as character depth: Of course a character you've focused on and put more time into will have more depth than one that you haven't spent as much time on, nor focused primarily on. Are you really trying to argue this? If you played one character alone, you by definition, are putting more time and effort into that character than if you split your time and creativity and effort etc. between two characters.