My Feelings on Five Party Members

[Wormerine]

What I'm looking for in a CRPG is for it to recreate, as closely as possible, the PnP experience. So PoE1's "unsuitable for PnP rules" are a big negative so far as I am concerned.

Well, "unsuitable for PnP rules" mostly comes from using computer to calculate outcome rather than having players do it. It comes to rolls being determined by 100 rolls, different spells adjusting defences rather than adding bonuses/minuses to rolls. It is easier to understand 76% to hit rather than AC -5 & THAC0 and dealing with abstract dice rolls. 

[Katarack21]

 

What I'm looking for in a CRPG is for it to recreate, as closely as possible, the PnP experience. So PoE1's "unsuitable for PnP rules" are a big negative so far as I am concerned.

Well, "unsuitable for PnP rules" mostly comes from using computer to calculate outcome rather than having players do it. It comes to rolls being determined by 100 rolls, different spells adjusting defences rather than adding bonuses/minuses to rolls. It is easier to understand 76% to hit rather than AC -5 & THAC0 and dealing with abstract dice rolls. 

 

Not a great analogy; negative AC values and THACO are generally derided as obtuse crap by today's PNP crowd and there's a reason they were done away with in the 90's.

[Sedrefilos]

It's importan for people to realize that computer rpgs and tabletop rpgs are different things and can never work the same way; they shouldn't either. One can expect bits from one jumping to the other here and there but never one can emulate the eperience of the other.

[Wormerine]

 

 

What I'm looking for in a CRPG is for it to recreate, as closely as possible, the PnP experience. So PoE1's "unsuitable for PnP rules" are a big negative so far as I am concerned.

Well, "unsuitable for PnP rules" mostly comes from using computer to calculate outcome rather than having players do it. It comes to rolls being determined by 100 rolls, different spells adjusting defences rather than adding bonuses/minuses to rolls. It is easier to understand 76% to hit rather than AC -5 & THAC0 and dealing with abstract dice rolls. 

 

Not a great analogy; negative AC values and THACO are generally derided as obtuse crap by today's PNP crowd and there's a reason they were done away with in the 90's.

 

I know its not. But that is the last D&D I am vaguely familiar with. 

[Fardragon]

It's importan for people to realize that computer rpgs and tabletop rpgs are different things and can never work the same way; they shouldn't either. One can expect bits from one jumping to the other here and there but never one can emulate the eperience of the other.

 

Well, Baldur's Gate gets it pretty much spot on, with the slightly-too-large party the only downside. So I call bovine excrement on that.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Fardragon

[Messier-31]

 

It's importan for people to realize that computer rpgs and tabletop rpgs are different things and can never work the same way; they shouldn't either. One can expect bits from one jumping to the other here and there but never one can emulate the eperience of the other.

 

Well, Baldur's Gate gets it pretty much spot on, with the slightly-too-large party the only downside. So I call bovine excrement on that.

 

 

Some pretty poor tabletop you were playing.

[kanisatha]

 

Noone can tell right now if the game is gonna be better with 5 or with 6 because noone has played it yet.

I don't know.  The developers have been clear that they chose 5 because it worked better in early play-testing, and lead to a more balanced game.   I think the developers saying "it works better" is a strong argument for 5.

 

At this point they know vastly more about the game than any of us, so their opinion carries weight.

Carries weight with you certainly, but not with me. Saying "it works better" is not an argument but rather an opinion. It is entirely subjective. All preferences for one number over another are, by definition, subjective. And my subjective view will always remain that six is way better than five, and the reduction in party size is and will always remain the one big screw-up of the devs in PoE2 as far as I'm concerned.

 

The whole "balance" claim is utterly unsatisfactory. One can balance a game just as easily for one number versus another. As I see it, the decision was entirely for game development workload reduction reasons, and pretty-packaging the call as a game balance issue is disingenuous. It would've been better if they had just honestly said: "Hey we needed to make some tough calls on the scope of the game given limited development time and money, and cutting down party size was one of those tough calls."

[Sedrefilos]

This Xth thread about party size has come to its inevitable conclusion: having no meaning whatsoever.

And that's just because the no-fivers cannot understand that noone can possibly know if it'll work better or not and the rest of us falling in the trap and trying to explain them that reasonal and objective fact. Joke's on us I guess.

[Wormerine]

Carries weight with you certainly, but not with me. 

Then why in nine hells are you a backer, if devs opinions don't carry any weight with you? Don't take me wrong, I disliked every realtime RPG with less party members than 5ve and I am nostalgically attatched to no. 6. But if devs says it plays better with 5ve its good enough for me until I am able to judge it by myself.

[JerekKruger]

I am nostalgically attatched to no. 6. But if devs says it plays better with 5ve its good enough for me until I am able to judge it by myself.

