Don't make NPC's more awesome than my Player Character

[JFSOCC]

I don't enjoy the idea of being overshadowed by my party members. That's mildly discouraging when they're another class, but when they're the same class it gives you the feeling of "why bother".

 

I do enjoy some ego flattery, after all.

 

Edit: I meant companion characters, obviously non-companion NPC's could be quite challenging

Edited November 29, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Hormalakh]

HAHAHA. Imoen bothered you that much huh?

 

If I'm not mistaken they aren't using roll-based stats anyway, so hopefully everyone will have the same base numbers to work with. Like Fallout. Not sure though.

[Keyrock]

While I don't particularly want my companions to overshadow me, I wouldn't want my PC to be way more powerful than my companions either. I don't want my PC to be a god while the others just tag along. Plus, I would very much like some NPCs to be more powerful, either in level, equipment, influence, wealth, etc., than my character, especially early on. I'd be completely fine with there being parts of the story where I must simply run away from enemies and escape overwhelming forces.

[AGX-17]

While I don't particularly want my companions to overshadow me, I wouldn't want my PC to be way more powerful than my companions either. I don't want my PC to be a god while the others just tag along. Plus, I would very much like some NPCs to be more powerful, either in level, equipment, influence, wealth, etc., than my character, especially early on. I'd be completely fine with there being parts of the story where I must simply run away from enemies and escape overwhelming forces.

 

But why would they follow the player character, then, aside from "Oh you are the CHOSEN ONE! I must follow you in your quest to fulfill the prophecy!"?

[jivex5k]

Shouldn't your companions be better than you at some things, and worse at other things?

If I'm a mage, my warrior companion should be able to knock me senseless if he's up close and hitting me with his maul.

But if I get the drop on him from a range I should be able to rip apart his very soul.

[Somna]

Shouldn't your companions be better than you at some things, and worse at other things?

If I'm a mage, my warrior companion should be able to knock me senseless if he's up close and hitting me with his maul.

But if I get the drop on him from a range I should be able to rip apart his very soul.

 

Right, but if they're better than you at everything...

[Keyrock]

While I don't particularly want my companions to overshadow me, I wouldn't want my PC to be way more powerful than my companions either. I don't want my PC to be a god while the others just tag along. Plus, I would very much like some NPCs to be more powerful, either in level, equipment, influence, wealth, etc., than my character, especially early on. I'd be completely fine with there being parts of the story where I must simply run away from enemies and escape overwhelming forces.

 

But why would they follow the player character, then, aside from "Oh you are the CHOSEN ONE! I must follow you in your quest to fulfill the prophecy!"?

Charisma, fate, chance, strength in numbers, ulterior motives (they're using you for their own gain), there could be any number of reasons. Why does anyone associate with anyone else? Why do people become friends?

 

Edit: Also, I don't want my companions mindlessly following me just because I am "the leader". I want them questioning my decisions and motives, suggesting alternatives, threatening to rebel or leave, or even following through and leaving the party or straight up attacking me. If I have a Paladin companion and I decide to help a conspiracy that will poison a town's water supply, making people sick, and making the town easy pickins for a band of marauders, I don't want the Paladin to begrudgingly follow my lead, I expect him or her to leave my party or even actively try to foil my plans. What I'm saying is that I want my companions to take an active role in steering the party and not just tagging along for the ride.

 

Edit 2: There was an old RPG where your party members could mutiny against you. I can't remember what it was called... Was it Ishar?

Edited November 29, 2012 by Keyrock

[jezz555]

this is pretty funny

[DreamDancer]

It makes a lot of sense if companions are a lot more experienced or better than your character, although only in their respective areas of expertise. I mean, that's what a traditional adventure group is after all: a team of highly specialized individuals that combine all their strengths to create a very powerful force. Beyond pragmatic reasons though there is also the social and emotional aspect of why people group up. On the most basic level it is because they like each other enough to be willing to travel together and feel safer than if they were alone.

