Parties in Cities

[Osvir]

In Baldur's Gate, the city not the game, I feel I would have wanted to send all my members out on personal quest and/or at my command. I could've had them all scattered about, get quests, my thief could perhaps infiltrate some houses with the Thieving Guild (which she has to do anyways).

 

Basically doing a "search party" for information. I tried putting this into my friends head when we got to Nashkel, that he should head to the tavern and talk to some folk to get information. The problem that rose up in that Multiplayer session was that whenever I talked to someone my friends game paused and vice versa.

 

There's been talk about letting your companions act as fronts persons.

 

Maybe some quests requires your entire party to be gathered (which would be indicated by the quest giver saying "Come back when you've gathered your party, there's coin to be had").

 

I'd be able to explore a city faster too (just as my imagination would be able to craft a story why they walk off), and likewise be in more trouble if my single Wizard gets attacked by an ambush when he's solo, so I could send him with someone. So the pro is that you explore the city faster, and you get more material to deciding "Why" Aloth walks with Cadegund in a direction (he is a Wizard, she is in an Order?). Cons would be missing out on in-party banter. Walking with certain people with you could also effect friendship/romance.

 

Haha there could be a romance option that just wants your loving but is a great fighter. You could send her off in a corner in one direction when you are in cities, then you won't need to worry about it so much

[JFSOCC]

Could be nice, could also have negative consequences (which I'm not against)

I'm reminded of this quote

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/quotes?qt=qt0386961

[Aldereth]

You may want to check out this old gem;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Candle

 

They implemented split party system that is quite interesting. You could have some members doing crafting why others continue questing. Wish someone could refresh that in more innovating way.

[Osvir]

Should a city be one big city or several different districts like we see in Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment etc. etc.?

 

Should it be split up in "cakes" or could they be split up in "cakes" on your map interface but you wouldn't need to exit one area to get to another area?

 

Is there going to be a proper mini-map that I can click and drag my view around with? (Like Starcraft 1-2/Warcraft 1-3/League of Legends) Mini-Map is specially important if you are going to have this sort of control for your party (Being able to send them off to do their own tasks in cities).

Edited November 3, 2012 by Osvir

[Osvir]

You may want to check out this old gem;

 

http://en.wikipedia....he_Magic_Candle

 

They implemented split party system that is quite interesting. You could have some members doing crafting why others continue questing. Wish someone could refresh that in more innovating way.

 

This intrigues me :D

 

Parties in cities are however much easier to handle in console RPG's where your characters have "designated" points and you only control one character, like Cloud or the main Hero (Camp in "Dragon Age: Origins", towns in the later "Final Fantasy" series, most apparent in, I think, "Final Fantasy IX"). Controlling 6 characters in a city could make it difficult to physically and mentally handle.

 

Which brings me to the next issue, where you'd end up in 2 battles at the same time, one at the southern portions where your Wizard and Fighter gets ambushed at the same time as your Barbarian up North gets into a fight. A solution to this is a mini-map that you can easily navigate to get into the action in both fights on two different fronts. Like controlling two different army setups in Starcraft II but at a more tactical and slower pace (what with the pausing and all).

 

Maybe it could even be tactical to bring one of your companions into the center of the city so he/she can run and aid the Wizard and the Fighter, or calm the Barbarian down. I can also see Assassin's going after the ones you send off alone (sent by an opposing faction).

 

EDIT:

 

Benefits: You could send all of your characters out into a city, instead of encountering "You must gather your party before venturing forth". You would be able to use your "Character Hotkeys" to get to all the different areas of a city in the blink of an eye instead of walking around with your entire group from "Edge" to "Edge" (until you start "Fast Travel"-scumming to find the correct district).

 

Cons: Because we like to handicap ourselves and give ourselves challenges, characters sent out "alone" could encounter "first time in-city events" burglars etc. and enemies that would be hard to tackle solo. I wouldn't send my finest soldier down into the sewers of Baldur's Gate alone.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Osvir

[Osvir]

Thought when I read this (Non-lethal takedowns)

 

If something like this becomes available in the game, could one of your characters be "sent to jail" or getting kidnapped which would require the rest of your team of (now 5) save the 6th member? Rescue missions! :D

[jivex5k]

That's a pretty interesting concept, I dig it.

