Why I still play Classic despite not liking permadeath, and how things could be better.

[Florete]

A lot of veteran Fire Emblem fans swear by classic mode and permadeath, but not me. Despite having been with the series for 20 years, I think FE would be better off without permadeath going forward. The first problem I have with it is how restrictive it is for story-telling: you can't have just any character be involved in the story because once they're under the player's control, they could be dead at any point in time. And the characters who are involved in the story either don't actually die when they're killed, defeating the narrative purpose of the mechanic altogether, or force a game over, bringing us to the second problem with permadeath that ultimately encouraged the eventual inclusion of casual mode: permadeath is something that usually just causes players to reset.

To be fair, a lot of earlier Fire Emblem games are designed under the assumption that the player will be regularly losing units by regularly giving them new allies. But in practice, this mostly doesn't stop players from just resetting anyway, because no one wants to permanently lose a character they've invested a lot of time and resources into and might also have an emotional connection to. The developers recognized this and started giving characters more personality and distinctive appearances.

Many people think Awakening or New Mystery (where casual was introduced) is when the series started moving away from permadeath as a core mechanic, but I think it goes back further. Much further. I dare say it was all the way back at Genealogy of the Holy War where the series began moving away from permadeath. Yes, that game and many after it still had the mechanic with no way to turn it off, but that game with its match-making feature was the first time a Fire Emblem title really seemed to expect players to be keeping characters alive, and ever since there have been more and more things that seem to go against the idea of permadeath, from smaller casts in Blazing Blade and Sacred Stones to Awakening and Fates not actually killing half the characters who die to Three Houses not giving players any new recruits in the second half of the game. Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn, however, do temporarily tread back into permadeath-focused waters, especially the latter with its massive cast and lack of characterization for most of them.

So then, as per the title, if I have these issues with classic mode and permadeath, why am I still playing it? Because casual mode isn't quite what I want either, and turn rewind mechanics make classic the closest to the experience I want with Fire Emblem.

What's wrong with casual mode? Well, classic mode isn't all bad: what I like about classic is that it incentivizes not letting your units fall in battle. I think the punishment for failing that objective is too harsh in classic mode, but I also don't like that casual mode has little to no punishment whatsoever. There is a middle ground, though, and I've seen it done in another game.

Banner of the Maid is a game that wears its Fire Emblem inspiration on its sleeve. Check it out if you haven't, seriously. But on topic, Banner of the Maid doesn't have permadeath. However, you also can't just let your units fall in battle willy-nilly. Units who fall in battle will return next chapter as they were, just like casual mode in Fire Emblem, but if you let 3-4 units (varies based on progress) fall in one map you get a game over, and you get a gold bonus at the end of chapters for not letting units fall. This is, in my opinion, better than anything Fire Emblem has done. I don't want to let units fall in Banner of the Maid, but if they do, I also don't feel like I need to immediately reset. Characters can appear in the story as much as the writers want because no one is going to be randomly dead. BotM's way isn't the only way of going about it, of course. What's important is that the player should want to keep their units standing, but not feel strongly compelled to hit the reset button (or be forced to reset) if something goes wrong.

The best FE has done to mitigate the problem is the introduction of turn rewind mechanics. Without turn rewind I would be playing casual in modern FE because I just don't have the energy to deal with either permanently losing a unit or restarting a whole map like I once did. While not as good as what Banner of the Maid does, turn rewind is still a decent middle ground that lets me keep the feeling of not wanting to lose units in battle while not pushing me to restart a whole chapter if one does. Turn rewind in limited capacity is also just a great feature in general that I think I would want to keep even if FE adopted a system like BotM's.

Those of you players who swear by permadeath, I encourage you to think about what it is you actually like about permadeath and consider if you could still get that in some way, but without permadeath. Maybe how Banner of the Maid does it, maybe some other way.

In conclusion: remove permadeath, but introduce new features that still encourage players to be smart.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Florete

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Most people defend Casual mode by saying "It's an extra setting. If you don't want to play that way, just select Classic". Well I'm going to defend Classic mode using the same argument. Why remove this option from future Fire Emblem games? What is gained? All you're doing is alienating players that expect this mechanic. And closing the door for developers to write some incredible scripted events for players to discover. The first time I heard Est call out to her sisters when I got her killed, I felt like I was falling in love with Fire Emblem again - even though I turnwheeled that death a second later. Such a heart wrenching scene made possible only because of permadeath. Only because I was playing Fire Emblem. 

Now if you asked me why permadeath ought to stay in Fire Emblem (this is my opinion, no one feel compelled to agree or disagree) is because it is part of the series identity. It's what makes it unique among a sea of SRPGs that certainly aren't Fire Emblem. The first time I realized my dead units are really dead, it made me more invested, not less. I'm willing to bet a majority of people who have ever browsed this website felt that way too when they first played. I have indeed played Banner of the Maid, but I would instead take its game over state and put it on Casual mode. Keeping units alive should be incentivized in every mode of fire emblem, not just Classic. 

