Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

J20hawkz

Permadeath in Don't Starve Together announced as OPTIONAL

A poll on Permadeath  

384 members have voted

  1. 1. Should DST have Permadeath?

    • Yes
      131
    • No
      36
    • Yes/No as an Option in world customisation
      237


Recommended Posts

J20hawkz    769

yeah if pvp is added i think there should be a spectater mode rather then a revive or maybe a max of 3 revives like in super smash bros you just fight till the end (of course no power ups) and once you're out of revives you just spectate and possibly a team death match  where the revive may be similar to gw2 where you have to revive them over time or another idea is you have to donate resources

Having 3 or even 1 definite revive/life won't work because if this was in game you will lose the fear of dying and go all out and tank monsters, knowing you have that extra lifeline when you do die.

It won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lone wolf    26

Having 3 or even 1 definite revive/life won't work because if this was in game you will lose the fear of dying and go all out and tank monsters, knowing you have that extra lifeline when you do die.

It won't work.

good point then just a spectator mode then for pvp or maybe some stat reduction that is permanent depending on the character like Wilson will lose say 100 hp meanwhile the wolfgang results would vary on hunger but still be there when maxwell would lose less hp like 45? just trying to make it even but that could be problematic maybe the same character just alot weaker perk like maxwell will only summon one extra of himself and will have less sanity regen and wolfgang will have alot less hunger will vary by character but those are just options  any other major ideas to reduced perks after death another possiblity is wx loses all but one gear upgrade and and can only eat say 2 more just so you can't go out and die with no penalty any other suggestions  for penalties 

 

 

another option is similar to pikmin 2 pvp where you get randomies downsides to them when you turn in enough items which earn points more points = more dangerous disaster ideas to this are welcome as well 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J20hawkz    769

good point then just a spectator mode then for pvp or maybe some stat reduction that is permanent depending on the character like Wilson will lose say 100 hp meanwhile the wolfgang results would vary on hunger but still be there when maxwell would lose less hp like 45? just trying to make it even but that could be problematic maybe the same character just alot weaker perk like maxwell will only summon one extra of himself and will have less sanity regen and wolfgang will have alot less hunger will vary by character but those are just options  any other major ideas to reduced perks after death another possiblity is wx loses all but one gear upgrade and and can only eat say 2 more just so you can't go out and die with no penalty any other suggestions  for penalties 

 

 

another option is similar to pikmin 2 pvp where you get randomies downsides to them when you turn in enough items which earn points more points = more dangerous disaster ideas to this are welcome as well

Good ideas.

I'll be honest with you all. I don't play many online games but one of you must know of a game that has permadeath, is online, survival orientated and actually works. Is there no game like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Menasay    2

No. Well, maybe... Permadeath should only be availble to those who don't have meat effigy or life amulet on. Same as it is In Game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J20hawkz    769

No. Well, maybe... Permadeath should only be availble to those who don't have meat effigy or life amulet on. Same as it is In Game.

Again. What if your friend(s) keep dying early on when you haven't had a chance to acquire a meat effigy, Amulet or even found a touch stone? Are you happy to keep starting a new game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbeetle    1873

Again. What if your friend(s) keep dying early on when you haven't had a chance to acquire a meat effigy, Amulet or even found a touch stone? 

They improve because they're obviously new to the game. We all were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J20hawkz    769

They improve because they're obviously new to the game. We all were.

That doesn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it.

How many times are you willing to start a new game, each time for a friend because of them dying and never being able to come back, if permadeath was in DST?

If you get to day 100 and your friend dies (nothing has been setup to revive him/her) will you carry on playing, or will you throw away that save and start over? If you carry on playing alone then why bother with DST?

Dying in singleplayer and getting punished is completely different to dying and getting punished in multiplayer. Why should I have to start over just because I want to play with someone but that someone keeps dying. Not trying to act all entitled or egotistical here, but it's a serious question to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RalphKastro    1337

Why should I have to start over just because I want to play with someone but that someone keeps dying.

you shouldn't.

There's a reason most games with multiplayer and singleplayer recommend you start playing singleplayer for some time before you play multiplayer. If you want to play continously with that friend that keeps dying, either let him play some time by himself and then come back to him, or cheat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbeetle    1873

That doesn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it.