 

I'm the same. If Josh had come to me and asked "how big should the party in Deadfire be" with no other information I'd have said "six... why do you ask?" Six is what I'm used to and when I first heard it was being reduced to five I admit my reaction was "wait, why?" But then I thought about it for a while (well, a few minutes at least) and came to the conclusion that the only reason five felt wrong was because six was what I was used to/expecting, and that if Obsidian felt that five was a better number then I was happy to see how it turned out.

 

Now I can think of arguments in favour of five over six, most notably the fact that combat was often hectic in Pillars due to much fewer passive character classes than the old IE games and the fact that this would likely get worse with the increased availability of combat abilities in Deadfire; but as Sedrefilos says none of us really know whether it'll be better or worse until the game is released.

[kanisatha]

 

Carries weight with you certainly, but not with me. 

Then why in nine hells are you a backer, if devs opinions don't carry any weight with you?

Yeah, see, I have the freedom to back whatever the hell I want, so ....

[kanisatha]

 

I am nostalgically attatched to no. 6. But if devs says it plays better with 5ve its good enough for me until I am able to judge it by myself.

Now I can think of arguments in favour of five over six, most notably the fact that combat was often hectic in Pillars due to much fewer passive character classes than the old IE games and the fact that this would likely get worse with the increased availability of combat abilities in Deadfire; but as Sedrefilos says none of us really know whether it'll be better or worse until the game is released.

Actually, I do know whether it will be better or worse already. The big mistake you make is assuming the issue of party size is, for all players, all about combat. For me, the party size issue has nothing to do with combat, or any other aspect of gameplay for that matter. The progressive development of my party characters during the course of "adventuring" with them is what I care about in my games. This is why even though I have played through PoE1 many times, I've yet to actually finish the game, because "winning" or "beating the game" are not at all important to me. By the time my party reaches a high level I start losing interest in the game because there's no more character development left to be done. So I just quit and restart from the beginning again. Developing my characters is what's fun for me, and having only five to develop instead of six, by definition, means I will have 1/6th less fun therefore "worse" for me.

[Valci]

 

 

I am nostalgically attatched to no. 6. But if devs says it plays better with 5ve its good enough for me until I am able to judge it by myself.

Now I can think of arguments in favour of five over six, most notably the fact that combat was often hectic in Pillars due to much fewer passive character classes than the old IE games and the fact that this would likely get worse with the increased availability of combat abilities in Deadfire; but as Sedrefilos says none of us really know whether it'll be better or worse until the game is released.

Actually, I do know whether it will be better or worse already. The big mistake you make is assuming the issue of party size is, for all players, all about combat. For me, the party size issue has nothing to do with combat, or any other aspect of gameplay for that matter. The progressive development of my party characters during the course of "adventuring" with them is what I care about in my games. This is why even though I have played through PoE1 many times, I've yet to actually finish the game, because "winning" or "beating the game" are not at all important to me. By the time my party reaches a high level I start losing interest in the game because there's no more character development left to be done. So I just quit and restart from the beginning again. Developing my characters is what's fun for me, and having only five to develop instead of six, by definition, means I will have 1/6th less fun therefore "worse" for me.

 

Thats all well and good but as a developer id think they would want to cater to the majority of their customers rather then some niche cases... So by all means, 5 may be "worse" for you then 6... but it may be "better" for 90% of the players at the same time... 

[Fardragon]

 

 

I am nostalgically attatched to no. 6. But if devs says it plays better with 5ve its good enough for me until I am able to judge it by myself.

Now I can think of arguments in favour of five over six, most notably the fact that combat was often hectic in Pillars due to much fewer passive character classes than the old IE games and the fact that this would likely get worse with the increased availability of combat abilities in Deadfire; but as Sedrefilos says none of us really know whether it'll be better or worse until the game is released.

Actually, I do know whether it will be better or worse already. The big mistake you make is assuming the issue of party size is, for all players, all about combat. For me, the party size issue has nothing to do with combat, or any other aspect of gameplay for that matter. The progressive development of my party characters during the course of "adventuring" with them is what I care about in my games. This is why even though I have played through PoE1 many times, I've yet to actually finish the game, because "winning" or "beating the game" are not at all important to me. By the time my party reaches a high level I start losing interest in the game because there's no more character development left to be done. So I just quit and restart from the beginning again. Developing my characters is what's fun for me, and having only five to develop instead of six, by definition, means I will have 1/6th less fun therefore "worse" for me.

 

 

You are making a false comparison here. You can spend just as much time developing five characters, or one (with the right ruleset). With six characters, your development is spread thinner than with five, so each character is less developed.

[JerekKruger]

The big mistake you make is assuming the issue of party size is, for all players, all about combat. 

