Non-combat party with no size limit

[Desliriem]

Greedings, i was thinking of some kind of active party (combat, 5 members) and non-active party (conversations, reactivity, banter, no size limit) system.

Maybe attaching companion's content (dialogues, banters, etc) to invisible objects? if that makes sense

 

I make just one complete play through, so the companions i dont bring are just lost forever, and i noticed recently that there are a fair amount of people who see this (i saw some similar suggestions somewhere) or other consequences of the party limitation as a problem, so i decided to try and suggest this.

 

Some thoughs on this:

 

-People who don't replay multiple times or are just interested on interactions and banter can experience the companions they want, all of them (companions, sidekicks, imaginarly developed hirelings). 

 

-People don't have to change party members giving one companion to get another, maybe the content missed of one companion if you want 6 is not a big deal (and note that the medium player will just not change party members) but there are 11 NPCs (in the base game) and hirelings.

 

-Would help people give a chance to companiona that they dont like or just are not in their favorites at the start.

 

-People can bring companions that they want to bring because of the story, but wouldn't for combat related reasons.

 

-People can choose the active party members(companion, sidekick, hireling) they really want for combat.

 

-Invisible companions can reduce inmersion, but i think its worth for the adventages, and if you dont think about it, it won't be a problem.

 

-At first though may look like it reduce replayability, but most people play the game just ones, among the people who replay the game multiple times little will make multiple complete playthroughs, and among those, they will not make the same choices, leading to different reactivity from companions, so unless the only variant on different playtrhoughs on the actual system is the party composition (and the main reason to do this would be the companions), the implementation of non-active party members results just in more content and freedom on the way people want to play. 

 

-In any case, people can decide who are the members of the non-active party.

 

 

 

I wanted to give me a voice on what is a huge problem for me and what better than the official forums.

I know this wont be a very accepted idea on these forums, but i made a poll anyway.

 

Live long and prosper, and my apologies for my bad english.

[Wormerine]

Would not active party members be physically not present (not interact with relationship system) or they will potentially bringint out every possible conflict possible? 

[Yosharian]

From what Josh has said, this kind of system would be quite non-trivial to implement

[Heijoushin]

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree with the idea. Apart from decreasing replayability (as you mentioned), it also "standardizes" the experience. I mean, everyone will hear exactly the same dialogue. Which admittedly, is how things go in a lot of games (especially JRPGs), but I'd prefer to keep the choice and have a unique player experience. I know this choice isn't as dramatic as say, different endings, but it's still a choice I want to make as a player.

 

I would also argue that if you're so worried about missing out on a few trivial throw away lines from the supporting cast, then you should find the time to replay the game;)

[Selky]

Missing dialogue bothers me a lot too, but how would this even work? The companions come with you but don't participate in combat? The companions don't come with you but are somehow still communicating with you? Neither of those solutions seem like good ones.

[kanisatha]

I agree with most of what's been said here except for one situation. I would like to have simultaneous access to all of my companions' inventories and paperdolls while in the stronghold (out of combat) so that I can more easily manage the (re)distribution of equipment and items across everyone. It would also be nice to have this access to everyone when interacting with a vendor to make it easier for me to decide what I want/need to buy.

[Messier-31]

The idea comes from good intestines, but the outcome would probably ruin the experience.

 

I meant intentions, but this autocorrect looks too good to fix.

 

Greedings

 

[Enoch]

I think this only really works in games where combat is in an interface entirely separate from other interactions with the gameworld.  Something like the Banner Saga games-- you can interact with everyone in the caravan when appropriate in cutscenes, caravan events, etc., but fights all begin with a "Choose Yer Squad" screen, before it opens the top-down, turn-based grid. 

 

In games like Pillars where combat flows from the general exploration of environments and interactions with NPCs, an approach like this breaks a lot more than it fixes.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Enoch

[daven]

If you always wandered round with a heavily armed gang of like 11 people i'd expect the city guard to take your weapons, apprehend you etc... That's basically a gang wandering about.

