Iron_JG

Hey all, New to the forums, know this has probably come up before, thought I'd get some fresh discussion going, what the hell... How dynamic -- able to grow/change in their world views and behavior patterns -- should PE party members be? I've always enjoyed party members that really engage with the player, that try to understand/challenge their beliefs. Subsequently, I've always enjoyed knowing the player can significantly influence his/her companions. I think BG2 and DA:O had some really good examples of these, and kept personality changes as logical consequences of in-game choices and dialogue, rather than just min/maxing influence numbers. So, how do you want influencing party members handled? My thoughts: -- No quantified influence metrics. Make influence attempts depend entirely on dialogue choices/in-game actions. Gifts should be extremely limited. Players otherwise feel encouraged to roleplay inconsistently to chase after a high score. (Alternatively, players might still roleplay a diplomatic character that talks out of both sides of their mouth to keep the peace, but they don't need special incentive for that.) -- The player should be able to influence every long-term party member in some way. The changes can vary in significance/obviousness, but they should be there. I'm not arguing we should be able to redeem/corrupt every party member, but I think the hallmark of a meaningful relationship with a character is that it alters their behavior/outlook. With time and commitment, you might help a 'mercenary' companion find a purpose to devote themselves to, or reduce/reinforce some prejudice a closed-minded companion has, etc. -- Influence should feel like it works both ways. Party members should try to guide/manipulate the player, and push back if there's a contest of opposing viewpoints. -- The bigger the change to a party member, the more work and careful responses it should take. Generally speaking, if you really get to know someone, and can really build trust, you can make them veer far off their course. I liked how you could redeem Viconia, for instance, but keep in mind in took a LOT of time, and you had to show the right mix of strength and sensitivity. -- Party members should have breaking points, and turn against the player and other companions/NPCs if they do things unacceptable to them. -- Social skills should help influence party members without being an I-Win button. Persuasion, and even self-serving rationalization, should increase companions' tolerance for certain actions. For practicality's sake, though, it probably shouldn't play a role in pivotal moments in the companions' personal evolution. That tends to encourage meta-game munchkin-ness: "In the next room I can get the death knight to renounce his heathen god. Better switch out to my Fez of Convincing-ness, so I won't fail the check." -- Any special abilities or in-game rewards you get for influencing a party member, including items or stat buffs for them, should be limited or mostly for flavor, again to discourage meta-gaming. Lastly, bonus points if companions can influence each other as well, and the player can intervene or not as they choose. Thoughts?

@ Lephys You have a point. I've kinda taken it for granted with party-based cRPGs that I end up spending more time micromanaging casters, whether I like it or not. Thinking back over fights a little more, though, I've realized I spent a lot of time managing every party member, if not for abilities, then just for repositioning or assigning new targets. So I suppose durability shouldn't be a determinant for how much management a party member needs, and, yeah, every party member should offer worthwhile, active involvement over the course of encounters. Of course, some party members will get more focus in certain fights than others, but it should average out to everyone being worth direct player interaction. Part of the problem, I think, was that in many games, spells are so important to budget/time properly that I don't trust AI for casters like I do melee units. I guess what I was getting at was, if the game's going to force me to spend most of time with casters anyway, make sure melee units are more self-sufficient. But that's making a concession to bad AI/tactics settings, rather than asking they're, like, not bad.

I don't know about other people, but I couldn't help mentally 'playing through' Irenicus' dungeon when I saw it. So much nerd nostalgia! Also, the new dungeon does look really cool, and totally nails the IE look and feel. I haz excite.

I think the lesson of NWN2's OC is, more or less, to keep your narrative and resources FOCUSED. The OC had some good parts, and some good characters. But there was a lot of flotsam that got in the way. Many party members were redundant, one-dimensional and stereotypical. It was like a checklist of Forgotten Realms tropes and settings (indeed, the first NWN had more interesting henchmen, which was kind of sad really, considering how limited they were). This strained the narrative and required railroading player choice far too often. Something I despise in any game is being forced to use or recruit a certain party member. I seem to recall being frustrated as hell when I had to kick out Khelgar for Casavir, for instance. The game aimed for epic adventure with a great ensemble, and missed the mark hard. Its horrible attempt at a romance -- Elanee the druid stalker -- was particularly jarring. So I think the lesson from NWN 2 is a simple one: quality over quantity. A few well developed characters and settings are always better than a lot of half-realized ideas. MotB learned this lesson well, offering a few creative, engaging and surprising characters that told a meaningful, moving story. Other than story and plot tips, I'd say the lesson of NWN 2 is, for the love of your-deity-here, have a good interface. Damn but that game was clunky. Addendum: Someone mentioned DA2. I would say it was, overall, a much better game than NWN 2 OC, with interesting characters -- even the "stereotypical" ones like Isabela were still well done, IMO (you had to at least like her banter with Aveline). And, while the ending crapped out, the Arishok was still an excellent, somewhat tragic villain.