 

The big mistake you're making is assuming that by giving combat as an example that's all I care about. Character development and companion interactions are both important to me, but I don't buy the more is better argument.

 

Developing my characters is what's fun for me, and having only five to develop instead of six, by definition, means I will have 1/6th less fun therefore "worse" for me.

 

So you actually want a twelve person party right? I mean there are going to be twelve companions/sidekicks in Deadfire so, by definition, having a party of only six means having half as much fun as having a party of twelve.

 

As Fardragon says it's a false comparison. Character development looks to be significantly deeper in Deadfire as compared to Pillars such that I'll probably spend more time making choices in it than I did in Pillars.

Edited October 17, 2017 by JerekKruger

[Quillon]

 

The big mistake you make is assuming the issue of party size is, for all players, all about combat. 

 

The big mistake you're making is assuming that by giving combat as an example that's all I care about. Character development and companion interactions are both important to me, but I don't buy the more is better argument.

 

Developing my characters is what's fun for me, and having only five to develop instead of six, by definition, means I will have 1/6th less fun therefore "worse" for me.

 

So you actually want a twelve person party right? I mean there are going to be twelve companions/sidekicks in Deadfire so, by definition, having a party of only six means having half as much fun as having a party of twelve.

 

As Fardragon says it's a false comparison. Character development looks to be significantly deeper in Deadfire as compared to Pillars such that I'll probably spend more time making choices in it than I did in Pillars.

 

 

This is also a constant issue for me, I'm half agreeing with kanisatha. I like to see all the companions' development/good or bad reactions to all the situations etc. Its not a realistic choice that choosing which companions to bring with us at any given point, its just gameplay limitation which I understand. But I don't mind the party being 5 or 6, if party limit isn't big enough for all the available companions I don't care how fewer it is. And I don't necessarily want a 12 men party, I want fewer available companions in the limits of available party limit with a lot more reactivity packed in them.

 

And with what's explained to us we can cheat with metagame knowledge, f.i. if I gotta kick a dog for some reason that will hurt my relationship with Eder, I could simply load an earlier save and not bring him or if I'm to save a cat on a tree and Eder's not with me at that point... you get the idea, this is a degenerate strategy that game allows.

 

I really don't understand that people wanting more and more and MOAAAR companions, there can be characters who sticks with us(they could have been stationary in Caed Nua or could be in our ship) who should not necessarily be companions. Character variety isn't tied to companions. Just make few companions with more class choices if you wanna cover all the classes with companions, 3 for each f.e. which they already did with 2 classes for about half of them. And if someone really hates some of the available companions for some reason, there is custom companion system after all.

 

Ofc at this point this is all in vain talk, hope to see future RPGs that'll tackle this issue. 

 

Since I'm talking in vain, companions shouldn't necessarily be strictly companions, they should potentially be powerful NPCs; allies or enemies. If I took Eder in gilded vale, Aloth could have refused to join me and could have been a powerful enemy later in the game, vice versa. Or Durance and GM could have been arch enemies that we could take either's side and help them defeat the other etc. This could have allowed a party choice which isn't purely gameplay based and companions more than the party limit but not necessarily all of them available in our roster.

[Messier-31]

If I took Eder in gilded vale, Aloth could have refused to join me and could have been a powerful enemy later in the game, vice versa. Or Durance and GM could have been arch enemies that we could take either's side and help them defeat the other etc.

 

Trivia time. As a matter or fact Chris Avellone had a conflict between GM and Durance prepared. It seems that they have met in the past and there was some animosity between them, with The Watcher trying to solve this. Unfortunately it was all cut by Obsidian.

 

The “Grieving Mother” is a cipher who acted as a midwife in a local community. She was blamed for the births of other Hollowborn children in her community and, specifically, she was punished viciously and unjustly by Durance who saw her as part of the Hollowborn crisis. However, she does not blame Durance for the violations that were done to her soul and her body. She does not recognize him when he is in the party, as his soul is different from when they first met. The damage she did to him, arguably in self-defense, was considerable and far outweighed what was done to her.

 - according to "Pillars of Eternity Strategy Guide"

 

Pillars of Eternity Collector's Edition Guide, p.121: "This led him to torture and ruin the soul of the Grieving Mother (in defense, she was forced to wound his soul to make him stop). Neither one of them recognizes the other when and if they meet. […] The Grieving Mother and Durance may come to odds or reconciliation over the course of the game"

[Quillon]

Yeah, gave the example with that in mind.

[FlintlockJazz]

The reason why they give more companions than you can take is because if you piss off or get killed a companion you will still have a companion around to take their place rather than being forced to have a smaller party (this is for those who don't use hirelings).  Also why they added sidekicks, as the increased reactivity in the full companions could lead to a player pissing them all off and so needing less reactive party members (notice there are four sidekicks, exactly the number needed to fill out a party). 

