You're making me leave? Then I want my cut of the treasure!

[HereticSaint]

He's leaving alright, but not without his cut of the loot. You'll have to kill him or pay him. And if it's in a lawful town, you can't kill him without answering to the law.

 

 

What???

 

He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that?

 

Some laws are quite ****ty. Laws aren't always fair. This was just a scenario in any case. The main point was whether you'd like to see some characters demand something before they leave, whatever it may be. You can kill them if you disagree, but you'd have to lose something in that process (other than a companion): a 5 on 1 is kind of over-kill isn't it?

 

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a companion makes some imaginary agreement up (AKA: There isn't a legibal contract that I signed promising them something) and is able to attack me and I'm not able to defend myself, that's stupid.

 

That doesn't add to the games complexity, unless you think bad, nonsenical mechanics do that.

That doesn't add to the games variety, unless you think bad, nonsensical mechanics do that.

That doesn't add to the story, unless you think having a town, or hell who country (whatever area) built around ridiculous laws adds to the story of the game. In which case, I should also be able to take full advantage of the stupidity of these laws. Which I can pretty much guarantee they won't do.

 

The only way you could possibly do this from a story stand point is having a companion who can do forgery who signs your name on some such contract and the area you are in holds such contracts in high regard and the person who overlooks it fails to see the forgery in which case all this would boil down to is a noob trap that screws people over on their first play through. This would be no better than having three random dialogue options at a certain point in the game and if you choose the second one you randomly get a permanent -6 strength modifier with your character.

[Hormalakh]

He's leaving alright, but not without his cut of the loot. You'll have to kill him or pay him. And if it's in a lawful town, you can't kill him without answering to the law.

 

 

What???

 

He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that?

 

Some laws are quite ****ty. Laws aren't always fair. This was just a scenario in any case. The main point was whether you'd like to see some characters demand something before they leave, whatever it may be. You can kill them if you disagree, but you'd have to lose something in that process (other than a companion): a 5 on 1 is kind of over-kill isn't it?

 

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a companion makes some imaginary agreement up (AKA: There isn't a legibal contract that I signed promising them something) and is able to attack me and I'm not able to defend myself, that's stupid.

 

That doesn't add to the games complexity, unless you think bad, nonsenical mechanics do that.

That doesn't add to the games variety, unless you think bad, nonsensical mechanics do that.

That doesn't add to the story, unless you think having a town, or hell who country (whatever area) built around ridiculous laws adds to the story of the game. In which case, I should also be able to take full advantage of the stupidity of these laws. Which I can pretty much guarantee they won't do.

 

The only way you could possibly do this from a story stand point is having a companion who can do forgery who signs your name on some such contract and the area you are in holds such contracts in high regard and the person who overlooks it fails to see the forgery in which case all this would boil down to is a noob trap that screws people over on their first play through. This would be no better than having three random dialogue options at a certain point in the game and if you choose the second one you randomly get a permanent -6 strength modifier with your character.

 

Who said you couldn't defend yourself?

[Lt. Lizard]

Nah, I don't really like it very much.

 

At its core it is penalizing/restricting the player for fiddling with the party make-up (which is something I feel is a part of the old-school RPGs) in favor of what? Realism? Companion personality? Either of those can be easily reinforced in other far less annoying ways.

 

To say nothing about all that additional tinkering to not make it totally ridiculous. What about those companions you recruit after you save them? What about those where you do their personal quests? And so on... You would need a lot of additional work just to not encounter situations like:

 

"I am sorry PC, I know you saved my life, my father, my spouse, my village, recovered a priceless artifact for my god and my faith actually scoffs at material possession and money, but you want me to leave the party for a week or two so you can do that companion-specific quest? You better pay 10k gold."

 

Which would basically just make a feature whose only purpose is annoy you to not suck. Well, to suck less.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Lt. Lizard

[HereticSaint]

He's leaving alright, but not without his cut of the loot. You'll have to kill him or pay him. And if it's in a lawful town, you can't kill him without answering to the law.

