Debate: Hirelings & Henchmen

[Monte Carlo]

Consider these two quotes from this thread:

 

This is from Jumjalum:

 

HotU did not have the same party system as BG or PST. In the BG games you told each party member exactly what to do at each moment, in the NWN expansions the henchmen followed you around and cast what the AI deemed the appropriate spells. BG = party based since you have exactly the same level of control over the party members as you have over the main PC. NWN does not = party based since you dont directly control the party members other than some very basic commands and the ability to tell the AI what way you want it to fight.

 

And this is from Volourn:

 

You don't know what party based means then.

 

A party, by defintion, is multiple adventurers traveling together. Even the OC has a party by defintion. Period. AI or player controlled is irrelevant to whether or not a game is party based.

(the italics are mine, of course)

 

---

 

I won't hijack that thread, but Volourn brought up a point there that piqued my interest. Although I agree with him technically, (more than one character of course constitutes a "party") in spirit I cannot. This is because of one simple point which I submit is pretty difficult to rebut:

 

Current technological restrictions cannot possibly create totally satisfactory AI for joinable NPCs.

 

OK, you can have that lame menu system a la NWN ("stay close/ use missile weapons/ use buffing spells" etc) but it really isn't the same, is it? A quick perusal of even the most drooling fanboy forums will find commonality between, say, Fallout fans and NWN fans: that AI-controlled NPCs are a pain in the butt. Especially in combat, which is a big part of CRPGs.

 

OTOH, plenty of people find the utter and complete tactical control of, say, BG2 equally frustrating. Micromanaging the inventory, skills, spells (etc) of one 25th level character is pretty tough, but six?

 

I should come clean here: personally I love to be able to have utter control of the aforementioned issues, but I was originally a wargamer and that's where I'm coming from. If I want, say, Minsc, to suicidally engage the enemy from a cetain direction whilst drinking 'X' potion whilst using 'Y' High Level Ability then I want to unambiguously enjoy that perogative. I don't want some lowest common denominator AI to make that decision for me, thankyou very much.

 

I think that the compromise should come in at another level, which was oft-discussed during the development of Jefferson/ BG3; that of character allegiance/ development and loyalty. In BG2 there were certain crunch points where NPCs would leave your party based on decisions you made; that is fine by me as long as I also got to make the important decisions tactically.

 

What do you all think? Do you reckon that existing implementation of NPC AI is going in the right direction? Is the apparent drift away from full-party control in modern CRPGs evidence of dumbing down or an elegant shift from tiresome micromanagement? Enquiring minds need to know.

 

Cheers

MC

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Consider these two quotes from this thread:

 

This is from Jumjalum:

 

HotU did not have the same party system as BG or PST. In the BG games you told each party member exactly what to do at each moment, in the NWN expansions the henchmen followed you around and cast what the AI deemed the appropriate spells. BG = party based since you have exactly the same level of control over the party members as you have over the main PC. NWN does not = party based since you dont directly control the party members other than some very basic commands and the ability to tell the AI what way you want it to fight.

 

And this is from Volourn:

 

You don't know what party based means then.

 

A party, by defintion, is multiple adventurers traveling together. Even the OC has a party by defintion. Period. AI or player controlled is irrelevant to whether or not a game is party based.

(the italics are mine, of course)

 

---

 

I won't hijack that thread, but Volourn brought up a point there that piqued my interest. Although I agree with him technically, (more than one character of course constitutes a "party") in spirit I cannot. This is because of one simple point which I submit is pretty difficult to rebut:

 

Current technological restrictions cannot possibly create totally satisfactory AI for joinable NPCs.

 

OK, you can have that lame menu system a la NWN ("stay close/ use missile weapons/ use buffing spells" etc) but it really isn't the same, is it? A quick perusal of even the most drooling fanboy forums will find commonality between, say, Fallout fans and NWN fans: that AI-controlled NPCs are a pain in the butt. Especially in combat, which is a big part of CRPGs.

 

OTOH, plenty of people find the utter and complete tactical control of, say, BG2 equally frustrating. Micromanaging the inventory, skills, spells (etc) of one 25th level character is pretty tough, but six?