 

Now when I pick the members of my party I don't want to make a choice based on their stats or what they can bring in terms of game mechanics. I'd very much like to do it like I would in RL; based on whether I like their personality or not. And if I choose based on personality, it doesn't really matter if they are more awesome than me in game mechanic terms. I think it s fairly safe to assume that my own PC is also a specialist in one or more skills or skill set, so I needn't worry that my PC is useless or just tagging along. He will contribute to the overall success, even if there are other team members who might occupy the same specialisation.

 

Now what makes a leader great or awesome, is the ability to manage the individual personalities of a group and forge them into a team spirit. That requires a certain empathy and charisma and diplomatic skills. A game usually conveys that in dialogue or scenes where you have to make decisions. It's basically the RP part of an RPG. And as long as the game allows me to be (or feel) awesome in that particular part, I am happy and don't mind if my companions are more awesome in other aspects of the game.

[Keyrock]

It makes a lot of sense if companions are a lot more experienced or better than your character, although only in their respective areas of expertise. I mean, that's what a traditional adventure group is after all: a team of highly specialized individuals that combine all their strengths to create a very powerful force. Beyond pragmatic reasons though there is also the social and emotional aspect of why people group up. On the most basic level it is because they like each other enough to be willing to travel together and feel safer than if they were alone.

 

Now when I pick the members of my party I don't want to make a choice based on their stats or what they can bring in terms of game mechanics. I'd very much like to do it like I would in RL; based on whether I like their personality or not. And if I choose based on personality, it doesn't really matter if they are more awesome than me in game mechanic terms. I think it s fairly safe to assume that my own PC is also a specialist in one or more skills or skill set, so I needn't worry that my PC is useless or just tagging along. He will contribute to the overall success, even if there are other team members who might occupy the same specialisation.

 

Now what makes a leader great or awesome, is the ability to manage the individual personalities of a group and forge them into a team spirit. That requires a certain empathy and charisma and diplomatic skills. A game usually conveys that in dialogue or scenes where you have to make decisions. It's basically the RP part of an RPG. And as long as the game allows me to be (or feel) awesome in that particular part, I am happy and don't mind if my companions are more awesome in other aspects of the game.

[NerdBoner]

what a vile little meta gaming thread we have here...

[Gfted1]

Edit 2: There was an old RPG where your party members could mutiny against you. I can't remember what it was called... Was it Ishar?

 

Baldur's Gate II had this. If your reputation got too high (good) the evil party members would progressively bicker more and more until the left the party / attacked you outright. Vice versa for low reputation (evil).

[alanschu]

But why would they follow the player character, then, aside from "Oh you are the CHOSEN ONE! I must follow you in your quest to fulfill the prophecy!"?

 

Because they want to?

[Keyrock]

Edit 2: There was an old RPG where your party members could mutiny against you. I can't remember what it was called... Was it Ishar?

 

Baldur's Gate II had this. If your reputation got too high (good) the evil party members would progressively bicker more and more until the left the party / attacked you outright. Vice versa for low reputation (evil).

Yeah that's right, I forgot they had that in BG2 also.

[JFSOCC]

It makes a lot of sense if companions are a lot more experienced or better than your character, although only in their respective areas of expertise.

true, but what if you have the same expertise?

[Pshaw]

I understand what you're getting at in the OP but I must say I've never played a game where I felt that my companion characters were stronger than me. More often I find myself in the position of being so much stronger that my companions just aren't all that needed. As others have said the key is to allow characters specializations. If I'm playing a tank like character I don't expect to be able to kill things as well as the mage. But I wouldn't want to be a worse tank than a companion. Equal or equal but different are fine but I worse would be annoying. Still I don't see this being much of an issue since I've not experienced it personally in any games that I can recall.

[NerdBoner]

Edit 2: There was an old RPG where your party members could mutiny against you. I can't remember what it was called... Was it Ishar?

 

Baldur's Gate II had this. If your reputation got too high (good) the evil party members would progressively bicker more and more until the left the party / attacked you outright. Vice versa for low reputation (evil).

Yeah that's right, I forgot they had that in BG2 also.

BG1 as well...I remember Xzar and Montaron fighting it out with Khalid and Jaheira while my level 2'er ran away ...I thought it was a horrible glitch at the time.

[Karkarov]

I don't enjoy the idea of being overshadowed by my party members. That's mildly discouraging when they're another class, but when they're the same class it gives you the feeling of "why bother".

