ogrezilla

I think they should definitely be able to be influenced by what happens in the game. Different choices and events throughout the game could lead to the NPC companions having vastly different personalities. In a party-based game, I think we always have multiple PCs. Just some of them are pre-generated (like the PCs in tournament gaming you see at Gen-Con). and I disagree. We appear to be at an impasse.

good point

along the same topic, even though I don't like controlling exactly what companions who are already in the world say, if the game does allow us to have user created companions I would fully support having complete control over them. At that point you basically have multiple PCs

I apparently missed that bit. Then ya, for sure I agree. I already voted yes anyway.

It's not a question of the companion replacing the PC, as the PC never having occupied that spot in the first place. Why would any player just assume that the PC was party leader? goes back to how I view them. He is replacing the PC as who I control in conversation. It really depends on the game I guess. It works in Baldur's Gate, but it wouldn't work in PS:T.

Essentially allows other party members to chime in when they have something relevent to say. I see no reason why this couldn't be used in Project Eternity. If these characters have agreed to help the PC, then why should their help be limited to combat? A silver tongued ally could be very useful. ya my objection is less about having them involved in conversation and more about not wanting to be able to force them to say things they wouldn't say. I think I've been convinced its a cool system.

Absolutely. If the party takes a position the party-member will not support, then I would expect that party member to object, and probably leave the party if the party refused to change course. that would probably be enough to get me to support this. Though I don't think every decision would have to lead to the character leaving the party, they could be a step in that direction. Some options should have more severe consequences than others. As a whole though that sounds like a very fun conversation system.

Wait, what? That's not at all how Storm of Zehir worked, nor have I implied anything other than the complete opposite; Your control over the conversation would be even more complete than ever, and if you want it to be completely centered around your character, then by all means, only speak with your character. I know you didn't. I have never played Storm of Zehir. I never said you said that, I was just clarifying what I wanted and didn't want. My understanding is that the companions will be legitimate characters and not just stand in extensions to my party. I expect them to be actual characters involved in the story and the world like PS:T. Why would they take the time to create these characters and then don't actually give them any character. We control our character because he or she is us. We create him. He is who we control in this story. Otherwise I would expect icewind dale style party creation. Alright, so, assuming that you have played Planescape: Torment, then, check my reply to Infinitron on how Storm of Zehir-styled conversation could've worked in Planescape: Torment - and thus, by extension, of how I would want it to work in Project Eternity. Because the Project Eternity RPC:s should definitely be characters in their own right, not Storm of Zehir or Icewind Dale-like PC:s. that would certainly be interesting. Honestly, without playing SoZ its hard for me to say. As long as we can't force the characters to say things they wouldn't actually say I'd be cool with something like you described though. Basically, I don't want to control their personality directly. If they strongly disagree with the PC on a topic, the options I have for them in conversation should reflect that. Is SoZ more of a "group conversation" thing? I was thinking more along the lines of using a companion as a group spokesperson with him basically just replacing the PC in conversations. That I don't like. What you are describing seems pretty cool though. In Storm of Zehir, you create most of your companions yourself. During a conversation, you can switch between all of them as you see fit. Since most of your companions are player-created, they have identical conversation options, bar differences in skills or alignment. But you can also recruit a number of - in Storm of Zehir relatively shallow - RPCs, similar to almost any party-based RPG. Sometimes (very rarely in Storm of Zehir, which makes me sad), those specific characters get very specific options in conversations. There is, for example, a recruitable Shadow Thief in Storm of Zehir. There is a Shadow Thief NPC in an Inn. When you talk to that NPC, all the PCs have the regular conversation options, some may have an extra option because of high Intimidate, someone else has something else to say because they are Neutral Evil while all the others are Lawful Good, whatever. But you see, this one RPC, this Shadow Thief that we have recruited, if you talk with her, she has something special to say. Exactly what escapes me, but it is along the lines of "It is unexpected to see you here, <NPCname>, have you angered <GuildmastersName>?". It was heavily underused in Storm of Zehir, but I just love the idea of that system. Our character would be our character, recruitable characters would still be their own persons, but we would for once be able to control them in conversations, just like we control every other aspect of their development. What I want is a combination of this and, of course, regular interjections, for the situations in which the character in our party just can't shut up. Ya I could see enjoying something like that to a degree. I still would prefer more limited options with the NPCs if they are supposed to be their own characters within the game world. Though it really depends on the characters themselves and how they are written into the story.