 

I don't like being forced to choose between two companions, I don't mean them having a disagreement after a while and being forced to choose but having to choose which of two companions I can recruit.  Didn't like that choice in Torment: Tides of Numenera between the two companions you get at the start, felt contrived and considering I knew next to nothing about either one of them was too soon to decide.  Plus, I don't see what the issue is to have them stashed on the ship, its not like they can't react to things you do while adventuring, companions surely talk to each other to avoid that.

 

Eder: "Aloth tells me you kicked a puppy..."

PC: "Yeah and I liked it, and you won't complain because I bought you a gift!" *gives flower*

Eder: "This ain't Dragon Age, now bend over!" *inserts flower up PC's arse*

Edited October 17, 2017 by FlintlockJazz

[JerekKruger]

I'm half agreeing with kanisatha. I like to see all the companions' development/good or bad reactions to all the situations etc.

 

Kanisatha's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but I am fairly certain they meant developing their characters in the sense of levelling up. At least that's how I interpreted the line "By the time my party reaches a high level I start losing interest in the game because there's no more character development left to be done".

 

I agree with your post pretty much. In a way I'd prefer a smaller core of well developed companions and then a number of non-companion NPCs who are well developed.

[Quillon]

I don't like being forced to choose between two companions, I don't mean them having a disagreement after a while and being forced to choose but having to choose which of two companions I can recruit.  Didn't like that choice in Torment: Tides of Numenera between the two companions you get at the start, felt contrived and considering I knew next to nothing about either one of them was too soon to decide.  Plus, I don't see what the issue is to have them stashed on the ship, its not like they can't react to things you do while adventuring, companions surely talk to each other to avoid that.

 

Eder: "Aloth tells me you kicked a puppy..."

PC: "Yeah and liked you, and you won't complain because I bought you a gift!" *gives flower*

Eder: "This ain't Dragon Age, now bend over!" *inserts flower up PC's arse*

 

Its just an example which can surely be refined. I haven't played much of TToN but I guess its that choice between the red robed gal & the older dude, I guess I could be ok with that kind a choice if it has repercussions like I said, if the one we didn't choose wouldn't wait around and goes on to become an NPC that matter which we'd cross paths later on. There are also existing examples like in KoTOR2, where we could recruit one of the 2 companions dependent on the path we took prior or in DAO where we could recruit Loghain but Alistair leaves(becomes a king or whatever).

 

My standing on this is that replayability should come from our choices in narrative and how different all the available companions react to our different choices not whether they are there or not to be able to react.

[Wormerine]

 

I'm half agreeing with kanisatha. I like to see all the companions' development/good or bad reactions to all the situations etc.

 

 

Kanisatha's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but I am fairly certain they meant developing their characters in the sense of levelling up. At least that's how I interpreted the line "By the time my party reaches a high level I start losing interest in the game because there's no more character development left to be done".

 

I agree with your post pretty much. In a way I'd prefer a smaller core of well developed companions and then a number of non-companion NPCs who are well developed.

I also had an impression that he talked about mechanical levelling out rather than narrative (if that’s a case he never saw characters in PoE reach end of their developement as he never reached th ending). What confuses me is why party limit is an issue in this case. As far as mechanical levelling up you get access to all companions no matter whom you take with you at any given time. I do get an argument of seeing less banter&full stories of each companions but the relationship system seems to be build around an idea of not everyone interacting with everyone in every situation. Whatever, for now party limit is set in stone anyway.

[Wormerine]

 

 

Carries weight with you certainly, but not with me.

 

Then why in nine hells are you a backer, if devs opinions don't carry any weight with you?

Yeah, see, I have the freedom to back whatever the hell I want, so ....

Had no intention to suggest otherwise. Just expressing my astonishment at seeing someone who generously funds a project led by a team he doesn’t have a trust in.

[Archaven]

 

 

 

Carries weight with you certainly, but not with me.

Then why in nine hells are you a backer, if devs opinions don't carry any weight with you?

Yeah, see, I have the freedom to back whatever the hell I want, so ....

Had no intention to suggest otherwise. Just expressing my astonishment at seeing someone who generously funds a project led by a team he doesn’t have a trust in.

 

 

I believe having trust and disappointed with certain decisions made by Obsidian are both different things. I'm greatly disappointed with their decision in party size limit reduction but that doesn't mean i don't trust them.

[Lephys]

The whole "balance" claim is utterly unsatisfactory. One can balance a game just as easily for one number versus another.

 

You're absolutely correct. That's why there should be a party size of 739. It would be just as easy to balance the game for that. u_p