Irreconcilable Companion Differences

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Given that the NPC companions will be of an engrossing nature with their own personas and agendas, how severe can we expect conflict and consequences arising from derision to be?

 

There was a moment in BG: ToSC when my party was deep within Durlag's Tower near death and out of resources, I attempted to rest before gracefully exiting that death-trap when an argument broke out. Khalid and Jaheria had decided that Montoron and Xzar weren't desirable company anymore, which resulted in my party hacking itself to bits in a squabble I had no ability to stop. It was an absolutely exquisite moment. Baldur's Gate II followed up these conflicts well with many other characters ending in irrevocable impasses where the PC had to make serious choices that could result in party members leaving forever or dueling to the death.

 

I am very excited at the prospect for these consequences; particularly in a no-reload environment. Is this an aspect that anyone else looks forward to?

[Teuthida]

I really enjoy moments like this in RPGs. It serves to make your party members feel like real people with their own goals and wants as opposed to mindless yes men following you around and hitting things for you. Definitely hoping there will be more, and I'm confident there will be - the many ways you could mess with/fight/force your party members into leaving in Mask of the Betrayer is one of the reasons that game is still a favorite of mine today.

[LadyCrimson]

It's funny, because on the one hand, being this peaceable, live and let live sort, I'm horrified and really don't like it when my party members do things like that ... the lack of control issue aspect ... but on the other hand, I respect/admire it that the game/story is making me decide between different character aims/stances. It definitely makes the characters feel a bit more like people rather than just pixels I move around by clicking my mouse.

 

...that said, most of the time I'd still reload so at least they wouldn't kill each other, because I'm a weenie.

[Qaladan]

Yes, absolutely! In party arguing was a fantastic trait from the Baldur's Gate games. Not like today's Dragon Age type game where it feels like "BEEP BOOP YOU DIDN'T STRANGLE THE KITTEN I HATE YOU NOW." The infighting from BG kind of crept up on you and really gave the characters personalities.

[Tamerlane]

I like it in theory...

 

... but it's one of those things where only having eight companions total can kind of god damn suck.

[Pope]

I like it in theory...

 

... but it's one of those things where only having eight companions total can kind of god damn suck.

This was my main concern as well.

 

Somehow related to this, I would like to request that no companions are mutually exclusive. Disagreements are fine, but there should be a way for the player to reconcile those.

[Jarmo]

Yes and no. I'd like there to be incompatible companions and this possibly resulting in a fight or murder.

Irreconcilable.. no. Not if the PC has ungodly charisma, speaking skills and authority. And rolls well.

 

You should be able to convince them it's for the best to save the world first and then it's time to duel.

But if PC is a dumb buttface jarjarbinks with arguments of "mesa being friends" then no.

And if the PC is a jerk wildcard, he might get two paladins dueling over the choice of breakfast cerials.

 

---

.. you can afford to lose 3 out of eight anyway,

and if you lose more you can recruit/create placeholders at the adventureland.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jarmo

[metacontent]

This would be absolutely amazing.

 

But oh, the heartbreak.

 

Worth the risk!

[Vandoon]

I agree with Mr. Magniloquent's point I would love to see this kind of party / NPC interaction. These are not mindless drones they are NPCs ( characters ) with their own agendas

[cdx]

I hope there is at least one, but it is between very similar characters so it would not mess up a playthrough (two fighter types or two casters). Something like this happening is great from immersion / role-playing point of view but it shouldn't hurt your game choices, having so few NPCs.

[Malkaven]

Given that the NPC companions will be of an engrossing nature with their own personas and agendas, how severe can we expect conflict and consequences arising from derision to be?