I'd like it if the companions just did their own thing, or you could ask them to do favors or look into something specific.

 

Seems like it would be a nightmare to implement elegantly though, but I'm not a game designer so I really have no clue.

 

I just know I'd like to see my companions have their own personality, having them do their own thing in the city would enhance that feeling.

But you have to be careful about letting it affect the players game too much, wouldn't want a companion going off and getting into a fight or ambush and getting murdered when you have no control over it.

 

If you could control the companions directly, well it would lose the feeling but would cut down on frustration.

 

Maybe something in the middle, like they do their own thing but come back with a narrative rather than something that affects gameplay.

[Aldereth]

 

This intrigues me :D

 

 

FYI, Magic Candle handles the split party by giving the ability for the player to "flip" to the "non-adventuring" characters when the "main party" is not in combat. The non adventuring members will be at the location appropriate for the job in the town you left them. eg. smith for forging, library for researching. I don't think there is too much interaction for the crafting players other than stop whatever they are doing. I don't remember exactly what happen if you stop their job, I think they will rejoin your party after "x" amount of time passed or walk around the town they are in and start another job.

 

I think split party can be an idea that can be further developed. Personally, I would like more "game"/activity for the non adventuring party integrating some of element from that old, old Koei strategy games like Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Nobunaga's Ambition. Like NPCs would have some "off line"/non-adventuring stats they can develope by doing jobs/quest. So if the player decide to rotate them out for other duties like running a shop, would improve their "business skill" + some extra change in the pocket. And when you get your stronghold, you can have the guy you groom for running a business to take charge of the treasury to improve your domain's income.

 

A more elaborate version could involve a character volunteer as guards and with improved skill in "military leadership", your NPC can become guard captain in certain city thus giving you some mid game benefit of know the guard captain in a major city. And in late game, you could run into the problem your NPC friend has found his life calling as a guard captain and kind of leave the adventuring to you. A further complication can be in late game, your decision made you an enemy of the city you former ally is now defending making him an antagonist/enemy.

[Osvir]

This intrigues me :D

 

 

FYI, Magic Candle handles the split party by giving the ability for the player to "flip" to the "non-adventuring" characters when the "main party" is not in combat. The non adventuring members will be at the location appropriate for the job in the town you left them. eg. smith for forging, library for researching. I don't think there is too much interaction for the crafting players other than stop whatever they are doing. I don't remember exactly what happen if you stop their job, I think they will rejoin your party after "x" amount of time passed or walk around the town they are in and start another job.

 

I think split party can be an idea that can be further developed. Personally, I would like more "game"/activity for the non adventuring party integrating some of element from that old, old Koei strategy games like Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Nobunaga's Ambition. Like NPCs would have some "off line"/non-adventuring stats they can develope by doing jobs/quest. So if the player decide to rotate them out for other duties like running a shop, would improve their "business skill" + some extra change in the pocket. And when you get your stronghold, you can have the guy you groom for running a business to take charge of the treasury to improve your domain's income.

 

A more elaborate version could involve a character volunteer as guards and with improved skill in "military leadership", your NPC can become guard captain in certain city thus giving you some mid game benefit of know the guard captain in a major city. And in late game, you could run into the problem your NPC friend has found his life calling as a guard captain and kind of leave the adventuring to you. A further complication can be in late game, your decision made you an enemy of the city you former ally is now defending making him an antagonist/enemy.

 

Hmm, thinking as simple as possible now: Could an overview world map be shown, with no "walking around" in cities at all but instead have some sort of "Location" based stuff. You'd be able to set out tasks and go to the shop or tell your characters to go somewhere. If ambushed in an ally you would get to a respective "Area" (like random battles in early Final Fantasy, but the battle screen would be from an isometric real time view) or if you enter a "Special Building" or the "Sewers" you get thrown to that area, but mostly just top down city view and direct feedback. You'll also get a better sense of "What to do?" and "What area is what area?" (In Baldur's Gate I was jumping from area to area, reading my journal and loosing sense of direction; 'Where was that darn NPC now again...'). Although fun in a sense I wanted better explanation of locations (this was fixed in Baldur's Gate II, where locations have names, but could there be more "Legend" information?).

