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

[Hormalakh]

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?"

 

LOL I'm imaging the monk companion talking like Ashton Kutcher from Dude Where's My Car. Thanks for the laugh

[Hormalakh]

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.

 

Right. But outside of those limited instances, we want more options!

[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.

 

Right. But outside of those limited instances, we want more options!

Then we are in agreement.

[LadyCrimson]

I'd be content with a system where for most conversational opportunities, you can switch characters to have their stats affect the convo, or something similar to that notion. It seems to me, in terms of the player-character being the "leader," that part of being a leader is knowing when to use your party member's strengths to further your/the group's advantage.

[ReyVagabond]

Yes the PC as the Leader of the Party should be the spokeperson, but the companions should be able to interrupt , add things to a conversation, etc.

 

not every one can talk at the same time, and usualy the PC is he boss and the boss speaks for the team.

[Grand Heresiarch]

I have to go with the PS:T model in this case. If companions are to have significant depth as fully fleshed out characters then they should not be able to be controlled in the same manner as the PC, and the PC should be the party lead. I understand that this makes the knuckle-dragging warrior option less attractive to some, but I think it forces players to make more balanced decisions in character creation,rather than min-maxing stats.

The olny role we are playing is the PC, and companions have the choice to go with our exemplary lead or gtfo.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

No matter who is party spokesperson, I would expect a goody-goody paladin to object to that kind of behaviour. Selecting the wrong response for that character could imply end the conversation as the companion objects to the direction in which the party is headed.

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

It's possible I started that one, too.

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!

Since PE isn't fully voiced, this wouldn't be necessary, as the lines could contain variables. There's no reason why Obsidian can't write dialogue as "Greetings, %CHARNAME%."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes the PC as the Leader of the Party should be the spokeperson, but the companions should be able to interrupt , add things to a conversation, etc.

Why should the PC necessarily be the party leader? This isn't something I get at all.

 

If I design a PC who isn't well-suited to lead, why would he lead?

not every one can talk at the same time, and usualy the PC is he boss and the boss speaks for the team.

1. The boss doesn't necessarily speak for the team. The boss might not be the best spokesperson.

 

2. The PC isn't necessarily the boss. Maybe there isn't a boss - perhaps the party is a group of equals. The player is in control, yes, but that is not equivalent to the PC being in control.

[Jarrakul]

I like the idea of being able to choose a party spokesperson, but if it's not the PC, certain options won't be available (based on the companion chosen). I don't think this would be too hard to implement, but I could be wrong.

[Hormalakh]

I don't remember what game it was, but I played it when I was quite young. The number of members in a party was determined by the charisma of the party leader (that being the PC). I wonder if that would be some sort of interesting mechanic to put into this game as well? Maybe, until you don't get a PC/companion with high char, you cannot maximize to a party of 6.

 

Sorry, O/T.

[Kuroiryuu]

I think it would be awkward in practice for the PC not to speak for the party unless there's a compelling plot-related reason for some segment. After all, it is your party, as the de facto leader. You're calling the shots, you decide where everyone goes, and you have final say on what gets done... unless your party members object enough to leave. Considering all that, it would feel odd to me to take a back seat when it comes to dealing with others. Your companions have a part in the story, but ultimately you're the center of the universe here. I think it would diminish the game for it to be otherwise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think it would be awkward in practice for the PC not to speak for the party unless there's a compelling plot-related reason for some segment. After all, it is your party, as the de facto leader.

I don't see why you would assume that to be the case. As mentioned above, both BG games allowed any party member to act as leader - they even got smug about it.

 

The PC isn't necessarily the party leader. The player is necessarily leading the party (by controlling where they go and what they do), but from an in-character perspective those instructions need not be soming from the player-created character. Perhaps they're arrived at by consensus.

 

There's simply no reason to assume the PC is the de facto leader unless you would prefer it that way.

You're calling the shots, you decide where everyone goes, and you have final say on what gets done.

Yes. Me. The player. Not necessarily the PC.

[Jarmo]

I don't remember what game it was, but I played it when I was quite young. The number of members in a party was determined by the charisma of the party leader (that being the PC).

 

 

Fallout 2 ?

[Tsuga C]

Go, Sylvius, go! The Madman cometh and all illogic falls before his vorpal scrutiny.

[Kuroiryuu]

I think it would be awkward in practice for the PC not to speak for the party unless there's a compelling plot-related reason for some segment. After all, it is your party, as the de facto leader.

I don't see why you would assume that to be the case. As mentioned above, both BG games allowed any party member to act as leader - they even got smug about it.

 

The PC isn't necessarily the party leader. The player is necessarily leading the party (by controlling where they go and what they do), but from an in-character perspective those instructions need not be soming from the player-created character. Perhaps they're arrived at by consensus.

 

There's simply no reason to assume the PC is the de facto leader unless you would prefer it that way.

 

I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I think it would take a lot to do it right and for dubious value. I recall finding the BG system rather immersion-breaking since the lines often just didn't fit whoever was talking. I always used my PC for extraparty conversations as a result. Beyond that, it just didn't feel right to be controlling the mouth of a character that wasn't mine. Maybe if the dialogue was always personalized to the speaker, it wouldn't be that bad, but I'd rather they put effort elsewhere than rewriting scenes eight times.

