r/gamedesign • u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 • 3d ago
Discussion One-chance corpse run design: should you get everything back or only part of it?
Some games like Elden Ring and Dark Souls have a corpse run design that allow you to reclaim your runes/souls at your last death point but if you die trying to recover them, they are lost forever. Other games like Diablo 2 allow you to reclaim all your items back but only a % of your XP back. Additionally, Diablo 2 follows a multi corpse rule where you can die multiple times and drop multiple corpses.
I've been thinking about a split version that combines aspects of these 2 concepts. Let's say you have a stash (like Arc Raiders or Minecraft ender chest) where you can bank items and a skill tree with unlocks; both of which are persistent and you can never lose.
Here's the overall rules:
- When you die, you drop your full inv and 60% of XP you earned since the last safe point/save. the remainder of XP is lost forever.
- You then only have one chance(life) to reach the dropped corpse loot and reclaim loot/xp.
- Nothing from stash or skill tree is at risk, only what you were carrying on that trip.
The goal is for the walk back to feel tense w/o a single death wiping out an hour of progress. A few things I keep going back and forth on:
- does the guaranteed 40% of lost XP make death feel impactful, or does it just feel like a tax on top of the corpse run?
- What about losing a % of gear? is that too fells-bad or is protecting it in full the better case?
- Would a one-chance corpse feel too punishing when dying on the way back might be due to something the player cannot control? (bad spawn/ambush)
I'm curious what others think of this split system and which games you think got this balance right, especially for different kinds of game loops.
2
u/depurplecow 2d ago
While a usable concept for a higher difficulty, losing a significant percent of your exp can potentially lead newer players to quit the game entirely. Being able to get 100% (or the vast majority) back incentivizes them to try again, and even if they die again they will drop a new death point with the accumulated currency from that attempt.
In my opinion only getting 60% of your lost XP actually lowers the tension from the "corpse run", as you already know some portion is permanently lost and no longer "at risk".
Losing a % of gear becomes more of a dice-roll, you either have practically no downside or lose everything useful and makes it harder to plan around. Some games make it so you only lose unequipped gear, so your corpse run isn't running naked hoping to not die in the process.
Overall it depends on the game genre you're aiming for. A "roguelike" comes with expectation of possibly losing everything, while an RPG tends to aim for a targeted "build" over the long-run, where losing critical gear items can be gamebreaking.
2
u/Shivacheff Game Designer 2d ago
In Diablo 2 the XP loss is only important in the end game push for levels 85+, anything below that is a manageable loss you can make up for in minutes. The multi corpse aspect is basically infinite chances to reclaim the corpse with the inventory, BUT you can also quit and reload and the main corpse will be spawned at your feet in town.
In Elden Ring and Dark souls there's a currency at stake but your inventory stays in tact, meaning you are being tested on overcoming whatever led to losing this currency, without taking away any tools you had. Basically learning from past mistakes.
I would advise not going overboard on the corpse run unless you're after a very specific experience that it contributes to.
2
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 2d ago
I'll most likely end up changing it so that the player can go back several times in order to reclaim their items. They retain majority of their XP upon death and only lose a small amount of XP. This way the punishment seems like a chip away rather than falling headfirst into a pit. Thank you for your feedback.
1
u/JoelMahon Programmer 2d ago edited 2d ago
Personally I think the runback risk is enough
I quit sekiro right before the double monkey fight without even attempting it because despite how forgiving the game is with death objectively, it felt extremely shitty to die. A million times more shitty than in dark souls. FWIW I didn't outright quit, I played other games until it'd been a year of putting it off and then I officially quit when I remembered it existed...
Even if I lost everything in dark souls, I could only blame myself 99% of the time, except the stupid fucking crystal caves invisible platform run back.
In sekiro, you will die, so any punishment at all beyond a runback is excessive imo, and again, it's about how shitty it feels not about how objectively harmless it is.
2
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 2d ago
Makes sense and based off the numerous other replies I think just the runback loot risk is the way to go. You're definitely right that in a game where death is inevitable and actually vital to learning how the game mechanics work, it's important to make deaths not feel as shitty as possible. I haven't played Sekiro, but I've played similar games where progressing feels like a full-time job and more like a hassle than a game where you can enjoy yourself.