Also what do you mean with FE4? Sure the units became more fleshed out characters, but they also created the idea of Substitute units so that you're not understaffed in Gen 2. FE4 is one of the most iron man-friendly games in the series because of how much work the developers put in to support this style of play. New character portraits, default skills and inventories, re-written dialogue. They never tried anything like that again until FE11 but the difference is that there's a non-zero chance you'll have substitute units in your army without intentionally trying to get them.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Florete]

3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Most people defend Casual mode by saying "It's an extra setting. If you don't want to play that way, just select Classic". Well I'm going to defend Classic mode using the same argument. Why remove this option from future Fire Emblem games? What is gained?

I answered this in the first paragraph. Permadeath is restrictive for story-telling. Removing it would allow any character to be involved in the story at any time. You've played Banner of the Maid, so you've seen that a lot of characters in that get screen time beyond their introduction, something that can't happen in Fire Emblem.

3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Also what do you mean with FE4? Sure the units became more fleshed out characters, but they also created the idea of Substitute units so that you're not understaffed in Gen 2. FE4 is one of the most iron man-friendly games in the series because of how much work the developers put in to support this style of play. New character portraits, default skills and inventories, re-written dialogue. They never tried anything like that again until FE11 but the difference is that there's a non-zero chance you'll have substitute units in your army without intentionally trying to get them.

What I meant is that it's the first game where they expected most players to keep units alive to the best of their ability. What I didn't say is that they fully expected that no one would ever let anyone die. It was still designed with permadeath in mind, but it was the first step (of a lot of steps) toward leaving it behind.

[Alastor15243]

1 hour ago, Florete said:

I answered this in the first paragraph. Permadeath is restrictive for story-telling.

The problem I have with this is that we haven't had a story I thought would be made better or even good without permadeath in about two decades. Until the series starts demonstrating any competence with storytelling again, there's no earthly way I'd consider a radical gameplay overhaul worthwhile even if you were right that the story would be improved.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Alastor15243

[Florete]

5 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

The problem I have with this is that we haven't had a story I thought would be made better or even good without permadeath in about two decades. Until the series starts demonstrating any competence with storytelling again, there's no earthly way I'd consider a radical gameplay overhaul worthwhile even if you were right that the story would be improved.

I mean, they haven't had the chance, because permadeath has always existed. You can't just say "Well this story wouldn't be better even if permadeath was gone" because lack of permadeath is a pretty big change.

[Alastor15243]

1 hour ago, Florete said:

I mean, they haven't had the chance, because permadeath has always existed. You can't just say "Well this story wouldn't be better even if permadeath was gone" because lack of permadeath is a pretty big change.

I'm saying storytelling hasn't been a strong suit of the series since the Tellius games, so sacrificing what makes the games unique to improve what it has sucked at for nearly twenty years feels like a pointless and massive gamble.

[VoilaNota]

I think a potentially interesting middle ground would be an injury system, which I'm sure is used in plenty of games but I'm just coming up with a version off the top of my head.

Say a character falls in Chapter 1. For Chapter 2, they are now considered heavily injured and cannot be deployed (and maybe you'd have to sideline an additional character to be their caretaker, which would build some support). In Chapter 3, the fallen unit would be considered "recovering" and can be used again, but with stat debuffs and the caveat that they will die permanently if they fall in this chapter. By Chapter 4, they would be back to normal. Perhaps certain bosses or weapons could still cause death rather than injury to raise stakes on certain chapters, idk.

This would also avoid the necessity of a game over if the main lord or avatar dies, since they could still technically command their army from the sidelines while injured.

Edited February 1, 2023 by VoilaNota

[Zapp Branniglenn]

9 hours ago, Florete said:

I answered this in the first paragraph. Permadeath is restrictive for story-telling. Removing it would allow any character to be involved in the story at any time.

And I think removing permadeath is restrictive for storytelling, then provided examples of the type of stories you'd never see again. Furthermore, I like the added stakes of mortal characters in a story. It's something you could only do in a video game because the player has the unique power to impact the story - intentionally and unintentionally.

If you want a version of Fire Emblem where you're not missing any character's stories (character-focused paralogue chapters), then Casual is for you.

Quote

You've played Banner of the Maid, so you've seen that a lot of characters in that get screen time beyond their introduction, something that can't happen in Fire Emblem.

Not strictly. Some characters in Fire Emblem get MORE screen time as a result of unit death. Going all the way to the first Fire Emblem. If Ceada has been killed and you beat the game, that scene with her is replaced with Nyna comforting Marth over her death. Admit it, you want to read that script. For Famicom storytelling standards, that IS a different ending. I would argue Fire Emblem ought to push harder incorporating permadeath in storytelling, then tell us the storytelling may change based on unit deaths at the Classic/Casual selection screen. Now we're even more invested to seek out the best ending, or seek out different story events on repeat playthroughs.