 

 

What???

 

He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that?

 

Some laws are quite ****ty. Laws aren't always fair. This was just a scenario in any case. The main point was whether you'd like to see some characters demand something before they leave, whatever it may be. You can kill them if you disagree, but you'd have to lose something in that process (other than a companion): a 5 on 1 is kind of over-kill isn't it?

 

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a companion makes some imaginary agreement up (AKA: There isn't a legibal contract that I signed promising them something) and is able to attack me and I'm not able to defend myself, that's stupid.

 

That doesn't add to the games complexity, unless you think bad, nonsenical mechanics do that.

That doesn't add to the games variety, unless you think bad, nonsensical mechanics do that.

That doesn't add to the story, unless you think having a town, or hell who country (whatever area) built around ridiculous laws adds to the story of the game. In which case, I should also be able to take full advantage of the stupidity of these laws. Which I can pretty much guarantee they won't do.

 

The only way you could possibly do this from a story stand point is having a companion who can do forgery who signs your name on some such contract and the area you are in holds such contracts in high regard and the person who overlooks it fails to see the forgery in which case all this would boil down to is a noob trap that screws people over on their first play through. This would be no better than having three random dialogue options at a certain point in the game and if you choose the second one you randomly get a permanent -6 strength modifier with your character.

 

Who said you couldn't defend yourself?

 

I read it as you get impisoned for defending yourself from someone attacking you and have no other recourse beside doing that or handing over treasure.

 

I apologize if that isn't the case.

[Hormalakh]

I read it as you get impisoned for defending yourself from someone attacking you and have no other recourse beside doing that or handing over treasure.

 

I apologize if that isn't the case.

 

Like I said, it *might* be the case that the town has a "sheriff," but that doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself. Ever played BG2? You couldn't cast magic in Athkatla without a permit, but if you did, you just had to deal with a party of mages, you didn't necessarily get imprisoned or anything like that.

 

Once again, it was just one possible scenario. The main idea is more important than these details.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Hormalakh

[jivex5k]

EXP...no

Why would you lose experience from previous battles due to the present?

The past stays in the past please, I don't want people reneging on my XP...I already learned!

 

Here's what would be cool to me:

They take their gear...but I don't know how the mechanics would work to prevent you from leaving them naked just before they leave. Maybe they shouldn't force it, and players who like extra realism can show some self control.

 

I'd also like the ability to IMMEDIATELY attack them upon kicking them out of your party, and to loot everything they have when they perish, even a little hamster.

[HansKrSG]

Any automatic parting of experience gold or items would be silly. I can see that a leaving partymember says that he wants part of the treasure, (not experience, thats just silly. Do you loose already earned experience when people leave? No, excpet if the partymember is an evil warlock with memorywiping spells ) but its the players choice if you accept this or not. Of course, saying to the partymember that I will kill him for asking, could in theory make the other partymembers react badly. Except if the other partymembers are just as big **** as the player is, or i the leaving partymmeber was a big **** none of the others liked anyway.

 

Wow, donkey hole is censored... :|

Edited October 23, 2012 by HansKrSG

[Frenetic Pony]

"I'm taking my part of the experience with me!" *Begins forceful brain surgery*

[LadyCrimson]

I wouldn't be adverse to them demanding their "pay" ... eg, some gold/cash. It seems only fair (this is assuming they don't auto-take some share of gold to being with). But item-treasure, no...that's mine, all mine. And there should be an option to duel it out or something....the option should vary per companion of course, depending on their story arc/personality. It would be dull if it was always the exact same contention option.

 

The other option (maybe) is to make them cost something to have in your party in the first place. Or at least some of them. That way they've already been paid up front, so to speak. And if you let them go, if you want them back, you'd have to pay again. ... not that I think many are going to want that method to be included. Just saying it's one way to do it...especially for, say, a thief companion. I kinda like it when at least one companion is largely mercenary, motivated mostly for and about money, rather than some vengeance or noble goal that you and he/she happen to have in common. (edit:but not be generic, no-story Adventure Hall ppl either, if you know what I mean)

[PsychoBlonde]

Where's the option for "I'd find this kinda annoying, thanks"? Or what about "Fine with me, they should take another party member with them!"