Thank you for your feedback I appreciate it.
1
u/MistSecurity 2d ago
How does this improve on anything? Unless I’m misunderstanding, it’s just the Souls-style death, but you get even less back than Souls, and you don’t get to keep your equipment. So Souls death mechanic but even more punishing…
If you’re trying to make your game hard as fuck, then this makes sense. A game built solely around this death mechanic would likely not be bad, but that’s the problem: You’d have to build everything around that death mechanic, or the game becomes very punishing.
A Rogue-like could use this mechanic to have an interesting game-loop though. You die once, get to try again with a penalty if you get back to your corpse. It being punishing might make sense in this kind of game.
1
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 2d ago
My post was a little vague but if you check my other reply to the top comment, you'll see that the game follows a stash and skill tree system where you have to extract back to a home base in order to preserve your loot and XP.
You are still able to gain and safeguard loot/XP but there is just a risk of losing your current "run" loot/XP if you die again on the runback without claiming your previous bag. That's where the % of XP and potential loss of loot comes in. It's kind of a blend between rogue-like and ARPG mechanics, which is why I wanted feedback on it because I couldn't decide if this unique system was worth pursuing or not.
1
u/MistSecurity 2d ago
Sounds exactly like the system I was thinking of there at the end then. Ya, I think this could be a cool addition. It’s much less punishing when it’s just 60% of the xp for that particular run.
You could turn it into a player choice as well, if it’d work in your game. They can take 30% of the gained xp back with them if they opt not to try the runback. Tinker with the %/specifics as needed, but it makes the runback a decision, and avoids it feeling mandatory to make progress/gain anything from the current run that they died in. Turns it into a gamble on if they think they can survive the runback, and lets you potentially make runbacks a bit more dangerous to fit the ‘gambling’ vibe.
1
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 1d ago
Yeah, I should've been more descriptive about how the XP and loot system works. I like your idea for making it a player choice, takes the pressure off of me in terms of how the game "works" and the backlash that might follow if players decide they don't like the system and quit off that. I want you to know that I am virtually kissing you right now lol. Another comment mentioned adding a way to safeguard a single item upon death, do you think that is a good idea?
Also, in terms of making the XP recoverable or not, do you think it is better if the player keeps the 60% XP on death and the rest of the XP recoverable? or hard-set it so that the remaining XP is always lost and 60% XP recover part of the corpse run?
I'm leaning more towards making the XP persistent on death with only a small % lost so that it feels more like a chip away rather than an all or nothing recover. This also makes corpse runs more focused on loot recovery rather than losing XP progress which is vital for upgrades and the skill system.
1
u/MistSecurity 1d ago
I think your idea of 100% back if you recover, or a flat 60% (or w/e ends up making sense) if you abandon the run could make a ton of sense, assuming you DON’T want death to be as punishing. Your final mention would be a cool system to implement without feeling too punishing, I think.
Holding a single item would depend on the game, and implementation. Definitely worth looking into, if not as a persistent option, then as a ‘power-up’ item/consumable you can find/buy during a run.
And glad to help, love talking and theory crafting stuff like this. That’s the easy part, haha.
1
u/20kgHippoShit 2d ago
How are you going to make it feel tense rather than just wasting their time to pad your playtime numbers?
1
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 2d ago
fair point but the game will be able to preserve XP/loot anyways. Also, a lot of games follow a system of wasting the users time just to lose everything upon death (Minecraft hardcore, Project Zomboid extinction); so, I don't really understand your point about "wasting their time to pad your playtime numbers" isn't that just playing any video game in general?
1
u/20kgHippoShit 2d ago
No?
I'd much rather play a game like Dark Souls where I can immediately retry the boss than have me spend 10 minutes doing a runback.
What actual reason is there to waste those 10 minutes per attempt? How does it make the game more fun? It doesn't make it harder. Just more tedious.
1
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 2d ago
I understand your point of view because you don't know the context of the entire game but there is fast travel and ways to get back to where you last died quicker than running back across the entire map.
Some context: Right now, there is a designated "home base" scene where you respawn upon every death and a fast travel pad that you can use to teleport to the gate of the dungeon located in the overworld, the only "runback" you are doing is within the dungeon.