 

I should come clean here: personally I love to be able to have utter control of the aforementioned issues, but I was originally a wargamer and that's where I'm coming from. If I want, say, Minsc, to suicidally engage the enemy from a cetain direction whilst drinking 'X' potion whilst using 'Y' High Level Ability then I want to unambiguously enjoy that perogative. I don't want some lowest common denominator AI to make that decision for me, thankyou very much.

 

I think that the compromise should come in at another level, which was oft-discussed during the development of Jefferson/ BG3; that of character allegiance/ development and loyalty. In BG2 there were certain crunch points where NPCs would leave your party based on decisions you made; that is fine by me as long as I also got to make the important decisions tactically.

 

What do you all think? Do you reckon that existing implementation of NPC AI is going in the right direction? Is the apparent drift away from full-party control in modern CRPGs evidence of dumbing down or an elegant shift from tiresome micromanagement? Enquiring minds need to know.

 

Cheers

MC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I used to think full AI control for companions was a great idea. Then I played NwN.As BG already handled the RP side of companions better than NwN did anyway there is no roleplaying advantage unless your one of those people who just cant play more than one character.

[Oerwinde]

OTOH, plenty of people find the utter and complete tactical control of, say, BG2 equally frustrating. Micromanaging the inventory, skills, spells (etc) of one 25th level character is pretty tough, but six?

 

What do you all think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree. There shouldn't be so many epic leveled characters. Keep it around level 12.

 

Anyway, as for the party based thing, I think it really depends what kind of game you're going for. Sometimes I like the BG style NPCs, and sometimes I like the Fallout style. The Fallout style ones are more like NPCs, while the BG style are more like pre-generated PCs. So if you think about it that way, its almost like using AI controlled characters is more party based than if you control them all, because if you're a lousy roleplayer all those characters are just you.

 

Personally I have no preference, as long as theres good party interaction, which there was in BG and PS:T but there wasn't in NWN or Fallout.

[Llyranor]

I could care less. I don't use party members/henchmen/whatever for combat purposes. I let them stay in the party for story purposes. I want to see their personality and how they interact with you and other NPCs. I don't want them to be robots who only say a sentence here and there during major story cutscenes. If that's the case, then they fail as party members and I could care less how useful they are in combat.

[Monte Carlo]

I agree. There shouldn't be so many epic leveled characters. Keep it around level 12.

 

That wasn't what I was saying: I'm completely cool with managing any number of uber-level characters. However, I can see why some people might not be.

 

I enjoy characters developing and getting more powerful. The challenge for the developer is to pace that progression satisfactorily. What happens in your game where everyone is level 12? Where do they go? What do they do? The game ends?

 

I'm not putting an arbitrary limit on it, but at the end of an epic CRPG I want to be able to kick almost everybody's butt... it's fantasy, not a day at the office.

 

Cheers

MC

[Monte Carlo]

I could care less. I don't use party members/henchmen/whatever for combat purposes.

 

Hmmm. So you prefer games where you can solo and just have talking tamagotchis to sustain your interest? Surely you recognise that having a balanced party for tactical reasons is as much a part of CRPGs as the story-telling? Or do you only play Planescape on a loop?

 

Cheers

MC

[Oerwinde]

I agree. There shouldn't be so many epic leveled characters. Keep it around level 12.

 

That wasn't what I was saying: I'm completely cool with managing any number of uber-level characters. However, I can see why some people might not be.

 

I enjoy characters developing and getting more powerful. The challenge for the developer is to pace that progression satisfactorily. What happens in your game where everyone is level 12? Where do they go? What do they do? The game ends?

 

I'm not putting an arbitrary limit on it, but at the end of an epic CRPG I want to be able to kick almost everybody's butt... it's fantasy, not a day at the office.

 

Cheers

MC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hehe, I was just poking fun. I think too many games go all freaky with the levels. I agree that there should be no level limit, but through good game design and available experience you limit the levels. I think crazy high levels limits sequel opportunities. Like with KotOR, a lot of people were pissed off that you couldn't play as Revan in KotOR 2, well thats because he was level 20 and nothing could challenge him anymore. End the first game around level 8-12, and you could have easily brought him into KotOR2. Personally I liked using the Exile instead, but with lower level limits it increases sequel possibilites.

[Monte Carlo]

Yeah. People actually got annoyed about the Throne of Bhaal.

 

Er, excuse me? The whole story arc concerns the protagonist's immortal heritage. It's also axiomatic that [A]D&D campaigns usually involved attaining extremely high levels, with rampant munchkinism and Monty Haul levels of loot.