Furthermore, any writer would agree that the scenes they didn't write as a result of character death can be just as, if not more impactful than the scenes they felt obligated to write. One character proposes marriage to another, then dies. Tragic. Death is a powerful narrative tool. Tell them they are not allowed to use it - and not allowed to even use the suggested threat of death in their narrative (because the audience knows that characters like Xander or Lucina cannot actually die), and their story is extremely unlikely to improve.

As for Banner of the Maid, the lack of permadeath did not occur to me when one of my units got an innocuous line here or there. It actually annoyed me that that games 'paralogues' unlocked immediately after that unit's recruit chapter. Prompting us to play the same map we just cleared with a new enemy layout. How exhausting. Imagine playing Shadow Dragon and most maps had to be cleared twice in a row in order to experience the whole story. That's Banner of the Maid.

Quote

What I meant is that it's the first game where they expected most players to keep units alive to the best of their ability. What I didn't say is that they fully expected that no one would ever let anyone die. It was still designed with permadeath in mind, but it was the first step (of a lot of steps) toward leaving it behind.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth. You said FE4's matchmaking mechanics stand as proof that they expected the player to keep everybody alive. I countered that the existence of Substitute units proves the opposite. They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of making substitute units if they didn't want the player's unique playthrough (concerning who lives and who dies) to seriously impact the story. If I were arguing your opinion, a better piece of evidence is the game's Battle saves. You can save at the start of every turn. This was likely put in the game as a concession to the game's multi hour length chapters, but one could argue it has the side effect (arguably also intended by the developers) of supporting a perfectionist's playthrough. Resetting after every death. The existence of a Ranking system is further encouragement to play the game well, at least on repeat playthroughs. When I play FE4 and I'm not chasing a ranked run, I try to fight completionist/perfectionist tendencies so that my playthrough can end in a reasonable time. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Florete]

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

I'm saying storytelling hasn't been a strong suit of the series since the Tellius games, so sacrificing what makes the games unique to improve what it has sucked at for nearly twenty years feels like a pointless and massive gamble.

That's a gamble I'm willing to take.

4 hours ago, VoilaNota said:

I think a potentially interesting middle ground would be an injury system, which I'm sure is used in plenty of games but I'm just coming up with a version off the top of my head.

Say a character falls in Chapter 1. For Chapter 2, they are now considered heavily injured and cannot be deployed (and maybe you'd have to sideline an additional character to be their caretaker, which would build some support). In Chapter 3, the fallen unit would be considered "recovering" and can be used again, but with stat debuffs and the caveat that they will die permanently if they fall in this chapter. By Chapter 4, they would be back to normal. Perhaps certain bosses or weapons could still cause death rather than injury to raise stakes on certain chapters, idk.

This would also avoid the necessity of a game over if the main lord or avatar dies, since they could still technically command their army from the sidelines while injured.

The problem with this is that it still includes permadeath. It fixes the gameplay side of things (maybe; it's still a pretty rough punishment), but not the story side.

4 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

And I think removing permadeath is restrictive for storytelling, then provided examples of the type of stories you'd never see again. Furthermore, I like the added stakes of mortal characters in a story. It's something you could only do in a video game because the player has the unique power to impact the story - intentionally and unintentionally.

You could say they're both restrictive in their own way, but permadeath is the one that brings more problems. I mean, just look at that Leon scene where Valbar dies. He goes from crying his heart out back to his chipper normal self in an instant. It's extremely jarring, and it happens because that's the end of the "if Valbar is dead" script.

And then there's stuff like Awakening and Fates where you can have a parent and child fighting side-by-side, the child dies, and the parent just...dashes off, seeming to give zero fucks whatsoever about what they just witnessed.

If instead Leon's personality changed for the entire game after Valbar's death (including new crit quotes and the like), parents actually took their kid's corpse off the battlefield, etc. that would be enticing and a reason I'd want to keep permadeath around. But that doesn't happen because FE casts are too big to make such complex webs. And it's just not the direction FE is going in general.

5 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Not strictly. Some characters in Fire Emblem get MORE screen time as a result of unit death. Going all the way to the first Fire Emblem. If Ceada has been killed and you beat the game, that scene with her is replaced with Nyna comforting Marth over her death. Admit it, you want to read that script. For Famicom storytelling standards, that IS a different ending. I would argue Fire Emblem ought to push harder incorporating permadeath in storytelling, then tell us the storytelling may change based on unit deaths at the Classic/Casual selection screen. Now we're even more invested to seek out the best ending, or seek out different story events on repeat playthroughs.

But how much more screen time could Caeda have gotten if she couldn't be randomly dead? The other problems with this I mentioned above.

And no, I actually don't care to read that.

5 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I wasn't putting words in your mouth. You said FE4's matchmaking mechanics stand as proof that they expected the player to keep everybody alive.

