|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
And what I mean by that is: don't permakill off Party members at the end of act 1. I know this is, as of now pretty certain to happen, but I actually have to ask: why? Larian already needs to have interactions between all Origins for the rest of the game, as they don't know which ones we will take with us. So it is no extra work.
What I'd like much better: take advantage of the approval mechanic. The way you are going to play is influencing how the origins see you. Some will agree with you actions and some will disagree. If approval goes down or you do certain unexcusable things they will either leave or outright fight you. Let us keep them and let our player descisions be the factor that lets them stay or leave.
Back in KOTOR 2 you had a similar system and IIRC some of your companions also would leave you on certain choices. Its a great story device to have either internal struggle and a real inner conflict instead of "oh no only some of you companions will survive this random stuff, choose now for the rest of the game!". You can try to juggle them all and no one is really going to be pleased with you, or you focus on some of them and drive the others off piece by piece.
I know this is a big wish and also I doubt Larian is changing up their shtick, but what would you think of such a system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
What I'd like much better: take advantage of the approval mechanic. The way you are going to play is influencing how the origins see you. Some will agree with you actions and some will disagree. If approval goes down or you do certain unexcusable things they will either leave or outright fight you. Let us keep them and let our player descisions be the factor that lets them stay or leave. Something like that is already in the game. The problem is that not enough meaningful things happen for you to feel it. The only time you will notice it for sure is if you side with the goblins. Regarding the getting rid of the party by the end of act 1 - yeah silly decision
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Oh yeah right, I lost that thought while writing. I wanted to take the Wyll thing as an example how you can do exactly my idea in a great and meaningful way. No need for arbitrary "not is the time to choose" scenarios.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
You do in Larian games because commitment or some similar bullcrap
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I know this is, as of now pretty certain to happen, but I actually have to ask: why? I would only like to ask: How?
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings.  Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I will go out and say that literally recycling this 'everyone has to die/leave the party at the same time' plot device in BG3 would destroy any faith I have in Larian to ever write a good story, far more than anything else that I'd consider bad by any stretch of the imagination. This would be my literal breaking point, probably to the same level that Tuco hates the toilet chain system. The mere thought of Larian even considering that they can bring such an unpopular decision from DOS2 into a completely different game series that has been far more established than theirs by about two entire decades at this point is disgusting. It is a clear sign of hubris or a complete lack of confidence in their ability to write without having to resort to recycling old plot points from a prior game in a completely different game series, a blatant disregard of respect for the franchise that they have been entrusted to bring into a new generation, and showing a complete lack of understanding of why their original smash hit was a smash hit to begin with. Everything else questionable can be argued away as a design or gameplay decision. But bringing this plot device back would be absolutely indefensible for so many reasons, and I fully expect the majority of the cRPG community to rip this plot device to shreds if it were to rear its ugly head again here. Especially since there is so much more at stake on a gameplay level this time around, if this plot point were to be repeated in BG3. Granted, if the party members leaving you were actually a direct consequence of choices you've made throughout the game, and if it didn't just happen all at once, I don't think anyone would have any issue with that. But a mass forced departure/killing off everyone not in your active party at the same time? It's really awful for three huge reasons. 1) It's insanely cheap and edgy, like it gives off a vibe that the writers believe we'll only take the threat seriously if half the playable cast suddenly dies out of nowhere. A bold thing to do in a genre where the audience isn't dumb and lacking in attention span. Granted, this isn't as bad if the other party members just leave, but if they all just get brainwashed/transform or something instead, it still seriously undermines their characterization. 2) It's ultimately a choice the game made for you, rather than a consequence of a choice you made yourself. The only choice you have there is picking which party members you have to bring with you at that point. That's it. And that in itself is bad when you consider that... 3) The weight of the decision is ultimately enforced by the arbitrary headcount limit on the amount of party members you get to bring with you at once. Suddenly, we have a gameplay restriction that is never brought up in the narrative at all, that somehow leads to serious narrative consequences. --- What would I have done with DOS2's inactive party members if they all still had to leave you regardless? I would have had all of the inactive companions still stick with you into the start of act 2, where they would decide to leave the boat to pursue their own leads if you choose not to recruit them into your party at that point. You would find them again at various points of the game as you proceed through the story. - Beast: He would have lost his life in the giant Divine Order/Dwarf/Voidwoken brawl right outside of Driftwood. The surviving Dwarf woman that you find there could hint that she only survived the attack due to Beast's intervention, and talking to Beast's soul reinforces this fact. His spirit may later tell you things that you can later leverage with Lohar and even Queen Justinia in Act 4, especially after you find out about the deathfog crates, though at this point he will be in a completely distraught state before disappearing. He'll later appear at the wellspring in Act 3, apparently having taken the God-King's covenant and opposing the party in the rush to the wellspring. Upon his defeat there, he'll reveal that he had taken the covenant in the belief that he needed it to oppose Queen Justinia, and that he had planned on turning against the God-King after attaining divinity. The God-King of course doesn't take kindly to this, and snaps Beast out of existence in the exact same way that Mordus dies in Act 2 if you questioned him too much.