You asked more than one question. I answered the one I left in your quote lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor H. Derp    283

I see how you feel about non permadeath you're strictly against that from the seems of it but for us less hardcore people i find that i always want a revive the shadow revive was a good idea so maybe have a slider for that but making the world easy mode takes away even more of the stuff unless you want purely to build (which may be a fun concept but ill pass) i dont see having the original sliders working. i do enjoy perma-death but as stated earlier ill say it again this is dont starve TOGETHER i dont want to start a new world after some guy dies cause he was derping around so maybe add a shadow realm or something as stated in the shadow revive idea? and can somone please link the thread it was on  i cant find it just to show everyone the concept thanks

 

Well if you're less hardcore, why wouldn't you already be using the sliders to make an easier world?

Just because you make the game easier for yourself doesn't mean you have to remove all the threats. Could have permanent day and max out berry bushes along with touchstones for example.

Don't like the idea of permanent day because it removes the feature of night? Well then don't use that slider but use the others.

 

You say you don't want to remove features from the gameplay experience because it takes "even more stuff out," yet you're just dandy with the idea of being able to remove a core mechanic of the game, permadeath.

That's inconsistent.

 

Don't Starve has always been about learning from mistakes, learning from your deaths, and if your friend is "derping around" doing dangerous and not well thought out things, doesn't your friend kind of deserve to die in game for that? You say you "don't want to start a new world," just because he made a mistake, well that's exactly what the game's been about from day one! You die without a safety net up? You're dead!

 

Maybe your friend comes back as a ghost or something, and that could be a compromise, but otherwise, what penalty is there for death? What incentive is there to actually be careful? None!

Hell, what incentive is there to actually erect a meat effigy?

 

Maybe there should be a way to revive players sans safety net, but it should come at a dire cost.

I came up with an idea for a sacrificial dagger that would remove 20 max health per use and an additional 20 max health per subsequent use that would revive fallen players, but no one seemed to like that idea much.

 

I mean better yet, how can the game win? In a singleplayer game, should you die-die you get a little message that says "You Died!" and the game wins. How do you achieve that state? Does a Deerclops get lucky and manage to kill you all in a single swipe?

Or maybe, you all just so happen to be AFK in a forest when the Dragonfly spawns? How does the game win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lar Ways    0

If you fear friends dying over and over, the solution seems rather simple: Help them.

When starting singleplayer and dying easily, thus having to start over rather frequently, you didn't have someone more experienced to help you and tell you what's a good idea and what will get you killed.

 

In DST, you'll be able to help them get through it much easier, because you're supposed to work together to survive, unlike in singleplayer which you're completely alone. Sure, there'll very likely be very early deaths which force you to restart because even with your help, they're still new to the game, that can't be helped. But there won't be nearly as much as new players starting on singleplayer. You can warn them not to attack things without armour, or to make sure to have a torch handy in case they get caught at night without a fire. To craft these things first, to build a base here and not there, to avoid this creature but make use of that creature.

 

If you help them survive into longer games, such as reaching Day 100, they might die due to the increasing difficulty even with your help. This might seem annoying due to having to end such a long game when you're perfectly able to continue, but I'd consider it more of a success that you helped them get that far, and they'll be more able to survive longer in future games.

 

I personally think it'd be best for people to start and learn through singleplayer before going into multiplayer, especially since I'm thrilled by discovering and learning things for myself, but for the friends that just want to play multiplayer, they can learn faster with someone teaching them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ridley    610

Well well well... look at that.

So, like I said, unless lightning is constantly striking you, you're not dying for random reasons.

 

Maybe Maxwell should get a health buff then or a lightning strike's damage should be nerfed a bit. That makes sense to me. Disabling a core mechanic of the game doesn't.

 

There is still some other random ways to die. Bugs, ninja-changes by Klei (stupid mole), lag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor H. Derp    283

Dying in singleplayer and getting punished is completely different to dying and getting punished in multiplayer. Why should I have to start over just because I want to play with someone but that someone keeps dying. Not trying to act all entitled or egotistical here, but it's a serious question to think about.

