Heir systems

I really don't understand the point of such systems. If you want permadeath have permadeath and I'll create a new character, if you don't want permadeath let me bring my character back to life.

I like heir system. Here was one that I was thinking of, though it only really applies to what I want to do, if I ever wanted to really do an MMO, which is pretty much never.

I'd have a specified timeline split into sections. Where you make up, lets say 3 sections for teh game and after a certain amount of time, you switch it up. Example: Peace time, War time, Aftermath time. Pretty much, you make a character for peace time, and after 3 months after the peace time started, you switch to war time, etc etc... But in all those time, you have allow ressurections because you'll only die of murder/battle/monsters/self inflicted stupidity/etc. But after the 3 sections are over, you start a new age, in which you allow players to carry over a character through an heir that inherits a certain amount from their past character.

It'll allow players to regrow characters, but regrow faster and which, imo, lessens to dullness of stagnation in those high levels that games usually provide.

I think the enjoyability of such a system depends quite heavily on the specifics of the implementation (e.g. how easy is it to die? what proportion of the old character is carried forward after death? are new characters initially weaker than the character who died? is there any real difference beyond cosmetic?)

I quite like the sound of pothb's idea with distinct "eras" - this seems to use heirs for a greater purpose as the system actually gives you more flexibility in some ways. The problem here is creating enough content to make the eras seem distinct (at the very least, the quests available need to all change. Probably some cosmetic changes to the world would be expected by players as well).

In general, I'm not a fan of the idea of permadeath in MMOs (although I'm not really an MMO player)

i have not enjoyed heir system in "sims" and "total war".

to justify a heir system, it needs to be more fun than simply
creating a new character AND make up the loss of the original
character i have already played for a while.

imho it is pretty hard to achieve.

To create a town in Sims3, I had to timestop the aging (an option checkbox), level up the family I was playing, then switch families and repeat. The only time I let time advance is when I wanted children to be born.

The odd thing is that stopping the aging is exactly the opposite of aging. Playing as many families multiplied the amount of work I did per game day, which meant that for me time was not linear, it was a bunch of parallel strips. Except the game engine wanted to increment all the strips at once, but I could only play on one of them at a time. So I had to stop aging in order to update each family.

I always liked Heir systems, but for it to work it has to be built in as a central game mechanic. The heir system requires a game that takes place over multiple life times, where the player is building up a dynasty rather than a single character. It might mean that the story line is divided into multiple epochs.

I had an idea a while back for a game where you played a family line of hunters. Every hundred years the moon was bathed in blood and a gate of evil opened allowing darkness to take hold of the land. The player played through a 1000 years of the family line from the first spawn of evil into the future where they vanquished it once and for all.

It solely depends on the game type.
Heir system would make no sense in a final fantasy, but it would in an rpg where your identity is not as relevant to the plot, especially if it is a bit more on the realistic side. Though it doesn't change much to gameplay itself, the flavor of having the "third dynasty" accomplish something gives you an amount of deaths in the endaevour. I think it could be near in a form of RPG/RTS.

An heir system can be fun (look at "Sword of the Samurai" as an example), but it must be an important part of the game and not just a way to get around permadeath.

In SotS a major part of the game is your family's Honour. When you die and your heir inherits the family, this honour is carried over (so committing an honourable death to maintain the family's honour is an important decision).

It is this carry over of a resource (ie honour in SotS) and the fact that the player must over come challenges associated with the heirs that makes an heir system work.

Now, in many MMORPGs and spRPGs, your character has a lot of gear that they accumulate, if this gear can be inherited by your heir, this gives some form of carry over resource (the loot) that can make a heir system work.

The other aspect of a heir system is that the player should have challenges associated with having the heirs.

Again as SotS as an example, to get an heir you first must court a wife (and this also depends of your character's honour) and then heirs will be randomly created (it is not a complex system). But once the heir is created, your enemies will try to kidnap them and hold them for ransom so you have to protect them, or go and rescue them from the enemy's castles.

These two aspects turn an heir system from an "Extra Life" into game-play.

A heir system would be a cool way to add permadeath but not upset players, I mean in a way playing as your characters son/daughter could be better than playing your original character, of course you won't have the same memories or experiences but it could open up a world of possibilities such as a pre-set reputation depending on your dead parents actions in life, your parents companions would easily accept you and probably help you more as thats what their fallen comrade would have wanted. And in some cases you may even excel in things more than your predecessor, I mean my dad is great and all but I know I have the advantage over him in height, reach, speed, strength, and in some case knowledge as I have LEARNED from his mistakes and actions. And as someone previously stated in order for the heir option to even be possible first you must court a woman and actually see to the fact that the heir is born, like collecting a 1-Up sort of. Added bonuses could be interacting with the heir, being a teacher, even teaching them ways of combat, all of these things could add up to if you do in fact die and your heir resumes your quest. But an opposite effect could be implemented where the heir hates their father and wishes to rebel against the acts that ended up in his demise creating a completely different form of gameplay.

Random unthought out idea. I got this vision of a Princess Maker style thing where you train your heir over the game years by returning home once in awhile and setting your child's education for the month or year. Not returning home frequently enough causes education decisions to be defered to your spouse. In the end, maybe the child is up for a life of adventuring or maybe not. Although, I'm not sure how it'd work if the player character dies before the child's training is complete.

Quote:

Original post by kseh Random unthought out idea. I got this vision of a Princess Maker style thing where you train your heir over the game years by returning home once in awhile and setting your child's education for the month or year. Not returning home frequently enough causes education decisions to be defered to your spouse. In the end, maybe the child is up for a life of adventuring or maybe not. Although, I'm not sure how it'd work if the player character dies before the child's training is complete.

That sounds pretty cool, gives you a hand in the child rearing and might make it a bit more, I suppose immersive. And that would mean you would have to plan ahead, make sure you have a well trained kid before doing something dangerous. And if the kid's training is not complete, maybe you've just got to start where the kid left off. Spend a few days as the kid yourself.