30

In my game, it is possible to make multiple characters. You can make as many as you desire. What I usually do (and almost all players do) is just make a single character and level it up a LOT, and just use it for everything.

Some games have tried to solve this by having multiple "classes" or types of characters that do different things, but this typically results in just having one of each "class."

How could I encourage players to not make one or two really high leveled characters but instead have, maybe, several high-level characters, several mid-level, and some low-level characters that are currently being leveled up?

(NOTE: I am unaccepting the previously accepted answer because I seem to have a lot of new answers coming in. (sorry Thomas Marnell, your answer is still great :) ))

Doorknob
  • 419
  • 4
  • 19
  • 1
    You could have accomplishments on any character count towards some kind of total progress. For example, you could have different cutscenes/storylines based on the character's choices, and have a graph showing which cutscenes the player has unlocked across different characters. – n s Dec 21 '12 at 00:11
  • 3
    Not sure how this question can be answered without knowing anything about the game itself. Is it an MMO-style game? Can players play with multiple characters at the same time? Do all the characters play in the same world, or are they separated? Separated geographically or just instanced? – jcora Dec 21 '12 at 00:27
  • 3
    You may want to wait on accepting an answer right away too. It discourages further answers. – House Dec 21 '12 at 00:33
  • 1
    @Yannbane: These questions are certainly relevant; a lot of very different games struggle with the single character problem and naturally solve them in completely different ways. Nonetheless, (understanding) these solutions, even those not applicable to your particular game, could prove helpful. I fear the question might become too localised if we dive into the specifics of the game. – Marcks Thomas Dec 21 '12 at 00:39
  • 4
    Specific or ambiguous, too localized or too vague, that's just a spectrum. It's bad if the question is on either end of it, and it'd be best if it were in the middle. Currently it's a bit too ambiguous if you ask me, but OK. – jcora Dec 21 '12 at 01:12
  • 1
    @Doorknob: why do you have a problem with players just making one character of each class? That is a system that works for many games. If it doesn't work for you, it suggests that you're trying to achieve something specific but aren't telling us what that is. :) – Kylotan Dec 22 '12 at 02:21

11 Answers11

18

A few ideas I've seen in action:

  • Tweak the growth numbers. This is something games featuring a leveling system should almost always do. Characters usually gain strength easily and quickly in the beginning, but require more effort to be put in later on. By magnifying this distinction, players will be more inclined to spend their resources on low-level characters. Related: tweaking the growth of enemy strength may force low-level characters to either keep up or fall behind.
  • Apply teamplay bonuses or lone wolf penalties. Some games impose artificial (dis)advantages based on the number of characters around. Strategy games like the Total War series often use this in the form of a morale check, though such mechanics may seem arbitrary out of context.
  • Create a risk versus reward scheme. If players tend to stick to one character because that is somehow beneficient, have them risk that character being unavailable to encourage them not to put all their eggs in one basket. Games that are heavily story-driven (several JRPGs come to mind) often play this card.
  • Split the characters up. Quite often, multiple characters simply fight alongside each other. The absence of one can be offset by making the other stronger. That need not be the case. For example, in Heroes of Might and Magic, multiple heroes do not just add to the combat strength, but also allow more map control and more tasks to be completed per turn.
  • Multiplayer. No one likes to be the useless side-kick. Players will back away from optimal strategies that aren't fun. This naturally applies to single player as well, but is not as trivial to implement.
Marcks Thomas
  • 1,518
  • 10
  • 15
  • The first four are all great ideas! The fifth is kinda messed up for single player but I think I could make it work. (That is good for a multiplayer game though) – Doorknob Dec 21 '12 at 01:41
  • Great HOMM reference! The limiting factor in the game, early on, is gold. You can generally have a few characters and explore more map, but at the cost of weaker heroes. Instead, I use the cheapest creatures as extra explorers at the beginning. It's not usually until I already have a good grip on the game that I have additional heroes who are strong, who are not also traveling with my "main" hero. – Chad Dec 21 '12 at 22:39
15

A few ideas:

  • Allow players to call on their other characters as NPCs to support their current character (call in a healer or DPS character for a short time).
  • Make a shared bank for sharing items/resources.
  • Allow players to "train together" with their other characters to increase their XP while offline. (diverse groups train better, equal level characters train better)
  • Make some quests only available if they have a team. (Similar to the first option, the second character can be at the controls opening doors or whatever)
House
  • 73,224
  • 17
  • 184
  • 273
  • 1
  • Good idea! I will probably use this one in my game. 2. I was going to do that anyway. It's single player. 3. It's a single player game. This would be a good idea for multiplayer games, though. 4. Yes, something like that sounds good :)
  • – Doorknob Dec 21 '12 at 01:39
  • 1
    @Doorknob 3 should work even in single player, as in your "party" receives some portion of your main character's XP, etc. – Joshua Drake Dec 21 '12 at 20:11