Yes, in PS:T, I can't imagine any room for an additional player-made character (besides which it's impossible given the narrative and everything) or playing without party members because that would strip a very substantial amount of content from the game. I doubt this is true of PE, however, so there would be room for self-made parties in the name of tactical replay value for single-player campaigns. In BG, the only way to create a self-made party was to first create in MP mode and then move it into SP mode, right? That's a workaround, not an intended self-made party mode for SP. IWD was different, if I remember right, because you're required to build your party anyway. So the implementations were not equivalent in the least. But because this would still be played in SP mode, adding this feature wouldn't require concessions in the content that adding MP would--so I'd support this for replay value and for those folks who do prefer the tactical side (I remember that after I replayed BG2 so many times, I started making my own partial parties too). Basically the party interactions would be lost, but I suspect the vast majority of players will still play an NPC party campaign before jumping straight into the self-made anyway. We know that MP won't be implemented for both technical and content reasons, but adding this doesn't seem like an awful stretch because it's technically SP. ya most likely it wouldn't be a big problem. But if the devs choose not to include it, I bet its because of it not fitting similar to PS:T and not because they just don't want to include it. I would like it to be there if possible.

Wait, what? That's not at all how Storm of Zehir worked, nor have I implied anything other than the complete opposite; Your control over the conversation would be even more complete than ever, and if you want it to be completely centered around your character, then by all means, only speak with your character. I know you didn't. I have never played Storm of Zehir. I never said you said that, I was just clarifying what I wanted and didn't want. My understanding is that the companions will be legitimate characters and not just stand in extensions to my party. I expect them to be actual characters involved in the story and the world like PS:T. Why would they take the time to create these characters and then don't actually give them any character. We control our character because he or she is us. We create him. He is who we control in this story. Otherwise I would expect icewind dale style party creation. Alright, so, assuming that you have played Planescape: Torment, then, check my reply to Infinitron on how Storm of Zehir-styled conversation could've worked in Planescape: Torment - and thus, by extension, of how I would want it to work in Project Eternity. Because the Project Eternity RPC:s should definitely be characters in their own right, not Storm of Zehir or Icewind Dale-like PC:s. that would certainly be interesting. Honestly, without playing SoZ its hard for me to say. As long as we can't force the characters to say things they wouldn't actually say I'd be cool with something like you described though. Basically, I don't want to control their personality directly. If they strongly disagree with the PC on a topic, the options I have for them in conversation should reflect that. Is SoZ more of a "group conversation" thing? I was thinking more along the lines of using a companion as a group spokesperson with him basically just replacing the PC in conversations. That I don't like. What you are describing seems pretty cool though.

It largely depends on how involved in the story the companions are I would think.

Wait, what? That's not at all how Storm of Zehir worked, nor have I implied anything other than the complete opposite; Your control over the conversation would be even more complete than ever, and if you want it to be completely centered around your character, then by all means, only speak with your character. I know you didn't. I have never played Storm of Zehir. I never said you said that, I was just clarifying what I wanted and didn't want. My understanding is that the companions will be legitimate characters and not just stand in extensions to my party. I expect them to be actual characters involved in the story and the world like PS:T. Why would they take the time to create these characters and then don't actually give them any character. We control our character because he or she is us. We create him. He is who we control in this story. Otherwise I would expect icewind dale style party creation.

ya, a little of that and a little of just separating gameplay from story. As far as the story goes I see my companions as an extension of the world, not an extension of me. If I can control everything they say, why don't we just make our party like Icewind Dale? I don't have a problem with that style. I just don't think that's what they are going for here. They are going for strong characterization with these companions like PS:T had, and giving me control of their conversations kills that. btw, I don't expect to have full control over their class or stats either.

Are you not able to perceive your PC as a real person? If you think it would be out of character for a particular companion to speak on behalf of the party, then don't have him do that. I perceive the PC as me. I perceive the rest of my party as separate people with me. I can't control what people with me say. I can try to convince them, but I can't make them. I want direct control over what my party does, and speaking is a thing they do. Internally, I don't mind if they voice dissent or raise concerns or argue, but when dealing with the world the party speaks as one. if that's how it works I won't really be too upset. But I would prefer if that's not the case. I want my party to feel like real people. I'd honestly rather they just aren't included in conversations with the world than have me control what they say. So you're fine with controlling how they develop, who they talk to, who they fight, how they fight and when they fight, as well as what objects they pick up, and the clothes they wear - but when it comes to picking what they say, that's suddenly "Too much"? To me, preferably I would be able to pick what they say, in addition to their interjections (where appropriate). simply put, yes. Though I don't know if we can force them to talk to people at all. The difference between most of those things and this is conversations have to do with the story whereas everything else like combat and leveling up is pretty much purely gameplay. I don't want to send a companion to talk to someone and then watch a conversation I can't control. I want to have conversations focused around my character.

