Relationships and travels (Also, party's jobs)

[Jarrakul]

Maybe give the main character free "guard other" and "cower" options in combat? "Guard other" would target an ally and give you bonuses against anyone attacking them, whereas "cower" would make you semi-invisible to enemies (less likely to be attacked) if there are allies around? That would give you a potential way of breaking down combat influence without building the entire game around, but it'd also probably favor tanks heavily. Which could be a cool dynamic, if the tank classes are build around leadership.

[Lephys]

You could also have moments when you need to "split up" to perform several tasks at once (like covering 2 different entrances on opposite ends of a courtyard, etc.), and your choice of who should pair up with whom might spark different perspectives and relationship changes in people. You know, "Wow, maybe I had underestimated you before. If I hadn't held off an entire corridor full of assailants side-by-side with you like that, I wouldn't have really noticed how disciplined your form is. *strikes up conversation when you get back to the tavern*". Not just between you and whomever you paired with, but between two companions, even.

 

That's a pretty weak/generic example, but hopefully the point is evident.

[Xienzi]

There are plenty of threads discussing out-of-party npc jobs. Just saying.

[TrashMan]

 

  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?

 

I would assume because you don't know them that godo early on and neither do they know you.

It takes time to get to know a person, and sometimes it may look like you and someone else will get along perfectly...yet you end up hating eachothers guts.

[Lephys]

 

 

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?

 

I would assume because you don't know them that godo early on and neither do they know you.

It takes time to get to know a person, and sometimes it may look like you and someone else will get along perfectly...yet you end up hating eachothers guts.

 

 

True. But, if that's really the case, then they should really not get very far with you before they decide to leave. None of this "Well, really, they're designed to just not really be for your party if you play a certain way, but then, you probably need the manpower, gameplay-wise, so we're just gonna contradict ourselves here by having them not decide to leave, but hating your guts all the while."

[Auxilius]

Yup, coherence is a key. People who keep wondering why they're in this like Bishop in NWN2 do not make very endearing characters.

That's why people disliked so much the party in Dragon Age 2, or Morrigan in DA1. It's okay to complain but nobody want to hang out with angsty crybabies who whine endlessly on the same matter.

If you share a goal, you buckle up for the sake of teamwork. Otherwise, you're just a child.

[Lephys]

Yup, coherence is a key. People who keep wondering why they're in this like Bishop in NWN2 do not make very endearing characters.

That's why people disliked so much the party in Dragon Age 2, or Morrigan in DA1. It's okay to complain but nobody want to hang out with angsty crybabies who whine endlessly on the same matter.

If you share a goal, you buckle up for the sake of teamwork. Otherwise, you're just a child.

The unique voice of Claudia Black is about the only thing that made Morrigan tolerable, heh. "We're stopping to eat food so we don't die?! THIS ISN'T SLAUGHTERING ALL MAGES AND NOT CARING ABOUT THINGS!"

 

*-10 to Morrigan's likeytude*

 

Not to mention that, in DA1, your peeps actually sucked worse (or, at least, missed out on awesome bonuses) if you didn't get them to like you.

[Ffordesoon]

I did like Morrigan, actually. The problems with her writing are the problems with every character's writing in Origins, but the fact that she was

 

 

manipulating you throughout the game in order to get you to kill Flemeth and knock her up

 

 

made the fact that she kept following you around despite her objections far more sensible than pretty much anyone else's reasoning for being there. Except maybe Sten's.

 

I also liked that she really did have her own agenda, and that

 

 

she is ultimately out for herself no matter what you do.

 

 

She's not perfect, and the issues with her character that have been mentioned are totally valid, but I still think she's more interesting than some characters in that game. Give me Morrigan over Wynne any day.

[AGX-17]

 

 

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.

 

 

The thing about mercenaries is that they'll bolt when things get rough. They might even steal from you while running away from a fight that isn't going well. Mercenaries only care about themselves, they're not the type to act as human shields.

[Sacred_Path]

The thing about mercenaries is that they'll bolt when things get rough

I think that depends. If the spoils are great, I think you'd find people willing to penetrate some monsters' lair with you, especially if others have succeeded at such tasks before.

If you as their commander proved to be completely inept, that might change things, but then there's game logic. Why would people ever even bother to take up arms in a group of six, to wade through myriads of enemies and ultimately face a super powerful villain? Wouldn't they just stay at home and accept things?

Mercenaries only care about themselves, they're not the type to act as human shields.

