Earning your place as party leader

[Nonek]

What if it were not taken as a given that our protagonist was master of all he surveys, what if he had to work to persuade the party to follow his course, and pursue his personal objectives.

 

Currently doing a playthrough of Origins, and the character of Alistair has gotten me wondering what would happen if the man had possessed a functioning spinal column, if he had taken control of the party and decided its actions and strategy after the battle of Ostagar. Say for instance he had chosen which quests to pursue and we had merely a chance at persuading him otherwise within dialogue and asking additional questions, so that originally it seems we are more a junior partner in his struggle against the blight.

 

If we kept persuading him to follow our path or challenging his decisions eventually we'd have to resolve our roles within the party, through persuasion, threats, violence or even blackmail we might try to seize control. Obviously other party members would have something to say on these matters, and an unpopular player character might be challenged by all and sundry if he tries to seize control without the proper legwork. Then again the opposite might be true, and a protagonist who has pleased all the companions and advised the party leader well might be approached to lead the party as everybody sees the benefit of his leadership.

 

Would this be feasible I wonder, would it create too much of a dissonance when we are controllling the party but our character is not the primary decision maker. Would it take away too much of our sense of agency, when we are not driving the plot but rather steering from the sidelines. We could still be fairly free in the short term, free to wander where we choose within areas, begin converstaions with who we please and conduct business with merchants and craftsmen, but in the long term we'd be bound to follow the party leaders mandate and path. Or perhaps work against it, so as to harm his reputation?

 

I'm not sure what to think of my own idea honestly as I can think of as many bad points as good, and it might be a nightmare to implement.

[nikolokolus]

It's an interesting idea but one that probably won't fly. CRPGs are by nature player character centric since you drive the action

[Nonek]

Yeah I just thought it would be interesting to enable a more logical and legitimate rise to power, within the party framework, but I can see the downsides.

[AuroraDragonKaya]

I think that could make for a really cool game. Not this game, but a fun one to play.

 

In a less brief explanation, a game like that, the game mechanics would probably change, as the manipulation and rise to power would become one of the core concepts, and mechanics would have to be created to support it. If they weren't, it would feel tacked on and weak. If they were, it'd lead to a game with a completely different feel.

I would like to play that game someday, but I don't think that's what project eternity is.

[Knott]

Its certainly an interesting idea, but take this tabletop example:

 

How would you feel if the leader of the party was the GM's favourite NPC?

[Volourn]

I've done it in pnp. Depends on the players and characters involved.

 

As for a CRPG, won't really work as I don't see any player going along with it. I can see you having a NPC trying to take control and the player either kicking said PC or simply leaving the PC. This only works if the PC allows it. This kinda happens in DA when Sten heavily disagrees with the PC and fights them for control.

 

Good idea in theory... not so good in practice.

[Pangur]

I would like to play such a game. Seriously, that's a great idea. Certainly not for PE, but for a completely different game I think it can work.

[Sistergoldring]

I think it is an interesting idea and I'm not sure that it wouldn't be feasible in some way. I think you'd have to resolve the power struggle early on and then proceed as party leader but it could open up a nice avenue for conflict and companion interaction and I don't think it's been done before. I'd play.

[LadyCrimson]

Definitely would be interesting, but not sure how it'd really work for a game where you're supposed to be the protagonist. You could create a game where your character is not the main protagonist, but if they then became the main protagonist at some point, via making choices that cause others to follow, you'd be back to the more typical story arc again.

 

Which isn't to say it couldn't be done/wouldn't be intriguing to try. I'm just struggling a bit with trying to think of how one could present it without feeling too distant or contrived, in a video game.

[Nonek]

In practise I can see it being a jolly old pain if implemented poorly, but in some ways I can see it working. The game would (I think) play out exactly the same in all respects except for two points, conversations and area transitions.

 

1. In conversations it would be the party leader initiating and guiding the conversation, with our dialogue skills allowing us to chip in and highlight points he may miss or investigate options he is not interested in.

 

2. The party leader would decide on which area you next travel to, reflecting his personal agenda, but this is one of the points where you can challenge, persuade or browbeat him into changing his destination.

 

Obviously the endgoal of this particular situation would be to wrestle control of the party from him as soon as possible, and thereby pursue your own goals without the need for the challenge, ergo as a few people have said it becomes the standard game. But an even more interesting proposition might be to play the party leader like a marionette, be his loyal Grima Wormtongue all the way until the game ending.

[Volourn]

No PC would ever stay in aparty where they were a slave to an NPC's whims. None. Zilch. Zero. It just wouldn't work unless you made the NPC unkillable and forced the PC to go along with it.