First off, let's not kid ourselves. We're not just playing for the story -- we're also playing for loot and power. I'd say story/character development is the main leg of the tripod here, but it still falls over without the other two legs of items and XP. We're pretty much all here because we love DnD games, which stands for... Dungeons and Dragons. Killing stuff and then taking its stuff is fundamental to the medium. To use BG2 as an example, I loved it when my paladin won Aerie's heart and helped Valygar defeat his literal and personal demons. But I also nearly jumped for joy every time I got my grubby mitts on Carsomyr after Minsc and Boo and I dealt irreversible damage to Firkraag's eyeballs. It takes several quality ingredients to bake a cake. That said, I think tangible and intangible rewards have to be balanced and logically doled out. If a quest rewards little money, it should give a cool item. If it does neither, it should reward experience or some other character development perk. If it does none of those, it's probably a side quest and it should lead to something bigger or just be a lot of fun to go through. However, I think replayability and logic dictate you shouldn't be able to get all the goodies, tangible and intangible, in one playthrough. I'd like to see rewards adapt/cater to a player's play style, where applicable. It'd be nice if a diplomatic party got items that furthered its diplomatic abilities or opened up special story lines, whereas a combat-obsessed party would get better overall fighting gear/spells. Now, games usually just have most/all items available, in one way or another, in every playthrough, meaning players see the whole "buffet," but still develop the party with what they choose to use. But having some items/abilities never revealed to certain play styles would make secondary playthroughs more surprising/interesting. Addendum and non sequitur: I want an awesome Holy Avenger. It should be so sexy, it hurts. I mean that in the most righteous way possible.

To be a little anal-retentive (as if that's something anyone around here should discourage:P), let's use 3rd edition as the framework for the OP's question. For a wizard/sorceror to cast a fireball, IIRC, they have to be at least level 5. So that spell represents significant investment and accumulated magical study, which no one can just jump into, let alone a warrior. But let's back up and make the example prestidigitation or some other 0-level, basic as it gets spell. The idea in most settings is that magic is so precise and demanding, and typically so non-intuitive, that it takes conscious choice and significant study to do any of it. There's a start-up cost to do any of it, even the easy stuff. That start-up cost is taking a caster level, which a fighter is generally free to do. Meanwhile, casters do not get, nor can they easily benefit from, most weapon and armor proficiencies. Fighters are getting things casters aren't, as casters get things fighters aren't. So DnD (at least through 3.5 edition, I'm not familiar with 4th edition) does the tradeoff fairly well. Warriors' abilities are generally more passive, but that's by conscious design -- they train like crazy to get amazing results with relatively simple tools, and directly overcome the brunt of most monsters' attacks. Stepping past DnD, even if casters can use all weapons fighters can, as so many posters have noted, using something and getting results with it are two different things. I would also encourage the OP to differentiate between the quantity of class abilities and the quality of class abilities. Again going back to DnD, a fighter will not be able to do as many things in a given encounter as a wizard, who might bring dozens of distinct spells to a fight. Does that mean the fighter is getting gypped? No, because his few abilities are, generally, really direct and effective. The wizard will also conclude, 99 times out of 100, that even his crappy spells would achieve better results than swinging a sword. If your ideal choice is never to use a certain vestigial ability, it's functionally equivalent to not having it, wouldn't you say? As an addendum, yes, warriors should have a good mix of active/passive abilities, so they're dynamic to play and not just a damage sponge. I would balance this by saying that, as tanky types, they should still require marginally less micro-managing than casters and other squishies. What's the point of durability if we can't neglect them some?

With respect to the OP, in BG2, and IWD2 as well, I think, certain spell scrolls were rare, particularly 9th level spells, though I concede there wasn't much more to acquiring them than finding the right vendor. I seem to recall some 3rd edition games -- maybe the original campaign of NWN2 -- where my wizards had to rely on metamagic feats to cast "9th" level spells. Like so many other mechanics in cRPGs, it's a balancing act. A player shouldn't feel artificially cheated out of their class's key abilities when they level up, especially at higher levels where the anticipation is greatest. I think for a wizard or other caster to not have at least a few top tier spells available as soon as they are high enough level to cast them is unfair and hobbles them. That said, I think having some abilities contingent on completing special quests or finding special trainers can be fun. So here are my thoughts on it: Casters should unlock a few spell options automatically when they level up, but those spells should be based on the main kinds of low level spells already in their repertoire. I don't know if P:E has spells divided into distinct schools, but it shouldn't be hard to say, "Okay, this guy has 5 illusion-based spells, 2 evocation spells, and 1 necromancy spell, so he gets to pick from 2 higher level illusion spells and 1 evocation spell, plus choosing 1 lower level conjuration or divination spell." That way you still get that sense of "building on what you know," while being able to diversify as a caster. But casters would be able to find more spells by finding trainers/merchants what have you. Kind of like with TES, the trainer/merchant could give you a quest or quests to earn their services. This would be fun, I think, but it would require a lot of design time, I bet, and there's another question of fairness raised: Would non-caster classes be neglected if they didn't receive similar content/mechanics? So a more a practical and also fun route would be to have special abilities that each class could unlock through special NPCs/events. I think good prizes here would be amplified versions of spells or abilities the character already has. Not knowing enough about PE mechanics, DnD analogues might be: being able to cast fireball-type spells with metamagic adjustments lowered by one spell level, or getting an attack bonus when dual-wielding (instead of a penalty), or being able to sneak attack certain kinds of constructs/undead. This could still represent the specialized training that really defines a character and their in-game, narrative-influenced choices. They'd also represent more permanent rewards for "treading off the beaten path" than extra loot would.

