Jump to content

Talking to people with your companions


Recommended Posts

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.

This would drive me nuts. I'm not playing a single character - I'm playing the party.

 

If I'm only playing one character, then I shouldn't get to decide what skills the other characters use, what tactics they employ, what equipment they use - any of that.

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

Edited by ogrezilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOZ style is poor here espciially with npcs. I'd love ifn the npcs can interject themselves in convos but the PC shouldn't be able to 'select' them to do so.

 

 

"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."

 

These are great ideas.

 

 

"This would drive me nuts. I'm not playing a single character - I'm playing the party.

 

If I'm only playing one character, then I shouldn't get to decide what skills the other characters use, what tactics they employ, what equipment they use - any of that. "

 

PE is you create one characetr and you have joinables join your party. They are individuals with their own minds. This isn't IWD or SOZ where role-playing doesn't really exist and you are controlling a multi headed monster.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This would drive me nuts. I'm not playing a single character - I'm playing the party.

 

If I'm only playing one character, then I shouldn't get to decide what skills the other characters use, what tactics they employ, what equipment they use - any of that.

 

I guess it depends on if you can see all the battle-related options as *commanding* the party via the main character rather than playing it, even if you do have direct control of what they do and use.

Edited by Foefaller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Actually, both modern and old games did not set these things in stone. Companions had their own class you won't be able to change, they could disagree to do business or talk with somebody, who to fight (that was even in BG1), how they fight, again, is set in their class, some games do not let you control their tactics, and overused for examples Planescape has very strict rules of what every companion can wear.

 

The good stuff about lot of isometric oldies is that they do not go for absolutes. They maintain party members unique characters, but without hurting the gameplay too much. Go too much "paragon" old-school, and you are in a world of Sylvius-the-control-freak. Go too much "herpaderp", and you are in Mass Effect with unlockable outfits and shooting moles with pause. And I feel PE is exactly going to "hit the spot" and mix combat, narrative and control.

Edited by Shadenuat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on if you can see all the battle-related options as *commanding* the party rather than playing it, even if you do have direct control of what they do and use.

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.

Edited by ogrezilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love to see this happen. A similar game I recently played was Dragon Age, loved how the companions butted in on the conversations with their personal thoughts and also that they talked with eachother without my interaction. It really made me grow fond of some and sick of others (in a good kind of way). I really felt for alot for some of the characters in that game and loved to see some of them make a comeback in the expansion Awakeneing. It was like seeing a good old friend.

 

I really liked that a lot too. Made me pause what I was doing just to listen to them. I got the biggest kick out of Oghren.

I suppose it would be way too much to expect the main character to actually have voice, like in DA2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

 

I don't want to send a companion to talk to someone and then watch a conversation I can't control. [...]

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.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

 

I don't want to send a companion to talk to someone and then watch a conversation I can't control. [...]

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.

Edited by ogrezilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

 

I don't want to send a companion to talk to someone and then watch a conversation I can't control. [...]

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.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

 

I don't want to send a companion to talk to someone and then watch a conversation I can't control. [...]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That's where we differ. The PC is not me. I'm the player. I don't even exist within the game's reality. So having the companions talk isn't an instance of the PC making them do something, but instead an instance of them agreeing to do something the party wants them to do.

 

And I get to decide whether they agree.

SOZ style is poor here espciially with npcs. I'd love ifn the npcs can interject themselves in convos but the PC shouldn't be able to 'select' them to do so.

The PC doesn't select anything. The player does.

PE is you create one characetr and you have joinables join your party. They are individuals with their own minds.

Just like Baldur's Gate, but BG didn't force the PC to act as party leader or party spokesperson.

 

So clearly that's not mandatory.

This isn't IWD or SOZ where role-playing doesn't really exist and you are controlling a multi headed monster.

Roleplaying exists in IWD and SoZ. It's just not the player in control of one character only. IWD and SoZ, in fact, solve the incongruous problem that exists in games like DAO or NWN2 where the player controls everything about all of the party members, except during conversations.

I guess it depends on if you can see all the battle-related options as *commanding* the party via the main character rather than playing it, even if you do have direct control of what they do and use.

Then it shouldn't work when the PC is unconcious. But it does. Therefore, I'm playing the whole party.

ya, a little of that and a little of just separating gameplay from story.

Gameplay/story segregation is the devil.

  • Like 1

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

 

I don't want to send a companion to talk to someone and then watch a conversation I can't control. [...]

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.

 

Edit:

Gameplay/story segregation is the devil.

Hear, hear!

 

In a roleplaying game, the story should be considered a part of gameplay.

Edited by Luckmann
  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

 

I don't want to send a companion to talk to someone and then watch a conversation I can't control. [...]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

zehir04.jpg

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking more along the lines of using a companion as a group spokesperson with him basically just replacing the PC in conversations.

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?

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

zehir04.jpg

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking more along the lines of using a companion as a group spokesperson with him basically just replacing the PC in conversations.

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.

Edited by ogrezilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Absolutely. A SoZ-system should not come at the expense of interjections. Interjections and banter should still be there for all those times an RPC feels a need to speak up, depending on their character.

 

In a roleplaying game, the story should be considered a part of gameplay.

I might phrase that in reverse, and say the gameplay is part of the story.

Potato/Potato. Point just being that they should be considered integral parts of eachother. Seperating between them on principle would be a horrible decision.

 

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.
Indeed; If there is an Aerie character, she shouldn't have the option of saying "Stop teasing me and just put it in!", or anything along those lines. All options in conversations should be appropriate for that character. Sometimes these would be general things identical to what the PC could choose, sometimes it would be just a little bit different, and sometimes it just plain shouldn't have the same options.

 

Clearly only the PC should have access to the widest range of options, since his or her character would be entirely undefined; murderous or noble, you'd have the full range of picks. Keldorn, Dak'kon or Kaelyn the Dove never would.

Edited by Luckmann

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

It was heavily underused because it would require a ****load of writing and scripting, and SoZ was a low budget expansion. Guess what else is low budget?

 

Besides, in addition to those few unique lines that the NPCs got, they also had the exact same generic lines that your PCs had. That wouldn't work with this type of game.

 

You're basically asking for a game that would work like SoZ but feel like Planescape Torment, but there's a reason games like that don't exist.

Edited by Gorth
Language filter is there for a reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...