ID:152128
 
Started this post cause I too am wondering about how to handle death, but the other topic got into a flame war.
How would you do a death system? heres a small list on what I found:
Permanent death - Player's character deleted upon death
Wait period - Player must wait so long before being able to play again
Slight loss - player looses something that is easy to get, ie small amount of golf/exp, common item.
large loss - player looses something that is hard to get, ie equipment and levels.
Nothing - the act of dieing is its own penalty.

Personally i think it depends on the game. A dungeon crawler where the point of the game is to reach the end of the dungeon would benefit greatly with just sending the player back to the beginning. if you collect lots of items in the game, then losing some items probably wouldn't matter. If the point of the game is to grind for 3 months trying to get one item, then both permanent death and item losing are probably out of the question, unless your target audience are people who like to waste a lot of their time.

Please no flaming... people have different ideas, like different things. its no reason to get upset. diversity is good.
Redslash wrote:
Personally i think it depends on the game.

You just summed it up right there. There is never going to be a good answer for this question, because it depends on the game! Whatever makes death something that players want to avoid while not making it so severe that its aggravating for them when it happens is just right.
Redslash wrote:
Started this post cause I too am wondering about how to handle death, but the other topic got into a flame war.
How would you do a death system? heres a small list on what I found:
Permanent death - Player's character deleted upon death
Worst
Wait period - Player must wait so long before being able to play again
Very very bad
Slight loss - player looses something that is easy to get, ie small amount of golf/exp, common item.
Bad
large loss - player looses something that is hard to get, ie equipment and levels.
Very bad
Nothing - the act of dieing is its own penalty.
Good!
Personally i think it depends on the game. A dungeon crawler where the point of the game is to reach the end of the dungeon would benefit greatly with just sending the player back to the beginning. if you collect lots of items in the game, then losing some items probably wouldn't matter. If the point of the game is to grind for 3 months trying to get one item, then both permanent death and item losing are probably out of the question, unless your target audience are people who like to waste a lot of their time.

Please no flaming... people have different ideas, like different things. its no reason to get upset. diversity is good.

It does not depend on the game. Players will not want to play a game that screws them over every time they make a mistake.

A corollary: players DO want to play a game that screws OTHER people over when THEY make mistakes (or, more likely: when they gank them). They will put up with harsh penalties so long as they can inflict them on others more often than they get them inflicted on themselves. Obviously, not a good way to build a stable community.
In response to Garthor
Why not make a game where the objective is to die? If it won't work one way, maybe it'll work in reverse. :D
In response to Garthor
Actually, it really does depend on the game and the playerbase you are out for.
Such generalizations you make may apply to you but there is absolutely no reason to believe every single player is as you are. That is the difference between playerbases. Some, like those commonly found in the anime guild, only want things in the game if it directly benefits them and allows them to cause misery to others. Others, like those found in the roleplayers guild, will generally want stricter penalties in-game so as to keep said game strictly RP.
In response to Jamesburrow
Jamesburrow wrote:
Such generalizations you make may apply to you but there is absolutely no reason to believe every single player is as you are.

I'm not. I'm simply presenting the facts as they are shown by the trends in the gaming industry. Games with stupid, arbitrary death penalties are not often made, and those that are made generally do not do well. Games that have a reasonable penalty (read: nothing absurd on top of the implicit failure associated with death) are more common and do well.

Here's a question for you: would you play Mario if you were locked out of playing it for an hour every time you ran out of lives?
In response to Garthor
Who has said anything about locking a player out of the game for an hour?

And who ever said anything about looking for the standard playerbase? Personally, I could care less about making a game mass-marketable. If I make a game, I would want it to be targeted solely at the hardcore RP playerbase.
In response to Jamesburrow
Jamesburrow wrote:
Who has said anything about locking a player out of the game for an hour?

Redslash did. At the start of this thread.

And who ever said anything about looking for the standard playerbase? Personally, I could care less about making a game mass-marketable. If I make a game, I would want it to be targeted solely at the hardcore RP playerbase.