 

I do enjoy some ego flattery, after all.

 

Edit: I meant companion characters, obviously non-companion NPC's could be quite challenging

"Heya! It's me Imoen! .... What? Why are ya looking at me that way? Fine I guess I will go clean the stables even though I'm smarter than you!"

Edited November 29, 2012 by Karkarov

[DreamDancer]

true, but what if you have the same expertise?

 

I had such a situation in my playthrough of DA:O where I played as a rogue and later on got Leliana and Zevran joining my entourage of companions. We pretty much had the same expertise when it came to rogue related tasks, so going purely by game mechanics they were dead weight. But that's where personality comes into the equation. I liked the way they were written enough that I thought they were fun to hang out with, so I could hear their comments and sometimes snide remarks which usually made me chuckle. In other words, they were good company, so I had them in my party when I set out to do quests.

 

3 rogues in the same party is of course far from the optimal or efficient way to do things, but that's the point where you gotta ask yourself what is more important to you as a gamer. So to answer your question: I'd do what I do regardless whether they are more awesome, equally awesome or plain suck at what they do: I'd pick them based on their personality

[Sacred_Path]

I reiterate this and I might add, "don't make companions more awesome than characters from the Adventurer's Hall".

[SinoSamba]

I would like it to be balanced and make sure every party member pulls their own weight and are capable within their class/abilities.

 

Having an uber-awesome PC is not good either. The one thing I hated about DA2 is that I spent 1/2 my time controlling Anders instead of Hawke because he was the only healer in the party and was easy to kill. And to my surprise over the entire game, Hawke on AI would not die no matter what (including the final 2 boss fights!). Why bother then :/

[jivex5k]

DA2...shouldn't have even had a party system....

It was a freakin action RPG, nothing tactical about it whatsoever.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest...

 

Anyways, I hope the companions have their strengths and weaknesses, and that they are ultra powerful.

I don't want to be ultra powerful either though, my pc damn well better have weaknesses.

[necromate]

Edit 2: There was an old RPG where your party members could mutiny against you. I can't remember what it was called... Was it Ishar?

 

Baldur's Gate II had this. If your reputation got too high (good) the evil party members would progressively bicker more and more until the left the party / attacked you outright. Vice versa for low reputation (evil).

Yeah that's right, I forgot they had that in BG2 also.

BG1 as well...I remember Xzar and Montaron fighting it out with Khalid and Jaheira while my level 2'er ran away ...I thought it was a horrible glitch at the time.

 

I just started playing the enhanced edition and witnessed this about 2 hours ago XD

 

I'd like to add, that I really liked it in KOTOR 1-2 how you could turn your party members to the other side... I guess I'm the guy who wants to see that douchebag paladin fallen, blackguard ftw xD Would be great to see something similar in PE, altough I would not like every companion to be easily manipulated. I mean the paladin should douche about the usual righteousness and stop me from evil deeds, but after seeing his adopted thiefling son murdered by his own temple's bigotted idiots, I expect him to at least go on a killing spree. ( "Well, looks like I'm gonna have to go on a killing spree." hehe :D )

[Dream]

I don't think I've ever had that issue (especially not in BG or PST). If anything I was always annoyed by how much more deadly my PC was compared to every other companion I had. Really the only characters to even come close were Sarevok and maybe Vhailor.

[necromate]

DA2...shouldn't have even had a party system....

It was a freakin action RPG, nothing tactical about it whatsoever.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest...

 

Anyways, I hope the companions have their strengths and weaknesses, and that they are ultra powerful.

I don't want to be ultra powerful either though, my pc damn well better have weaknesses.

 

Last week I was playing Neverwinter Nights 1, I started a sorcerer, got one lvl of fighter, still spell feat -> using various defensive and buff spells/items and armor I got so powerful, that I eat bosses for breakfast, when facing casters I put on a globe of invulnerability for spell immunity... game is no challenge anymore

Though I found it annoying that after each rest, I have to recast all my spells, so if PE is going to have buffs, I'd like them to be either last until dispelled or combined into a single chain if incantations for 1 button recast