 

Duh.

 

People were annoyed with TOB because it was too accurate; it utterly replicated the pen & paper high level AD&D experience.

 

Cheers

MC

[Magnum Opus]

For me, the issue between "party-based" and "henchman" is purely semantic. It started with NWN. Before that, you had the BG Total Control system we're all so familiar with. Outside of a few carefully scripted conditions, the NPCs might as well have been created by the player regarding the amount of control we have over them.

 

Then NWN came along with a very different system. They'd essentially do whatever they wanted, with some input from the player now and then. The devs and the NWN community needed a way to differentiate this style of NPC from the ones we all knew. They used the term "henchman."

 

*shrugs* That's about it for me. When I'm looking at a game to see what kind of combat it has, I'm going to assign certain meanings to certain terms... terms that I might assign a different meaning to in different contexts.

 

Yes, if in the game the henchmen are following me around so closely and we're all working toward the same ends, I'm going to consider them in my "party", no matter how foolishly they may be acting (whether it's intentional or the result of poor AI). If I'm reading a discussion on combat systems and NPCs and I hear the term 'henchman', I'm going to associate it with those suicidal clods I preferred to use as recurring XP farms instead of the BG-style of NPC.

 

It's all about context.

[Loof]

I prefer AI controlled partymembers/NPC's since I like to focus my roleplaying to one character and I think it lessens the roleplaying feel if I have total control of the other partymembers. Probably because I'm a pen and paper gamer at heart and I never play more then one character at a time in PnP (although I know some people do).

 

That being said it's not a make or break issue for me, just a small preference...

[aVENGER]

Current technological restrictions cannot possibly create totally satisfactory AI for joinable NPCs.

 

While I generally agree with you here, I still believe that the AI implementations we've seen so far have only showed a small part of their true capabilities. This especially stands true for the NWN1 henchmen AI.

 

I remember, way back when NWN first came out, people immediately started noticing gaping flaws in the henchmen AI (i.e. casting Sleep at Undead creatures, steeping over traps instead of disarming them etc.), but then one of the community members actually decided to do something about it, and within a few months, he created and implemented a set of much more advanced AI scripts. Now, my question is, if this was already possible from the start, then why on earth didn't the developers do it themselves right away instead of waiting for the expansions? The answer is probably the same one which we get when considering the shortcomings of many recent day games - inadequate development time.

 

 

I should come clean here: personally I love to be able to have utter control of the aforementioned issues, but I was originally a wargamer and that's where I'm coming from. If I want, say, Minsc, to suicidally engage the enemy from a cetain direction whilst drinking 'X' potion whilst using 'Y' High Level Ability then I want to unambiguously enjoy that perogative. I don't want some lowest common denominator AI to make that decision for me, thankyou very much.

 

This is a very good point. While the AI can be substantially improved in many areas, it could never react to a given tactical situation in a way a human would. Sure, one can script multiple approaches to many events, but the trouble is coordinating all those scripts into something meaningful. For example, even a simple thing like pulling off a spell combo (i.e. free action + web + spider spawn) can be extremely difficult to program and execute properly with multiple AI controlled characters.

 

What do you all think? Do you reckon that existing implementation of NPC AI is going in the right direction? Is the apparent drift away from full-party control in modern CRPGs evidence of dumbing down or an elegant shift from tiresome micromanagement? Enquiring minds need to know.

 

To summarize, while I think that the AI can never truly replace full human control in terms of tactics, I strongly believe that even the current AI capabilities have not been exploited to their fullest potential. Hopefully, upcoming games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and TES4:Oblivion will actually deliver what they promise, and finally bring us some actual Artificial Intelligence. :cool:

[Nightblade]

I'd love to see a combination of the two. If the purpose of having AI controlled companions is to increase the roleplaying "value" or so, why did I feel that BG was much more of a roleplaying game than NWN?

 

Here is my opinion: Let a character join your group. Let him voice his opinions, let him show who he is and what kind of character he is by talking to the other group-members. Also, he could come up with ideas during combat and/or do his own thing unless the group-leader (you) orders him to do otherwise. If the group-leader orders him to run out and perform some suicidal action, it should be a companion will vs. leader char/will save to see who wins the debate. For instance, you order a brave and loyal fighter to charge out and fight three hard oponents. He obeys, i.e you win the debate easily because of your companions personality, and because you're a good leader. Then you order a neutral-evil thief to do the same thing, he refuses because you were a poor leader, or because he won the roll.