I think that's where I stand. I'm used to, and welcome, companions interjecting and possibly providing success through those interjections. But I'm not comfortable with SoZ style picking and choosing who says what to get the maximum benefit. Unless the conversation system becomes Alpha Protocol levels of complex and companions replace stances. Now that would change my mind. You mean like having "Bob, take it from here." as an option, and then he (or whomever) starts talking with no input about what he says, like an on-demand party interjection (or for a better example, the option for Virgil taking over the conversation with the guy you meet when leaving Shrouded Hills in Arcanum)? I can see that working really well, possibly even better than the SoZ-style dialog, especialy since the party is going to be mostly companion NPCs. I would love the option of sending my companions to talk to people. Say there's some drunk I need to get some information from, I would love the option of sending the bosomy rogue companion to talk to him or to send the big scary fighter to go threaten him. I would have to have proper relationships with the companions and maybe have to deal with the possibility of them not doing exactly as I would like them to do. Maybe don't even let me see the conversation, I just have to take their word for it when they come back and tell me what happened. Would add a very different relationship where you have to earn trust with companions. Or that might work horribly and end up being an awful design. But its interesting to me.

I want direct control over what my party does, and speaking is a thing they do. Internally, I don't mind if they voice dissent or raise concerns or argue, but when dealing with the world the party speaks as one. if that's how it works I won't really be too upset. But I would prefer if that's not the case. I want my party to feel like real people. I'd honestly rather they just aren't included in conversations with the world than have me control what they say.

But a buckler isn't supposed to absorb the damage. A buckler deflects the blow, and because it's so small and light it's possible for the user to move it very precisely to achieve that end. Against the Ogre with the mace, that should still work (though I could also imagine a strength requirements to deflect blows beyond a certain level of force). And for things like dragon attacks, I'd suggest making those sorts of attacks un-deflectable, so a buckler would be worthless. But if your dex-based character is getting stepped on by a dragon, you have bigger problems than equipment selection. some sort of differentiation between deflecting an attack and blocking/absorbing an attack could be a good way to implement the difference between shield types. And attack types for that matter. Worth the resources to implement? I don't know. But interesting to think about.

I like the idea of companion interjection. I don't want direct control over what my companions say though.

But it isn't better than a buckler in all situations even though in most games it would be. The biggest advantage of a larger shield outside of obviously being a bigger target is that you are able to brace it against your body to take a bigger blow. A buckler can't really do that since its small and in your hand. A buckler is better at deflecting attacks whereas a larger shield is more capable of absorbing an attack because you can get your whole arm and shoulder behind the block more easily. A buckler would do very little against a big ogre with a hammer because the arm alone isn't going to be strong enough to absorb a hit. Basically, a buckler seems like it would be better for a more aggressive fighter who wants to deflect an attack and counter where a larger shield is better for simply defending yourself from heavier attacks.

Walking back to town is not the problem I have. My problem is when walking back to town is the only thing I have to do to get more resources and I am free to walk back to town at any time with no consequence then I would absolutely prefer to just have unlimited of those resources. That wouldn't make the game any easier than it already is with the old IE system. It would just make it less tedious. That also wouldn't be my preferred solution to the issue. I would prefer if resource management was made more important in general. Walking back to town really isn't enough of a consequence to actually care about strategic resource management. Never in any of the IE games did I feel like managing my resources was an important part of the game because I could simply go get more whenever I wanted. Potions and Scrolls: I hope these are rare or at least really expensive. I don't want to be able to constantly be drinking potions. If I run out of potions, I shouldn't just be able to walk back to town and get more. I should have to finish what I'm doing without potions. Tools: Similar. If I run out of lockpicks, I should have to deal with the consequences of that. Maybe I can't unlock everything I'd like to unlock. Simply going back to town for more is not a consequence, its a waste of time. Spells: Don't set up a great spell system where I have to make careful use of my spells and then completely ruin it by including a rest system that allows me to get the spells back anytime I want. This is more of a problem with the rest system than the spell system. It worked well for big fights because you had to pick the right spells, but it just encouraged rest spamming any time you had multiple fights in a row. Carrying Capacity: I love the idea behind it. But again, if all it does it require me to go to town and sell stuff, it really doesn't do anything. It should actually encourage difficult choices. You can loot and sell every single item in most of the old games if you don't mind a little inconvenience of walking back to town. Make me leave stuff behind if I can't carry it all. Food: Same as potions or tools or ammo. If I have easy access to unlimited food, then there is no real reason to add a hunger mechanic. It adds nothing to the game. Either make food something that is difficult to manage or leave it out entirely. Go back to the example I gave before about choosing between buying necessary supplies like food or arrows or a new sword. Has the added benefit of encouraging non-combat skills like hunting or crafting. Ammo: Same as food except even in the old system I liked that stronger ammo was limited. I'd prefer for it all to be limited like I said above for food. Walking back to town is not a good enough consequence to be the only consequence for resource management no matter what the resource is. If walking back to town is the only thing I have to do to get more resources and I am free to walk back to town at any time with no consequence then I would absolutely prefer to just have unlimited of those resources. That isn't my first choice, but I would prefer it to the tedium of walking back and forth for no real good gameplay reason. That underlined bit is where I expect you to strongly disagree with me. That's fine. I just don't enjoy tedium for the sake of tedium. I don't think you are really disagreeing with my preferred system where resource management is actually strategic and an important part of the game. Its my alternative solution that you don't like.