That's not what I said, and I don't feel like repeating myself a second time. Read my posts again.

[Eltosian Kadath]

Permadeath adds a form of storytelling to the game that is a draw in and of itself, even if it does add some restraints to more traditional storytelling. The potential for death, the lucky, or unlucky breaks your units have, and how you deal with the loses moving forward leads to a form of emergent storytelling, a story told through the gameplay itself, which is a story unique to your own run. This type of storytelling has its own draw to it, Ironman runs are popular for a reason, and people have even artificially added permadeath to Pokemon with the Nuzlocke challenge, and intentionally induce an emotional connection by having part of the rules be to nickname them in an attempt to create similar stories.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

I'm personally not interested in a Fire Emblem story where 30-some characters are each so important to the plot that it couldn't go on if they were to die. Nor am I interested in a much smaller playable cast.

1 hour ago, Florete said:

But how much more screen time could Caeda have gotten if she couldn't be randomly dead?

She gets quite a bit, actually! Her recruitment conversations, such as with Castor and Roger. That's a lot, by FE1/11 standards.

In any case, forcing everyone to stay alive cuts back on player control and replayability. Right now, keeping all of my characters alive is something to strive for. But in a permadeath-free world, it's irrelevant whether or not I let someone fall. And I'll never get to the point of "let me replay it - but this time, I'm making sure Halvan survives!" There's less for me, the player, to care about, because the stakes are eroded.

[Florete]

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Ironman runs are popular for a reason

In what world? We literally got casual mode as a mainstay in the series because people don't like ironman runs.

39 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

But in a permadeath-free world, it's irrelevant whether or not I let someone fall.

The point of this topic is to make it not irrelevant even without permadeath.

[RobinLucinaFan]

I think a compromise to this is introducing a main cast of 12 characters who cannot die in the story and who you will automatically get a gameover with should they fall in battle. The game can spend time fleshing out these characters over the course of the story. There can then be 18 additional characters who can permanently die in battle, but are only referenced in passing in the story and are only really fleshed out in support conversations (and paralogues and paired endings ). I feel like we could get a persona like focus on characters while still maintaining the permadeath of element of things within reason.

[Eltosian Kadath]

1 hour ago, Florete said:

In what world?

In the world of people that do more than one run of a Fire Emblem games. Doing an ironman is a really common challenge run people do as an excuse to play a Fire Emblem game again, and its popular to share them in some way. Although just in case I am off-base with this, I guess I can setup a poll.

 

1 hour ago, Florete said:

We literally got casual mode as a mainstay in the series because people don't like ironman runs.

We got Casual mode to help draw in a more casual audience. That is why its called Casual mode.

I will also point out before people start acting like wierdos, I am not using casual as a pejorative here, I am pointing out how transparent IS were being about their intentions with the naming.

 

[Florete]

3 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

In the world of people that do more than one run of a Fire Emblem games. Doing an ironman is a really common challenge run people do as an excuse to play a Fire Emblem game again, and its popular to share them in some way. Although just in case I am off-base with this, I guess I can setup a poll.

It's well-liked in a small subset of the fandom. It's not "popular."

3 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

We got Casual mode to help draw in a more casual audience. That is why its called Casual mode.

And these people weren't playing FE already because they didn't like the idea of losing units permanently. Aka ironman.

[VoilaNota]

6 hours ago, Florete said:

The problem with this is that it still includes permadeath. It fixes the gameplay side of things (maybe; it's still a pretty rough punishment), but not the story side.

I think it’s a pretty light punishment actually, anything less would encourage kamikaze-ing units as a valid strategy for any given chapter (which is the core gameplay issue of casual mode).

Storywise, the injury system would make actual deaths so rare that I don’t see why they would need to be accommodated as vastly different pieces of dialogue. I think adding a little remembrance scene post-death for a given unit would be a sufficient, and wouldn’t be that hard to implement.

[Florete]

58 minutes ago, VoilaNota said:

I think it’s a pretty light punishment actually, anything less would encourage kamikaze-ing units as a valid strategy for any given chapter (which is the core gameplay issue of casual mode).

Storywise, the injury system would make actual deaths so rare that I don’t see why they would need to be accommodated as vastly different pieces of dialogue. I think adding a little remembrance scene post-death for a given unit would be a sufficient, and wouldn’t be that hard to implement.

Really look at it, though. Let's say a unit falls halfway through a map. That's now one and a half maps this unit is out entirely. They're also debuffed and at risk of permanent death for another map, which is hardly better. This means that the unit is basically out for two and a half maps, which is a lot of experience to be missing out on. If the player was planning to use this unit longterm, this is a huge setback and most players are probably going to reset, meaning it wouldn't fix my gameplay issue with permadeath.

It doesn't matter how rare deaths would be, they'd still be possible and thus would need to be accounted for.