 

A scenario like this would make for much better roleplaying imho. Something actually happens between the characters, and you get to be a part of the drama. Whether or not I get to micromanage the companions' inventory, or tell them which spells to pick when they level is unimportant RP-wise, but important for me as a player and leader of the party. I'd like to micromanage. That's what the game is all about. Playing the game, not watching it happen. Of course, maybe there could be some debate as to which spells the mage should pick. As a leader I might suggest something, but he could refuse and pick something else. Another RP situation.

 

The point is, micromanaging the party doesn't necessarily ruin the possibility of RP. Having some red-tiger clan Orc barbarian running around killing everything in sight isn't my idea of good RP. It's just annoying, plain and simple. Having that Tomi/Tommy character running over to every chest he can see to pick their locks is not necessarily PR either. You just get to be a helpless spectator who no longer runs the game. If I want to see a movie I'll go rent a movie.

 

 

N.

[Rosbjerg]

^ my thought exactly!

 

but the reason why NWN felt less like RP than BG to me, was because of the poor story and bad writing .. BG felt engaging and NWN felt annoying!

 

I still think you can make a good RPG with AI controlled partymembers .. by implementing some of the above features like the will save etc .. the henchmen of NWN felt very lifeless to me .. and felt more like hollow partymembers, and I can live with hollow partymembers if I can control them .. (like playing single multiplayer in BG)

[Volourn]

"the henchmen of NWN felt very lifeless to me"

 

The OC didn't haven't henchmen. It had hirelings. Actually, technically, it had expert hirelings. BG had henchmen.

 

And, to me it doesn't matter how dumb or smart the AI is or how much control a PC has over the npcs; a party is any group of adventurers (group meaning 2+) travel.

 

Of course, the ideal party imo is 3-6; not 1 or 2.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I won't hijack that thread, but Volourn brought up a point there that piqued my interest. Although I agree with him technically, (more than one character of course constitutes a "party") in spirit I cannot. This is because of one simple point which I submit is pretty difficult to rebut:

 

Current technological restrictions cannot possibly create totally satisfactory AI for joinable NPCs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But how does this invalidate that they, in fact, constitute a party? Does a party of adventurers only become as such only if and when their AI is satisfactory? Would an opposing group of enemies be considered only a group of enemies, instead of a party, because they has weak AI? This to me seems to be the equivalent of suggesting that, under the same game, a party of 5 characters with poor AI, and the same party with advanced AI, are labeled as different things, simply because of the disparaging levels of AI routines available to them.

[Ellester]

People were annoyed with TOB because it was too accurate; it utterly replicated the pen & paper high level AD&D experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I hated it because it was a 100+ hour game packed into a 30 hour game. Play one screen, everyone levels up at least once and you find a few new items for Cespinar to forge into super weapons. Cromwell forged about 8 items in a 100+ hour game and Cespinar forged about 24 items in a 30 hour game. You leveled from level 8 to level 16 in 100+ hour game, but you leveled from 16 to 32 in a 30 hour game. It was one Boss battle, explore another screen, then another Boss battle repeat at lightning speed and then the games over. This story and plot needed to be spread waaaaay out. So, because everything was crammed into such a small expansion, and everything was accelerated it ruined the ending of the Bhaalspawn series for me. Very sloppy, imo, and I found it to be too unrealistic and it had nothing to do with high levels and phat l00t.

 

First off I

[Nightblade]

I still think you can make a good RPG with AI controlled partymembers .. by implementing some of the above features like the will save etc .. the henchmen of NWN felt very lifeless to me .. and felt more like hollow partymembers, and I can live with hollow partymembers if I can control them .. (like playing single multiplayer in BG)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, if your companions don't perform very well, the leader might as well micromanage them.

 

In a PnP game the group gets together and plans a strategy. At least we did when I played PnP D&D. Why shouldn't the leader in a crpg be able to do the same. I'd like to order the thief to wait at a certain spot before he runs in and backstabs, while the mage casts 'hold', and the fighters charge in to keep the opponents busy.. etc. You know, strategy. And if one of the lightweighters carry too much, I'd like to order the strong-man to carry some of their eq, i.e be able to go into inventory and move items over, dress/undress etc.