I prefer the idea of being able to toggle "maintain formation" as Sabotin suggested. Depending on implementation, maybe "move with slowest character" wouldn't be functionally different -- if it's fast/easy to turn on or off, then w/e. But having speedy characters for quick scouting is awesome and should stay. Question: Could there be an individual and shared action queue? What I mean is, a queue where a party member acts independently, and one where an action is specifically embargoed, so to speak, until another action occurs? Example: I want Fighter to continue hacking down Orc until it's dead. I queue hack-slash-chop (pretend those are special abilities) in his individual queue, so he doesn't really care what anyone else is doing. But I want Mage to cast Fireball on Kobold Jerk only after my rogue throws a flask of oil on him. I queue throw flask, then fireball in the joint queue. Meanwhile, their individual queues guide, if there are other commands (like Mage keeps throwing crappy darts at Orc, because it's super effective!). I know it may seem lazy on my part, or something to addressed through party member's tactics settings, but it seemed like a cool idea, and maybe a little more streamlined than a list of 20 "if, then" statements that you tend to manually override in most fights anyway.

Instant death spells don't really bother me in principle because they make sense. People are squishy. Even tough, experienced and well prepared people are only mildly less squishy. I think the biggest, and most legitimate, gripe I had with BG2 instant death spells is that, if you brought the party member back from some of them, they acted as though you had kicked them out of the party. That caused save reloading more than anything else for me. "Dammit Jaheira -- yes, fine, I conspired with the beholder to sabotage our romance by making you fail your saving throw versus petrification. You caught me." That aside, I don't think instant death spells are bad as long they fall into a hierarchy of counterable things. I don't even mind if the way to counter those spells isn't readily apparent in a first playthrough. If a game doesn't design at least a few encounters you're likely to lose on a first playthrough, when you least understand the game, it's given up a lot of its replayability through oversimplified combat. A death spell isn't so fundamentally different than a fighter who can stab you really hard, or a mage who casts a particularly devastating fireball. It's a peril that has to be neutralized, and it has its place on the spectrum of highly effective abilities. Micromanaging spell protections, armor, resistances, etc. are all part of what makes layered, interesting encounters. What bothers most people, I think rightfully, is an encounter that over-relies on an instant death spell, especially one that the player is extremely constrained in effective counters. *cough* Kangaxx *cough* Too often, I've sat at the BG2 character screen trying to decide whether I feel like killing Kangaxx or not, and if I'd commit to the few classes/resources that could beat him. If any boss, even a side boss, requires such a specific set of skills and preparations that it alters the entire rest of the playthrough, that's overkill, and pretending too much to be a Final Fantasy game. Encounters with dangerous enemies should be multi-faceted, not reductionistic, and instant death spells can contribute to that, as should an array of other highly dangerous abilities. They also need to logically follow from who and what you are fighting, meaning a clever, attentive player gets subtle hints (read: not npcs yelling, "OMG, durr, he's using the death ray!") that can make them more, but not completely, prepared for a fight. Along with that, I think major encounters should always preserve challenges of threat management -- the more you defend against one enemy ability, the more vulnerable you should be towards others. This balancing act is important to make sure the enemy is always dangerous -- bonus points if the enemy 'learns' during the fight, prioritizing abilities as it learns which don't work. Lastly, I differ from some people who want players and monsters to have the same instant death spells/abilities at their disposal. Monsters and other enemies often represent unique, supernatural creatures radically unlike party members. I've never felt cheated that a dragon has fire breath, but my rogue didn't, or that an iron golem had poison gas, but my fighter didn't (barring eating a +3 burrito of gastric annihilation). Unusual abilities, especially ones to which the party has no analogues, make encounters more surprising. I think we can agree, though, that party members should have a wide array of interesting abilities, some of which should eventually be really powerful and awesome.