Relationships and travels (Also, party's jobs)

[Auxilius]

Whenever you travel with people, you generally bond, especially if you're on an adventure. You get to save their life, they get to save your life; you eat, drink and sleep together, sometimes over a camp fire; you meet new people, fight new threats and generally have to use teamwork to be able to get out of tricky situations; you share the loot and the gold and come out as a better, more experienced (wo)man.

Then, why do I always a better relation with the Fighter I left at the tavern ? While we tend to agree on a lot of points, just because I stroked his ego once or twice shouldn't mean he's my best buddy.

 

I think travels should naturally improve relationships. Since Project Eternity doesn't use the D&D morality system, it also mean we can tackle more morally grey issues. Sure, as someone who tend to good-oriented (if greedy) in my RPGs, I should hate the guts of the token psycho of my party, but he proved himself incredibly valuable. As a player, I feel like I owe him something, so should do my characters.

 

On the other side, left out characters could threaten to leave. After all, unlike they're getting paid to guard the stronghold or something, they're just wasting their time. A flexible system could mean you've to change the party regularly and make the most of what you have without having to juggle everybody, even if I'm the kind of man who think limitations build strengh.

If you really dislike some dudes and by no mean, want to have them in your regulars whatsoever, you could also convince to take them a job as mercenaries, watchers or crafters so they can bring some gold and bacon back home for the sake of the goal we share. Hey, it could even be interesting side-quests where NPCs would be the central point. You could see what their life is without the hero.

 

Finally, always taking the same dudes with you could make them tired or strained over time.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I'm gonna agree that travels should have an effect on the characters relationships, but not always positive. Some characters might not want to travel with you, for whatever reason, but have to because of orders, or a sense of duty, or whatever, and always taking them along and throwing them at monsters might not make them like you more. Also, what if you're a total incompetent as a leader, and get them wounded, their best buddy killed, and muck up the objective so you don't even get paid?

 

Still, I think most of what you're saying is a good idea, just not `travels should naturally improve relationships`. Sure, they say stuff about fire-forged friends and the like. But they also say familiarity breeds contempt.

[Pshaw]

I've gotta second TheTeaMustFlow here. As much as I love a strengthening of bonds I'd love to see mechanics where maybe how often you let a player get severely injured or die effected their attitude to you and the mission. I feel that often games tend to focus solely on the dialogue trees as the end all be all of inter-character relationship building. If you promise to somebody in a conversation that you'll keep them safe yet constantly let them die in missions I feel like that should effect their opinion of you. Maybe characters could even confront you about often you let them take the bulk of the beating. Maybe some characters could me more sensitive to this than others, melee characters for example should probably less sensitive.

I mean there should be a flip side to this where if you get them out of more scrapes in fine condition they should gain confidence in your abilities as a leader. It also wouldn't need to be direct combat related alone. Perhaps bolder characters would frown on too much sneaking around and characters with a bit of battle lust would frown on negotiating your way out of conflicts. Granted the latter falls under dialogue related morale issues and would probably be in the game regardless.

I think it would be very interesting to see some sort of morale mechanic placed in game that took combat and game play choices into account in addition to whatever dialogue options you're picking.

[Sacred_Path]

As much as I love a strengthening of bonds I'd love to see mechanics where maybe how often you let a player get severely injured or die effected their attitude to you and the mission.

Anything that forces me to powergame my relationships is bad. Letting character X dying two times or your own character dying two times resulting in X leaving - that would be ok. It simply forces me to play in a competent manner. What's bad is companions leaving because they feel "left out", or because you don't have enough "influence" on them (you didn't choose the comforting dialogue option q_q).

[Jobby]

I definitely like the idea of battles affecting your relationship with characters, another point that I always thought about in BG2 was when everyone was greeting about being tired and needing to rest that ignoring them had no ramifications on what they thought of you, I don't know if fatigue is to be implemented but at the very least leaving a characters health low after a battle should cause some griping and possible decline in their respect for you.. a morale bar would actually be quite interesting alongside stamina and health..