[lenticular]

Personally speaking, I have done ironman-style runs in the past, of Shadow Dragon (DS) and Fates (Birthright), and that's enough to convince me that I just don't enjoy that way of playing. I know that people who enjoy ironman runs tend to speak of the increased emotional stakes that it brings, but I found the absolute opposite. When I know that anyone can die at any time, I end up just not getting attached to anyone and not caring when they die. When I know that I'm not going to keep everyone alive, I become more willing to just sacrifice units.

Is my brain weird to respond that way? Maybe so. But it does. Ironman style is not fun for me. Equally, though, I've tried playing in Casual mode (in Awakening) and not enjoyed that. I had even less fun with being able to beat basically every level by attrition and meat-grinder strategies than I did playing Ironman. So as a result, I'm left with either Classic-with-resets or Classic-with-time-rewind as my preferred way to play.

And yeah, I'd like to see some sort of intermediate option between Classic and Casual, where there is some consequence for letting units fall in battle, but it is less severe than having that unit be gone forever. I don't really care what that option is, and I'd probably have to play with it before I could decide whether I actually liked it or not, but it's definitely a space that I'd like to see IS explore.

In terms of storytelling, I think that it's a little bit odd how the game is almost trying to tell two different versions of the story to different kinds of players. For ironman players, it's a story with death and fallen comrades, where nobody is safe. Whereas for Casual players and reset players, that isn't the experience at all. It's more like a story of larger-than-life heroes who are unstoppable in battle. And while either one of those stories can work, I think it's much more difficult to make both of them work at the same time. Not impossible, but difficult.

While I would be surprised if IS got rid of Classic mode entirely any time soon, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept only the mechanical aspects of it but abandoned the storyline implications of permadeath. They are already going in the direction of dead not actually meaning dead for a lot of characters, both allied and enemy, so I could easily see them going all the way with that. It's kinda weird in modern Fire Emblem games that some characters are able to shrug off a fatal wound and say "oops, I'd better retreat" but others are not. If they changed it so that everyone just retreats, that would at least make the game feel consistent again, and the mechanics of permadeath could be maintained by having any defeated unit be unable/unwilling to fight any more. I don't think this would be my personal preferred solution, but it's one that I think might happen.

One other thing I will add that I don't see people talk about very often is this: if permadeath were removed entirely, that would open up a lot of design space that is currently closed off, and potentially allow for innovations in level design, possibly including some more difficult individual levels. As things stand, Fire Emblem maps basically have to be beaten without losing anyone. Without permadeath, there'd be the potential to see more difficult maps where you pretty much need to sacrifice units just to eke out a victory. Without permadeath, nasty surprises like fog of war and ambush spawns stop being rage-inducing and instead become punches that you can roll with. This would be a pretty big change and would end up with a very different feel to current Fire Emblem, but change is not inherently bad.

[Samz707]

On 2/1/2023 at 8:05 PM, Zapp Branniglenn said:

 

Not strictly. Some characters in Fire Emblem get MORE screen time as a result of unit death. Going all the way to the first Fire Emblem. If Ceada has been killed and you beat the game, that scene with her is replaced with Nyna comforting Marth over her death. Admit it, you want to read that script. For Famicom storytelling standards, that IS a different ending. I would argue Fire Emblem ought to push harder incorporating permadeath in storytelling, then tell us the storytelling may change based on unit deaths at the Classic/Casual selection screen. Now we're even more invested to seek out the best ending, or seek out different story events on repeat playthroughs.

 

FE7 as well.

Several scenes change if Matthew is dead.

The Dread Isle scene that changes if he's dead hit far harder for me than the corny forced "Here's a dramatic death, feel sad" moments of actual "characters" (Emmeryn and Mikoto) that the game wanted me to care about, part of it is how Matthew has actual attachment (Good Dialogue, being a unit in gameplay and supports) and another part is how Matthew's death, is actually my fault, It wasn't some forced roll-my-eyes plot death for some obnoxious NPC, it was an actual, lovable unit, who would still be alive had I not messed up earlier.

This is one of my favourite story moments in the series and Only Permadeath could tell it.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Samz707

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

13 hours ago, lenticular said:

As things stand, Fire Emblem maps basically have to be beaten without losing anyone. Without permadeath, there'd be the potential to see more difficult maps where you pretty much need to sacrifice units just to eke out a victory.

That is an interesting point to consider. Let's say, for instance, there's an enemy Swordmaster who wields a "Slaughter Sword". This weapon has infinite Might and Hit, essentially meaning that anyone who gets in a round of combat with said enemy at melee range is toast. If permadeath is a thing, then this sort of enemy won't fly (except, perhaps, as "hurry up" reinforcements). But with permadeath turned off, it sets up an interesting dilemma. You'd have to pick one unit to "sacrifice" in order to lure the Swordmaster towards your army, then have the rest of your team finish them off (say, with ranged attacks). Your "sacrificed" unit would be back next chapter, but you'd still have to finish the rest of the present map without them.

