Does the player-created character have to act as party spokesperson?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've been trying to get some sort of answer on this since the project was announced.

 

In a party-based game, I really like to be able to create different kinds of characters without them needing to fill specific roles within the party (because there are other characters available to fill those roles). This allows me more freedom in crafting my character's background and personality.

 

However, if my character needs to act at party spokesperson, that means that I need to create a character who is capable of acting as party spokesperson. I'm not talking about stats - Tim's update made it clear that low Charisma or low Intelligence characters will be well-served by the written dialogue - but more about things like shyness and anxiety. If my character needs to act as party spokesperson, then I can't very well have him be afraid of people without breaking character whenever I initiate a conversation.

 

It's not a game-breaking issue, but it is a game-changing issue, and I'm curious to know in what direction Obsidian is heading. Will this be like PST, where the player-created character is always the party's spokesperson? Will it be like Baldur's Gate, where any party member can lead the party and act as spokesperson? Will it be like SoZ, where the party initiates conversations as a group, but then employs a different spokesperson as it sees fit?

[Captain Shrek]

It.... depends.

 

SOZ had a nice system where party synergy paid off. But that was because of the way how skills were available. In this game skills may be available to all and a similar party synergy may be NECESSARY or not depending upon how the points are allotted to these skills.

[jbrukardt]

I liked in BG how you could drag varying party members up to be the party leader

 

"Magic is impressive, but now Minsc leads. SWORDS FOR EVERYONE!"

 

And their stats would be applied to the conversation leads.

[Hormalakh]

This is an interesting question. What about some of the party characters "interrupting" a dialogue and saying what they think instead of you always having to speak as a dialogue option? It allows for more roleplaying and believability. It is a little convoluted however.

 

Even in BG2 if you dragged a companion up to be party leader, dialogue options would not change and it felt a little unreal for my other characters to say something that wasn't a fit for their character. Either they should not be able to be party spokespeople, or their dialogue options should change (slightly, if need be, just to get that characters feel) or be limited to what that character would do if they were the spokesperson. Minsc would never be spokesperson and attack innocents. Sometimes that was difficult to roleplay.

[Pshaw]

I like the idea of whichever party member you have selected initiating the dialogue. It will use their stats/race/class to determine the choices for the conversation. But beyond that I think the choices should then be limited to something that character would do. So for example if you had a lawful good type character, who was an elf talk to an NPC that would only converse with characters that were also elves or had high charisma they then could not choose bullying options or evil options. Perhaps if said NPC mentioned something that the character would really disagree with you'd be left with not choice but to fight them. This is provided they're one of the predesigned party members, not somebody you recruited from the adventures hall.

 

I'd like this sort of option as it would give the main character a more unique role in dealing with people directly but also allow for other party members to have a chance to be active participants in conversations from time to time aside from just commentary.

 

Also 1 of the very few things dragon age 2 did right was give you an option to have a party member step in for a particular bit of dialogue if they were in your party. Somebody suspicious of you asking about mages could be put at ease by having your sister show off a bit of magic. Various could smooth talk the parties way out of tight spots. I thought that worked very well as it made it feel like your party was more present than simply just reacting to what others were saying all the time.

[Hormalakh]

I remember a particular section in Baldur's Gate 2 where if you had Viconia, the duergar would speak with her and she would initiate the conversation for you. It's been a while since I've played that game, but I think they would otherwise attack you. That was interesting, and I would hope that there is more of that in this game. It makes writing and programming dialogue much more difficult though, as I understand it.

[deamon451]

If P:E was a complete player formed party like IWD then the SoZ mechanic would work great. With the developers giving us companions, the DA2 mechanic seems more appealing. If we are allowed to have some type of mixture like 2-4 player created PCs and 2-3 companions in the party then we could really have some fun.

[Ieo]

I suspect it would be closer to BG, but Obs might try something different.

 

One thing in BG (2, at least) was that even though the dialogue wouldn't change, that party NPC's stats actually counted. I remember distinctly that depending which party member was most proximal to a door in the Asylum, the guard's dialogue options would change based on that proximal character's INT or WIS. Since my PC had just average-ish stats in those, I had Jaheira or Imoen (forget who) auto-initiate that dialogue based on party position.

 

Interesting as that was, I don't like it, especially for those forced pause-dialogue scenes where some band of enemies swoop down on your party while you're walking through some area all spread out--and they manage to talk to Minsc first, with a super low CHA. None of that, please.

 

Allowing us to switch speaker upon initiation by the other party would be nice, or explicitly pick an automatic spokesperson in the GUI.

[rjshae]

I liked in BG how you could drag varying party members up to be the party leader

Yes, being able to arrange your party order was a nice feature of the IE games. I missed that in NWN2 and Drakensang.

[Feldoth]

I actually really disliked the SoZ party conversation system - it trivialized all dialog choices. Perhaps if the stat-based choices are not marked in any way then it could be workable. Being able to select a single person to hold a conversation wouldn't be so bad, but no full-party conversations (at least not without more restrictions than SoZ).

[HansKrSG]

I would like to choose for each conversation, so that my dumb uncharismatic fighter, who just happens to be at the front, don't have to try to charm the whoever we are suddenly talking to. ACtually, having someone chosen to be the "spokesperson" for the party, would not be a bad idea as a mechanic. You could have one party leader, and a spokesperson, who is as easily changed as the party leader in the IE games.

[Pope]

I don't like the idea of having companions act as the spokesperson. I liked the way SoZ allowed you to switch characters in dialogue, but unlike SoZ, PE is supposed to revolve around the player character.