[Amentep]

I've always thought it would be great if letting characters get hurt/injured in combat too much affected their morale eventually leading them to leave.  Or forcing them to march when tired.

 

 

 

As much as I love a strengthening of bonds I'd love to see mechanics where maybe how often you let a player get severely injured or die effected their attitude to you and the mission.

Anything that forces me to powergame my relationships is bad. Letting character X dying two times or your own character dying two times resulting in X leaving - that would be ok. It simply forces me to play in a competent manner. What's bad is companions leaving because they feel "left out", or because you don't have enough "influence" on them (you didn't choose the comforting dialogue option q_q).

 

I think whether characters feel left out or poorly influenced should be a relationship of what the NPC wants vs what the player gives mitigated by player "charisma" (however that is defined).  A soldier may expect gruffer treatment from a leader than, say, a mage who has spent most of their time locked in study.  But also a charismatic leader should be able to convince his party to double march to the next location without complaint.

 

There also should be logical arguments that could be made (if the player decided) to override objections.  DAO does this a little with the persuade option, but honestly everytime Morrigan complained about helping some group I wanted the option to say "Hi Morrigan, helping the Mage's circle/Arl/dwarves/dalish/riders of rohan/whatever gives me an army of mages/arl's men/dwarves/dalish/etc at my command so by helping them a little I'm helping myself a whole lot, kthnxbai."

Edited February 22, 2013 by Amentep

[Sacred_Path]

I think whether characters feel left out or poorly influenced should be a relationship of what the NPC wants vs what the player gives mitigated by player "charisma" (however that is defined).  A soldier may expect gruffer treatment from a leader than, say, a mage who has spent most of their time locked in study.

This would be ok if you only have one choice to make across the board; like, giving a little expletive-riddled speech motivates the Fighter, but doesn't do anything for the Mage. Choice and consequence. A bad example would be giving you the choice to treat every character in the way that goes over best with them; taking aside the Fighter, then talking to the Mage. That's the "choose the most comforting dialogue option" minigame I resent.

But also a charismatic leader should be able to convince his party to double march to the next location without complaint.

If Charisma is given a meaningful role in character development by being the "party" stat, ok. That could easily unbalance Charisma though, unless a) stat points are really scarce or b) your followers are pretty incompetent (Fallout 1&2). Edited February 22, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Nonek]

Be nice to turn on one of the more fragile or needy party members and tell them that they should shape up and not rely on your advice or support, because you're neither their nursemaid, their advisor or beholden to listen to any more whining. Tell them to toughen the hell up or ship out. What would be even more refreshing is if such dialogue prompted some recognisable and quantifiable improvement or at least change in the character.

 

Of course in reverse it would be nice for the more independent characters to dismiss your questions with equal ridicule, and lose respect for a protagonist who appears too needy and feckless.

[Amentep]

 

I think whether characters feel left out or poorly influenced should be a relationship of what the NPC wants vs what the player gives mitigated by player "charisma" (however that is defined).  A soldier may expect gruffer treatment from a leader than, say, a mage who has spent most of their time locked in study.

This would be ok if you only have one choice to make across the board; like, giving a little expletive-riddled speech motivates the Fighter, but doesn't do anything for the Mage. Choice and consequence. A bad example would be giving you the choice to treat every character in the way that goes over best with them; taking aside the Fighter, then talking to the Mage. That's the "choose the most comforting dialogue option" minigame I resent.

>>But also a charismatic leader should be able to convince his party to double march to the next location without complaint.

If Charisma is given a meaningful role in character development by being the "party" stat, ok. That could easily unbalance Charisma though, unless a) stat points are really scarce or b) your followers are pretty incompetent (Fallout 1&2).

 

 

I think we're roughly in agreement here; when I say charismatic I'm not really looking at charisma as a stat, per se, but some representation ones personal magnetism crossed with leadership (I'd actually prefer a combination of stats creating a composite charisma stat under tight upper/bottom limit - like an asymptote line -  so that there are effect min/max to how effective any individual can be than a personal stat that one could up to infinity and allow you to convince 5 gods to join your party to slay some goblins.)