Because if more people enjoy something, that's a general indication that people are more likely to enjoy something. I mean, sure, you could market your game specifically to masochists... but that's rather silly.
In response to Garthor
Garthor wrote:
Redslash did. At the start of this thread.
ah, ok, I missed that part of the point.


I mean, sure, you could market your game specifically to masochists... but that's rather silly.

Whoever said anything about releasing it strictly to masochists? There is a difference between being strictly RP and being a masochist.
In response to Jamesburrow
I'm not quite sure how "ream players for dying" relates to "strictly RP" in any way, shape, or form. Could you clarify, please?

[edit]Wait, I think I get it: they're roleplaying masochists playing a game, right?
In response to Garthor
No. I'm just saying that in a game that is strictly role-play, where a true line is divided between player and character, it is expected that characters will die. And that when the character dies, some form of consequence will happen to said character. Depending on the set-up of the game, this could happen in the form of the afterlife, or permadeath, or whatever.
In response to Jamesburrow
Jamesburrow wrote:
No. I'm just saying that in a game that is strictly role-play, where a true line is divided between player and character, it is expected that characters will die. And that when the character dies, some form of consequence will happen to said character. Depending on the set-up of the game, this could happen in the form of the afterlife, or permadeath, or whatever.

I'm not seeing it. Seems to me you're just pulling an arbitrary distinction out of somewhere I don't want to think about.
So much for no flaming... What i wanted this discussion to be for was to have people voice what they thought would be the best ways to handle death in various situations. IE in an RPG, perma death would be bad because you become attached to your character. In a truckracing game, noone would care if your car explodes and is deleted because its just a tool to play the game.

And i didn't mean locking the person out of the game earlier, i just meant put them in ghost form, or make battling harder... not to bootr them from the game and not let them play for so long.
In response to Garthor
It depends on the game, look at NetHack and many other Rogue like games. These games have a perma-death system and is still widely considered some of the best role playing games for computers. It was popular enough not only to warrant having a company make a marketed edition, and to later spawn dozens of clones.
In response to Baladin
Baladin wrote:
It depends on the game, look at NetHack and many other Rouge like games. These games have a perma-death system and is still widely considered some of the best role playing games for computers. It was popular enough not only to warrant having a company make a marketed edition, and to later spawn dozens of clones.

#1) It's "Rogue". Rouge is make-up.

#2) A death system which works in a game featuring absolutely no roleplay at all doesn't mean it somehow works in a game which emphasises strong character development.
In response to Jtgibson
Correct, like I said, depends on the game. What works for some, does not work on other games. It was just one example.
In response to Baladin
Baladin wrote:
Correct, like I said, depends on the game. What works for some, does not work on other games. It was just one example.

Although I do see that Garthor did make a blanket statement, one would have to assume he's referring to a roleplaying game. Roguelikes are strategy games that emphasise managed risk and the luck of the draw; when he's saying "it doesn't depend on the game", in a roleplaying game context he's right.

I'm reserving opinion on whether it's actually such a bad thing to punish people for dying.
In response to Garthor
Garthor wrote:
I'm not quite sure how "ream players for dying" relates to "strictly RP" in any way, shape, or form. Could you clarify, please?

[edit]Wait, I think I get it: they're roleplaying masochists playing a game, right?

I think that people are being programmed by the mainstream games that "dying means loss". In single player games, this usually amounts to having to start over at your last save point -- however in multiplayer games (mostly massively multiplayer games), the developers tend to want to put as many timesinks in the game as possible so that you have to spend more time in the game to get it all back. Another mindset is that "there should be risk to the reward". If you can kill something to get gold/experience/items, you should have to be risking something. If you don't risk anything, you can die and come straight back, trying over and over until you get the gold or items that the thing is carrying.

If you want punishment for death, don't make it annoying and frustrating for the player -- you'll often lose players that way. Try to work out a plan that will induce penalty to the player who dies while not making it a royal pain. For instance, perhaps a certain debuff on the character that reduces certain stats for a small time -- not so much that it makes the game unplayable, just enough to make them feel it.

When it comes down to it, you should do it however you want to. The players who don't mind it will stay, the players who do will leave. It's that simple. No need to turn this into another flame war such as the other thread!