 

Why is that person not listening to you, the DS pro in this scenario? Why isn't this person following your lead? Why do we have to make Don't Starve Together idiot-proof? Why should we make DST idiot-proof?

Maybe if that person died, figured out that there were consequences for dying, they might be more inclined to listen next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor H. Derp    283

There is still some other random ways to die. Bugs, ninja-changes by Klei (stupid mole), lag.

 

A moleworm ringing an old bell is not a random way to die. You could hear it ring and you most certainly could see the screen shake as biiigfoot was coming.

 

Yeah, maybe a gamebreaking bug could cause you to die, but that's not an argument to remove a core mechanic of the game. We're not going to remove night just because night might become bugged and Charlie will attack during the day if one doesn't have a torch out all of a sudden, would we?

 

You really think Klei is going to make DST a laggy experience? It might be at first as they're figuring out all the server-end stuff, but the end product? Come now. If you're engaged with a monster, you probably have armor on, which means you're not getting 1 shot or 2 shot. If it starts getting laggy, why can't you run away? Better yet, why aren't your friends, who aren't lagging, helping you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scich99    0

MP also something incredible

 OK I DONT LIKE HOW YOUR NOT USING GRAMMAR IN LIKE EVERYTHING..... sorry... just ... please learn how to use grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Decelexevi    42

 

Well, my experiences in minecraft when played online tend to move from survival to hanging out and crafting silly junk all day. I totally jive with the integrity of the game part. I'm a normal mode for life player myself. But it isn't chess, and who's to say that the multiplayer in this game isn't going to be a 'softer' version of your solo experience. 

 

Or maybe it doesn't have to be, that's why the sliders are IMO pretty benign. If you just give the choice outright I'm in no way whatsoever offended by 8 year old kids running around in a 'safety server' just to see the pretty blinking lights without the hassle we challenge-seekers yearn for.

 

Too much effort into defending the integrity of the game when all you need to rely on is your own integrity.

 

Explain to me how adding a sandbox mode for players who want it in any way cheapens the game for you and I'll join your side immediately. But you're going to need 12 more people to win the popularity contest. Full disclosure, I voted yes. 

 

I'm playing devil's advocate for them.

 

 

 

Oh okay, so because you think MP is going to be EZ-mode already, therefore, we should drive the last nail in the coffin and completely remove any remnants of challenge within the game?

 

 

When did I say that? When did I even imply it? Don't be obtuse and put words into my mouth. Rude as hell.

 

 

 

Or maybe, you all just so happen to be AFK in a forest when the Dragonfly spawns? How does the game win?

 

How does the game win... ever? I didn't think that was the point. I see a lot of fail states, but no win states unless you count the teleportato. Adventure mode? It's a side mission. Far as I know those basically just start your game from scratch. There's nothing compelling you one way or the other to do any actual thing in this game other than preventing your death. 

 

I think you are enormously over-thinking the concept of perma-death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Decelexevi    42

Both sides need to stop comparing the incomparable Minecraft with Don't Starve permadeath.

 

Similarities clearly exist. Comparable ones. The see-saw of game mechanics leans towards crafting in one game and survival in the other. There's a list of like 200 games that are within the realm of the genre here. I think all of them can be found in the last 205 games released on Steam.

 

Minecraft just happens to be that ubiquitous monolith that's incredibly easy to reference because every human living today is familiar with it.

 

There are certainly glaring differences. Camera angle. Art direction. Depth to the actual survival aspect. I don't think it's controversial to say that Minecraft is the patriarch of the gathering/survival genre, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbeetle    1873

Similarities clearly exist. Comparable ones. The see-saw of game mechanics leans towards crafting in one game and survival in the other. There's a list of like 200 games that are within the realm of the genre here. I think all of them can be found in the last 205 games released on Steam.

 

Minecraft just happens to be that ubiquitous monolith that's incredibly easy to reference because every human living today is familiar with it.

 

There are certainly glaring differences. Camera angle. Art direction. Depth to the actual survival aspect. I don't think it's controversial to say that Minecraft is the patriarch of the gathering/survival genre, though.