Edited February 22, 2013 by Amentep

[Auxilius]

I definitely like the idea of battles affecting your relationship with characters, another point that I always thought about in BG2 was when everyone was greeting about being tired and needing to rest that ignoring them had no ramifications on what they thought of you, I don't know if fatigue is to be implemented but at the very least leaving a characters health low after a battle should cause some griping and possible decline in their respect for you.. a morale bar would actually be quite interesting alongside stamina and health..

Agreed. NPCs act too much like willing slaves in RPGs. A leader must prove he's worthy of his title. It was especially grating in NWN2. You could treat your followers like crap and they'll keep following you no matter what.

Of course, it can be difficult to implement but being able to find an equilibrium thanks to good leadership would be extremely rewarding.

 

Just to get back a little on the first topic, travels affecting negatively the PC's relationships is a given but it could become a scrappy mechanic real fast. But like I said earlier, if it means you've to juggle back and forth, why not? A character could love to travel, especially if he's been with the PC since the first day or nurture some feelings for him. On the other hand, the Wizard who needs to study wouldn't like to stay far of his lab for too long. But I wonder if it wouldn't force the player to ignore this kind of guy. A good way to bypass the problem would be the morale bar. I think it is truly a good idea. PE is party-based after all.

[Osvir]

Some ideas I believe could work in giving NPC's more depth to them and more varied depending on how you create your character:

If I have high Strength, then the character should look like high Strength as well. Perhaps the statistics could in some ways be used to determine [soul] or [Personality] of characters and some characters triggers differently on different types of "Parameters". The actual [Attributes] into -> [Appearance] part is not difficult (Because having 18 Strength could, physically in code, affect the character appearance sliders), but [Attributes] + [Appearance] into [Personality] might be a tad bit more difficult and more time consuming.

[Attributes] into [Appearance] = Easy (with customization options available ofc without adjusting the other)
(([Attributes]+[Appearance] = [Personality]) = X-type#) = Difficult

(X-type#/[Companion X-type#] = [Companion Reaction]) = Really difficult

Conceptual scenarios:

A, X-type2.1  Companion
- Companion is a demon in disguise.
- Sees frail character (X-type4.4).
- Joins party gladly.
- Attempts to devour Player during travels.
- Player gets to fight, run away or diplomacy check.

B, X-type2.1 Companion
- Companion is a demon in disguise.
- Sees your character who looks strong, determined, capable (X-type2.0)
- Joins the party with the intent of getting stronger.
- Is totally cool (recognizes the Player character more as an equal).

Conclusion?

[X-type2.0]+[X-type2.1], works well together.
[X-type4.4]+[X-type2.1], needs more work between each other in-game and more fights might ensue or they might bond
- Make [X-type2.1] into a [X-type2.3] and make the [X-type4.4] into a [X-type4.3] and story driven events during the game and they become friends (When you get to put out an [Attribute] point when leveling up, you'd also affect [Appearance] which would affect [Personality] too, which is where it gets complicated).

 

[soul] = Written Personality(Dialogue/Story)

X-type2.0 Strong, Determined
- High Strength, Good Wisdom, Intelligence, Moderate Endurance, Great Charisma
- The [soul]: A leader-type, militaristic. Disciplined.  Has a goal forward. Can be intimidating.

 

X-type2.1 

- Mid Strength, Less Wisdom, More Intelligence, Moderate Endurance, Greater Charisma
- The [soul]: Written Personality(Dialogue/Story)Evil and Sinister. Demon. Unkind, bad-mouth, teasing and nonchalant. Aloof.

X-type4.4
- Low Strength, Moderate Wisdom, Highest Intelligence, Low Endurance, Good Charisma
- The [soul]: Very intelligent, which is probably the most significant part here. Relative to the other statistics, it is intelligence that is pre-dominated. A scholar, a Wizard by all means, powerful. Being weaker in body, could actually be said that it strengthens the Magical power. (Repair, Science, Speech, Four-Eyes, Good-Natured + Hardcore).