 

I like it in FF10 but you only have what, 6 party members anyway? I think it only works in FFX because you only use 3 party members and can switch them out mid battle but the whole combat is kind of built around that idea.

 

You're asking about NON combat though so... not sure maybe it could work i'm not completely against it. I think 11 may be too high though.

Edited April 19, 2018 by daven

[Piero]

Yes please. I remember i waited a lot to be sure that there weren't going to be any party size mod to bring everyone before starting my real playthrough.

[HeinzHarald]

I'm also a single playthrough kind of guy and what bothers me is the risk of missing some really cool content because I didn't have a certain companion in my party during a particular encounter. Not just a throwaway line but information that gives me deeper understanding of characters or conflicts, or just a different solution to the encounter.

 

On the other hand I'm not sure I would actually enjoy the game more if I had all the companions present in the background at all times. To have to leave a few companions behind kind of enhances my role as leader.

[Stef]

This is my top problem with RPG games with involving story and many deep characters. Which are, btw, rare and few to meet those criteria, hence one of the reasons why this problem is not as exposed, I believe. Often it makes choosing party for some quest, a real chore.

I am not a single playthrough guy, but multi playthrough is not a solution to this problem. Some missed lines and even one-two whole quests are not enough to warrant the whole new 100 hours long game (and my games are usually that long because I like to peek under every rock) yet it is annoying to me, when in a current playthrough, I miss something like this. Small-talk missed lines I can swallow, but anything deeper... meh. Further more, if I am particularly satisfied with the first playthrough, then I may want to repeat a lot of it in the next, so that I could see again those same cool moments. And that often means missing the content that I have missed... again. Not to mention that one may simply forget about stuff that he has missed, in some other playthrough, which characters were present in which quest, etc.

I am almost at the point, as long as this is solved, I fine with solution. No nitpicking

[Wormerine]

I see an “issue” of missing some companion interaction to be the same as picking a class, aligning with faction, not being able to pick every option in conversation tree at the same time or not being able to use all items at once. You just have to pick something. RPGs are about defining characters, and whom you hang out the most (character and gameplay wise) I see as one of those choices.

[esyvjrt]

Seems better that having a party of 12, i play a few times but just one complete play through, and was willing to go around with 12 people for the companions, so +1. Big problem for me too.

[Ganrich]

I see an “issue” of missing some companion interaction to be the same as picking a class, aligning with faction, not being able to pick every option in conversation tree at the same time or not being able to use all items at once. You just have to pick something. RPGs are about defining characters, and whom you hang out the most (character and gameplay wise) I see as one of those choices.

Yup, this sort of thing is why some games have replay value for me. You can't see it all in a single go. Some decisions will get you enemies. Some will make companions love you and other ones they will hate you. Some character builds work better with companions 1 through 4, and others work better with 5 through 8. Or some such.

 

If they arent in your core party they shouldnt get a say in the conversation as they aren't present.

[rjshae]

No, it'd be too easy to min-max a party like that. I don't have an issue with camp followers in a game, but I prefer the sense of immersion that comes with having a set party that travels with you and endures the same risks as you. With the suggested approach, I think you risk having a party split between those optimized for combat and the rest optimized for non-combat.

[esyvjrt]

I see an “issue” of missing some companion interaction to be the same as picking a class, aligning with faction, not being able to pick every option in conversation tree at the same time or not being able to use all items at once. You just have to pick something. RPGs are about defining characters, and whom you hang out the most (character and gameplay wise) I see as one of those choices.

 

 

 

Yup, this sort of thing is why some games have replay value for me. You can't see it all in a single go. Some decisions will get you enemies. Some will make companions love you and other ones they will hate you. Some character builds work better with companions 1 through 4, and others work better with 5 through 8. Or some such.

 

 

Those are mutually exclusive things. The "replay value" of the party limitation is between arbitrary artificial replay-ability and a consequence of a mechanical limitation (party size for combat). The first i think have no reason to be, since there are a lot and more important replay-ability sources, and the companions have reactivity and relationships. What leaves us with it being a unwanted consequence of the mechanical necessity of having a party size limit for combat, on the roleplay aspect, so the OP suggestion is to directly separate the combat and roleplay party so one does not interfere of such an important way on the other.

