Earning your place as party leader

[Volourn]

"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."

 

This is justa s common in Obsidian games than BIO. And, there are plenty of times that there is no 'i win' button in BIO game convos. Why do people feel the end to make stuff up?

[septembervirgin]

I feel drawn to the idea that difficulty of earning ones place with ones companions should differ, depending on attributes and skills. One might be able to make ones time harder by devoting less interest to developing as a social being.

[Knott]

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.

 

The "wrestle" beetween the different player-controlled characters is something completely different from the GM's Favourite NPC. Because the GM's pet will be in there, just like any other player and no matter how good the GM is at moderating himself feigning ignorance, he will still know what happens next. And if the GM has decided his pet should be the leader then you'll have a hard time convincing him/her otherwise.

 

If the NPC happens to be the rogue, He will know where the trap is, and even if the char happens to fail at finding it, his behaviour after failure will always be affected by the knowledge of the trap, wether he decides to trigger it himself or not. And this is true for any other role that NPC is supposed to fill.

 

Thus such an authorative NPC should never stay with the party too long at a time, if at all.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Knott

[PsychoBlonde]

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.

 

Yes, let's have a fantasy game that's just like working in an office! You can have meetings. And meetings about the meetings. And a budget. And customer service objectives. And performance reviews. And that jerk in the office across the hall whose main output seems to be excuses for why he can't do any of the work he's been assigned. And someone who complains constantly that you don't respect them. And another person who doesn't like the tone of your emails.

 

Sounds delightful.

 

/sarcasm off

 

Seriously, though, I'll bet this would be insanely irritating if they actually took it seriously and made you spend time jollying your companions along every time you decided to do something. That, and implementing it would be a HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS. I mean, look at Origins. If you take Sten with you when you go to Haven, he gives you a little lecture about how this is pointless and you ought to be doing something else--and it still makes no sense whatsoever. He waited until you walked ALL THE WAY THERE before protesting?! I mean, you're HERE you may as well do the stupid quest now it's not like the hour and a half you spend hacking your way through the dungeon compares to the DAYS AND DAYS of walking you've already wasted.

 

What a headache.

 

I'm all for chatting with companions and having them (occasionally) question your leadership, but if they start acting like the obnoxious people in MMOS who think they can hijack your farming group to go do quest Y even though the Looking For Group CLEARLY stated that you were doing quest X at the moment, imma do what I do to said obnoxious people and boot them. Joining my party at all is predicated on you not being a Major Pain In My Ass About Everything.

[FlintlockJazz]

I think it's an interesting idea and one that would be hard to do as others have said. It would be nice for the game to not assume that I am some leader of men but by their nature party based games require you to be the leader so it would be hard. Perhaps a short sequence at the beginning to explain how you're the leader (since some of the games just seem to assume that you're the leader without ever developing how it came to be that way)?

[Nonek]

Thinking about it this could all be superfluous, there could be some strange happenstance that unites the npc's and protagonist in the narrative. Still nice to exercise the old noggin what.

[moridin84]

In most RPG games when people end up gathering together around you, there's normally a logical explanation of why they have done so. Normally common interests, goals, nothing else to do, etc.

 

For the player not to be the party leader... I don't know how that will work. It kinda restricts 'player freedom' if you can't go where you want right? Besides, you already get bossed around by other NPCs (kings and whatever) anyway, ain't that subservient enough for you?

[sparklecat]

I really like this idea, but it would indeed be a pain to implement. I could see it working if you opted into it by continually asking a companion what they thought, deferring to their opinion, etc., but someone else taking the control away and making you fight constantly to get it back would be annoying (though a short power struggle and then they back down could still work).

 

My most memorable Dragon Age: Origins playthrough was when I made a mage that I RP'd as a Chantry loyalist; in the absence of the ability to actually make Alistair take charge, as the closest thing to a proper Templar around, I took him around everywhere, paid close attention to what he thought about everything, and made decisions based on what I believed he'd approve of most. And in some ways, it was good for character development that I was forced into the lead role when it made my guy really uncomfortable to be in that position and felt unnatural for him, but if I'd really had the option to put the NPC more in charge, I'd have taken it.

 

One way it could be interesting is with some sort of mentor character at the beginning who starts off in control of your party, and depending on temperament, you can either start trying to take control early on, or be forced into it when they die via cutscene, and have to adapt.

[Umberlin]

I miss doing something a companion disagreed with and having them honestly get sick of my antics and leave. It told me who in my party really wanted to be there, and who honestly agreed with my methods. And that goes for any set of options. The things that would make Viconia leave were completely different than the things that might make Ajantis leave, as one example. That's another thing about being a leader, not just who is willing to follow you, and for what reasons, but why they'd stay under your command as well.

 

In terms of why they'd join . . . look at KotOR 2 actually, your actions on Nar Shaddaa would effect which of two possible characters would come with you. If you combine ideas like, "Why they joined you in the first place" with "Why they stay" and "Why they might leave" I think it makes your role as a leader more convincing. Obviously, yes, earn it, they're there for a reason, and if you're not convincing and trustworthy by their then why would they join you/stay?

 

Also such things make the role playing in the game more interesting, and have weight to them. The fact that you can point out examples in games where these things occured is also important, mostly because it shows that they're not only possible to implement, but that they've been implemented in the very style of game PE is pulling from.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Umberlin

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I would like it if companions had a bit more of their own opinions, and actually acted on them. One of the things I really didn't like in, DA2 was that, virtually no matter what happened, the party had no real divisions despite loyalty to Hawke (the PC) being the only thing putting them together. The Pro-Mage Extremist kills an innocent in front of the Guardswoman and the Anti-Mage Extremist - and yet they do nothing, despite hating the mage and hating the PC. If you try to keep a group of wildly diverging mindsets together, either there should be some other force keeping them together (like the threat of Apocalypse common to many games), or swords should eventually be drawn.

[Aldereth]

I suppose, the "tutorial section" of the game can kind of benefit from this idea. Have the party leader/boss/commander/ NPC gave the PC some jobs to do so that the player learn the ropes of the game system. This idea would become exponentially difficult as time goes by if we want avoid player complaint of railroading the plot.

[Osvir]

Oh it could so work:

 

Alistair: "You listen to me now! You are a recruit I am taking command and you will follow it, understand!?"

PC: "Yes, lead on Master"

Alistair: "Yes.. yes... right... party leader... uhm..."

PC: "Should I show the way?"

Alistair: "Err.. yes! Yes! You show the way minion! Bwahaa, party leader!!!!" (but only in theory )

 

EDIT: I forgot the point. I love this idea, but more inter-personal companion party banter thing. In theory, history and lore someone else could be the leader. Practically you are still in control, and could fight for the position of leader story-wise only.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Osvir