TC(Too Complicated);DR: Personality and more alive Companions, reaction and relationships (dynamic). I'm asking the question "How, mechanically?" and trying to answer it myself.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Some ideas I believe could work in giving NPC's more depth to them and more varied depending on how you create your character:

 

If I have high Strength, then the character should look like high Strength as well. Perhaps the statistics could in some ways be used to determine [soul] or [Personality] of characters and some characters triggers differently on different types of "Parameters". The actual [Attributes] into -> [Appearance] part is not difficult (Because having 18 Strength could, physically in code, affect the character appearance sliders), but [Attributes] + [Appearance] into [Personality] might be a tad bit more difficult and more time consuming.

 

[Attributes] into [Appearance] = Easy (with customization options available ofc without adjusting the other)

(([Attributes]+[Appearance] = [Personality]) = X-type#) = Difficult

(X-type#/[Companion X-type#] = [Companion Reaction]) = Really difficult

 

Conceptual scenarios:

 

A, X-type2.1  Companion

- Companion is a demon in disguise.

- Sees frail character (X-type4.4).

- Joins party gladly.

- Attempts to devour Player during travels.

- Player gets to fight, run away or diplomacy check.

 

B, X-type2.1 Companion

- Companion is a demon in disguise.

- Sees your character who looks strong, determined, capable (X-type2.0)

- Joins the party with the intent of getting stronger.

- Is totally cool (recognizes the Player character more as an equal).

 

Conclusion?

 

[X-type2.0]+[X-type2.1], works well together.

[X-type4.4]+[X-type2.1], needs more work between each other in-game and more fights might ensue or they might bond

- Make [X-type2.1] into a [X-type2.3] and make the [X-type4.4] into a [X-type4.3] and story driven events during the game and they become friends (When you get to put out an [Attribute] point when leveling up, you'd also affect [Appearance] which would affect [Personality] too, which is where it gets complicated).

 

[soul] = Written Personality(Dialogue/Story)

 

X-type2.0 Strong, Determined

- High Strength, Good Wisdom, Intelligence, Moderate Endurance, Great Charisma

- The [soul]: A leader-type, militaristic. Disciplined.  Has a goal forward. Can be intimidating.

 

X-type2.1 

- Mid Strength, Less Wisdom, More Intelligence, Moderate Endurance, Greater Charisma

- The [soul]: Written Personality(Dialogue/Story)Evil and Sinister. Demon. Unkind, bad-mouth, teasing and nonchalant. Aloof.

 

X-type4.4

- Low Strength, Moderate Wisdom, Highest Intelligence, Low Endurance, Good Charisma

- The [soul]: Very intelligent, which is probably the most significant part here. Relative to the other statistics, it is intelligence that is pre-dominated. A scholar, a Wizard by all means, powerful. Being weaker in body, could actually be said that it strengthens the Magical power. (Repair, Science, Speech, Four-Eyes, Good-Natured + Hardcore).

 

TC(Too Complicated);DR: Personality and more alive Companions, reaction and relationships (dynamic). I'm asking the question "How, mechanically?" and trying to answer it myself.

 

Osvir: writing very interesting-looking ideas that are probably incredibly great but are too complicated for my puny brain to understand since 2012.

[Lephys]

Osvir: writing very interesting-looking ideas that are probably incredibly great but are too complicated for my puny brain to understand since 2012.

Seriously... if you put Osvir in a thinktank, and supplied him with a team of dictation-activated robots who could convert ideas directly into game code, we'd have 100 RPGs in a week.

 

 

As for the companions and relationships thingy, it sparks some thoughts.

 

I'm just going to list them, because they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. *shrug*

 

I definitely agree that the whole one-dimensional "You're doing something even remotely affiliated with something I don't like? NEGATIVE 100 POINTS FROM GRYFFINDOR!!!" thing. I never finished NWN2, but who was the Dwarf Fighter who wants to be a Monk? I swear to GOD, every time you said "Hello there" to someone and passed them, he went all "WHY DIDN'T WE KICK THEIR TEETH IN?! *Hates you now*".