There are comparisons, but not good ones, especially when concerning death. Minecraft without death is still most of the game. Don't Starve without death is pretty much none of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor H. Derp    283

Well, my experiences in minecraft when played online tend to move from survival to hanging out and crafting silly junk all day. I totally jive with the integrity of the game part. I'm a normal mode for life player myself. But it isn't chess, and who's to say that the multiplayer in this game isn't going to be a 'softer' version of your solo experience.

 

Who's to say it ought to be a softer version of the solo experience?

 

Or maybe it doesn't have to be, that's why the sliders are IMO pretty benign. If you just give the choice outright I'm in no way whatsoever offended by 8 year old kids running around in a 'safety server' just to see the pretty blinking lights without the hassle we challenge-seekers yearn for.

 

The choice already exists. Make that "safety server" with permaday, bounty everywhere, no monsters, etc.

The only way you're going to die on such a server is if you forget to put the food in your character's mouth.

 

Too much effort into defending the integrity of the game when all you need to rely on is your own integrity.

 

What's that even supposed to mean?

 

Explain to me how adding a sandbox mode for players who want it in any way cheapens the game for you and I'll join your side immediately. But you're going to need 12 more people to win the popularity contest. Full disclosure, I voted yes. 

 

I'm playing devil's advocate for them.

 

Well apparently you already do agree with "my side," whatever that's supposed to mean. The only side I've ever been on is my own. The fact people happen to agree with me, or not agree with me for that matter, is entirely happenstance. There's no shadowy cabal I retreat to plan with all my evil allies on how to stick it to someone who dares cross me or something like that.

It's never been about upvoted comments for me. It's never been about "winning a popularity contest."

 

Hell, let's put it into context of the poll: the damage is already done. My disappointment in the results aren't all of a sudden going to disappear because "my side" "wins" by some small margin at this point. The fact that there's such a giant population of people who want the option is disappointment enough.

 

Devil's advocate or not, this game was advertised as an Uncompromising Survival Wilderness Game. Uncompromising. Compromising permadeath, a core mechanic, is about as compromising as compromising gets.

Remember caves? Remember the outcry from the community to put permadeath in the caves? Remember how the people who didn't want permadeath in the caves got lambasted for not reading how this was an Uncompromising Wilderness Survival Game? Where have all those forum-goers gone? They would be livid that this discussion is even happening. That the mere thought that you could play Don't Starve sans permadeath is so foreign of a concept, and yet here we are. A Don't Starve without permadeath is no longer Don't Starve. You completely killed what Don't Starve was founded on: learning from your deaths, learning from your mistakes. Why did you want to learn from those deaths? Why did you want to learn from those mistakes? Was it because you lost points on some scoring system? Was it because you'd have to go back to the last checkpoint and try that mission again? Was it even because there was some achievement to be gotten for not dying after a certain length of time? No.

You wanted to not die because the consequences are real. Your world is at stake.

 

You take away that, you've taken away any reason to care. You've killed Don't Starve.

 

 

When did I say that? When did I even imply it? Don't be obtuse and put words into my mouth. Rude as hell.

 

"In the end is this MULTIPLAYER going to actually BE a skin-of-your-teeth crafting and gathering to survive the elements game... or is it going to be a hangout for people who share a passion for mods and drawing faces with berry bushes? Is there going to be any actual suspense once you have 4 people tag-teaming a Bearger?"

 

The implication is that multiplayer is going to be easier than singleplayer.

 

 

How does the game win... ever?

 

You die and you get the screen "You Died!". That's how the game wins.

 

I didn't think that was the point. I see a lot of fail states, but no win states unless you count the teleportato. Adventure mode? It's a side mission. Far as I know those basically just start your game from scratch. There's nothing compelling you one way or the other to do any actual thing in this game other than preventing your death.

 

You're winning until you're not. As long as your character is alive, you're still winning, until you die and then you've lost.

 

I think you are enormously over-thinking the concept of perma-death.

 

The game is about decay. The game is about inevitability. You're winning until you die, but you're just delaying the inevitable, or should I say "was"?

Wouldn't want a pesky concept such as permadeath in an "uncompromising" wilderness survival game putting a damper on anyone's fun after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Decelexevi    42

I hate these freaking quote systems like the plague.

 

 

Who's to say it ought to be a softer version of the solo experience?

 

 

Other people. Someone. The whole idea of the sliders is that it's entirely up to each individual player.