For the record, I don't know that I'd want to see this kind of design. I was just going for a distillation of the possibilities for different design that cancelling permadeath could enable.

13 hours ago, lenticular said:

They are already going in the direction of dead not actually meaning dead for a lot of characters, both allied and enemy, so I could easily see them going all the way with that. It's kinda weird in modern Fire Emblem games that some characters are able to shrug off a fatal wound and say "oops, I'd better retreat" but others are not. If they changed it so that everyone just retreats, that would at least make the game feel consistent again, and the mechanics of permadeath could be maintained by having any defeated unit be unable/unwilling to fight any more.

I think this is where starting the series with Shadow Dragon hits different for me. I can't think of a single character in that game, playable or enemy, who can survive seeing their HP drop to 0*. Compare to Engage, where there's a character whose HP has dropped to 0 seven times, and yet they live on. But the series was doing this at least as far back as Genealogy, where Chagall survived his first bout, and a beaten Quan/Ethlyn/Finn will just retreat. In that regard, I can begrudgingly admit that it aided the narrative - were their survival not guaranteed, we wouldn't have the certainty of Leif in the second generation. My preference would be for "people die when they are killed" to have as few exceptions as narratively permissible... but even permitting one exception is less consistent than saying "no more permadeath".

*Edit: Just remembered that killing Minerva or the Whitewings in "Lefcandith Gauntlet" won't prevent them from showing up, and being recruitable, later on. Oof. Not sure if it was that way in FE1.

21 hours ago, Florete said:

The point of this topic is to make it not irrelevant even without permadeath.

But if people don't die, aren't we getting the same outcome every time? With permadeath on, maybe it's a story about how Lord Nobleton worked together with countless allies to oust the Dark Dragon with the powers of friendship! ...Or maybe it's a survivor's tale of the blood-stained Lord Nobleton, who vanquished his enemy, but lost all those he cared about in the process. Permadeath, particularly in games where "people die if they are killed", empowers the player to control which story they are writing.

[haarhaarhaar]

I'm definitely of the school where Classic provides stakes, and the stakes contribute to my sense of accomplishment. I haven't played much Casual, and while I think I'd still enjoy my time, I imagine my sense of accomplishment would be diminished, even if I got no deaths on a level. That said, the rewind mechanic is a quality of life thing that I hugely appreciate, because I feel it allows me to play (as in, to experiment) with a given situation. How would/could I get through X situation, and so on. I'd rather have rewinds than not. Despite all this, the OP's points about the impact Classic mode has on connecting secondary characters to the story, and the inherent hypocrisy of some characters not dying when their HP hits 0, are concerns I've also felt at various points in my FE career.

One response might be to double down on the rewind mechanic. Maybe there are story costs for using X number of rewinds. Like maybe using rewinds contributes to a doom clock, or a map rating that affects story paths. And perhaps you are forced to use a rewind if anyone dies. That way, the onus on consequences for permadeath in FE shifts to death-enforced rewinds. You preserve stakes for letting a character hit 0, but individual 'deaths' don't derail a player's campaign or a story's trajectory. And there's still room for the hardcore to attempt runs without rewinds. This might even accommodate @lenticular's idea about level design that innovates based on no permadeath. Not sure what the price would be for hitting the overall limit on rewinds, but hitting a bad ending (a la SMT IV) seems reasonable.

[joevar]

As someone who start playing FE from early 2000s i would fall into "swear by classic mode" group and i do pick that option, always. But certainly not attached to the idea itself. It feels like you can just steamroll the game with so much less tensions with casual, due to the fact the game design takes into account units dying not just giving you options for the sake of variety. So no casualty run without even rewind  mechanic (or no need for retry) is perfectly possible unless its maddening
Edit: TLDR at the end

The story

Unit Perma death in FE always come in form of player mistake, miscalculation, or unintended result. Its not by player choice, even in Ironman run. While  in other games, perma-death could be either by user choice or even unwillingness to choose. But in those cases the player character sometimes are hold accountable and the world react to it more than just a single unvoiced mourning dialogue. It even could lock some progress, worse, make enemies of former ally. Theres none of that in FE. 

FE story has huge cast within (usually) war stories, holding MC accountable from ally side is just not makes sense in war setting, unless we force those character to join in the first place. 

Having them react to every single variable is also just not economically and workload sensible. The amount of dialogue and story variation that needs to be considered are exponentially more with FE cast. Unless they tried to be like CRPG games where wall of text of dialogue is the norm like reading a novel, i've seen a lot of people who play FE will just get bored and press skip. Either because the normal cutscenes technology not par with PC games (no motion capture to make char behave more naturally) or somthing else like the lack of branched stuff or player agencies so skipping wont make you miss big things

This leads to complaint such as: weak/uninteresting/gimmicky side char. This problem happen because they cant show their full personality past the introductory chapter without bloating the amount of cast that appear in dialogue in later chapters.