 

Clearly there should be ways in which to cause your companions to dislike you, but every single thing shouldn't do that. Are these people 5 years old? "I'm a Rogue, and every time we don't steal everything in sight, I'm going to pitch a fit, rather than simply be mildly annoyed." Or yeah, Morrigan, in DA:O, with her "What? That guy who just saved all our lives is a Mage, so he's affiliated with the Mage's Circle, and you're just going to give him some bandages and bread?! I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID THAT!"

 

Anywho, I was thinking that maybe those same situations should evoke merely mild annoyance, and there should be other opportunities to appease their desires. Maybe even work it into sidequests, etc. You know your Fighter loves to brawl, so you tell everyone else to stand back and let the two of you handle some ruffians, McFisticuff style, when you COULD'VE just fought them with everyone more easily rather than going out of your way to allow him the thrill of a challenge. Your Rogue companion has been pretty awesome and useful lately, so maybe you can grant them first-pick of some chest you've found. The player has no control over what they take out of the chest, and maybe they don't even tell you. Then, later on, you find out they've got some cursed gemstone or something (inject originality and complexity at your leisure, as generic example is generic). Maybe how you help them deal with that further effects their relationship (and possibly those of other companions, as the events most likely relate to more than just one single companion's personality and perspective).

 

Another thing I was thinking (that was touched on in another thread about companions) is that companions who aren't currently in your party should be able to do stuff while you're "all" out-and-about, whether it's city missions/investigations/gambling at the tavern or stronghold tasks/training/etc. Maybe who you take with you on which quests/segments can potentially positively affect your relationship with them (take the Rogue to ruins known to be filled with treasure, or take the Fighter to clear out a bandit encampment, etc.). I don't think they should necessarily be NEGATIVELY affected simply by not being taken, though. You'll just miss out on the positive boost you could've had by taking them on that particular adventure. BUT, you could maybe still let them do stuff they want to do (perhaps at the mild cost of such things being slightly less constructive, such as the gambling-at-the-tavern example? Perhaps they don't really find out about something in town you wanted investigated, but they return with winnings and share with the party? *shrug*) for more minor positive boosts.

 

Sometimes you would have good clues as to who would like to do what, ahead of time. i.e. You're preparing to head out to investigate something deep in the woods of a little-explored forest. Maybe your Ranger expresses some kind of enthusiasm or interest in that particular area. Then, sometimes, you'll have no clue, really. Go explore some ancient ruins, and it just so happens there's ultra-cool Rangery stuff down there that your Ranger would LOVE. But, you didn't bring him/her (simply mutual-exclusiveness in choice for replayability. Maybe there are several different companions who would like to go on that particular adventure, and the situation is affected in various ways, much like the overly-simplistic "We couldn't get through this certain door because we didn't have our awesome Rogue" situation). It doesn't even have to be class-specific stuff. Your Rogue has a love for high-society things, or your Fighter loves botany (arbitrary examples of non-class-specific interests)? Take your Rogue into the palace when you go, and take your Fighter into the woods when you go exploring.

 

Basically, you don't need any kind of artificial means to further relationships, like a lot of games do it. You just have the companion's personalities be a natural part of the game world, and react accordingly. Then, you give the player the means of basically getting to know them, if the player so chooses, so that he's equipped with the knowledge of what choices (sometimes completely optional, other times tough decisions that MUST be made) will affect whom.

 

Lastly, while it should be entirely possible for companions to come to dislike you (and therefore deny you services/information/items/quest-content, etc.), I don't think it should be mandatory that they do so. I don't think you should have the most vile bastard in the world in your party, who simply wants all things dead, AND the Druid who wants nothing more than for all things to live. So, basically, gaining a positive relationship with one companion shouldn't automatically give you a crappier relationship with another, in perfect symmetry.