I'm p. sure that a lot of mercenaries didn't break ranks all the time when were to take up positions to protect, say, crossbowmen.

[Lephys]

The thing about mercenaries is that they'll bolt when things get rough. They might even steal from you while running away from a fight that isn't going well. Mercenaries only care about themselves, they're not the type to act as human shields.

Well, that's quite true. They will potentially do those things. And they do tend to treat it like an insurance policy, heh. All business. "Oh, there's an army of 7,000 coming to kill us all, and you want me to be your body guard? Well, the pay no longer matters, because I won't be alive to use it. I'm afraid I'm canceling your policy, u_u..." It might actually be quite interesting if some of your more "mercenary" characters would get to certain areas in a cave and just flat out refuse to continue. "I'll wait for you guys out by the entrance, with the horses," etc. The rest of you can go on and handle the necromancer. He didn't sign up for that.

 

BUT, at the same time, I think that somewhat emphasizes the need (in addition to characters who just remain basic muscle, like that) for more-than-rudimentary character relationships, situations, and factors. The fact is, a person is more complex than "if this doesn't get to bad, I'll stick with you for enough money." They've maybe gotten themselves to a point in life at which they're in a routine of handling things that way, but it's essentially avoiding handling things a different way. It's simplifying life, for convenience, so long as life allows.

 

There should be times when such characters are forced to confront a more complex set of circumstances that their current protocol doesn't really handle. Of course, in spite of this, there should be characters who wrestle with a decision, only to harden themselves further and still treat things as simple/stick with what they've already decided. AND, there should be characters who truly re-evaluate things to the point of actually modifying the way in which they made decisions.

 

This doesn't mean radical transformations (i.e. "I wanted to kill everything, but now I just want to run an orphanage and pray all day"), and it doesn't JUST apply to selfish "bad" guys reconsidering the value of lives and other factors. It also applies to those super zealous holy pacifist people, realizing that they must sometimes fight to prevent others from senselessly fighting and killing, etc.

[DeathQuaker]

((Somehow this ended up in the wrong thread and I have no idea how))

Edited March 12, 2013 by DeathQuaker

[BaronVonChateau]

People joining the PC must have a pretty solid reason for doing so. The reason should rarely be dependent on the PC's personality or identity, because it would cheapen both the NPC's motivation and ability to make choice for him/herself. On some touchy and critical matters, it's important that they voice their disapproval, but it would be even more relevant if instead from speaking, they acted. There's this "Pulp Fantasy" RPG trope that the player is some kind of God descending on earth, and that every companion is a good or bad-willing witness of everything the player does, seldom doing anything against the PC.

 

"I must judge of your behaviour by myself, so I'll join and see if you are worthy" ; "I kinda like you, so I tag along" ; "You're a natural leader, I'm putting my life in your hands" ; "I owe you my life, I'll do everything you say" ; "You're BROFIST THUNDERFAP's cousin ? I guess I'm going to help you then, since we're related" ; "You're going to NEVERDAFFODIL CITY ? I'll tag along !" All of those are pretty weak characterizations, because it means that the reason the NPC joined you is something contrived, and often vulnerable to every bit of emotional reaction. Of course, for someone who joined with such an unsteady motivation, if the PC is not exactly their wet dream of a leader, they're prompt to leave in disgust. Those are not even motivations, they are pretext.

 

So, what's the deal with it ? DRAMA is the deal. You have to manage the companions precious feelings, have all kinds of philosophical agreements with some of them so they don't squeal every time you violently finish off one of McVILEVILLAIN's begging-for-his-life-minion by popping his head with your special WHACKAMOLE HAMMER. Enmity can be a perfectly viable relation in a group, and if the NPcharacters have a sound logic, motivation, philosophy and reason for joining, they can stomach most of what happens and deal with it how they choose to. For example, a lawful character could step in and impose a duel with the player to decide the outcome of a choice sensible to them, in the same manner a more chaotic character could propose a head-or-tails, just as another would ambush the PC to have a "little chat" with him after the deed.

 

Thing is, the player has been the one making all matter of life-or-death decisions in RPG for a good amount of time now, for the sake of dear "GRAY MORAL AREA AWESOME CHOICE". Let him sometimes be the one who have to accommodate or back down sometimes, accept the fact that being the leader in a group is not being some kind of (benevolent or not) tyrant who have to arbitrate every goddamn event that happens in his farting perimeter.

 

Last thing : when the group you're in have to face regular dangers along the road, I suspect its members would value each other's skills far more than their philosophical views.