1 PC plus companions, or create multiple characters (plus companions?)

[Sylvius the Mad]

The traditional approach in modern CRPGs is to have the player create a single character and then collect companions along the way.

 

But some do it differently. Icewind Dale. Storm of Zehir. Wizardry 8. And even BG and BG2 using multiplayer mode. These games allowed us to create the entire party, or multiple characters who together collected yet more companions.

 

I would favour at least the option to create more than one character (and so far, that's what I'm expecting Eternity to offer). After all, it's a party-based game. The entire party is effectively made up of player characters - we just don't necessarily create all of them ourselves. There is, therefore, no reason to limit us to just one player-created character.

 

Also, this would then virtually assure another feature I value, which is the ability to use any party member as party spokesperson. I loathe how most newer games force us to use the player-created PC as party spokesperson, even if there's someone better suited to the job available.

 

We can assign combat roles within the party unconstrained by which character is player-created. We should be able to assign non-combat roles similarly.

 

Thoughts? Should we be allowed to have more than one player-created character in the party?

[Pop]

I think that the creative lead has said that Obsidian had mulled over the choice between BG- and IWD-style parties and decided to go with the former. So, possibly, but even if you are allowed to make a party, the first one you make will be the one the story revolves around.

[Gurkog]

I am hoping that the recruitable companions have their own personalities and quirks that alter what you can do with them or what they will do without your consent. The idea would be to give them pseudo AI so that they will react to the main character's actions, the personalities of other companions, and how much attention/neglect they receive from the main character. Adds a touch of unpredictability and emotional investment.

[duskwind]

I would favour at least the option to create more than one character (and so far, that's what I'm expecting Eternity to offer). After all, it's a party-based game.

 

It's also a roleplaying game, and having multiple PCs isn't very compatible with that. I like games with good intra-party interaction, and that's entirely absent in a purely multiple-PC party, and problematic with a mix of multiple PCs and NPCs (how do the PCs interact with each other? how do different PCs interact with the same NPC?). Pen & paper RPGs are mostly one character per player; why should computer RPGs be different?

 

It's good to have NPC companions participating in conversations with other NPCs, and it might be nice to have the option of asking an NPC companion to handle certain conversations where it clearly makes sense, but they shouldn't be directly controllable; they're individuals with their own agenda who won't necessarily do things the way you'd want.

[HangedMan]

In Arcanum, early on, you can get your first companion to do some talking for you. Something like that would be pretty cool, imo; so if you want to play a neanderthal-ish barbarian, you can, and you can go "Uhh... robe-man. You make the talky at him/her/it", and then it's kind of out of your hands.

[Bill Gates' Son]

If none of the NPCs are forced in your party, then the ability to create your own NPCs should be an option at least, like in BG1+2 multiplayer. Sometimes it's fine going Icewind Dale style in your games to maximize the stats in your party.

[Hoverdog]

I would favour at least the option to create more than one character (and so far, that's what I'm expecting Eternity to offer). After all, it's a party-based game.

 

It's also a roleplaying game, and having multiple PCs isn't very compatible with that. I like games with good intra-party interaction, and that's entirely absent in a purely multiple-PC party, and problematic with a mix of multiple PCs and NPCs (how do the PCs interact with each other? how do different PCs interact with the same NPC?).

Isn't? Party-building crpgs probably outnumber single Pc+recruits at least two to one. And they are absolute classics: Dark Sun, Wizardries, Might&Magic, Gold Box games, Realms of Arkania, etc.

On a sidenote, one character you build on your own in Wizardry 8 has more personality than all those in dragon ages piled up together. Being player-built does not mean it's a soulless zombie.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I'd really like BG style options here, just as an option. Especially since it looks like we'll have very few recruitable NPCs.

[Jozape]

From GameBanshee:

 

Players take on the role of a single fixed character and are accompanied by companions throughout the game, similar to Baldur's Gate.

 

And in the interview Feargus also stated that they were shying away from the Icewind Dale style create your own party style, I'm pretty sure.

 

I would favour at least the option to create more than one character (and so far, that's what I'm expecting Eternity to offer). After all, it's a party-based game.

 

It's also a roleplaying game, and having multiple PCs isn't very compatible with that.

 

Nonsense. If you can role-play 1 character, you can role-play 4 like in Wasteland. And Wasteland is one of my favorite RPGs.

 

I like games with good intra-party interaction, and that's entirely absent in a purely multiple-PC party,

 

It is if you don't create any inter party interaction yourself. After all, they are your characters. You're supposed to be role-playing them.

[Troller]

why play in a party with other 5 characters you made, that are just mindless drones, there's gotta have some personality to them imo

[evdk]

why play in a party with other 5 characters you made, that are just mindless drones, there's gotta have some personality to them imo

They are only mindless zombies if you build them that way. See WIzardry 8. Why must everything be a colossal LARP nowadays?

[GhostofAnakin]

I prefer it where I create my character, then meet/recruit my companions along the way. The main reason for this is, IMO, it allows the developers to give companions a personality and background that you (the player) learns about over the course of traveling with them. In terms of companions, it's why I liked the PS:T and BG companions a lot more than the companions I created for IWD.