Echoes 3H Engage actually make improvement by showing side char in dialogue cutscenes. But its still far from perfect. 3H cast look like a bunch of mob standing behind Byleth with one-line reaction. So their death wont affect that much. Engage limit this by having side char involved more but unfortuantely fall into the trap of “all royals”. Actually with Engage if they change the Royal into their sibling if the crown prince/ss fall could still work in the story, but didnt do it. Again because its tied to perma-death evidently

with no perma death, they dont have to cherry picked who or when they do get to talk/involved. because they are always going to be there. With no perma death, side chapter that involved "already-recruited group of characters" can also happen without being awkward due to missing member. so paralogue will not only serves as off-track Recruitment chapter. but something more open. (imagine FE6 side chapter where the corresponding character leads them to that place, instead of finding them in that chapter ala newer FE)

Gameplay side

With permadeath, unit recruitment are more spread out. this could lead to more varied cast and interesting map: evidently from past FE. But like OP said, people will just reset anyway, especially if they already like the characters. The permadeath serves almost no purpose then to a lot of people even in classic.

With no perma death, Engage Hard should be the new normal. Because theres no fear of death, unit falling on battle should also be something that will occur multiple times, so enemy must be smart & strong, else you will steamroll every chapter without big repercussion.

This can be balanced by adopting mechanic similar to Valkyria chronicles where you can rescue downed party and replace them with reinforcement. So even low deployment slot is not really a big deal, and less desireable unit can still get some action.

Again using some CRPG as reference: Another mechanics that can be done is having  “limit” to how many times they can fall in battle before actually dying. Other thing they could do is having a penalty imposed to downed ally instead of removing them outright. This could be lowered stat for next sortie, to outright banned from sortie. 

This gives incentive to use other unit thats usually benched without the fear of adding more “dead” unit. Because even if replacement was weak and eventually downed too, come the next chapter, your strong unit that benched already healed to be used again. You could say this is like changing player with reserve in Soccer/Football or other sports game without tiring them to dead.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im sorry for the long text. if somehow someone were to read all that, i dont know what to say.....

TLDR; Removal of perma-death can open up many interesting way for IS to improve storytelling and even to lesser degree the gameplay. If not in Mainline titles, then Spin off should be possible

Edited February 7, 2023 by joevar

[Hawkwing]

I'm still surprised that when making Gaiden the developers realized the issues that permadeath would cause for a smaller cast, and came up with the revival fountains as a solution. Their uses weren't unlimited, but you were allowed to make a few mistakes and had an option to recover the lost unit. Call it a band-aid solution all you want, but it showed there was some awareness for how to utilize a smaller army without sacrificing permadeath, and I'm surprised this approach was never used again until the remake, which made them redundant thanks to the turnwheel.

I don't mind casual mode, though I feel it is more reliant on the player than the developer on how they use it. Some players will use it to get used to the games mechanics without being permanently punished for not realizing certain tactics don't work in Fire Emblem or a that mechanic does X when they expected it to do Y. Other players will use it as a crutch for bad strategies and fail to learn from their mistakes. The developers can make sure that the game is beatable doing an ironman run, but how players actually play the game is up to the individual.

 

I've thought about it for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that a big reason Fire Emblem struggles with permadeath mechanically is because the games aren't designed around the player straight up losing. Games like Jagged Alliance and XCOM have permadeath, and they aren't afraid to continue after the player lost all their best soldiers, will straight up give them a game over after enough losses (heck XCOM 2 takes place in after you fail the first game because the developers stated that 66% of players lost their first game). Good roguelikes thrive with permadeath since dying is part of the experience, and you typically get back into the action for another go rather quickly. The only way to truly fail at Fire Emblem is to softlock yourself, as otherwise if you lose, you go back to the title screen and are expected to give the map another go.

I'm not saying Fire Emblem should become a roguelike (though I would love to see the idea attempted at least once. Fire Emblem has the mechanics to work well in the genre), but there needs to be more ways for the player to "lose" with ways to continue on that aren't "just restart the map" or "live with the lost unit". The player should be able to get a TPK and still have ways to continue on, or fail a main objective without causing the map to suddenly end. Maybe even be willing to straight up give a game over and have to start over if you play badly enough. 

At the same time, I do think that there also needs to be more incentive to continue going after loosing a unit. A lot of the story changes that previous games had if someone dies aren't huge moments in the overall plot, but they still manage to stick will players. I'm not asking for entirely separate routes depending on player performance, but small moments that acknowledge deaths without changing the overall plot could be the way to go. As flawed as Shadow Dragon's gaiden chapters were, the base concept of giving struggling players more opportunities to recover is a good one that needs several overhauls. Instead of locking off content, change the ways you get characters and equipment. For instance, if the player is doing well, a character may need to be recruited through the classic "talk to the enemy with a specific unit" trick, while if the player is struggling the unit joins earlier without hassle. There are several ways to implement this concept, and possibly even give story reasons behind it.