 

On the other hand, I don't think that, at the end of a playthrough, you should be able to have a 100% positive, best-man/maid-of-honor relationship with every single one of your companions. BUT, you should probably be able to do so with several of them (maybe 5 out of 10, or something?), and, with a decent bit of intelligent effort, the rest should not loathe you or anything (they're just not super best buds or anything). Basically, the negative should be that their relationship is still "Meh," rather than that their relationship with you is "I WILL END YOU IN YOUR SLEEP WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT, but we're still traveling together for now, MUAHAHAHAHA!"

[AGX-17]

I'm gonna agree that travels should have an effect on the characters relationships, but not always positive. Some characters might not want to travel with you, for whatever reason, but have to because of orders, or a sense of duty, or whatever, and always taking them along and throwing them at monsters might not make them like you more. Also, what if you're a total incompetent as a leader, and get them wounded, their best buddy killed, and muck up the objective so you don't even get paid?

 

Still, I think most of what you're saying is a good idea, just not `travels should naturally improve relationships`. Sure, they say stuff about fire-forged friends and the like. But they also say familiarity breeds contempt.

I agree, but I think the player's choices in terms of RPing should be the deciding factor. There shouldn't be characters who are universally begrudging about their joining you because of orders or duty, it should depend on how you play your character. If a character's personal morals are a given set of values and you play your character in a way that aligns with those values, the character should be agreeable, if not happy to help, whereas other characters with other beliefs and priorities might have the opposite reaction. A situation which could be changed by RPing a different sort of character with different values and so forth.

 

The idea of relationships being affected by in-combat actions is something I've wanted to see in RPGs for a long time. If you've got some character constantly acting as a human shield for another (who is not a sociopath who only sees others as convenient tools to be used,) the characters should have a stronger relationship. Especially considering these games tend to be combat-focused.

Edited February 22, 2013 by AGX-17

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The idea of relationships being affected by in-combat actions is something I've wanted to see in RPGs for a long time. If you've got some character constantly acting as a human shield for another (who is not a sociopath who only sees others as convenient tools to be used,) the characters should have a stronger relationship. Especially considering these games tend to be combat-focused.

I want to see the opposite. I would like to see someone who is constantly used as the human shield get pissed off at everyone after a while. After all being the guy/girl whose duty is to be beaten with weaponry would probably make one feel negative, especially if their were others who rarely get harmed.

[Lephys]

I want to see the opposite. I would like to see someone who is constantly used as the human shield get pissed off at everyone after a while. After all being the guy/girl whose duty is to be beaten with weaponry would probably make one feel negative, especially if their were others who rarely get harmed.

He merely stated that the character was acting as a human shield for another, not that anyone was forcing them to do it. Really, either way, you'd probably still have some degree of a bond form. Whether you hate doing it, or love doing it, protecting someone and preserving their life on a constant basis is going to affect the regard in which they hold you.

 

But, yes, both scenarios are possible. Hell, even while the protected person develops a fondness for the protector, the protector could become quite contempt-filled if they're constantly being ordered to fill a role they hate.

 

My only concern with combat instances influencing character relationships is, can they really do that properly on their budget? It doesn't really seem like one of those things you could just scale down to "Oh, the more you heal that person, or kill something that was attacking them, the better they like you and such." You would almost have to factor in every little detail of every combat scenario, or none at all, it seems.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Lephys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

I want to see the opposite. I would like to see someone who is constantly used as the human shield get pissed off at everyone after a while. After all being the guy/girl whose duty is to be beaten with weaponry would probably make one feel negative, especially if their were others who rarely get harmed.

He merely stated that the character was acting as a human shield for another, not that anyone was forcing them to do it. Really, either way, you'd probably still have some degree of a bond form. Whether you hate doing it, or love doing it, protecting someone and preserving their life on a constant basis is going to affect the regard in which they hold you.

 

 

I got that, I want to see the opposite of that. Which is someone who would be ordered to take the brunt of the damage and become increasingly negative.

[Lephys]

I got that, I want to see the opposite of that. Which is someone who would be ordered to take the brunt of the damage and become increasingly negative.

Ahhh. I thought you were meaning that you would think the opposite would happen. I might've just read it wrong. *shrug*. My mistake, regardless.