[Enoch]

I'd argue that the "1 PC + joinable-NPCs" party setup plays more into Obsidian's strengths as a studio. When you're desiging the entire party, non-partymember interactions (most of which tends to be combat) and overall plotting have to be enough to carry the game and hold the player's interest. And joinable-NPC interactions have long been one of things that Obsidian-folks tend to do better than most.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Enoch

[Ashram]

I would prefer the Icewind Dale style over just one PC. Storm of Zehyr did a nice job by allowing you to interact with different team members throughout the dialogue, using different skills, personalities, etc to further the storyline. I enjoy making different character types and then adding in NPCs as we go along. Maybe make it so that we can make up to 4 PCs and then have room for 2 NPCs. If you want to play with more NPCs, just don't make more characters.

 

It really shouldn't be that hard to implement and it provides players with options.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If they going with the single player-created PC, I implore them to let us use any party member as party spokesperson, just as BG and BG2 allowed (in BG the option was even documented, so we know it was intentional - in BG2 it appears to have been an accident).

[Raithe]

The question of multiple npc's will also mesh into whether they're npc's who only have their own story, or whether they're actually tied into the main plot.

 

We want npc's to have depth and not just be autonomatons that follow along to shoot, stab, or throw fireballs at thing.

If you create random characters to fill out the party, they won't really get any depth or storyline beyond what you imagine. That's the major downside to that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The question of multiple npc's will also mesh into whether they're npc's who only have their own story, or whether they're actually tied into the main plot.

 

We want npc's to have depth and not just be autonomatons that follow along to shoot, stab, or throw fireballs at thing.

If you create random characters to fill out the party, they won't really get any depth or storyline beyond what you imagine. That's the major downside to that.

I continue to insist that whatever story the developers write is always just flavour text that fleshes out the setting. The story that matters is the one the player creates through his roleplaying choices.

 

This is the authored narrative vs. emergent narrative debate, and I'm staunchly on the side of the emergent narrative.

[Playgu]

Keep both options available, like it was in BG. Most people would probably prefer to play with pre-determined companions the first playthrough, and make their own party for later playthroughs.

[Merin]

The traditional approach in modern CRPGs is to have the player create a single character and then collect companions along the way.

 

But some do it differently. Icewind Dale. Storm of Zehir. Wizardry 8. And even BG and BG2 using multiplayer mode. These games allowed us to create the entire party, or multiple characters who together collected yet more companions.

 

I would favour at least the option to create more than one character (and so far, that's what I'm expecting Eternity to offer). After all, it's a party-based game. The entire party is effectively made up of player characters - we just don't necessarily create all of them ourselves. There is, therefore, no reason to limit us to just one player-created character.

 

Also, this would then virtually assure another feature I value, which is the ability to use any party member as party spokesperson. I loathe how most newer games force us to use the player-created PC as party spokesperson, even if there's someone better suited to the job available.

 

We can assign combat roles within the party unconstrained by which character is player-created. We should be able to assign non-combat roles similarly.

 

Thoughts? Should we be allowed to have more than one player-created character in the party?

 

My friend, you KNOW how I feel about this (my group over on BSN is titled Party of Six, after all)...

 

but I'm fairly certain that Obsidian has stated that they are going the "make your main PC, recruit your companions" route. Which is not my preference, but I'm okay with it. Maybe, if they include a co-op mode, we can get that "multi-player forced let you make your own party" trick like in the BG series. I'd be cool with that option as well.

[Merin]

I would favour at least the option to create more than one character (and so far, that's what I'm expecting Eternity to offer). After all, it's a party-based game.

It's also a roleplaying game, and having multiple PCs isn't very compatible with that.

Nonsense. If you can role-play 1 character, you can role-play 4 like in Wasteland. And Wasteland is one of my favorite RPGs.

I like games with good intra-party interaction, and that's entirely absent in a purely multiple-PC party,

It is if you don't create any inter party interaction yourself. After all, they are your characters. You're supposed to be role-playing them.

 

Yep. Yep. And yep.

 

Wasteland FTW!

[Gurkog]

When playing PnP games do you play as the entire party? I prefer role playing 1 character at a time and it just feels like having a tea party with my imaginary friends when I role play an entire cast of characters. Tea parties are not very exciting, imo.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

but I'm fairly certain that Obsidian has stated that they are going the "make your main PC, recruit your companions" route.

I'm getting that impression, but that should still leave open the option to create 2 or 3 (or 6) characters and then recruit companions to fill any gaps.

 

I'm just looking for any way to have the one player-created PC not be forced to act as party leader and party spokesperson.

[Shadenuat]

When playing PnP games do you play as the entire party?

DM does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

When playing PnP games do you play as the entire party?

PnP games are multiplayer games.

 

When translating the multiplayer tabletop experience into a single-player CRPG, should the player fill the role occupied by a single player in the tabletop game, or the role occupied by all of the players in a tabletop game, or the role filled by the GM in the tabletop game? And perhaps most importantly, why force everyone to answer that question the same way?

[Merin]

DM does, yep.

 

PnP are multiplayer gamers and you have to adjust for single player cRPGs, yep.

 

Also -

 

I've played plenty of tabletop RPGs where the players control multiple characters. It's sometimes called troupe play. Some games are buildt for it, some allow for it, some don't mention it (but can't stop you from doing it.)