ya I don't think anyone is suggesting they remove the in game companions. That I would be against. But I really like the idea of being able to hire mercenaries during the game and just let you fully customize them then. That way you still have your single character to start the game so that the story can be properly started how the developers design it. But then once its established that you are a part of an adventuring party, you can add a few extra mercenaries that don't really have a story influence but at least it makes sense why they are there. Or you can ignore it and just use the in-game companions.

The need of resupply? In RPG? Unbelievable, that shouldn't be! And the best thing is, you can say THE SAME THING about EVERY supply. And it means, you are once again in nonsense mode. What will you say, if I put this into your mouth: Ok, it's getting boring. Besides, I hope Eternity will have also item fatigue, like Betrayal at Krondor or Arcanum. Just think of it: you have to repair your gear or WALK OUT OF A DUNGEON to get it repaired. And strangely, you've been able to write something reasonable at the end: the bottom was the whole point. The rest are examples of poor design. If a problem can be solved as simply as walking back to town (and isn't a story element like actually talking to someone), then its hardly a problem even worth having in the game. I would welcome a design where either there are real consequences with my supply management, or don't make me waste time with my supply management. The middle ground where supply management is simply something I occasionally have to do is boring and completely unsatisfying. Never once did I run out of arrows in an old IE game and it led to a memorable gameplay experience. I would love if I had to actually be smart with my arrows. But every single time I ran out of arrows I had the same reaction. "Oh, now I have to walk back to town." It didn't matter where I was or what I was doing. My punishment for running out of arrows was a walk back to town. It didn't add any difficulty to the game. It didn't add any strategy to my preparations. It wasted a few minutes of my time. So in my opinion, it should either have real implications on the game or it should just be removed. I would prefer the former. And yes, this goes for any resource management in the game. Healing potions, gold, carrying capacity, lockpicks, spells, food or brushing my teeth. If they want to require me to go to the bathroom every so often or risk my armor rusting, do it in a way that is satisfying or leave it out entirely. Pretty much everything you changed my post to is something I can agree with. And pretty much all of them can be fixed by having a consequence for leaving a dungeon unfinished. I don't really want it to reset, so I'm not offering a solution to this one actually. In general, I don't enjoy tedium for the sake of tedium. My solutions would tend to side on adding more difficult and valuable choices instead of removing the aspect that can cause the tedium. Don't get rid of the carry weight limit, force me to leave stuff behind. Don't get rid of limited healing, force me to get through the haunted forest with only that limited amount of healing. But then the forest needs to be designed with that in mind.

this is very true.

First you spew your nonsense about easy difficulty, now you seriously consider unlimited ammo a good idea. Good, good. Keep going! Now, back to the topic. There is a satisfying way of implementating food and hunger, without turning a game into roguelike. Basically, food is a numeric resource, like money. Food is a "fuel" for health regeneration during rest. No food, no health restored. Then, if character doesn't eat too long, he get "starving" attribute, which means he's not only unable to regenerate health, but also loses it periodically. This goes with appropriate penalties to stats. Example: Albion and two previous games from Amber cycle. I would actually prefer it if the game was designed so that the limited resources like arrows or food were implemented in a way that was actually satisfying. If I can only carry a limited number of arrows and I can't just stop at any moment in any dungeon and go back to town for more, I would actually be careful with arrows to make sure not to run out. But in the old games if I ran out I would simply stop what I was doing, go back to town for more arrows, and then come back to what I was doing. It added nothing of value to the game. Having food on a similar system wouldn't either. If limited supplies are going to be a gameplay mechanic, design the game to actually make those mechanics matter. If I run out of arrows in the middle of a dungeon, I should have to find more arrows or switch to a sword. But if fixing the problem of hunger or a lack of arrows simply means walking out of the dungeon and buying more food or arrows then you haven't added anything of value to the game, you have added tedium. It doesn't matter what the punishment for going hungry is if food is too easy to acquire. You could instantly drop dead if you forget to eat and it wouldn't matter as long as I can simply waltz my way back to the inn to get more food. Limited resources need to actually be limited if they are going to have any value. That goes for food, ammo or even just gold. Don't make gold too easy to come by. If you have a limited amount of gold and food and ammo aren't dirt cheap, that could solve all of these problems all at once. Now you actually have to sacrifice buying that new sword if you want to buy more arrows and food. That would allow non-combat skills like crafting or hunting to be very valuable too. but please, keep putting words in my mouth.

It depends.