Edited November 5, 2012 by Osvir

[Sacred_Path]

I disliked how in cities in BG, it all came down to "you enter a city. You are now obliged to go into all houses that can be entered, to pickpocket NPCs and steal from ther chests". Give us either more options or more restrictions.

[HansKrSG]

I disliked how in cities in BG, it all came down to "you enter a city. You are now obliged to go into all houses that can be entered, to pickpocket NPCs and steal from ther chests". Give us either more options or more restrictions.

 

Though I feel the same "obligation" I am sure that this is nothing but an option. You can do the game quite easily wihtout stealing from every house in all cities.

Edited November 6, 2012 by HansKrSG

[FlintlockJazz]

I'd like the game to let us have parties in cities too. With blacjack! And hookers!

[TrashMan]

 

This intrigues me :D

 

Parties in cities are however much easier to handle in console RPG's where your characters have "designated" points and you only control one character, like Cloud or the main Hero (Camp in "Dragon Age: Origins", towns in the later "Final Fantasy" series, most apparent in, I think, "Final Fantasy IX"). Controlling 6 characters in a city could make it difficult to physically and mentally handle.

 

JA2 did it and with 18 characters.

So it can be done.

[steelshark]

Parties should be able to split... they also shouldn't be limited to 6 people. Whats wrong with 7...or 8? I like having people around. especially If the talk among each other

JA2 is a wonderful example. It also shows that the "Protagonist" doesn't always have to be the center of attention... the goal should be.

 

For city-layouts:

Of course I would like a full-blown medieval city with 10000+ people. But a perhaps more conservative option would be to pick out 5-10 special locations within the city and make each 1 "map", like BG1&2.

Also: On the Overview-map indicate that there is "city" between those places. In BG2 Athkatla feels like it is made of the districts and nothing more, because there is no space between the map-tiles on the big map. Just a cosmetic issue, but an important one for me

 

^^

This system is also much more preferable to me then for example the cities in Oblivion/Skyrim. Yeah, the are big, and take a bit of time to wander around in, but really they are populated by like 50 people .

[Osvir]

I'd like the game to let us have parties in cities too. With blacjack! And hookers!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHPV-XF0vx0

 

EDIT:

Parties should be able to split... they also shouldn't be limited to 6 people. Whats wrong with 7...or 8? I like having people around.

 

It's because P:E is a 6 party based game. Unless of course you'd find "Out of Party Companions" that you could have hang around in cities (and not just in a Tavern). There is a thread floating around somewhere about "what to do with companions not in party", I looked around but couldn't find it (It's a poll, something like "Should party members not in party get experience?").

Edited November 6, 2012 by Osvir

[curryinahurry]

If this were an IWD type of game I would say split parties are a great idea. However with having greater depth in characterization and NPC's having their own motivations, this would negate any option for an unreliable narrator. If you ask Aloth, for example, in a city to find out more about a certain book the party has discovered by doing research, not having direct control of the character would allow him to report back with a fabrication or half truth that served his personal agenda. By having direct control, you pretty much can't have such situations.

[Osvir]

If this were an IWD type of game I would say split parties are a great idea. However with having greater depth in characterization and NPC's having their own motivations, this would negate any option for an unreliable narrator. If you ask Aloth, for example, in a city to find out more about a certain book the party has discovered by doing research, not having direct control of the character would allow him to report back with a fabrication or half truth that served his personal agenda. By having direct control, you pretty much can't have such situations.

 

Something to ponder on (regardless of "Parties in Cities" or not) I am sure

 

EDIT: Could characters walking on a "trigger" take over control? Let's say you've had a Party Banter when you enter the City and Aloth says "I should go with that book to the store" and you heed his advice and do so, but as you get to the Bookstore door he casts an illusion spell or something (AI takes over), he comes out of the book store and whenever you question him about it he is "snaking" his way out of the conversation. Of course Aloth could simply say "I should go with that book to the store" the moment you enter the city and AI takes over instantly and Aloth walks away.