 

I'd like to see this be more of an RP thing than necessarily a mechanical thing, but we're only going to have 8 companions and 5 slots, so it probably won't be THAT big of a problem.

 

Although, what would be hilarious is if when you can the big fighter he empties his pack into your arms and suddenly everyone else in the party is WAYYY overloaded.

Edited October 24, 2012 by PsychoBlonde

[Tamerlane]

A mercenary character who demands pay if you boot them could be neat, I guess.

 

But as a general thing for every character, it would be lame as hell. God dammit Aloth, I'm just removing you for, like, two hours so I can do some quests with Cadegund. Calm your **** and hang out at the castle for a bit.

[Vernum]

That looks like an interesting idea but where is the just "fine with me" option in that poll?

[Aoyagi]

I think that really depends on how the companions are acquired. I sort of presumed it would be similar to NWN2, meaning they joined the hero on their own and would stay in hero's place until summoned again

But if some mercenaries will be included - as I understand it, they will be included in the Adventurer's Hall - it would make perfect sense if they wanted some not-that-small sum of money upfront and then took a small/medium share of the money loot, ingredients ('crafting', alchemy, etc.) and other consumable stuff.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Aoyagi

[kalimeeri]

I tried to answer the poll, but kept thinking of Ignus... an immensely powerful party member who was at times irreplaceable, but one that began to frighten the crap out of me the more we carried on. Lord, how I schemed to get rid of him, in the least offensive way! I finally left him at the bottom of one of the deepest, darkest dungeons, as I recall--I could not care less if he took whatever loot or money he felt entitled to. But the fact is, I don't think he would have taken anything... and I have this really bad feeling that he's stalking me still.

 

One day, Ignus will kill you all.

Ignus

 

And then there's Vhailor... ::shiver::

 

Vhailor: When the injustice is great enough, justice will lend me the strength needed to correct it. None may stand against it. It will shatter every barrier, sunder any shield, tear through any enchantment, and lend its servant the power to pass sentence. Know this: There is nothing on all the Planes that can stay the hand of justice when it is brought against them. It may unmake armies. It may sunder the thrones of gods. Know that for all who betray justice, I am their fate. And fate carries an executioner's axe.

The Nameless One: I see.

Vhailor: No you do not see. Pray that you will never see.

 

Perhaps your vision of companions is a slight bit narrow, yes? There are all sorts of motivations for joining up, not the least of which is obsession. And if you betray them, what if nothing will satisfy them but your soul?

[Luckmann]

Where is the simple "Yes" answer?

[The Guilty Party]

The poll is ridiculously biased, so to answer with an option not provided: it doesn't really make sense. How can you distinguish between 'split up and meet me there later', 'just hang out here for this one mission' and 'that's it, we're through'? It'd make more sense for them to just claim a share of every quest they go on. Except then they're not going to be spending it intelligently and bleah. Doesn't seem worth the trouble except maybe for a special case character that is explicitly greedy/mercenary and you make it into a plot point.

[Tychoxi]

It's one of those things they should/could put a switch for in "gameplay options", I say.

[Hormalakh]

The poll is ridiculously biased, so to answer with an option not provided: it doesn't really make sense. How can you distinguish between 'split up and meet me there later', 'just hang out here for this one mission' and 'that's it, we're through'? It'd make more sense for them to just claim a share of every quest they go on. Except then they're not going to be spending it intelligently and bleah. Doesn't seem worth the trouble except maybe for a special case character that is explicitly greedy/mercenary and you make it into a plot point.

 

Arcanum does this very well. You give your party members two options: "wait here for a bit," and "I think we should split up." If you split up then answer as above. If you make them wait, then they'll wait for a certain amount of time before they leave. That's one implementation method.