[Nonek]

No i'd say that killing the party leader is a perfectly valid option in such a game, especially if done well. One of many options to get your own way. You could slaughter him and roar at the other party members that you're the daddy now, for the more berserker type chap. You could poison him or use other underhanded methods, and perform a fairly bloodless coup. It would simply be a matter of finding a way to nobble his efficacy, circumvent or totally neutralise it in some manner.

 

For a dialogue based character it would simply be a few more opportunities to use the old gift of the gab.

 

But i've got to agree, it could be seriously frustrating to be constantly having to steer a character in your own direction, especially when we're used to being the undisputed final authority.

 

Ah well just kicking the old cranial hamster wheel.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why are we assuming the PC is the party leader? If I design a PC who isn't well suited to leading the party, he shouldn't then be the one leading the party.

[Zero]

Would this be feasible I wonder, would it create too much of a dissonance when we are controllling the party but our character is not the primary decision maker.

 

I think this would be the main problem. Gameplay-wise it makes more sense to go with an action/adventure format for combat and such if you are controlling a character who doesn't have much control over others simply because there is no reason for them to in most instances.

[Tauron]

You make interesting point, but my character as companion would at some point have to leave that group.

 

In BG i didnt have my character as party leader. It was usually the one with most charisma that I liked to do the talking.

[Nonek]

Oh the player would still have total control over the party as always, just not the protagonist character. Only the narrative choices would be railroaded if we fail to intervene successfully, well in my mind anyway.

[AuroraDragonKaya]

Its certainly an interesting idea, but take this tabletop example:

 

How would you feel if the leader of the party was the GM's favourite NPC?

I've been in games like that. :/ I really don't find them fun. But I'm one of those people who's of the opinion that those games are for the players. They're the main characters, always.

[Starwars]

To explore the venue properly, I think one would have to devote a game more or less to that idea. At least that's my feeling when just thinking about it casually.

 

But even so... With our main character being party leader. I would love it if the "followers" just plain put a bit more pressure on you than we typically see. Lots of RPGs have companions that may speak up to you, but not much ever comes of it even if you disagree or talk down to them or whatever the case. It'd be nice if the companions really could stand up to themselves in a sense.

 

Of course, this is also something that sounds interesting on paper. But it would be a very, very thin line between 'interesting and challenging' to 'whiny'.

[Flying Magician]

I want treacherous NPC who will try to kill the main character in sleep. It can happen after several unpopular decisions or when player tries to sexually engage them.

[RosesandAshes]

Currently doing a playthrough of Origins, and the character of Alistair has gotten me wondering what would happen if the man had possessed a functioning spinal column, if he had taken control of the party and decided its actions and strategy after the battle of Ostagar. Say for instance he had chosen which quests to pursue and we had merely a chance at persuading him otherwise within dialogue and asking additional questions, so that originally it seems we are more a junior partner in his struggle against the blight.

 

Have you not played the Darkspawn Chronicles DLC? If not, GO AND PLAY IT RIGHT NOW!

 

Anyways, more on topic, I like the idea of my companions not just being "yes people" and having their own agendas and such, including trying to kill me if I do something they don't like, but I don't think the PC having to earn party leadership would really work.

[Gurkog]

As long as there is no Biowarian 'I win' option in each conversation to keep companions from leaving. There should be no logical way to talk an NPC into doing something against it's values and expect it to stick with you through the end. Sure some companions would be more malleable than others, but there should always be a line that when crossed can not be undone.

 

EDIT: It would be awesome if the offended companion that leaves tells of your exploits and motives to organizations/factions opposed to your goals. It could add extra challenge when the player burns bridges!

Edited September 29, 2012 by Gurkog

[metiman]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. Well except that it was inspired by one of the worst computer games ever made. I'd very much like to sell EAware on the idea of mass suicide.

[duskwind]

How would you feel if the leader of the party was the GM's favourite NPC?

 

How would you feel if it was one of the other PCs, rather than yours? Which is most of the time.

 

It's easy enough to come up with a story reason why the PC has to stay with the party whether they like it or not. But it probably isn't a good fit for what we know of the Eternity story.

[metiman]

Uh. What do we know exactly about the Eternity story? I've heard they don't even have much of a story yet. Just a few ideas about it. Making a story is one of the things we are paying them to do and they haven't been paid yet.

[Nonek]

Well there is the option to solo the game isn't there, so even if the idea I suggested were implemented, you could still toddle off and do your own thing at any point.