- Loshe: Jahan attempts to perform his exorcism on her, and you arrive too late to save her from being fully consumed. Your party and Jahan would have to fight her off for a number of turns before the Doctor decides that dying here means that he loses his chance to attain divinity by proxy. She will later become a boss that you fight during Act 3, apparently having followed you to the Isles. At that point, she would attack you as you attempt to enter the archives in a bid to eliminate the competition once the way forward is opened. (If you manage to kill her in Act 2, the Act 3 ambush doesn't happen.)
- Red Prince: You would find him under attack by assassins at the carriage where the Princess is during Act 2, dying moments after you arrive. If you manage to save the lizard princess in the ensuing fight, she'll ask you to visit the Lizard Consulate for a reward if you get the opportunity later, as in, during Act 4. But by that point, you'll see the Red Prince entering the burning Consulate, which raises alarm bells among yourself and your party having watched him die back in Act 2. (I'll think more on how this should be resolved in the morning.)
- Fane: He would be speaking to the eternal Alterea, already having solved the puzzle that sealed her before. She notices your arrival and immediately turns hostile after your character's god forces their way into the conversation. If Fane survives the battle, speaking to him afterwards has him explain the full story about what he and the Eternals were before leaving to think on his circumstances. You'll later find him within the archives in Act 3, at which point he has decided to side with the God-King in a bid to bring his people back and to atone for his perceived mistake that led to the current state of the world's existence, and attacks your party on your way to the wellspring.
- Sebille: She will appear as you confront Roost about rescuing Sahelia, and join you in the battle along with later assisting with Sahelia's escape. Afterwards, you learn about Sebille being the Prime Scion, but Sebille will reject that notion and leave to continue pursuing any leads towards her revenge. You'll later find her in Act 3, either defending the Mother Tree if you choose to side with the Shadow Prince and attack the elves, or joining in the fight against the Shadow Prince if you decide to attack him, especially if you have the Red Prince in your party. If she joins you against the Shadow Prince, you'll have 2 turns before the Shadow Prince decides to invoke the scar song to bring her under his control, though this can be delayed/temporarily broken by inflicting the Silence status effect on him. Sebille will be immediately freed permanently once he dies. If Sebille survives, she'll remark that the Red Prince is probably the only good lizard she's ever known if he is in the party, and she will declare that she was never interested in divinity and that she is done running away from destiny, intending to take the Mother Tree's place when the time comes. (If Sebille dies during the Act 2 fights, she obviously doesn't become involved in Act 3.)
- Ifan: He will actually be at the Elven encampment, trying to decide if he wants to get involved with rescuing Sahelia in an effort to make amends with the Elves as a means of reconciling with his past, even if it means going against Roost and the rest of his organization. The elves will attack Ifan upon him revealing his association with the people holding Sahelia captive and his involvement as a former member of the Divine Order that saw their forests bombed with deathfog, unless you pass a persuasion check to let Ifan prove himself. Ifan will then accompany you into the sawmill to confront Roost. (This means that you can potentially have both Ifan and Sebille joining your party as guests for this sequence. I will also think more on how to resolve his arc in the morning.)
As I was typing this, I've come to realize that a lot of the above would actually go a long way towards giving the exterior part of Act 3 actual importance in the story, and the rush to the wellspring would have actual story reasons for happening that wouldn't feel like a poorly slapped together excuse for a multiplayer PvP opportunity above all. If there was one thing I found awkward about Act 3 pre-archives, it's that literally every faction was telling you to do stuff for them there while chilling in their established bases, despite clearly having the capability to fight for themselves. Granted, them leaving the party still wouldn't have been a consequence of anything you did still, but it'd be a much easier pill to swallow while continuing their character development and giving each threat legitimate credibility - and further choices for the player to make, in the case of some of their circumstances.