[Aedelric]

I am actually fine with sharing treasure and a fair cut of the gold to be given as a form of severance.

 

But I chose `The hell you are! I'll die before I give up a single gold coin to your likes!´ because that kind of answer was just too hard to resist! :D

 

If we do have a form of sharing and leaving penalty in the form of gold, an option would be required to bypass it. Like telling the NPC to go away and when they ask for gold you can say no, they will obviously take umbrage over this and are less likely to join you later, or perhaps may attack you in the late game with their own party.

 

What we need are dynamic companions that react like people get insulted like people and have needs just like people. Otherwise we might as well be walking around with six emotionless golems that carry our loot and punch our foes, simple desires such as payment is a start on the path of depth required to make convincing characters.

[ComMcNeil]

I think it depends on the char in question but I like the basic idea of it. An old friend of yours wont take gold I guess but will leave maybe deeply depressen because you dont want him around anymore. Maybe he even starts to plot against you as he feels betrayed.

 

Still, one needs to implement it in a way that may not be easily exploited.

[Boatmurder]

Fine by me, but no experience. Unless we get a 2nd layer of experience, say "team experience", to determine how well the party's members are accustomed to each other and giving them boni to defense, offense, whatever.

Taking away individuals XP doesn't cut it.

 

For other payment methods: fine.

But i'd require negotiations of payment... and the possibilty to have them go wrong. Fataly so.

With related alternations to the parties mood, at best

[Hertzila]

Not voting, because the poll is missing the 'it really doesn't make much sense' option. For a mercenary type character or a companion with a clear agenda, it might work, but as a general mechanic it sounds stupid as hell. Suppose there's a guy I rescued and then suggested that maybe he could travel with me. Why would he suddenly go "Oh but you must pay me 1000 gold or I'll refuse to leave." Or if I happen to meet a girl that seems bored as heck to her present life and suggest that I'm looking for companions to adventure with. Unless she immediatly demands payment I can't understand why'd she suddenly want some sort of compensation from what is essentially voluntary work. Especially if I have taken good care of them in both cases.

And for the mercenary, Jagged Alliance 2's AIM's method of 'payment up front for a set amount of time' would seem like a lot more logical way to do business. Adventuring is a fickle business after all...

 

Sidenote¹: Is the poll talking about actually severing the ties to the companions so they won't be companions anymore, or is it talking about just telling them to take a rest at the player's house or stronghold (completely justified if they're injured and need it)? Because if it's the latter, it makes even less sense.

Sidenote²: How would taking experience even work? They've leveled up with me, they've got all the experience already.

[Gfted1]

Can someone clarify the experince thing? Hasnt the soon-to-be-kicked party member been earning experince the whole time along with the rest of the party? Now that NPC should get additonal experince in the form of taking it away from other members as some kind of penalty for removing them from the party? Am I reading that correctly?

[Heron]

I don't think the actual nuts and bolts of the poll as it stands is really the debate here, more the concept of repercussions for hiring and firing party members.

 

Which I think is a splendid idea, if we're looking for complex, many-layered companions to interact with rather then armour-plated robots then their reaction to parting ways should be unique to that character. A sell-sword might demand his pay, a necromancer might attack you, a samurai might commit seppuku - why not? In my view choices should have consequences and the added inconvenience of negotiating a separation simply adds to the tactical element of making that choice.

[Hormalakh]

I don't think the actual nuts and bolts of the poll as it stands is really the debate here, more the concept of repercussions for hiring and firing party members.

 

Which I think is a splendid idea, if we're looking for complex, many-layered companions to interact with rather then armour-plated robots then their reaction to parting ways should be unique to that character. A sell-sword might demand his pay, a necromancer might attack you, a samurai might commit seppuku - why not? In my view choices should have consequences and the added inconvenience of negotiating a separation simply adds to the tactical element of making that choice.

 

Exactly. It only took 3 pages of comments but someone finally explained what I could not. Yes this is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for being able to articulate my poorly worded question.