 

There is also the question of having all of your party members "automatically" scatter about the town and you only control 1 (yours/the main character), as if they have "points" where they hang around (Like Final Fantasy IX, which is the only one I can think of right now). Suikoden does this too in the Stronghold.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Osvir

[curryinahurry]

Osvir, a trigger might be ok, but it might also create weird meta-gamey moment where we wonder about sudden NPC initiative. Now, there could be something halfway along the lines of what you describe...possible quest specific issues are such that the npc goes off on their own, while general tasks like shopping, training, etc. could be player run.

 

That still might be odd...not really sure how to solve such a problem because the npc could discover something on their travels they may or may not want the PC to know. Of course, like the discussion we had in the NPC XP while not in the party thread, the npc might relate the mini-quest to the player in a playable flashback. Later the PC could find out what was reported back wasn't completely the truth. Although that might confuse the f**k out of people.

[Osvir]

Osvir, a trigger might be ok, but it might also create weird meta-gamey moment where we wonder about sudden NPC initiative. Now, there could be something halfway along the lines of what you describe...possible quest specific issues are such that the npc goes off on their own, while general tasks like shopping, training, etc. could be player run.

 

It might be weird but hardly in a negative way. If my companion starts to act in a way authentic to who the companion is I will applause because he is supposed to be driven by his own purposes and goals, if I suddenly lose control of a companion because he wants to do what he wants to do, I'll gladly sit back and enjoy the show. It gives a sense of feeling that they are alive. Playing Baldur's Gate in Multiplayer with friends, your friends characters are "companions" and they all serve their own purpose and you have little control except advice and suggestions through "Skype" or other "Voice-Talk"-Communication Third-Party Programs.

 

In Planescape: Torment, Morte was suddenly taken away from me, why? I started to wonder, as you say in your post, and I got confused. But it also intrigued me beyond words in a "got to stroke my beard muttering 'hmm'.."-kind of way.

 

Loosing control of Non-Player Character? *thumbs up*

Loosing control of Main Character? *thumbs down*

Edited November 6, 2012 by Osvir

[Tarrasque Cult]

Osvir, a trigger might be ok, but it might also create weird meta-gamey moment where we wonder about sudden NPC initiative. Now, there could be something halfway along the lines of what you describe...possible quest specific issues are such that the npc goes off on their own, while general tasks like shopping, training, etc. could be player run.

 

It might be weird but hardly in a negative way. If my companion starts to act in a way authentic to who the companion is I will applause because he is supposed to be driven by his own purposes and goals, if I suddenly lose control of a companion because he wants to do what he wants to do, I'll gladly sit back and enjoy the show. It gives a sense of feeling that they are alive. Playing Baldur's Gate in Multiplayer with friends, your friends characters are "companions" and they all serve their own purpose and you have little control except advice and suggestions through "Skype" or other "Voice-Talk"-Communication Third-Party Programs.

 

In Planescape: Torment, Morte was suddenly taken away from me, why? I started to wonder, as you say in your post, and I got confused. But it also intrigued me beyond words in a "got to stroke my beard muttering 'hmm'.."-kind of way.

 

Loosing control of Non-Player Character? *thumbs up*

Loosing control of Main Character? *thumbs down*

 

I'm with you.

 

I would love if the thief of my party just disappears without much explanation, just before entering a huge city. Then searching for some job with the local guard, you discover that he is wanted for some crimes.

 

I love party-related quests, giving them life, as you said.

 

Not just cities, the party could ran into unknown woods and the druid says he must do something during the night, leaving the party to solve problems of his clan, or ambush the main character the next day (as following a master plan)...

 

In fact, i would like some skills that forced me to lose party members:

 

1. Ranger uses "Hunting", disappears from party for 5 hours, returns with food and animal skin.

2. Bard uses "Gather Information" in a city, disappears from party and returns 2 hours later, with new infos (or nothing at all).