 

I really enjoy permadeath because I actually have to pay attention to the enemy and respect their capabilities, and it kicks me out of bad habits because there may not be a "next time" to use that vulnerary or silver lance. It allows for more interesting storytelling, and helps the gameplay be more smooth as I'm not restarting all the time. I would love to see a Fire Emblem game that embraces permadeath and allows the player to actually lose sometimes.

[iridium137]

I noticed that most of the discussion is about the story implications. I don't have much to say about that (I don't pay much attention to the story anyways), but I do have quite a bit to say about gameplay.

While permadeath has been a series staple, I've never been a fan of it. The consequences of losing a unit feels too punishing, to the point where I just reset anyways. I like how some of the FE clones handled unit loss. One made the fallen unit unable to participate in the next chapter. Another inflicted a permanent stat loss on the fallen unit. I liked both of these consequences a lot better. They're just bad enough that you don't want to play carelessly or take unnecessary risks, but not so severe that you'd want to reset the map if somebody falls. (Both of these games are pretty bad overall, so I'm purposefully not naming them because I wouldn't recommend them anyway.)

And as a result of how punishing permadeath can be, I often find myself playing in ways that end up being frustrating, tedious, and plain unfun. To name a few things I don't like:

• You get 10-12ish units, and frequently have to slog through 30+ enemy units (and they often get reinforcements). You have to kill most/all of them, while them killing one of yours is effectively a "moral victory" for them. I've always felt it was unfair how the stakes are so drastically different. Especially because the level design often makes it abundantly clear that the enemy isn't even trying to win, they're just trying to kill one of your units and cause a reset.
• The enemy is able to employ dumb strategies like relying on low% hits and crits, or chain-suiciding on your units. You, on the other hand, are unable to use some perfectly valid strategies like distractions or pincer attacks, because any move that puts your units at risk is a non-starter. (It's even worse when the game tries to encourage such strategies.) Permadeath is supposed to add challenge and tension, but I find that in practice, it just limits options. For example, as much as I would like to use a glass-cannon unit like a berserker, they're simply not worth it in any kind of serious play.
• Permadeath completely throws out the concept of risk vs reward, because you can't afford to take any risks at all. If you know anything about how I play Fire Emblem, I take no chances whatsoever, and it's largely a result of permadeath. 90% chance to hit? Not good enough, I try to go for 100% whenever possible. Whereas 20% hit on the enemy still needs to be respected. There's no concept of taking calculated risks, because any risk is too much risk. This also means I seldom use things like axes and steel weapons, because they introduce too much uncertainty for too little gain.
• Critical hits. Technically related to the previous point, but this is so egregious, I need to mention it separately. The massively overkill 3x multiplier is bad enough on its own, but it's even worse when combined with permadeath. Easily the worst mechanic in Fire Emblem. The two aforementioned "bad" games both reduce the multiplier to 2x, because anybody with any sense knows 3x is way too much. It makes fights way too volatile. It makes low luck units nearly unusable, and any time I see an enemy with listed crit on my units, it becomes a major source of anxiety. (I wouldn't be surprised if I lost 10 years of lifespan just from all the listed crit from enemies. Especially in conjunction with all the times I need to hope a 90% hits.) On the flipside, critical hits are too unreliable for the player to rely on, and even when you do get it, it's often unnecessary overkill (and can even be bad for you).
• Let's face it, when two roughly equal forces clash, the idea that one force can defeat the other without a single casualty is ludicrous. Can you imagine winning a match of Advance Wars, or chess, or Pokemon, with no losses? Even a master would struggle to beat a beginner under those conditions. The only reason reason it's possible in Fire Emblem is because your units massively overpower the enemy. On lower difficulties, almost everybody overpowers the enemy and the game is basically trivial. And until the recent games, even higher difficulties are all about abusing the few units that can stand up to the enemy's inflated stats (think Wolf/Sedgar or FE12/13 avatar). And if you have no such unit, then the strategy becomes extreme turtling (think Curved Shot spam), AI abuse, or cheese strats (think water trick). None of those scenarios are particularly fun or interesting.

And as much as I rail on permadeath, I'm not a fan of casual mode either. The game is designed with permadeath in mind, so taking that away with no downside tends to trivialize the difficulty. Nor am I a fan of rewind mechanics. I've been guilty of savestate abuse for a long time, so the last thing I want is further enabling bad habits.

[rdrouyn]

I've always thought that the concept of permadeath is antithetical to the concept of an RPG. In a typical RPG you are investing into a character, either creating or learning their backstory and developing their skills and abilities over time. Permadeath puts barriers between interacting with your favorite characters. 

However, strategy games are all about choices with consequences and there is no consequence more significant that permadeath, other than deleting a player's save file. 

So yeah, the SRPG genre is one that is at odds with itself.

There's a reason why the units in chess don't have proper names.