(Idea thanks to SonicSilicon). There has been some discussion of late as to how much power the player has in returning to the past. I know that playing some games, when I die I just reload an old game. If I wanted to get some non-random information from an old TBS (Turn Based Strategy) game, I would save the game, get the information, reload the game and have saved a lot of money on the information. This is blatant cheating at its worst. Knowing this, I would really want to remove these kinds of activities from games. For one game that is very popular at the moment, I use a special spell that returns damage upon the attacker. Using this, I die many an occasion and eventually remove the bosses. How do we go about preventing this kind of obvious cheating? It was suggested that if your character had all of his or her actions saved (like pen and paper RPG) then you would end up with an uncheatable save system, but this does not bode well for beginners. So there needs to be a balance that can be struck to allow fun for beginners and a challenge for advanced players.
One method of saving that was suggested was a power symbol. This requires the player to engrave a symbol of power into a certain place in the game, it allows for a specific location to be saved, and also for a kind of password required to load games. This would work well in a fantasy RPG because I think that it would utilise the use of magic perfectly.
To add to the challenge for harder players, a hardcore mode should be available. This is already available in some games out now, and I think that it will become more popular as time goes on. I think one main aspect to link with this is the difficulty of the game. The game should not be so hard as to make it impossible for the character to live. This is a problem that is facing most games with this feature, but I still think that this mode is required for future RPGs.
The other definition of the Save-Spot is where you actually have to go to a specific area to save the game. This is similar to a waypoint from Diablo II, but may be handled differently. You may need to actually go into a temple to save your character, and then you would be here for when you return.
There could also be advancement in save methods for characters. For example, in easy difficulty, the player can just reload their character as a free save. For those characters with a little more advanced ability, the player is required to use the save spot or a symbol save. For advanced characters, the character is in hardcore mode, and is dead if ever killed. This would have to suit the style of game, but I think that forcing the different methods onto the player would definitely be an improvement for the games of which I am referring to.
"Learning through death sucks…" the advent of the save game
Save games were created for FPSs to allow the player to return to a previous point in time and avoid making mistakes again. Before this, RPG's were quite happy just storing the character's current position and statistics. RPG's then took up the save game idea to allow the player to approach dangerous situations more carefully than the first time. Even Turn Based Strategy (TBS) games have save games. I recall playing a TBS where you had the option of paying a person in the bar 3 specified amounts of gold (small, medium and large), and the more you paid him the more likely his information would be correct. To make sure I didn't waste my money and to get free information, I would save before I asked, ask the person offering the largest amount, reload and go and find the gems (that were located somewhere on the map). This certainly ended up detracting from the game, although I never really bored of that game, I just grew out of it. RPG's get the same way, before you try something that could be dangerous, you save to make sure you don't lose any items, attributes or skills that you may have gained.
(New) Alternatives to Death... More options regarding Saves
Heading for a solution to the problem of ""Learning through death sucks..." the advent of the save game" it has been suggested that the player should not die. A view that many people have is that the game should be attempting to increase the enjoyment of the player instead of attempting to beat the player. The player should not have to try and beat the game, they should play with the game to meet the same ends. The obstacles that the game should put up should be only to spur the player on, not cause them to beat a hasty retreat (see "Playing a game, not beating a game").
So how can the game be playable while still removing the possibility of death? Death is, after all, what keeps the adrenaline pumping through the players body. I think that if the player is still able to suffer losses, then the adrenaline factor will still be there. Instead of the player dying whenever they charge a goblin hoarde, they get captured and tortured. Some of their possessions are stolen. The player may have to option of getting some or all of these back, and maybe the goblins could threaten the player with death if they are ever caught again. Death should not be the only option, but should be one of many paths that can open up new and interesting chains of events for the player.
With the likeliness of the player dying in a lost battle decreased to the 5% or less area, saving may be included but not necessarily. The need for saving should only be for when there are no more options left after a player has died. But if there is the possibility for a player to continue playing after they have been killed, saves can be eliminated altogether. Death should be a large cost to the player, but they might be able to be reincarnated, or may be able to take possession of a willing body (see "Characters coping with death: Reincarnation" or "Characters coping with death: Possession"). The reduction of death from being a common occurance is a great way of reducing the need of Save Games or even to the point of removing Saves altogether.
From the perspective of a captured player, there needs to be a reason why they are held prisoner. There must be some information that the captors need, or some task that you are required to fulfill. Maybe even you are to be used as a sacrifice, or your magic is to be drained, and possibly even you are to be converted to their cause. In whatever event, the game should have taken into account some reason in the capture. More often than not it will be safe to assume that information is needed, but care should be taken that a primitive race does not do this on the grounds that they should be driven by more primal forces. They should be into sacrifices and obscure magics. It could be that they wish for you to teach them your magics. In short, there needs to be much thought into who or what captor will require what of the player in the event of the players capture. This becomes difficult when regarding a randomly generated game-world but can be handled by race and a probability factor (of what you know or what they want to know).
(New) Playing a game, not beating a game
In stories (well, in Fantasy stories at least) the hero is usually cornered and then some amasing coincidental occurance allows the hero to escape. Recently, it was suggested that the same kind of system be implemented for games. When a player is most at need there could be a crack in a wall that the player had overlooked before, or a distraction suddenly causes the pursuers to head off in the opposite direction, a hiding place goes undiscovered, or an unexpected raid suddenly occupies the enemy. This kind of system allows for much greater excitement in a game, with adrenaline from close encounters, while still removing the need to kill the player. Coupled with the system mentioned above in "Alternatives to Death... More options regarding Saves" it is possible to remove saves altogether through clever coincidence occuring half the time, while capture occurs the rest of the time.