3. Wizard finds (with party) huge hieroglyphs in ancient sealed tomb and stays there deciphering it, while the party goes killing the undead around.

 

Something like that...

[Osvir]

Osvir, a trigger might be ok, but it might also create weird meta-gamey moment where we wonder about sudden NPC initiative. Now, there could be something halfway along the lines of what you describe...possible quest specific issues are such that the npc goes off on their own, while general tasks like shopping, training, etc. could be player run.

 

It might be weird but hardly in a negative way. If my companion starts to act in a way authentic to who the companion is I will applause because he is supposed to be driven by his own purposes and goals, if I suddenly lose control of a companion because he wants to do what he wants to do, I'll gladly sit back and enjoy the show. It gives a sense of feeling that they are alive. Playing Baldur's Gate in Multiplayer with friends, your friends characters are "companions" and they all serve their own purpose and you have little control except advice and suggestions through "Skype" or other "Voice-Talk"-Communication Third-Party Programs.

 

In Planescape: Torment, Morte was suddenly taken away from me, why? I started to wonder, as you say in your post, and I got confused. But it also intrigued me beyond words in a "got to stroke my beard muttering 'hmm'.."-kind of way.

 

Loosing control of Non-Player Character? *thumbs up*

Loosing control of Main Character? *thumbs down*

 

I'm with you.

 

I would love if the thief of my party just disappears without much explanation, just before entering a huge city. Then searching for some job with the local guard, you discover that he is wanted for some crimes.

 

I love party-related quests, giving them life, as you said.

 

Not just cities, the party could ran into unknown woods and the druid says he must do something during the night, leaving the party to solve problems of his clan, or ambush the main character the next day (as following a master plan)...

 

In fact, i would like some skills that forced me to lose party members:

 

1. Ranger uses "Hunting", disappears from party for 5 hours, returns with food and animal skin.

2. Rogue uses "Gather Information" in a city, disappears from party and returns 2 hours later, with new infos (or nothing at all).

3. Wizard finds (with party) huge hieroglyphs in ancient sealed tomb and stays there deciphering it, while the party goes killing the undead around.

 

Something like that...

 

Loving your post and fixed it for you. And I think this method would work extremely well for the Roles of the Rogues

[Sacred_Path]

I disliked how in cities in BG, it all came down to "you enter a city. You are now obliged to go into all houses that can be entered, to pickpocket NPCs and steal from ther chests". Give us either more options or more restrictions.

 

Though I feel the same "obligation" I am sure that this is nothing but an option. You can do the game quite easily wihtout stealing from every house in all cities.

 

Of course you could do without, but the cities were clearly designed with this in mind. It was lazy and I took offense to that.

 

Now, if breaking and entering was made into a mini-game, with guards, guard dogs, and actual sneaking from shadow to shadow, it could be tolerated (if there are fewer and more valuable targets).

[BetrayTheWorld]

I'm not opposed to some degree of this idea being implemented in game. Even in the wilderness a bit. It would allow you to essentially send out "scouts" to give you advanced warning about areas of the city/wilderness, so that if you have an area scouted, you might be more prepared when walking into an area that you'd otherwise find yourself ambushed. It could even add value to various character styles in allowing particular skills to effect their chance of avoiding trouble when off alone. Speech skills, hiding, sneaking, survival, etc...they could all factor in to determining whether your "scout" gets into a scuffle all by their lonesome or not.

 

It -could- be interesting. However, I've seen games in the past who get too ambitious with scattered play ideas end up being mediocre games because of it. SoZ comes to mind. (I loved nwn2 and motb, but SoZ felt like their ambition in being able to do too much made the entire game feel watered down)

 

EDIT: My entire point being, if you're going to consider something like this, make it awesome, or just don't do it at all.

Edited November 6, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Aldereth]

 

 

Loosing control of Non-Player Character? *thumbs up*

Loosing control of Main Character? *thumbs down*

 

I am actually for the way Magic Candle let you control the split party directly and more for the NPC to act on their own for a bit. Just remember not to make every NPC to go off every time they enter a city. Just a few times on their to keep things interesting.