 

 

The choice already exists. Make that "safety server" with permaday, bounty everywhere, no monsters, etc.

The only way you're going to die on such a server is if you forget to put the food in your character's mouth.

 

 

I have a 5 year old niece. If she wanted to just play don't starve to run around and click the pretty animals to hear their sounds I support her entirely. She's also a little young to get the feeding your character concept. When she's done I can start up a new world on the hardest difficulty and it's like it never happened. Sounds pretty benign to me.

 

Again, devil's advocate. I don't want to run around in a pointless petting zoo. A little kids sees the world differently than I do. They can play my game. I'm okay with that.

 

 

 

What's that even supposed to mean?

 

 

It means live up to your convictions and play the game the way it's meant to be played. Just because there's easy mode buttons doesn't mean you have to touch them. They don't even exist to you if you don't.

 

 

 

Well apparently you already do agree with "my side," whatever that's supposed to mean. The only side I've ever been on is my own. The fact people happen to agree with me, or not agree with me for that matter, is entirely happenstance. There's no shadowy cabal I retreat to plan with all my evil allies on how to stick it to someone who dares cross me or something like that.

It's never been about upvoted comments for me. It's never been about "winning a popularity contest."

 

Hell, let's put it into context of the poll: the damage is already done. My disappointment in the results aren't all of a sudden going to disappear because "my side" "wins" by some small margin at this point. The fact that there's such a giant population of people who want the option is disappointment enough.

 

Devil's advocate or not, this game was advertised as an Uncompromising Survival Wilderness Game. Uncompromising. Compromising permadeath, a core mechanic, is about as compromising as compromising gets.

Remember caves? Remember the outcry from the community to put permadeath in the caves? Remember how the people who didn't want permadeath in the caves got lambasted for not reading how this was an Uncompromising Wilderness Survival Game? Where have all those forum-goers gone? They would be livid that this discussion is even happening. That the mere thought that you could play Don't Starve sans permadeath is so foreign of a concept, and yet here we are. A Don't Starve without permadeath is no longer Don't Starve. You completely killed what Don't Starve was founded on: learning from your deaths, learning from your mistakes. Why did you want to learn from those deaths? Why did you want to learn from those mistakes? Was it because you lost points on some scoring system? Was it because you'd have to go back to the last checkpoint and try that mission again? Was it even because there was some achievement to be gotten for not dying after a certain length of time? No.

You wanted to not die because the consequences are real. Your world is at stake.

 

You take away that, you've taken away any reason to care. You've killed Don't Starve.

 

 

Dude I totally see what you're saying until the end. But adding an option in the world generation menu to turn off death entirely? It's not going to kill Don't Starve for you. Because you aren't using it. Other people who want to use it don't affect you in any way at all. It's crazy pedantic to assume that such an option would 'kill the game'.

 

 

 

 

"In the end is this MULTIPLAYER going to actually BE a skin-of-your-teeth crafting and gathering to survive the elements game... or is it going to be a hangout for people who share a passion for mods and drawing faces with berry bushes? Is there going to be any actual suspense once you have 4 people tag-teaming a Bearger?"

 

The implication is that multiplayer is going to be easier than singleplayer.

 

 

 

Read it again. I say "Is it?" not "It is". That same distinction can be found in question "Will it be?" rather than statement "It will be." I'm positing the question "Will the final product of multiplayer be easier?" The answer, to me, unknown.

 

Simple misunderstanding. Scratch it from the record.

 

 

 

 

You die and you get the screen "You Died!". That's how the game wins.

 

 

You're winning until you're not. As long as your character is alive, you're still winning, until you die and then you've lost.

 

 

In games that's called a failure condition. Most games have those, maybe say... interactive story games like Dear Esther don't. Quite a few games don't have victory conditions. Look way back to the NES and games like Spy Hunter. Plenty of ways to die no doubt... but you can't actually achieve victory. If you complete the entire map it just sends you right back to the beginning in full stride in an endless loop. 

 

Couldn't agree more with the second part though. Don't Starve is like Westeros. There are no winners. Just try not to lose. Not losing is winning enough.

 

 

 

 

The game is about decay. The game is about inevitability. You're winning until you die, but you're just delaying the inevitable, or should I say "was"?