[Karkarov]

All this is good "in theory" but designing it so that it works has to be done from the ground up.  This game wasn't designed that way I am fairly sure.  That said even if this type of stuff was implemented you need to keep it simple.  Like TeaMustFlow said power gaming your relationships not only sounds dumb on paper but it is dumb in game too.  If a person leaves your party it should be because you keep making choices they don't like over a long term or because you don't get along period.  Thing is... if they are really that different from your character 1: why did you recruit them to begin with?  2: why did they agree to be recruited in the first place?

 

Also toss the getting injured/knocked out stuff out the window.  You are a party of professional adventurers.  Risk of injury and death is pretty much par for the course, anyone not willing to face those things repeatedly over a long period of time would have never become an adventurer to begin with or would have retired from it very early on.

[AGX-17]

 

 

The idea of relationships being affected by in-combat actions is something I've wanted to see in RPGs for a long time. If you've got some character constantly acting as a human shield for another (who is not a sociopath who only sees others as convenient tools to be used,) the characters should have a stronger relationship. Especially considering these games tend to be combat-focused.

I want to see the opposite. I would like to see someone who is constantly used as the human shield get pissed off at everyone after a while. After all being the guy/girl whose duty is to be beaten with weaponry would probably make one feel negative, especially if their were others who rarely get harmed.

 

 

The idea there was that the tank is some noble, selfless person who wants to protect his/her comrades, not somebody who's a slave or sociopath or whatever. I mean, you wouldn't be rolling with the heaviest armor and a shield and join a team of felt-clad mages and expect them to be able to take a hit and survive. That sounds like the premise of a bad G/PG comedy movie where some former pro wrestler becomes a baby-sitter, but without the saccharine transformation from embittered meat-head to lovable giant. Edited February 23, 2013 by AGX-17

[Lephys]

All this is good "in theory" but designing it so that it works has to be done from the ground up.  This game wasn't designed that way I am fairly sure.  That said even if this type of stuff was implemented you need to keep it simple.  Like TeaMustFlow said power gaming your relationships not only sounds dumb on paper but it is dumb in game too.  If a person leaves your party it should be because you keep making choices they don't like over a long term or because you don't get along period.  Thing is... if they are really that different from your character 1: why did you recruit them to begin with?  2: why did they agree to be recruited in the first place?

 

Also toss the getting injured/knocked out stuff out the window.  You are a party of professional adventurers.  Risk of injury and death is pretty much par for the course, anyone not willing to face those things repeatedly over a long period of time would have never become an adventurer to begin with or would have retired from it very early on.

Well, you've either got to keep it simple (the combat-affecting-temperament/relationship stuff), or you've got to make it abundantly complex, the latter being quite difficult and resource-demanding (which is why I'm not even sure it's feasible here. Maybe if their budget was 30-mil? *shrug*).

 

And I'm totally with you on the "how against everything that you're doing can your party member be and still have willingly joined your party?" bit. I'm all for the how-you-handle-a-huge-event/scenario-causes-one-or-more-companions-to-react-strongtly-on-different-ends-of-the-spectrum implementations, but I hate it when (and I kinda hated this about how Dragon Age did things) EVERY single thing you do pisses someone off. Like everything's a big mutually exclusive choice. Went east instead of west first? Bob hates you now, and Sally LOVES you for it! Didn't murder that poor old woman and gut her cat? Sally hates you because she's apparently an evil **** and expects the whole party to be the same (despite knowing them well enough to know they aren't and traveling with them anyway), and Bob loves you now for what's pretty much common decency.

 

I don't want to rack up negative points with someone for every 5 seconds we go without brutally murdering people or committing random, arbitrary crimes, and I don't want to rack up positive points with people for every 5 seconds we go WITHOUT doing so. "Oh, you petted a kitty! HOW RIGHTEOUS AND JUST! *+1 Regard with Holy Paladin Katherine*"

 

There's a huge difference between a companion who will gladly, selfishly seek self-gain whenever he gets the chance, and one who CONSTANTLY seeks self-gain and pitches a fit whenever there isn't the chance for it.