Last edited by Saito Hikari; 19/08/21 11:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
I have to stress once again, for what's probably the millionth time, that the whole "Whoever isn't in your party will die at the end of Act 1" is not just terrible as a narrative device, but arguably even worse as a mechanical one.
And if it wasn't just bad in itself (which, just to be clear, it totally IS) it becomes downright atrocious when tied with the decision of limiting the party to four characters (under the assumption that your audience is made by smooth-brained people who can't keep up with the complexity of having more).
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I have to stress once again, for what's probably the millionth time, that the whole "Whoever isn't in your party will die at the end of Act 1" is not just terrible as a narrative device, but arguably even worse as a mechanical one.
And if it wasn't just bad in itself (which, just to be clear, it totally IS) it becomes downright atrocious when tied with the decision of limiting the party to four characters (under the assumption that your audience is made by smooth-brained people who can't keep up with the complexity of having more). I mean, we agree on not killing the party, but by Avernus: you really need to open a window and get some fresh air. I always thought you were somewhat versed in 5e mechanics, so it cannot be a suprise to you that a 5e game takes the recommended party size in account. Which, in pretty much every source material, is 3-5 players if not outright 4 players. Out of the box 5e is adjusted for 4 PCs, so it is only rational to take that number. So maybe calm down on the rethoric a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2021
|
Larian obviously shouldn't block off new party members after Act 1, it's something that completely violates the spirit of the franchise, but of course they don't care one bit.
It's the kind of design they're used to and trying to break away from what they're used to, just because they're doing a completely different game, would appear to be asking for way too much. Never mind that there's zero benefit to doing it and that Swen couldn't offer a single good argument for it to save his life, it must be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
I mean, we agree on not killing the party, but by Avernus: you really need to open a window and get some fresh air. And you need to not worry about it a single bit, on the other hand. Both because my very job is about training and "getting fresh air" on a regular basis and because as a personal habit I go for a 10 Km run basically on a daily basis. Chances are I get way more fresh air than you, in fact. I always thought you were somewhat versed in 5e mechanics, so it cannot be a suprise to you that a 5e game takes the recommended party size in account. Which, in pretty much every source material, is 3-5 players if not outright 4 players. Out of the box 5e is adjusted for 4 PCs, so it is only rational to take that number. Oh Jesus Christ. Here it comes the good old "but the PHB suggests the party of 4" card again. So fucking what? That has hardly anything to do with the point here. A CRPG and a tabletop session have very different "ground dynamics". The latter is about human players interacting around a table, the former is about gathering a cast of NPCs with limited interaction capabilities and managing them across dozens of hours in a single player campaign. And by the way the main reason the official source pats the players on the back telling them "3 or 4 players is fine enough" is because if they told people "You need to gather at least 6 or 7 players around the table to get the top experience" they would sell probably a TENTH.
Last edited by Tuco; 19/08/21 12:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
And you need to not worry about it a single bit, on the other hand.
Both because my very job is about training and "getting fresh air" on a regular basis and because as a personal habit I go for a 10 Km run basically on a daily basis.
Chances are I get way more fresh air than you, in fact. SDE Oh Jesus Christ. Here it comes the good old "but the PHB suggests the party of 4" card again.
So fucking what? That has hardly anything to do with the point here.
A CRPG and a tabletop session have very different "ground dynamics". The latter is about human players interacting around a table, the former is about gathering a cast of NPCs with limited interaction capabilities and managing them across dozens of hours in a single player campaign. It is not just the PHB recommendation, there are many very sensible factors that play into the cards of a 4 Player Party. It has a lot to do with campaign building, story telling and encounter design. If you need help understanding it just ask, I'll be happy to. But again: try to calm down a little bit, or at least have a clue about what you are talking about. Right now you just come off as a child throwing a tantrum, because it does not get sweets (-> more than 4 player party). Oh look you edited more wrong stuff in there  And by the way the main reason the official source pats the players on the back telling them "3 or 4 players is fine enough" is because if they told people "You need to gather at least 6 or 7 players around the table to get the top experience" they would sell probably a TENTH. This is just *a* factor not the sole reason. Again: if you need help understanding those topics, just shoot.
Last edited by KingTiki; 19/08/21 12:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
It is not just the PHB recommendation, there are many very sensible factors that play into the cards of a 4 Player Party. It has a lot to do with campaign building, story telling and encounter design.
