Restart From Last Save?

[Derren]

To me it comes down to having different expectations from those games.

When I play a PC game I want some quick, fun encounters or missions (depending on the genre) and as PC game will always be very limiting on what you can do it doesn't matter to me that versimilitude goes the way of the dodo.

On the other hand when I play an PnP RPG I want heavy immersion and the feel like the world is real and living. Savepoints and other gameist ideas don't fit with that.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Another way of looking at it, stolen from serials.

If you have a TPK, rout, disaster, but don't want to start over....

Start the next session as a "This is how they got out of it" like in all the old Pulp serials - have the cliffhanger where the main character appears dead at the end of one, and the explanation of why he really isn't at the start of the next.

I think that could work well as a restart point without completely destroying immersion.

 

[chriton227]

In general our group doesn't use save points, but on occasion they will get a completely wild and outrageous idea that has no chance of succeeding (and they know it) but would be a complete blast to play, so they ask for a save game. What we effectively do is play out the idea as a "dream sequence"; but even if they succeed they wake back up at the save point.

Typically we do this when the party is facing such overwhelming odds that they know they should run, but want to see exactly how long they would last, or if they have some insane idea that would give them a one-in-a-million chance at defeating a vastly superior foe. I don't mind doing this, as it gives me a chance to open up fully against the party with no chance of any hard feelings, and it frequently gives the party a large amount of respect (or at least fear) for the foes in question.

As far as in-game narrative, we usually describe it as:
Overconfident PC: "A dragon? We eat dragons for dinner! So what if it is as big as my village, it is only one dragon! We have nothing to fear! FIREBALL!!!"
< cue shimmery transition to dream sequence as PC imagines how the battle would play out >
Dragon: "Mmm! Snacks!"
< Dragon demonstrates why 5th level characters shouldn't taunt great wyrm dragons >
< cue shimmery transition back to reality >
Overconfident PC: "On the other hand, why don't we rest in this cave for a little while, then return to face this dragon when we are accompanied by a suitable band of bards to record the epic combat. It shouldn't take us more than a decade or two to gather such a band of bards..."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Personally, I've discovered that finding the previous bodies of your own characters after a TPK is incredibly fun. Especially if they're now undead! "I HACK OFF MY PREVIOUS SELF'S HEAD! THIS IS FOR FAILING YOUR SAVING THROW!"

 

[Rechan]

Death is the biggest consequence of D&D. Sure, getting raised circumvents this, but it makes death a PITA. A TPK, though, is the ultimate consequence.

Take the consequence completely from death, and the game feels cheapened. "Success" is no longer measured by "we beat them", but "we were stubborn enough to keep fighting even though we died a bunch of times." Your PC is no longer worried about surviving if you know that no matter what you do, you'll just repeat it again.

(Yes I know, there are some gamers out there in EnWorld who have taken death out of the game, and still find it enjoyable and have tension, but I think I speak for the vast majority of players when I say the above.)

I also think that at least to me, a save point would be really disappointing in an RPG. I like death, in that it lets me play a new character. Or in the case of a TPK, it offers the potential to do something really different, to play with the story a different way. It opens up new opportunities, like seeing the consequences of your party failing, or adding an extra wrinkle.

 

[Rechan]

The notion of save points is interesting, actually. When you think of old games, that made you restart from the beginning, many of those games also wanted you to spend a lot of quarters. Or expected you to sit in front of the screen from start to finish (which was a very, very long time).

Here is actually an article on the history of death in video games.

Some video games however do vary it up. For instance, Bioshock has saves, yes. But, throughout a level there are these giant tubes. When you die, your body actually re-materializes in one of these tubes in real-time. So if you died right outside the tube, then the enemy is still out there and will eat your face as soon as you step out. Otherwise, you have to run back to where you were killed before. The aforementioned Prey is another good example.

I would expect that for most computer game players, the primary motivation is playing the game. The story behind the game, and the playing of the role, are secondary in comparison to the pushing of buttons and the working of strategies.

Depends on the game. After all, I think the major motivation for "playing a video game" to the end is: 1) Wanting to see the full story/the ending/experience everything, and 2) the satisfaction of "beating" the game.

Button mashing and strategum is just how you achieve the above.

On the other hand, games with save points can pull more moments of pure surprise on players, that is, they can use challenges that really aren't meant to be solved the first life through. Part of the fun of software games is really just gussied-up trial-and-error. Die and restart until you solve the challenge.

On the contrary, I really, really despise games that not only expect you to do trial and error, but they design the situation so that is the only way to succeed.

The various "Grand Theft Auto" games are a great example of this. Take for instance a mission that's a car race. During the race, someone at a pre-designated point jumps out in your path, and you crash your car, and lose. The only way to "beat" this is that you have to remember every little pitfall and eventually run the entire mission "perfect". You must master the entire situation from start to finish.

That is extremely frustrating from my point of view. Especially when each go-around is long or tedious.

There is some wiggle room. Megaman is an example - the strategy to "beat" the various bosses is to memorize their pattern, and to discover their weaknesses versus various other powers you achieve when beating another boss. That process of learning and then exploiting the pattern is enjoyable for me. The problem comes when, if you die, you have to go through a long stage just to get back to that boss.

 

[Rechan]

Personally, I've discovered that finding the previous bodies of your own characters after a TPK is incredibly fun. Especially if they're now undead! "I HACK OFF MY PREVIOUS SELF'S HEAD! THIS IS FOR FAILING YOUR SAVING THROW!"

That is actually great! I want to do that, now.

 

[justanobody]

Depends on the game. After all, I think the major motivation for "playing a video game" to the end is: 1) Wanting to see the full story/the ending/experience everything, and 2) the satisfaction of "beating" the game.

Button mashing and strategum is just how you achieve the above.

Any game I buy with a story I intend to see it all for my money! I use any cheat device to get every last scene. It is the story I am buying after all, so I second this idea.

If I want button smashing, I break out Twisted Metal.

 

[Fifth Element]

"Success" is no longer measured by "we beat them", but "we were stubborn enough to keep fighting even though we died a bunch of times."

That assumes you define "success" in D&D as "we beat them" to begin with. I'd suggest for many people "success" in D&D is defined as "we had fun."

 

[Hussar]

Personally, I've discovered that finding the previous bodies of your own characters after a TPK is incredibly fun. Especially if they're now undead! "I HACK OFF MY PREVIOUS SELF'S HEAD! THIS IS FOR FAILING YOUR SAVING THROW!"

That's AWESOME. I gotta use that. Now I just gotta kill all my PC's.

A TPK is the only failure in my games to be honest. I use Action Points (3e) to mitigate any killing attack (spend all remaining AP's and you stabilize at -9). A TPK, however, is still possible.

I guess I just like to have it both ways. A chance of total failure, but, a lesser chance of partial failure. It really depends on the game you are running though. In a plot heavy campaign where the PC's actually matter to the plot (one PC is the heir to the throne for example) this is a fairly good system IMO. In a more open style campaign where the given PC isn't really important, such as a sandbox exploration game, I wouldn't use this.