|
I'm sure some companions will be coded to like [Clever] or [Ruthless] or whatever characters, so you won't be able to please everyone because your actions throughout the game will affect their opinion.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Do companions in this game leave the group if the player doesn't act like they want?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Hopefully. One thing I liked in Baldur's Gate 2 is that some parties just don't work. Personalities clash too much, you can't have it all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
AnonSpore posted:And even if the party lets you off with some strongly worded warnings, that's still the game essentially telling you you're playing the game wrong. The most direct way I've ever seen a game tell me I'm playing it wrong it when "Influence check: Failure" popped up in dialogues in NWN2 because I didn't min max a characters relationship stat good enough. In comparison a short cutscene where the party members tell me I'm being a dick is fine. That being said though, i prefer having at least some kind of influence system to not having one. Even if it encourages only ever saying what you know they want to hear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Hopefully. One thing I liked in Baldur's Gate 2 is that some parties just don't work. Personalities clash too much, you can't have it all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This makes the game feel more complete (regarding the NPCs 'being people'). I would hope it'd be avoidable if you take the correct actions though, I'm not a huge fan of being forced to use less interesting party members over more interesting ones no matter how realistic it may be. There should be better ways to solve conflicts in the party and having two people who greatly dislike each other can be a lot more interesting in the long run than just "they try to kill each other".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Not all conflicts can be solved. There is no scenario on earth in which Caesar and President Kimball talk it out, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:I would hope it'd be avoidable if you take the correct actions though, I'm not a huge fan of being forced to use less interesting party members over more interesting ones no matter how realistic it may be. There should be better ways to solve conflicts in the party and having two people who greatly dislike each other can be a lot more interesting in the long run than just "they try to kill each other". Yeah this. I really like party infighting in rpgs but I feel like it shouldn't always be set in stone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Not all conflicts can be solved. There is no scenario on earth in which Caesar and President Kimball talk it out, for example. Well that is all up to the writers and how they write the characters, you can't really use characters from other games as an example. What I'm saying is that if a game has, say, an angel and a devil both as potential party members, I'd find their conflicts a lot more interesting than just having to choose between one and the other. I think you could do and explore plenty of cool things that way if done properly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:There should be better ways to solve conflicts in the party I dont think that this should be the normal scenario, but two NPCs that are diametrically opposed in some kind of moral/philosophical sense should not turn into a snarky buddy comedy. (Sure, that works for less extreme personality types...)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
I like it in Baldur's Gate 2 where you can have two opposed party members and they will get into arguments a lot and that's interesting but after a certain point they will say "Hey look, kick this joker out of the party asap or I will straight up murder him" because they just can't be near each other without going crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:Well that is all up to the writers and how they write the characters, you can't really use characters from other games as an example. What I'm saying is that if a game has, say, an angel and a devil both as potential party members, I'd find their conflicts a lot more interesting than just having to choose between one and the other. I think you could do and explore plenty of cool things that way if done properly. Representing the great cosmic battle of good and evil as a snarky buddy comedy would be a fairly questionable writing decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Pwnstar posted:It would be cool with the idea of having a personality reputation (being known as Clever)if it could cause you trouble with your fightpals if you are playing in a traditional Bioware manner. So if you are doing dialogues with them in the "optimal" way and always saying the right thing for maximum "they like you more" effect, being tough with the Orc Barbarian, charming to the Bard etc instead of following your personality profile then your friends would get together and realise you are a horrible manipulative sociopath. I appreciate the sentiment but a more elegant solution would be not to make companions into "guess the right dialogue option" puzzle-people. ME 1/3, Alpha Protocol and Walking Dead show that players are pretty good about sticking to archetype if they aren't punished for 'incorrect' choices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Ultimately verisimilitude and immersion are subservient to fun, and in fantasy of any kind all contrivances or leaps of logic that support it are redeemable. Even given the Adventurer's Hall there shouldn't be a situation in which the player is arbitrarily left in the lurch by party dynamics, which was generally what happened when your party members dueled in BG2 (the first time, at least). There's no reason why morally opposite characters should necessarily come to bloodshed. Even in the case of BG2, the conflicts that erupted between party members were less about the consequences of actions and more to do with the all-important D&D alignment system. Keldorn has no good reason to kill Viconia. When all you've got is a hammer, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Keldorn has plenty of reason to kill Viconia. She's evil with a capital E. She worships Shar and is openly still a believer in Drow supremacy and the correctness of most Drow societal principles she just thinks Lloths penchant for wanton backstabbing is undermining enslaving all the worthless surfacers. The fact that she's tsundere for you doesn't really impact Keldorns air tight case for decapitating her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
All of which only serves to illustrate why paladins usually make for dull games of D&D If you don't believe me, (re)play the Saerilith mod. She's basically Keldorn if he walked the walk when it counted. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
It's great to have arguments pop up between companions, but having them kill each other is just lame and only prompted a reload on my part. "Oh Keldorn wants to kill Viconia again, reload" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
I honestly don't think that party makeup in itself is the kind of player choice that should produce such extreme outcomes. Monsters and actual plot decisions should be capable of killing off party members, and nothing else. You could make an argument for immutable plot developments, but then how many people thought the death of Sandra and / or Sagacious Zu were meaningful in any great way?
Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:
Haven't we already suffered enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
I always thought keldorn was a cool character, primarily because he was incredibly chill basically serving as the "Well roleplayed" paladin to anomens "Lawful Stupid" paladin. Him just deciding to suddenly kill whats her face never really made sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
I'm kind of torn about party members really caring about how you act or who they travel with. BG2's problem is that personality mismatches can lock you out of certain (admittedly highly specific) party compositions. That would be lessened in Eternity since you can create members to fill gaps if the people with personalities don't work for you. Still slightly infuriating if one of your party members insists on offing another or taking off so I wouldn't mind if they just really hate you/other members but stick with it for the sake of whatever, like rear end in a top hat Thorton runs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Personalities can clash, but I don't think that should get in the way of building a party of the classes you want. It's dumb to think that every paladin in existence refuses to journey with an evil doer. Somewhere out there is a generic soldier with a unique interpretation of justice (or insert motivation) that lets them pal around with Sauron for some reason. It could even be... for the greater good!? e: vvvvvvv I see you have also had this argument before Malcolm fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Haven't we already suffered enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
To make such a harsh party affinity system work you'd need to have a pretty deep roster with many overlaps in roles, a la Jagged Alliance. Though, PoE lets you dispense with all the story characters and recruit other companions if you really wanted, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Yeah there's gameplay considerations there when there's 5 party slots and only 8 written NPCs, making some of them leave/kill each other on party combinations is a real dick move. I know there's the self-created NPCs but I shouldn't have to use them. BG1/BG2 had 25 and 17 and it got annoying even in the latter, they ended up just getting rid of it in ToB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:Ultimately verisimilitude and immersion are subservient to fun, and in fantasy of any kind all contrivances or leaps of logic that support it are redeemable. The issue there is that for a lot of people verisimilitude and immersion are fun in and of themselves. Why do you think people go so up in arms about the strength governing magic/intellect governing how hard you hit people thing? It wasn't all just misplaced nostalgia. It's just two different design philosophies clashing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Why do you think people go so up in arms about the strength governing magic/intellect governing how hard you hit people thing? I always just assumed that getting upset on the internet about minor things that you don't really care about was some sort of bizarre modern method of venting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:You can never truly appreciate how bad the D&D alignment system is until you've sat in on a session with someone who fully commits to a paladin character. Saerilith is as close as you can get without inviting that Mormon kid to join your high school game. She just derails the game completely. It's awe-inspiring. I don't want to defend D&D alignment system too much -- it's a terribly confused mechanic: simultaneously working as a short-hand for personality, as a signifier of one's ethical/moral stance and allegiance in the great cosmic struggle of D&D universe, and as a game mechanic determining the effects of various spells and such -- but that paladin problem you're describing? It's a problem player, not a problem mechanic. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive, and a character can take actions that are not strictly in accordance with their current alignment and still remain within that alignment, as long as it describes their actions most consistently of the available alternatives. Paladins are furthermore limited by a code of conduct, but even that can be set aside, except in situations where a paladin would willingly commit an evil act, or would otherwise grossly violate the code (an act that would have to be comparable to willingly committing an evil deed). In the case of such a transgression, the ex-paladin can still atone for his actions and regain the paladin status and powers. So, you know, a chill paladin player can totally let a few things slide in the name of greater good and still be on the up and up. If worst comes worst, he'll just have to act contrite and pony up a few hundred XP for an atonement, no biggie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Problem players come from problem mechanics!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Paladins work fine if the DM explicitly ignores what the system tells him to do. This does not mean alignment is not poorly designed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Theres no lack of games where the NPCs are the puppets of the PCs sociopathy. (Hello there Dragon Age.) If we get one where the NPCs have a stronger illusion of personal agency and independent moral/ethical stances then lets be happy about it, and extra-happy that it will be via Obsidian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