If you need help understanding it just ask, I'll be happy to. ![[Linked Image from c.tenor.com]](https://c.tenor.com/rMr2iKr7IkEAAAAC/american-psycho-smug.gif) Pff. Please. But again: try to calm down a little bit, or at least have a clue about what you are talking about. Right now you just come off as a child throwing a tantrum, because it does not get sweets (-> more than 4 player party). Well, it could be worse: imagine coming off as a patronizing prick that doesn't have the faintest clue of what he's blabbing about.
Last edited by Tuco; 19/08/21 12:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
While tabletop games recommend a party of 3-5, that's partially to do with social gathering limitations, partially to do with shared interraction time of human players, and partially to do with strain on the DM to keep a cogent and engaging story running for everyone and keeping them all feeling equallly involved.
None of these are major considerations in a video game format; the shift to a video game format removes every one of them as a problem or limiting factor. Conversely, in a video game format, even one that supports multi-player options, the main consideration is the game as played by a single person.
So, then, we can look at the history of D&D video games: Unsurprisingly, *most* of the D&D video games that involve a full party have their party limit set between 5-8. If nearly every D&D video game does this, consider that there are legitimate reasons why.
Last edited by Niara; 19/08/21 12:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
While tabletop games recommend a party of 3-5, that's partially to do with social gathering limitations, partially to do with shared interraction time of human players, and partially to do with strain on the DM to keep a cogent and engaging story running for everyone and keeping them all feeling equallly involved.
None of these are major considerations in a video game format; the shift to a video game format removes every one of them as a problem or limiting factor. Conversely, in a video game format, even one that supports multi-player options, the main consideration is the game as played by a single person.
So, then, we can look at the history of D&D video games: Unsurprisingly, *most* of the D&D video games that involve a full party have their party limit set between 5-8. If nearly every D&D video game does this, consider that there are legitimate reasons why. Bingo. It's also (one of) the reason(s) why in a tabletop session usually you deal with whatever amount of players you can get and whichever class and (if it's a factor) alignment they happen to be and try to "make it work somehow", while on most CRPGs the player is typically offered a vast cast of optional characters that far exceed the number of party slots available and that in most cases keep "orbiting" around the player even when not directly part of the active group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2021
|
I hated this feature on DOs2 but there they made it so poorly.
Here, however, I'd say that it can be done in a good manner. Like, If I play as a good character my choices would piss some, or most of my actual companions, so if at the end of the act some of them decided to take a different path, just an example, but Lae'zel deciding to abandon me and go to her creché or Astarion deciding he wants to keep the bug and go against us, etc. It's an interesting way to "lose" some companions, instead of, oh, they weren't in your party? too bad, they are all dead now.
However, I also must say that not having to manage, remove and add party members all the time just to see their history or make sure we are bribing their approval as we progress is far more interesting. I'm playing with always 4 (sometimes just 2) members now, not recruiting all of them, and know what? I'm enjoying it, not having to send someone home just so I get another member to bring and get to see their reaction/dialogues or their quests. But again, this is because for now, at least, with exception of Shadowheart I don't miss or like any companion as much as I liked the ones on DOS2 and most RPGS I've played.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Well you know what: I am generous. I will tell you why your assumption that "Larian just does it because they think poeple are stupid" is in fact probably wrong. You are right that a physical playtable and a PC game are 2 different things. You are also right that a PC has no serious problem with managing more players, NPCs and monsters, where a human irl would probably struggle. So, yes. There is no real problem handling encounters for bigger parties. Why not make them then? You still have to have some kind of maximum party size. Okay but why the miserly 4? "Its so unfair!! I am smart enough to control so many more!". While there is combat to consider you also have to consider out of combat situations. And every PC more is a significant boost in ability-versatility, class features and everything else that PC brings to the table. While you could make combat encounters dynamic enough to account for any reasonable party size, you are really boosting everything else outside combat. And those things are not really that easy to balance. This is a big advantage for an irl table and mayor disatvantage for PC-Games. A DM can account for the very specific party he knows he is playing with. Can make additions and hurdles to a campaign to account for more player power in general. 