 

There was a moment in BG: ToSC when my party was deep within Durlag's Tower near death and out of resources, I attempted to rest before gracefully exiting that death-trap when an argument broke out. Khalid and Jaheria had decided that Montoron and Xzar weren't desirable company anymore, which resulted in my party hacking itself to bits in a squabble I had no ability to stop. It was an absolutely exquisite moment. Baldur's Gate II followed up these conflicts well with many other characters ending in irrevocable impasses where the PC had to make serious choices that could result in party members leaving forever or dueling to the death.

 

I am very excited at the prospect for these consequences; particularly in a no-reload environment. Is this an aspect that anyone else looks forward to?

 

haha I'm sure you had to have been thrilled to see your party breakup when your deep into a dungeon. After the original shock it makes for a good story. I'm all for companions having their own personalities/values and sticking to them.

[Umberlin]

Having companions disagree with you, or each other, to the point of drama, conflict or just plain leaving would be perfectly acceptable - by my measure.

 

I liked the games that did it. Developers that don't do it for 'it's too hard' and 'it's not fun' reason just make me roll my eyes. I loved and enjoyed it in games that bothered to give their companions that much backbone.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Umberlin

[Tale]

I like the idea when there's a large cast of companions. Then you can replace them. But with only 8? If they come to blows, let it not be to the death. Can't afford the attrition.

[Amyrantha]

I like the idea when there's a large cast of companions. Then you can replace them. But with only 8? If they come to blows, let it not be to the death. Can't afford the attrition.

I tend to agree, with only 8 companions having them kill each other would really suck. I know we have the adventurers hall but rolling your own companions just isn't the same as having unique, storied companions for me.

[Umberlin]

If they disagree with you, or another companion, to a particular point they should speak on it, even if it comes to drama or conflict or outright leaving no matter the amount of companions.

 

If they viciously hate you or another companion, or what you/another companion is doing goes wholly against their moral compass . . . why would they stay with you? It would be just another shallow husk of what RPGs used to be if they went with the modern Bioware compaions style with this. They're characters. Not hypnotized slaves that do whatever you bid. They should be able to leave if they want. They should be able to die. If they can't leave or die . . . then . . . they're just these static sure things you never have to worry about. They aren't characters, they're drones.

 

Older RPGs had it right where companions would just up and leave, argue, or fight, over the differences they had with other companions or player character. And this is a game that pulls from those older games. Why bring in one of the downfalls of modern RPGs in a game that's pulling from better crops? If you're doing horrible no good things, a companion that dislikes that should - at the least - leave. At the most they should try and stop you. Sure, it should be possible, within reason, to convince a companion to your way of thinking on some things . . . but only to a certain extent, and over a practical amount of time. Just the opposite is true as well.

 

You had games where companions had ideas of race, gender, religion and so on within their setting . . . that did not mesh well with one another. They'd comment on these things, give you a chance to correct their problem with things. You could kick out a problem companion to make others happy. You could change your ways to make companions happy. Or you could keep on as is, and watch the fallout. Those that were happy with your ways, and the remaining companions, would stay.

[Tale]

If they viciously hate you or another companion, or what you/another companion is doing goes wholly against their moral compass . . . why would they stay with you?

Means to an end? An adventuring party isn't a birthday party. They join up to do something, not just hang out.

 

As long as the greater objective overrides the objections, they deal with it.

[Tusck]

I hope that companions will leave you when they don't like your actions or the way your treat them or others. Hell, I even hope they can leave when just one thing makes them mad because that is exactly what happens in real life. Also, I believe they should leave without a way to get them back because it makes your decisions matter. I know that power gamers will probably just reload, but for those of us that don't power game, even if you don't roleplay, the excitement of actual consequence is awesome.

[Grand Heresiarch]

Torment provides an interesting counterpoint. yes there were a few conversation paths that the nameless one could engage in with Ignus and Vhailor that ended...badly, but overall the companions were able to needle each other without killing each other. The reason I look to it as an example is there were similarly few possible companions (7) so the idea of them killing each other would simply not work.