 

I don't see why this should ruin the rpg atmosphere in a game.

Also, it can't be much trouble to implement both both options, seeing as there are two groups of people here, those who would like to control it all, and those who would rather control just one character. It's just scripting anway, and it shouldn't be too hard to just toggle it off, if that's what some people (like me) want. The "mad AI henchmen running around doing crazy stuff" -option would still be available to those who like that approach.

 

 

N.

[Volourn]

My opinion as a long time DM si the dumbest AI henchmen is more intelligent than the most intelligent PC.

 

Game over.

[Drakron]

My opinion as a long time DM si the dumbest AI henchmen is more intelligent than the most intelligent PC.

 

Game over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Really?

 

So tell me, how many players go across a dungeon alerting everyone in their path to unlock a chest ...

[Volourn]

"So tell me, how many players go across a dungeon alerting everyone in their path to unlock a chest ..."

 

Lots.

[leombruno]

Full control party members in IE games kind of put me off to the games after a while. In those games that feature allowed you and the crack commando squad to be almost unreasonably effective as you swarmed and swept the maps with basicly perfect soldiers. The battles felt and looked like multiple good players playing a shooting game together...units all had the same perfect awareness of the entire battle and reacted in perfect unison. So perception and reaction of the so called characters was always out of character good. The result was chaotic but no simulation of actual 'real fighting chaos'. Don't know if I am expressing my opinion very well...

 

Moral was almost never an issue and characters did what ever you wanted or had to while you weren't looking like out of character slaughter of accidentally hostiled towns person or whatever.

Also off puting were some of the aspects of 2eD&D and how it was implemented in IE games. Such as warriors being able to run right past each other safely due to static attack and damage chances. Walling off enemies with my fighters took some stupid tap dancing since they couldn't simply cut down foes who weren't properly defending themselves. A lock on forced engagement feature would have been nicer, with a counter of skills like tumbling or expertise to by pass them.

 

I can go either way tho AI(if 'good enough') or full control with some checks and balances to keep characters performance more inline with their fantasy world abilities rather than their full exploitable potential in game.

 

basicly JA2 squad battle=good. BG2 or IE squad battle=bad.

[Loof]

basicly JA2 squad battle=good. BG2 or IE squad battle=bad.

 

My thoughts exactly, but in my eyes JA2 isn't a RPG...

[Nightblade]

So perception and reaction of the so called characters was always out of character good.  The result was chaotic but no simulation of actual 'real fighting chaos'.  Don't know if I am expressing my opinion very well...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The good coordination could be a result of planning. Have you not seen how the military commando squads plan their attacks?

Have you seen the movie "Executive Decision" ? :D

When they enter the flight cabin, it's all planning and coordination. One wrong move and the team is dead. I think you could expect the same from a party of adventurers who travel with each other for years. Of course when you take in a new companion you'd expect some confusion, but I don't think 'fighting chaos' necessarily makes for better roleplaying. If it's "realism" you want, I'd much rather start with game graphics - i.e medieval clothing and atmopshere instead of the consol-like fancy_skimpy_clad_wizard_chick and the big_brave_bodybuilder_barbarian look which is the style of every crpg nowadays.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

There is a bit of a catch 22 with AI. If it's poor it spoils the believability of the game. And if it's too good, then your character will be reduced to being a spectator while the super AI cleans up.

 

You can see the beginings of it even with NwNs poor AI when you have two fighter types. Most encounters your participation is optional as you just shepard them around.

 

If you have more AI companions the effect becomes more pronounced, even more so if they are well programmed and efficient.

[Rosbjerg]

There is a bit of a catch 22 with AI. If it's poor it spoils the believability of the game. And if it's too good, then your character will be reduced to being a spectator while the super AI cleans up.

 

You can see the beginings of it even with NwNs poor AI when you have two fighter types. Most encounters your participation is optional as you just shepard them around.

 

If you have more AI companions the effect becomes more pronounced, even more so if they are well programmed and efficient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well aren't you forgetting that it works both ways?? if you AI partymembers have a better AI, so will your opponents!

it's about difficulty, increase the enemies abilities and you will see a sever decrease in your own party's effecienty!