 

The rest of the time, have the player send them off on "missions". I think how those old strategy game (RoTK and NA) handle your "PC" (commander in chief)'s generals and advisors has some merit. Sending them on certain mission/objectives would improve certain stats and possibly affect loyalty/influence. It is a hands off approach and the player have to be on their to and guage your loyal/influence through out the game.

[Osvir]

Loosing control of Non-Player Character? *thumbs up*

Loosing control of Main Character? *thumbs down*

 

I am actually for the way Magic Candle let you control the split party directly and more for the NPC to act on their own for a bit. Just remember not to make every NPC to go off every time they enter a city. Just a few times on their to keep things interesting.

 

The rest of the time, have the player send them off on "missions". I think how those old strategy game (RoTK and NA) handle your "PC" (commander in chief)'s generals and advisors has some merit. Sending them on certain mission/objectives would improve certain stats and possibly affect loyalty/influence. It is a hands off approach and the player have to be on their to and guage your loyal/influence through out the game.

 

We're on the same page :D

 

Likewise I wouldn't want a "Pop up interface" every time I enter a city where either my party members directly tells me what they want to do in the city and/or a "Task Interface".

 

I would want it more in the ways of:

* I press "M" for Map Interface

* Here I can look around, Add- Markers or Tasks.

* Rarely characters go about and disappear from the party without my consent (Though it should happen without my consent if the NPC has a personal mission or Quest that I, unfortunately, can't participate in for whatever reason. The Paladin that has to undergo questioning from his Order gets taken away and due to regulations outsiders are not allowed, of course we would be able to crash the party anyways because we really like this Paladin in our group and we'll fight/persuade to save him. Similarly we could perhaps "gain control" of the Paladin and our party is "left in stasis", like "Flashbacks" that are talked about in some other thread).

 

FLASHBACK DISCUSSION RECAP: Being able to control party members in some sort of Solo Story Driven Flashback.

 

Example A: Before In-Party/Quest Flashback

You meet Minsc and Dynaheir in Nashkel and Minsc yells and boasts of his and Boo's valiant endeavors, it piques your interest and you wish to know more. You are taken to a flashback at the bridge of Gnoll Fortress and you follow a story that is narrated by present Minsc (or narrated in gameplay of flashback Minsc). You play the entire Gnoll Fortress with solo-Minsc, and when you save Dynahier you are taken back to Nashkel, and now you can decide if you want to recruit him or not.

 

Example B: In-Party Gamplay Progressive Flashbacks

You left Forton at the Stronghold/City with a Task. When you return Forton tells you what prescribed and you get to choose to play a Flashback and get to control only Forton in it without the rest of your team where he defends the Stronghold or similar (imo these should happen at certain points in the game). At the Stronghold it could act more or less as a "Mini-Game" (Defend the Stronghold!) and if you loose you "lose" a couple of items/gear whatever loot you are hoarding in your Stronghold etc. etc. as a penalty.

 

Important Note: Is Minsc in anyway Licensed in a Legal way to anything? I soo want to have Boo special attack xD

 

"Manual Markers" or "Automatic-Marks" on the Map Interface? (Do you want a Poll for this?)

 

* Manual Markers: The Map is "Blind", you get the beautifully drawn Isometric Map in front of you and you have no idea where the Inn is or any NPC's but you Fill out these yourself by Right-Clicking to add "markers" (I think Baldur's Gate II had this feature), In my opinion these Symbols were clunky and big on the Map, wherein a small Triangle (Like Fallout) could suffice and serve the same function with different colors.

* Automatic-Markers: You enter a city and you get some locations instantly on your Map (The game gives you a sense of direction, so you can easier find shops, the Tavern etc. etc. this is "Direct Feedback")

* Both/Mix: 50m/50a, 20m/80a, 80m/80a

 

Kind of want to change the Thread Title to "Parties in Cities/Wilds and Map Thoughts". Chime in if you agree (or I could make a separate Topic for Map Thoughts or we can discuss it here, what do you think?).

Edited November 6, 2012 by Osvir