 

In any case, I understand that the issue is about freedom to play a character in whatever way you want. That's all well and good, but I do think it a bit odd if your own personal avatar in the game--the one sure constant in the tale--is just some guy the others are dragging along. Maybe a compromise would be to have your companions be able to intercede in conversations on your behalf at certain points if you're lacking in conversation ability. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the more party interaction, the merrier.

[Hormalakh]

I don't remember what game it was, but I played it when I was quite young. The number of members in a party was determined by the charisma of the party leader (that being the PC).

 

 

Fallout 2 ?

 

LOL maybe... God it's been so long since I've played these games.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Storm of Zehir was the best system I've seen in a cRPG yet. Every member can contribute to their best abilities, as in every other scenario an adventuring party finds themselves in. The only complication is that dialogue where a party with a maximum of one PC, wonderful interjections from NPCs as in Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age: Origins become significantly more difficult to integrate.

[AGX-17]

To have your party be a "democracy" of sorts and every character had an equal say would be interesting narratively, but a severe barrier to player agency.

 

If the PC is making all the tactical, logistical and equipment decisions it stands to reason that they're the alpha of the group and final word rests with them. One of the relatively few good decisions Bioware made with Dragon Age 2 was the option of allowing companions with contextually relevant experience or skills to handle a situation in Hawke's stead.

Edited October 18, 2012 by AGX-17

[DCParry]

To have your party be a "democracy" of sorts and every character had an equal say would be interesting narratively, but a severe barrier to player agency.

 

If the PC is making all the tactical, logistical and equipment decisions it stands to reason that they're the alpha of the group and final word rests with them. One of the relatively few good decisions Bioware made with Dragon Age 2 was the option of allowing companions with contextually relevant experience or skills to handle a situation in Hawke's stead.

 

Again, there is a difference between the PLAYER and the PLAYER CHARACTER. The PC may not necessarily be calling shots. You might want to play him as a reluctant participant in the entire affair. The addition of this does not present a barrier to your stereotypical alpha dog model, but opens up options that are more robust as far as individual role playing experience.

[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...

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.

 

Yep exactly, both dialogue and combat should have restrictions based on the character. If the party starts butchering peasants for instance the paladin should pick up on this and turn on me instead of going along with it.

 

EDIT: Isn't Wasteland 2 doing something like this?

Edited October 19, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[FlintlockJazz]

Yes the PC as the Leader of the Party should be the spokeperson, but the companions should be able to interrupt , add things to a conversation, etc.

Why should the PC necessarily be the party leader? This isn't something I get at all.

 

If I design a PC who isn't well-suited to lead, why would he lead?

not every one can talk at the same time, and usualy the PC is he boss and the boss speaks for the team.

1. The boss doesn't necessarily speak for the team. The boss might not be the best spokesperson.

 

2. The PC isn't necessarily the boss. Maybe there isn't a boss - perhaps the party is a group of equals. The player is in control, yes, but that is not equivalent to the PC being in control.

 

I agree completely with this. While having the option to be the boss is good, most games these days force you into the role (and then praise you as some great leader when your character has low charisma and no intelligence) and its kinda annoying. If people find it difficult to believe their character isn't in charge just assume your character gets to decide the overall goal and delegates the implementation to other party members?

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I think it would take a lot to do it right and for dubious value. I recall finding the BG system rather immersion-breaking since the lines often just didn't fit whoever was talking.

I've always considered the dialogue options to be abstractions (like keywords in text parser dialogue systems), rather than an exact representation of what was said.

In any case, I understand that the issue is about freedom to play a character in whatever way you want. That's all well and good, but I do think it a bit odd if your own personal avatar in the game--the one sure constant in the tale--is just some guy the others are dragging along.

I don't perceive the player-created character as the player's avatar. Since the player controls the whole party, I suggest that the party, as a group, serves as the player's avatar. A sort of gestalt avatar.

To have your party be a "democracy" of sorts and every character had an equal say would be interesting narratively, but a severe barrier to player agency.

 

If the PC is making all the tactical, logistical and equipment decisions it stands to reason that they're the alpha of the group and final word rests with them.

That would stand to reason, if it were the case that the PC was making all of the tactical, logistical, and equipment decisions.

 

But he isn't. Not unless the player decides he is. The player makes these decisions for the party, and how the player imagines the party is actually making these decisions within the game world is entirely up to him. There is no requirement that the PC be the one carrying out the player's instructions. Inf act, in combat, we can see how this isn't the case. Since the player retains control of the whole party, even when the PC is incapacitated, demonstrates that the player doesn't control just the one player-created character.

[Jarmo]

Just occurred to me there's possibly more than one player created character.

So.. if there's one that's you, and there's the other two you created at the adventurers place, and then there's the 3 "real" companions.

 

Would it make a difference? Would anyone feel more like letting the second player created character speak?

Or would you feel the other player createes are just the same as npcs when it comes to speaking with their mouths.

[Barothmuk]

I'm confident my views on this matter mirror Sylvius'.

 

I've always hated RPGs that force the PC to act as leader and I hate being limited to having the main character act as spokesperson when someone else may be better suited.

[Freshock]

Would be awesome if the player could decide wether or not the companions should take the lead in a conversation by forming a attitude. Like; if the player are aggressive and dominant he/she is more likely to lead the conversation, but if the player instead acts shy/quiet/withdrawn the companions take the word instead.