[Uomoz]

Loved the idea in BG. In PE with 8 companions not so much.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Uomoz

[curryinahurry]

As others have posted; in concept it is fine, and in the BG series, where we had 20+ NPCs, this sort of mechanic was fun, but not when there are only 8. Conflict between NPCs on the other hand should be expected, and not just squabbles, but even long running feuds. A lot of this will depend on the PCs actions and how he/she acts as a leader. If conflict arises between companions, then we should have the opportunity to resolve it, let it fester, or even manipulate the situation.

 

Hopefully the PE game world will avoid moral absolutism and stick closer to a view of characters being practical about getting the right results, even if the methods to obtain them aren't particularly palateable, efficient, what have you. That said, NPCs leaving the party should be a possiblity, but there should be plenty of forewarning.

[Umberlin]

If they viciously hate you or another companion, or what you/another companion is doing goes wholly against their moral compass . . . why would they stay with you?

Means to an end? An adventuring party isn't a birthday party. They join up to do something, not just hang out.

 

As long as the greater objective overrides the objections, they deal with it.

 

That only works in the soldier/military mindset. A band of adventurers is so oft ragtag that end objectives are questionable. There were end all, be all, objectives in other games where companions could leave, argue, fight, kill each other and even outright betray you and those were no more than adventurers coming together for and end goal. News flash, people are petty, even in times of crisis, and even a soldier can argue with, kill or ditch his fellow soldiers - even with penalty or death for doing so on the line.

[rjshae]

Hopefully the PE game world will avoid moral absolutism and stick closer to a view of characters being practical about getting the right results, even if the methods to obtain them aren't particularly palateable, efficient, what have you. That said, NPCs leaving the party should be a possiblity, but there should be plenty of forewarning.

The BG series had several instances where party members were removed as a result of the plot. It may hinder the story not to allow for that possibility.

[curryinahurry]

Hopefully the PE game world will avoid moral absolutism and stick closer to a view of characters being practical about getting the right results, even if the methods to obtain them aren't particularly palateable, efficient, what have you. That said, NPCs leaving the party should be a possiblity, but there should be plenty of forewarning.

The BG series had several instances where party members were removed as a result of the plot. It may hinder the story not to allow for that possibility.

 

The BG series also had a lot more NPCs. You bring up another interesting possibility that could be in the game, and that is NPC companions that are only available for specific quests or under specific conditions. That leads us to a different topic however.

 

And if the one decent rogue in the game is going to betray my PC, hopefully it will be at the end of the game and not half way through ( I'm looking at you Yoshimo).

Edited October 19, 2012 by curryinahurry

[Hormalakh]

I like it in theory...

 

... but it's one of those things where only having eight companions total can kind of god damn suck.

 

There's always the player house with player created characters...

[Umberlin]

I don't see less companions as being a reason to not have such features. In fact, in my view, it makes it even more important to have than in a game with many companions. With less companions such differences, arguments, fights, deaths, betrayals and even just leaving mean a lot more. And, yes, meaning a lot more means that it can effect you negatively. All the more reason to really think about what you're doing as a character, and how you interact with other characters, especially companions.

 

In the end getting that "full group of all eight characters" to all agree with you, and do what you say, no matter what, like mindless slaves, doesn't seem like the right goal in an RPG, It defeats the purpose of an RPG, in my opinion, and it's one of the many reasons modern RPGs come off as so shallow and insipid. That, 'working together for the end goal' justification only goes so far until you realize it's just a plot device to force the companions to put up with anything you do, and, once you realize that . . . it ruins everything.

 

-

 

At the same time . . . if they leave . . . there's usualyl a way for them to not leave. So, really, if they leave, it's a result of your own choices. Not wanting to deal with that just sounds like not wanting to deal with the consequences of your choices. It's essentially asking for choice with no consequence. That's not a line of thinking I'd want to set in place, especially not in an oldschool inspired RPG that's supposed to be pulling from RPGs that were better than that.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Umberlin