 

You shouldn't be traveling with 2 people who LITERALLY wish to murder each other. Maybe they just don't particularly like each other, and maybe some big event causes them to go at it, and you have to deal with it. *shrug* And maybe there's a "companion" in the game whom you don't really know is not really a "good guy." That might be interesting. He/she can join you on a specific, rather significant quest/story-segment, and it turns out they're actually basically your enemy (as in, as part of the story, they actually wish you dead, or to deliver you into a trap, etc.). Maybe with certain amounts of certain skills, you can find out ahead of time, and if you don't, you end up having to fight your way out of a very precarious situation. Or maybe they end up critically wounding another party member in a desperate effort to sabotage your endeavor before they go down in flames. *shrug*

 

Until you found out, though, they would simply travel with you, and be quite useful. They obviously wouldn't open up to you TOO much, because the more lies you tell, the harder it is to keep up the disguise.

 

Anywho, basically, realistic (or... verisimilitudinous?) people have a rather wide range of what they can put up with, when necessary, unless they're friggin' giant toddlers. And I don't want to travel around with giant toddlers. That guy who loves fighting should understand that we're not going to fight everything we see. That Druid needs to understand that we're going to occasionally kill wild beasts of nature. that Priest needs to understand that everyone isn't ultra-worried about holiness and righteousness by his god. Of course, if I keep letting people go who unquestionably deserved a good thrashing (basically, if I'm a selfish bastard, albeit a peaceful one), then that fighter probably needs to be cross with me, after so much of that. If I arbitrarily slaughter baby harp seals and laugh about it, then use their heads as sock puppets, then that Druid should probably be pretty upset with me. And if I encourage everyone to piss all over the statue of that Priest's god while we all stare him in the eyes, the Priest should probably try to smite us and rip out our jugulars in a fit of rage. (humorous exaggeration alert)

[Shadenuat]

The idea there was that the tank is some noble, selfless person who

wants to protect his/her comrades, not somebody who's a slave or

sociopath or whatever. I mean, you wouldn't be rolling with the heaviest

armor and a shield and join a team of felt-clad mages and expect them

to be able to take a hit and survive.

Character like that could ask for double share in loot or gold (like Korgan in BG2). I remember that soldiers in first ranks like pikemen had double pay for their service.

[Lephys]

 

 

The idea there was that the tank is some noble, selfless person who

wants to protect his/her comrades, not somebody who's a slave or

sociopath or whatever. I mean, you wouldn't be rolling with the heaviest

armor and a shield and join a team of felt-clad mages and expect them

to be able to take a hit and survive.

Character like that could ask for double share in loot or gold (like Korgan in BG2). I remember that soldiers in first ranks like pikemen had double pay for their service.

 

 

As long as they mention it up-front, I think that's pretty awesome. It then becomes a choice of "Man, this person really thinks highly of their services... of course, can I pass up their amazing combat prowess just to save some money? Hmmm..."

 

They just definitely don't need to pull some "Hey man, I'll be your friend and let's travel together! 8D!!!" when they join you, then later, suddenly go "BLARGLE!!! THIS BLOWS AND I'M UPSET THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ME DOUBLE SHARES OF LOOT THIS WHOLE TIME!"

 

Not that you said they should. I'm simply criticizing poor implementations in existing games, 8P.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Lephys

[Sacred_Path]

They just definitely don't need to pull some "Hey man, I'll be your friend and let's travel together! 8D!!!" when they join you, then later, suddenly go "BLARGLE!!! THIS BLOWS AND I'M UPSET THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ME DOUBLE SHARES OF LOOT THIS WHOLE TIME!"

This.

 

There could be mercenaries, who want to take a share of the gold but otherwise do your every bidding, and others who are in for the ride/ quest goal but can be upset/ get up and leave if you don't display competent leadership.

 

edit: but gize I'm p. sure we aren't talking about P:E here anyway because in that as we know you can just create your own mindless goons through the Adventurer's Hall.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Ffordesoon]

Lot of good stuff in here. Keep it coming.