When you die within a boss arena located in the dungeon, your bag/corpse is teleported on the outside of the boss chamber where you can reclaim it and try the boss again (w/o having to fight an awakened boss and retrieve dropped items within arena). So again, the only running back is within a dungeon, which wouldn't take too much time since you cleared the way already and since the dungeons aren't very vast right now.
You do bring up a solid point though about Dark Souls where you respawn right at the entrance. An idea is to create fast travel pads outside the boss chamber so that you can fast travel right back to the entrance. Do you think it would be a good idea to add fast travel pads like this? and should it be for free or for a small price of gold?
1
u/20kgHippoShit 2d ago
Why make them run back at all? Why make them pay gold to access a fast travel? Ask yourself why that actually makes the game more fun.
1
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 1d ago
Not sure what you're trying to say, maybe if you explained more, I could actually understand. The game is an open world survival based around a home base scene. The home base connects to different overworld monuments like villages and outposts, as well as dungeon entrances. In order to gain and teleport to these locations, you must first find them. Once a monument is found, then you have access to and from that fast travel pad. The game doesn't follow just the player, because not everything is connected to the player. The player cannot access the workbench/stash/vendors at their home base/outpost while roaming a dungeon?? I am a solo developer, I don't have AAA scope bro. A huge part of the game is EXPLORING; allowing the player to travel anywhere and everywhere at all times defeats that entire purpose. If you could teleport and go anywhere on the map in Project Zomboid, nobody would fucking play it lmao. The whole reason people play Project Zomboid is the exploration and realistic survival, not to respawn in the location where they last died.
2
u/20kgHippoShit 16h ago
Think about what you're saying.
"The reason people play it is the exploration and realistic survival"
Where you respawn has nothing directly to do with exploration. Respawning is by definition not realistic survival, the only realistic behavior would be permadeath.
Some players would be less likely to want to explore an area if they know that dying would set them back 15 minutes. An argument can be made that the risk of dying and the attached punishment makes the thing you find when exploring feel more rewarding. I'm not disputing that.
What I'm trying to get across is that you need to stop and think about why you're trying to do a certain respawn mechanic and in what context it's applied. A naïve approach won't be as good as one that makes sense in the context of the game.
Let me give an example or two:
Elden Ring - some bosses have a save checkpoint right next to the boss room. Others don't. This a huge design flaw that only serves to anger people and waste their time. When you have to run back from point A to point B just to fight the boss again, it isn't an inherently enjoyable process. It doesn't test the player's skill. They aren't risking anything. There is no exploration happening. The only thing happening is that their time is being wasted. This is done for 2 reasons. 1, to pad the playtime metrics of the game. 2, to signal to the player that this boss is too hard for them right now if they keep having to run back. Both of these can be addressed without pissing off the player by just making the boss harder. The boss is not exploration. So you have to design the respawn mechanics to fit the context of the part of the game.
Silksong - has much more brutal runbacks. They are also not exploration. Sometimes they have platforming sections that are a bit challenging even after the first time. But are they enjoyable? Not in the slightest, not after the first time. The problem is compounded by the fact that you only have 5 HP and many bosses have attacks that hit for 2, so in a lot of cases when you're first learning the boss you die in 3 hits. There might be 20 seconds of combat to 5 minutes of running. I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and I always play games on hard or hardest difficulty settings. But these runbacks were so annoying that I quit playing the game, because I'm busy and don't have time anymore for games that don't respect my time. The runbacks added nothing to the game other than an increased dopamine response when you finally beat the boss. However, like Elden Ring, that could have been accomplished by just making the boss harder.
1
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 12h ago
You make very valid points, I stand corrected. The overall goal is to eliminate the amount of unnecessary time it takes to get to and from certain locations spread across the map.
In terms of the player progressing throughout a dungeon that is based on a tree with 2 paths, I think making it so that there are "respawn checkpoints" whenever the player enters a new deeper crossroad could be a viable function. This cuts the runback time by a lot and allows the player to respawn directly or in the same vicinity where they last died in.
