The consequences were as follows. Each time you wanted to add a new member to the party, the current members would vote. Each time you wanted to remove a member of the party, the other members would vote (in both cases, a tie was enough for you to recruit/dismiss). If you wanted to remove a member of the party, but couldn't get the other guys to vote him out, you could have him murdered. But the guy you chose to be the murderer would sometimes be murdered in turn by yet another member of the party who was a friend of the original victim, possibly creating a chain of murders that slays the whole party but one.

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 201213 yr by Felithvian

But the guy you chose to be the murderer would sometimes be murdered in turn by yet another member of the party who was a friend of the original victim, possibly creating a chain of murders that slays the whole party but one.

 

This never happened to me although I used the murder option extensively. I know it was an advertised feature but it never happened. I also never had problems with recruiting new characters. Maybe it got lost in porting the game from the Amiga?

 

edit: as far as PE goes, I'd vote against something like that. You won't have a gazillion companions to choose from in PE like you did in Ishar.

Edited November 10, 201213 yr by Sacred_Path

But the guy you chose to be the murderer would sometimes be murdered in turn by yet another member of the party who was a friend of the original victim, possibly creating a chain of murders that slays the whole party but one.

 

This never happened to me although I used the murder option extensively. I know it was an advertised feature but it never happened. I also never had problems with recruiting new characters. Maybe it got lost in porting the game from the Amiga?

 

edit: as far as PE goes, I'd vote against something like that. You won't have a gazillion companions to choose from in PE like you did in Ishar.

 

It happened to me

 

I don't know about a vote but it would be nice to get some reaction, i think theres too few companions for any to refuse to work together, but that doesn't mean they can't bitch and moan

Edited November 11, 201213 yr by motorizer

It happened to me

 

I always killed them right away to steal their stuff, maybe they had no time to become attached to anyone. Didn't everyone do that?

So you're proposing that these characters, who all defer to the PC in all tactical situations of life and death, suddenly demand a democracy only in the case of adding or removing party members? That's an affront to player agency (forcing unwanted/unneeded companions on players) and Obsidian has already stated that you're free to take no companions at all. It's pretty clear that PE is not going to be a game about a democratically ruled adventuring player where all participating members vote on every decision made by the party, so why would this make sense or be fun? Why would they restrict their democratic ambitions just to party membership? Why not on every mouse click, item pickup/drop, NPC conversation, step in any direction, etc.?

 

There's no consistency in this idea (which is bad, btw, in case I didn't make it clear.)

Edited November 11, 201213 yr by AGX-17

I don't think "player agency" means that "the player shalt be omnipotent" - because that's dumb. Bad things should be possible outcomes to actions. If we don't allow such things to happen without player consent, suddenly, we no longer have a game. Player agency has more to do with whether the game we're creating will be tunnel-vision corridors-with-guns or VTMB.

 

That said, I agree - this feels like a silly addition. People murdering each other? Why would you even want to remove someone from your party? Why would you even take a vote? You could just say, "Okay **** this." And then maybe people from your party who are loyal would follow you. But it seems ridiculous that companion characters would start murdering everyone because you couldn't ask them to leave the party.

Edited November 11, 201213 yr by anubite

Reality show? In my PE?

 

I think this is an extremely bad idea.

What an unnecessarily tedious system.

I think that there are more interesting ways to interact with the party than this. At the very least the idea of voting seems a bit silly to me. I'd be okay with removing 1 party member and having another one say, 'well they go so do I!' Provided of course they have a reason to do so such as an evil PC kicking out a good party member and another good member opts to go with them in light of your actions.

 

However I don't think it would make sense to limit it to just when you're adding or removing party members. I think if companions would disagree with the PCs choices yet are continually brought along they should be able to pushed into leaving for good or attack the PC. Companion reactivity is cool, it makes the game world and the NPCs themselves feel more realistic. However I don't think having a vote followed by murder is the best way to go about this.

 

So yes to having companion reactivity / interactivity but no to how it was implemented in Ishar.

However I don't think it would make sense to limit it to just when you're adding or removing party members. I think if companions would disagree with the PCs choices yet are continually brought along they should be able to pushed into leaving for good or attack the PC. Companion reactivity is cool, it makes the game world and the NPCs themselves feel more realistic. However I don't think having a vote followed by murder is the best way to go about this.

 

So yes to having companion reactivity / interactivity but no to how it was implemented in Ishar.

 

I would have to agree. A pretty good example of this in another game would be in the Mount and Blade series where your hero companions would react to several things such as retreating from battle and having other hero companions in your party. If any of your companions got fed up with your actions they would leave the party, which could be a large problem. This lead to a lot of decision and companion juggling as certain companions naturally disliked other ones.

I agree with many of the other replies. Companion reactivity is cool. If they like / dislike other companions and are vocal about it that's cool. If they eventually threaten to leave themselves due to incompatibility I'm cool with that too (as long as there are enough decent companions that a single bad breakup won't ruin your gameplay effectiveness.) I've even seen games where one party member will silently kill off another one offscreen. But the rather crude voting system seems like a poor way to handle these things in 2012. If you designed the right sort of plot setup that suggested why the party was seen as a voluntary democratic conclave then it would be plausible, but that doesn't seem to mesh with how most of these RPGs are set up with a single, uniquely important player character.

That system doesn't really work in a story with one protagonist who is the player's only character. If I ask someone to leave and all others vote against me, I'm obviously the one who should (and would) leave.

 

It also depends on the NPC's relation to my character, an impish childhood friend like Imoen could simply refuse being dumped and follow me anyway, while the guy I just picked up on the street might just shrug and go to the next tavern.

Please no, it was bad enough in BG1 where i had to put Minsc at a safe distance from the rest of my party, then let Dynaheir walk alone into a pack of gnolls and get herself killed in order for me to only have Minsc in my party. I want to be able to handle my compations in whatever way I want.