Losing party members as the game progresses Options

[Sparrowsmith]

I suppose that's one reason why traditional experience systems are flawed, or why having a big party is useless.
Some games have systems that share experience even to characters not in the battle, but realistically they were ALL in the fight. It's not like half of them were just standing on the sidelines

I've played some games actually that have only reward experience to the main character, and all the other players progress naturally. Sometimes they keep in pace with the main, sometimes they level up automatically as the game progresses.

In any case, the in-built system is flawed. Ten people are traveling the world, when they encounter enemies only four of them fight, these four become super badass while the other six watch. That's not how an adventure should work

[Moonpearl]

This is a good idea indeed. If I were to do it, I would actually "recycle" dead party members, giving them a different purpose. For example; they could be reincarnated into items, or simply guide you from heaven. This would emphasize the dramatic aspect as you suggested, while keeping things balanced and interesting, as it can be very frustrating for a player to lose everything they've given a character. Along this line, characters' abilities in their "afterlife state" could depend on how you've built them before they die. So the question would not be "how long will this character remain useful", but "will this character stay alive long enough to enable this feature later".

[Cleril]

I'd argue that you shouldn't give the player the abilities of dead party members. What's the point of killing them off from a gameplay perspective then? I'd also argue against adapting difficulty down as you lose party members. Instead give the player a way to strategically pad out how to use the remaining abilities to fend off enemies.

Just mt two cents.

[Moonpearl]

I'd argue that you shouldn't give the player the abilities of dead party members. What's the point of killing them off from a gameplay perspective then?

Well, it's not about keeping characters exactly the same after they die. All I'm saying is they might enable some features, obviously much less powerful than having the actual character in your party, but still useful at times. Maybe dead party members could come to the rescue in critical/desperate situations, for example only when all your party is down except for one character who just have 1HP left, does a deas party member appears and gives an attack, then vanishes and you don't see them again in a while; This kind of ability is constrained enough in my opinion to maintain the feeling of loss toward the dead members, but still, if you've done the right things during their lifetime, you know you can count on a greater joker in time of troubles.

[Kaust]

I'd argue that you shouldn't give the player the abilities of dead party members. What's the point of killing them off from a gameplay perspective then?

Well, it's not about keeping characters exactly the same after they die. All I'm saying is they might enable some features, obviously much less powerful than having the actual character in your party, but still useful at times. Maybe dead party members could come to the rescue in critical/desperate situations, for example only when all your party is down except for one character who just have 1HP left, does a deas party member appears and gives an attack, then vanishes and you don't see them again in a while; This kind of ability is constrained enough in my opinion to maintain the feeling of loss toward the dead members, but still, if you've done the right things during their lifetime, you know you can count on a greater joker in time of troubles.

I think this was aimed more at the OP who suggested it as a compromise for losing character specific abilities midway through a game (maybe one character's history led to him being a dabhand at lockpicking, it would be illogical for locked chests to simply disappear conveniently at the point of death, and so another character eventually picks up the slack)
I like your whole 'Mysterious Stranger' Fallout thing though it would probably detract from the seriousness intended by death by making it seem less of a permanent state (what with their ability to just jump into the physical realm on a whim; kinda makes death seem like a boon for a character who now has two worlds to play around in)

[Cleril]

I'd argue that you shouldn't give the player the abilities of dead party members. What's the point of killing them off from a gameplay perspective then?

Well, it's not about keeping characters exactly the same after they die. All I'm saying is they might enable some features, obviously much less powerful than having the actual character in your party, but still useful at times. Maybe dead party members could come to the rescue in critical/desperate situations, for example only when all your party is down except for one character who just have 1HP left, does a deas party member appears and gives an attack, then vanishes and you don't see them again in a while; This kind of ability is constrained enough in my opinion to maintain the feeling of loss toward the dead members, but still, if you've done the right things during their lifetime, you know you can count on a greater joker in time of troubles.

I think this was aimed more at the OP who suggested it as a compromise for losing character specific abilities midway through a game (maybe one character's history led to him being a dabhand at lockpicking, it would be illogical for locked chests to simply disappear conveniently at the point of death, and so another character eventually picks up the slack)
I like your whole 'Mysterious Stranger' Fallout thing though it would probably detract from the seriousness intended by death by making it seem less of a permanent state (what with their ability to just jump into the physical realm on a whim; kinda makes death seem like a boon for a character who now has two worlds to play around in)

Well, yes, if the OP had party members teaching each other (perhaps have the player choose how to train) then it makes sense to still have the abilities when one party member dies.

You'd have to let the player pick from al ist of abilities from al ist of party members os that way it doesn't become a cycle to the player. I.e don't only let the player choose to train in lockpicking because then it's obvious who is going to die next.

For added benefit you should design the game to allow randomly chosen party members to die.

[bulmabriefs144]

I'd argue that you shouldn't give the player the abilities of dead party members. What's the point of killing them off from a gameplay perspective then? I'd also argue against adapting difficulty down as you lose party members. Instead give the player a way to strategically pad out how to use the remaining abilities to fend off enemies.

Just mt two cents.

It also depends on the tone of the game. Final Fantasy 6 has the first party disappear in the first 10 min, except Terra (Tina). Sorta horror element, until you figure out what's going on, and the characters missing were extras. Final Fantasy 5, you have Galuf doing a heroic sacrifice. His daughter gets the brunt of his experience and job points.

Shared experience should happen as a result of battles, not hero loss.

[Shaddow]

Wow this is an awesome topic, and a few things I'm surprised didn't get covered. Sure the game play aspect is important but what about the emotional one?

One of the greatest series to do this was the Suikoden series. In the first game your life-long friend and care-taker Gremio sacrifices himself so that you don't get eaten by man-eating pollen. This was foreshadowed the night before by all the other characters telling Gremio he shouldn't go this time, and that it was time for you to step out on your own. Yes this doesn't effect a game greatly when you have another 67 possible party members.

Just imagine a character who has been with you since day one, that has developed into a father figure for you. Now imagine the dialogue as he says his last goodbyes in the other room as his flesh is stripped away. He tells you how he's proud of you and how his vision is going dark. The scene shifts to 'a few hours later' and a rescue party lets you out of the room. You see only his cloak and axe lying on the ground. Amazing

An alternate aspect of this is betrayal. Suikoden II actually covers this. The game starts with you and your best friend in a youth division of the army, you go to sleep only to wake up and find your entire unit being wiped out by a surprise attack. You and your friend escape but are separated. Eventually you meet back up and he rejoins you in a heart felt reunion. Eventually you escape from city after city as the war terrorizes you. You attempt to assist the army in a recon mission only to be caught and have him stay behind to save you. Later he miraculously shows up and you are reunited. He then assassinates the leader of your army, causing everything to go to hell and your near death. How do you deal with a best friend whom you shared so much with suddenly becoming an enemy?

Now from the game play side of things, because that is just as important. A good game to use as an example for this is Final Fantasy II, the remake for the GBA to be specific. In that game you get a total of four members who end up dying to save you. The game does not comp you for these characters, but they help you in ways such as information, a boat, and helping out your spirit in hard times. The game play side of things that was interesting is that after you beat the game you unlock an alternate mode that lets you play as those four in the underworld, solving the other half of the story.

A good way to balance starting with characters and losing those characters is to make sure you always have a mostly full team, if you are doing an rpg of course. This will get unbalanced fast. But losing all but the lowest of recruits causes you to have to train them and make them into the warriors the ones who sacrificed themselves were. Story and game play all in one.