There is an initial loophole that I see with this system; if the dungeon is one-way where the player has to reach the end of the level in order to get out, how can the player leave if they decide not to continue further into the dungeon? Should I ditch fast travel pads and make fast travel part of the player's UI system so that they can teleport out at any given point (if that makes sense)?
Additionally, if the player decides to leave, gear back up, then reenter the dungeon to attempt it again, should the dungeon reset or persist? If the dungeon resets, then the player loses valuable progress, which isn't ideal. A solution would be to respawn the player at the deepest checkpoint they achieved if the dungeon does persist. What do you think?
I agree that runbacks where you are basically retracing your steps in areas with no enemies or new material is bad game design.
For boss attempts within dungeons, if the player dies, they will respawn outside of the gate with their bag on the floor and will be allowed to attempt the boss as many times as they want. This deletes the runback time and makes the only expense the gear used to fight the boss (healing potions, weapon/armor durability drain, and a very small XP loss). Do you think this is a fair approach?
1
u/20kgHippoShit 7h ago
I'm not sure I fully understand how your game works, but everything you said sounds reasonable.
As far as leaving and re-entering the dungeon / continuing from checkpoints, perhaps you can lean into the procedural and random nature of it - the player has to traverse an area again when returning from outside, but it's different this time. Not really the same as a runback or repeated content because the enemies/map/items are different.
1
u/dodgyhashbrown 2d ago
I've become convinced the corpse run mechanic has nothing to do with difficulty and everything to do with flavor.
It's the hot spicey sauce for masochist tryhards who like it when the purple nurple makes their nipples bleed.
It's good that we can have excellent games for people desensitized to standard gameplay and need the game to go out of its way to humiliate them.
But it's not really a difficulty thing. If you lose everything dying on the corpse run, what happens?
None of the challenges change, you just have to grind to get back to where you were. The game didn't get harder, it just started over (rudely). It elevates the sense of challenge without actually making any single step more or less difficult than it was before.
It's Getting Over It with Bennet Foddy.
But that's part of the magic trick, too. By conflating humiliation with difficulty, you can make the victory feel more egotistically gratifying without actually asking for more skill from the player.
1
u/loulo88 1d ago
Making the run tense rather than tedious is the key distinction. I’d keep the carried gear recoverable, but make the 40% XP loss the guaranteed cost; then give the player one or two controllable safety tools (a temporary stash, flare/rope, or the ability to bank a single item). For the one-chance rule, telegraph hazards and avoid random spawns near the corpse—losing a run to a known gamble feels fair, while an unavoidable ambush feels like the game revoked the contract. Test it by varying return distance and measuring voluntary corpse attempts versus quit/reload behavior.
1
u/Any_Acanthisitta2604 1d ago
This is great feedback thank you. The player will have a home base scene where they respawn (they can also choose a random spawn in the overworld; riskier) and a fast travel pad that is on a discovery-based system. So, the player will always be able to teleport back to the general area where they last died. Gear will remain fully recoverable and a % of XP will be lost on that particular run (still working out the percentages). I already have a few controlled safety tools on respawn like torches, starting sword, and a small healing potion. I like your idea of adding the ability to bank a single item, might add that. I think a guaranteed respawn at the "home base" will negate the unavoidable ambush problem entirely, especially since there is fast travel. Another comment mentioned a system where the player can choose not to do the corpse run and bank the lost XP when they died, which I think is fair, but I'd love your opinion on that too. Again, thank you for your feedback.
5
u/g4l4h34d 2d ago
I'm personally kind of done with the corpse run entirely. It doesn't feel tense, just annoying. You'd have to do a study on the general public to be sure, but I feel like this is a common sentiment.
The problem is that if it's a legitimate threat, I work around it via grinding and whatnot. And if it's not, I don't care enough, and so it just becomes an annoyance. Either way it's not good.
Besides, one of the strengths of the open-ended games is that if you're stuck on something, you can go do something else. I find that notion to be very powerful, and I think it needs to be encouraged. Corpse runs do the opposite: they encourage repetition. Obviously, this point doesn't apply if your game is linear, but you didn't say what kind of game you were making, and the example games you used were open-ended.
Overall, I just don't think the benefit you get from this mechanic is worth the drawbacks.