Wouldn't want a pesky concept such as permadeath in an "uncompromising" wilderness survival game putting a damper on anyone's fun after all.

 

I woudn't know. If they add that feature I'll forget about it 10 seconds later and never use it. Nothing will have changed. Unless my niece wants to play. Me not having to help her feed her character is like me not having to put quarters in the arcade machine to buy her another few minutes of animal petting.

 

Anyway, I'm just out to soften you to the idea on the behalf of the people who like it. Respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J20hawkz    769

If you think about it, Don't Starve Together with Permadeath could have very strong emotional implications. If we know we are going to die and know we won't come back it would make us want to be even more cautious and aware of the world and each other.

Permadeath would actually encourage better team work. It's like in Don't Starve with Chester. We know he will come back if he dies so we aren't inclined to protect him and risk our own life. But the Smallbird on the other hand, we know it will die and never come back so we care for it from egg till it grows into an adult Tallbird.

Here use this as an example and see if what I'm saying makes sense;

1. No Permadeath: players run around the map taking countless risks.

2. Permadeath: players are more tactful and plan their next moves carefully.

Which one do you think encourages to play Don't Starve Together, "Together"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Decelexevi    42

There are comparisons, but not good ones, especially when concerning death. Minecraft without death is still most of the game. Don't Starve without death is pretty much none of the game.

 

Wouldn't argue for a second that Minecraft has been co-opted by the crafting and Rube Goldberg community. But I'm pretty sure that Notch's intention was to make a game far more similar in concept to this game.

 

They're different, they're similar. Just saying should be fair game to compare what can be compared. To say perhaps that an irrigation system for Don't Starve farming might be cool would be an example of where that compare & contrast is the method mechanics spread through games and the games themselves become more refined. It took over a full decade before the most common default layouts for first person shooters became standard. We used to have to hit 'page up' in Doom 2 just to look up. Over time all those games working off each other's good ideas smoothed all those edges and I think we all benefit from it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22winston    46

Honestly this whole discussion/argument could be solved if in the world settings of the game you could have permadeath enabled or disabled or have a certain amount of deaths you have before dying....... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnonTheMouse    13

I think that some people might like the challenge of permadeath. However, in general, it's important to keep session turnover times in mind. Unless there's some way that a dead player can still be a part of the game (becoming a ghost like Abigail, for instance), being dead means not playing, and not having fun. Now, on the surface you might think, "Yeah, of course. That's the penalty for dying.", but it's certainly not in singleplayer. In the singleplayer game, death means a loss of progress, but you can still get right back into the game. So I would say it shouldn't be the default setting.

 

Leave it as something which may be selected. That way, people playing just to have fun can leave it off. Players that are okay with waiting for the other players to lose, on the other hand, would have their option as well, whether it be used simply to make the game more tense, or for "Mindcrack UHC" style competitive elimination matches (for those of you who know what that is).

 

1. No Permadeath: players run around the map taking countless risks.
2. Permadeath: players are more tactful and plan their next moves carefully.

Which one do you think encourages to play Don't Starve Together, "Together"?

 

 

I don't think it's necessarily so cut and dry. For instance, above I mentioned having a dead player become a ghost. So, imagine if there were ways to bring dead players back, but they were costly...maybe even dangerous. Meanwhile, a "Ghost Mode" could be added, to give the dead player something to do.

 

Just a rough concept, but suppose that as a ghost, it's like being insane. Shadow creatures are around all the time, and the world is a little bit twisted. Instead of your three normal gauges, you would just have one, for Nightmare Fuel. This could be harvested from a shadow version of berry bushes, and maybe appear on the ground whenever rot spawns in the living world (however, ghosts would be unable to access inventories, so anything that rotted in a container would not give any), as well as if a player managed to actually kill a shadow beast. You could eat it to increase your gauge, which would have no upper limit. Run out of nightmare fuel, and you get sent back to where you died/world spawn/something like that. Finally, each character would have some sort of memento they carry as a ghost, which consumes a large amount of nightmare fuel from their stock to let them temporarily manifest in the living world as ghost companion...complete with an indiscriminate damaging aura and sanity drain on their friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.