 

Being able to choose what your companions say implies you are roleplaying them as well. You should only be able to roleplay the central hero of the game. IMO

 

 

 

*** eagerly awaiting the first person to say: “I don’t understand why anyone could be against this option. If you don’t like it just don’t use it.” ***

Edited October 18, 2012 by Pope

[Hassat Hunter]

The only problem I see with making it the PC is that it's forcing you to sacrifice stats and skills to become better at diplomacy.

Unless of course you want to play the game killing many stuff, and missing out on a lot of conversations (PS:T style missing out :/).

[Humanoid]

I would say both. To explain, the idea of choosing the best person for the job in most contexts makes perfect sense: your best bargainer engages the merchant, your best orator makes the rousing speech. But I'm also expecting interactions on a more individual scale: intra-party dialogue, for example, would make no sense whatsoever if you could pick the participants. And outside that, there are still situations where a conversation may be addressed to you specifically - if your father is talking to you, it's hardly sensible to delegate the answer to your friend.

 

I don't imagine it would be too much of a task to flag given conversations as player-character only.

[Aleron]

Personally I would want to play the character I created, but I don't mind the companions 'butting' in with their own remarks during the conversations to help (or hinder) your progress. Makes the world and interactions feel more alive that way.

[FlintlockJazz]

Something like SoZ would be good. Since these will be fully fleshed out PCs then they may only have dialog options if they have something relevant to say but if they can develop social skills they should definitely have an impact on dialogue. Having the dwarf ranger good at intimidation should be usuable for instance.

[FlintlockJazz]

To further elaborate, there should be at least one NPC who can step into the role of spokesperson if the PC doesn't do it. I know some may say that if you don't invest in a skill you shouldn't be compensated, but if you don't take lockpicking for instance you can always take a companion who does so why not? By making it so that only the PC can take it you either need to require the player has to take those skills or make those skills unnecessary to some extent (I know they plan on putting more than one way of doing things but they are even more limited in this regard.

 

As to the idea that you are then controlling and roleplaying your companions, well you already control them in combat anyway, and they can always refuse to go along with what you want them to say...

[Theobeau]

There was another thread on this topic a while back but no official news since then.

 

I'm sure there are many of us out there who are interested to see what version of party spokesman they take; the PC only; inter-changeable (which would mean more dialogue options and game build time) or some mixture where NPCs play a role such as interjection, adding or remove conversation options or have their non-combat skills add (or subtract) from conversation skill checks.

 

The latter two options would make a change from the tendency of newer cRPGs to have the PC the party spokesman.

 

The PC also seems always to have a gender non-specific surname or a title/rank that is the only name he/she is referred to the entire game!

[Jarmo]

I'd like if I could use other party members to speak, else you'd pretty much need a high cha high int character to get the "best" conversations.

Not DA:O where you need a high herba skill in conversation to heal a damn elven pony, keep trying and failing while your party's superhealer just sniggers down back.

 

But with variations out of your control, the barbarians could go directly to whoever carries the biggest weapon,

the mages would talk to a mage first, some would approach the highest charisma female...

 

And companions could butt in, more or less helpfully.

You'd be bluffing your way into the brigand camp, when the stoned monk would go "whoa man, is it time to kill that red fox dude already?"

[ogrezilla]

To further elaborate, there should be at least one NPC who can step into the role of spokesperson if the PC doesn't do it. I know some may say that if you don't invest in a skill you shouldn't be compensated, but if you don't take lockpicking for instance you can always take a companion who does so why not? By making it so that only the PC can take it you either need to require the player has to take those skills or make those skills unnecessary to some extent (I know they plan on putting more than one way of doing things but they are even more limited in this regard.

 

As to the idea that you are then controlling and roleplaying your companions, well you already control them in combat anyway, and they can always refuse to go along with what you want them to say...

that last bit I think is key. Companions will have their own personality so they should have different conversation choices than the PC. Their conversation choices should make sense for their character. If I have some super goody-goody paladin, I shouldn't be able to make him threaten to kill innocent people for example.

Edited October 18, 2012 by ogrezilla

[teknoman2]

my idea, that i posted in another topic about a month ago, is that companions should automaticaly give advice to the player during important conversations if they have any insight on the situation just like some did in BG. also you can have the option to ask their opinion at any time during a conversation or if you think one of them knows better the subject of the conversation you will have the option to pass it to him and he proceeds to talk for the group without you choosing his answers, just like at the start of arcanum, you could let Virgil talk to that hooded guy,

[Hassat Hunter]

I prefer that too.

 

Biggest issue would be, if you made a full custom team, they wont have that ability...

[Tusck]

I would prefer the conversation to include options for any member of your party to interupt and speak. I always hate that one person speaks and everyone else just sits there quietly. That doesnt happen in real life. It would be like the KOTOR system but instead of being a roll to win, you decide who speaks. That gives roll players options but powerlevelers can just choose the best option.

 

[evdk]

There will probably be instances where the plot demands the PC to speak for himself and "talk to my lawyer skillmonkey rogue" does not cut it.

Edited October 18, 2012 by evdk

[Pope]

I don't like the idea of having companions act as the spokesperson. I liked the way SoZ allowed you to switch characters in dialogue, but unlike SoZ, PE is supposed to revolve around the player character.

 

Being able to choose what your companions say implies you are roleplaying them as well. You should only be able to roleplay the central hero of the game. IMO

I just want to add that even though I feel you should not be able to choose what your companions say, they should have many interjections.