AXE COP posted:Paladins work fine if the DM explicitly ignores what the system tells him to do. This does not mean alignment is not poorly designed. I'm not arguing that alignment isn't poorly designed, but the system (well, at least D&D3.5) does not require the DM to ignore it for paladin to be playable. Here's the short version of paladin special rules: 1. Consistently act outside your alignment? Alignment changes, lose paladin-status. Pay 500xp for atonement spell to get back on track. 2. Willingly commit evil acts? You lose paladin-status. Pay 500xp for atonement to get back on track. That's not really a huge deal, is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Theres no lack of games where the NPCs are the puppets of the PCs sociopathy. (Hello there Dragon Age.) If we get one where the NPCs have a stronger illusion of personal agency and independent moral/ethical stances then lets be happy about it, and extra-happy that it will be via Obsidian. Dragon Age is actually a pretty bad example, because characters will leave and try and kill you if you do things they don't like. And you have to be explicitly sociopathic to stop it happening, it's literally a manipulate check, and even then there are some actions you can't get out of facing the character consequences for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Dragon Age is actually a pretty bad example, because characters will leave and try and kill you if you do things they don't like. And you have to be explicitly sociopathic to stop it happening, it's literally a manipulate check, and even then there are some actions you can't get out of facing the character consequences for. As much as I liked Dragon Age, couldn't you stand there and abuse the poo poo out of your friends then give them a pretty present and immediately regain all the trust and friendship you'd just destroyed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:As much as I liked Dragon Age, couldn't you stand there and abuse the poo poo out of your friends then give them a pretty present and immediately regain all the trust and friendship you'd just destroyed? That's also true. There were many ways the reputation system in that game was broken, but characters not responding to the stuff you do (outside of dialogue with them) wasn't one of them. No amount of presents could save you from Wynne and Lelianna trying to killing you if you desecrate the ashes after bringing them along, for example. It also did characters hating one another in a believable way without coming to blows. Lelianna and Morrigan would snipe constantly if they were in the party together, but there was no real threat of them killing one another. CottonWolf fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Theres no lack of games where the NPCs are the puppets of the PCs sociopathy. (Hello there Dragon Age.) If we get one where the NPCs have a stronger illusion of personal agency and independent moral/ethical stances then lets be happy about it, and extra-happy that it will be via Obsidian. verybad posted:I'm not arguing that alignment isn't poorly designed, but the system (well, at least D&D3.5) does not require the DM to ignore it for paladin to be playable. Here's the short version of paladin special rules: Jerusalem posted:As much as I liked Dragon Age, couldn't you stand there and abuse the poo poo out of your friends then give them a pretty present and immediately regain all the trust and friendship you'd just destroyed? I'd be cool with followers commenting on the PCs actions more than affecting anything. I would expect the reputation to be doing enough to external NPCs that any comments from party NPCs be flavor stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Problem players come from problem mechanics! DnD Rule #1 is "The DM can change the mechanical rules to fit the game the group is playing". Bad mechanics exist because of bad GMs that don't change them to fit their group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Wynne and Lelianna trying to killing you if you desecrate the ashes after bringing them along, for example. Not true!  Granted it takes a bit of game mechanic exploitation, but DA has a thing where you can change a couple party member's personalities a bit. I think it's called hardening or something like that. Basically you can harden Leliana so that she doesn't give as much of a gently caress if you do that thing you spoilered. Or if you left both of them back at camp, all you need to is pass a persuade check to lie to Lelianna, and Wynne's cutscene shouldn't happen. Manipulation yay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind party conflict as long as I could take the Mass Effect 2 option of potentially resolving their differences, either through diplomacy and understanding or by threatening to rip off their arm and beat them to death with the wet end. Of course, it would depends on how important the main plot is to the survival of the world (focusing attention to a common cause is a lot easier of it's XXurglax the Inconceivable trying to tear reality asunder, as opposed to King Bob rattling his saber again at his weaker neighbour).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:DnD Rule #1 is "The DM can change the mechanical rules to fit the game the group is playing". Bad mechanics exist because of bad GMs that don't change them to fit their group. Yes, I suppose if you change the problem mechanic it's not a problem mechanic any more. Is this supposed to be profound wisdom or something? Because Rule #1 of lots of other games is "You don't need to change the mechanical rules to fit the players because the rules loving work". e: like, the whole point of rules is to impartially arbitrate the system for you. if you have to intervene to arbitrate yourself, the rules have failed! jfc! Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 15:31
|
|