 

 

If they arent in your core party they shouldnt get a say in the conversation as they aren't present.

 

I think the non-combat party is meant to be the core party, and the "combat party" the "pokemon team" for the combat game in the rpg

[Quillon]

It shouldn't break anything other than immersion, people has been making unlimited companion mods for lots of games so it shouldn't be hard for the devs I think but I don't see it happening and if it somehow happens it'd surely be activated via cheats like in NWN2, it wouldn't be a default feature.

[AlphaShard]

There are games that have done this Dragon Quest IV, Star Ocean, and Final Fantasy 9. What you would do was have your combat party as you are traveling to various locations, then when in town you'd have options to RP with the various characters. In DQ4 in particular you had a wagon going, the combat party was outside the wagon while the rest sat inside. In that way they could theoretically interact with each other. 

 

Also Suikoden Series had many characters that were Roleplay only and not used for combat at all. 

 

That all being said I do find it interesting for unique player experiences like those that completely missed Aloth and Eder, I don't know how such things came to pass but they did and that is interesting. 

[Quillon]

The "replay value" of the party limitation is between arbitrary artificial replay-ability and a consequence of a mechanical limitation (party size for combat). The first i think have no reason to be, since there are a lot and more important replay-ability sources, and the companions have reactivity and relationships. What leaves us with it being a unwanted consequence of the mechanical necessity of having a party size limit for combat

This. I've tried to argue this exact thing on several occasions.

 

If they arent in your core party they shouldnt get a say in the conversation as they aren't present.

There is no "real" reason for them to not be present tho, except for gameplay purposes/see above.

[Wormerine]

 

If they arent in your core party they shouldnt get a say in the conversation as they aren't present.

There is no "real" reason for them to not be present tho, except for gameplay purposes/see above.

I am trying to wrap my head around this statement.

 

1) It is a game.

2) game is revolving around gameplay.

3) gameplay is tuned to be played with a party of 5 - combat, relationships, scripted interactions.

4) there is no reason not to have everyone in your party.

 

I feel like I am missing couple important bulletpoints between 3) and 4).

Edited April 26, 2018 by Wormerine

[Quillon]

 

 

If they arent in your core party they shouldnt get a say in the conversation as they aren't present.

There is no "real" reason for them to not be present tho, except for gameplay purposes/see above.

I am trying to wrap my head around this statement.

 

1) It is a game.

2) game is revolving around gameplay.

3) gameplay is tuned to be played with a party of 5 - combat, relationships, scripted interactions.

4) there is no reason not to have everyone in your party.

 

I feel like I am missing couple important bulletpoints between 3) and 4).

 

 

There is no explanation in the game/lore/anywhere why can't you bring all the available forces in your hand.  Its an arbitrary game limitation for combat, scripted interactions, maybe aesthetics even(relationships should work the same for any party size I guess). There could have been a reason like: The Watcher can't coordinate a team of murderhobos past a certain size efficiently so he/she prefers to have 4 allies at most etc. This is not a case just for PoE, no party based RPG bothers to explain it for some reason and usually no one asks why

[esyvjrt]

Even if it would have an explanation it would be one created to justify it, not one that causes the limitation.

Edited April 27, 2018 by esyvjrt

[rjshae]

If there's an in-game explanation, it probably has to do with logistics. A small party can be self-sustaining and can fairly readily journey large distances by living off the land; a large party needs a supply chain, which limits their speed and range. Large parties depend upon porters, supply dumps, carts, beasts of burden, guards for the camps, and so forth. The requirement grows exponentially.

[Valmy]

I do not like this idea. If they are with me they should also join in the fighting. This sounds like a convenience thing so playing the game will have less difficult choices and generally those tend to make games worse as they are implemented. Eventually the game just sort of plays itself.