5e classes and design are also not comparable to older editions which were used in the other games. With 4 players you can cover pretty much all things you would need adventuring, if you want. With more players you get abundance fast. While a lot of those things can be juggled around for more than 4 players, I still think the reasoning for not doing the mechanical changes in this department is not the assumption that your audience is made by smooth-brained people who can't keep up with the complexity of having more as Tuco put it. The reason here is much more probably: its easier to design encounters and a world for a fixed party size and 5e's default is 4. (Some of the weird homebrew from Larian notwithstanding, its more plausible to have the default as a fallback, instead of chaning *all* the things). The other points are: campaign building and story telling. Like it or not: but Larian seems to want to give every companion a unique story and interactions. In short: make them really great characters and bring a story for all of them to life. If you wanted to have a max party size where you still have relevant story and things like members leaving because of the descisions then you potentially have to make just true neutral characters which are kinda bland, or you have to do more origins to account for potential loss, while still maintaining the 6 PC party size. Seems like reasonable reasoning to me. Look at the older games, which had more companions: none of them were half as developed as they are today (which is fine, but its still a huge difference). Long story short: Tuco's assesment, that Larian just thinks its players too stupid is itself not the brightest argument, as other reasonings are way more likely. You *could* do it all, but why? So you have just a little more of everything and in some parts an easy mode? Don't worry Tuco, I know some people are not good at working with limitations. Its hard. And that is okay, the modding community will have your back and help ya out 
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Long story short: Tuco's assesment, that Larian just thinks its players too stupid is itself not the brightest argument, as other reasonings are way more likely. Aside for the fact that I have no idea of why you suddenly decided to go completely ballistic with personal attacks on what was little more than passing side note (since the party size was definitely NOT the main point of my post, and if anything the way interacted with the OTHER restriction was the real issue)... I somewhat appreciate your optimism (or your unwillingness to face being held in low consideration by devs, not sure) if nothing else because that's basically the exact reason Larian gave for other design choices they made: by Swen Vincke's own admission the very reason the game has "leveled enemies and monsters" that should NOT be a thing in D&D (and never were in the past D&D games) is because during their pre-EA focus tests it turned out that "People these days expect to see levels on enemies in games so we added them". I can't overstate how much I'm not a fan of that choice either. This idea that "since it's a videogame it needs to be designed in a way that constantly reminds you it's a videogame" is genuinely terrible, as far as I'm concerned. But we are digressing and this is not what the thread is about. P.S. And yeah, I'm not going to bother listing once again the dozen of reasons why I would prefer a larger party for reasons entirely unrelated to the difficulty setting when I already did it for moths and we have a thread specifically dedicated to it where I posted countless times.
Last edited by Tuco; 19/08/21 01:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2021
|
The other points are: campaign building and story telling. Like it or not: but Larian seems to want to give every companion a unique story and interactions. In short: make them really great characters and bring a story for all of them to life. If you wanted to have a max party size where you still have relevant story and things like members leaving because of the descisions then you potentially have to make just true neutral characters which are kinda bland, or you have to do more origins to account for potential loss, while still maintaining the 6 PC party size. Seems like reasonable reasoning to me. Look at the older games, which had more companions: none of them were half as developed as they are today (which is fine, but its still a huge difference). I don't know, man. I'm pretty sure I'd take Nalia or Jan over Astarion. Probably even Yoshi too, up to the point where I get Imoen back. I'm pretty sure that I'd pick Mazzy over Laezel and I'd probably pick Minsc too, but I guess I'm too soft-hearted to not send Keldorn back to his family while he still has one. And if you really want character then how about Morte, a literal bonehead with a zombie-fetish? Don't tell me you didn't like Dakkon either, even if he was a rather brooding type. I can still imagine him saying "endure! In enduring grow strong" in his best Director Skinner voice. Annah was pretty cool too, for a stereotypical teethling thief. Just remember, don't touch her leather. Do you think the memory of Gale or Wyll or Laezel will stick around for 20 or so years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
In all fairness I'd say that people should give the final game a chance before judging how memorable individual character arcs will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Aside for the fact that I have no idea of why you suddenly decided to go completely ballistic with personal attacks I laughed out loud at this point. Maybe reread you own post history, before you shed crocodile tears over others calling your argument bad. But we are digressing and this is not what the thread is about. Yes you do, because you are moving the goalposts to other design decisions instead of staying on point. Not that I expected you to. You seem to be the local forum Karen and I can live with that. But it seems there is no point on disagreeing with you, as you are incapable of arguing a point. You seem to have the feeling that the Devs think you are not clever, and somehow that is stirring up something in you that gets you in an agressive and irrational state of mind. P.S. And yeah, I'm not going to bother listing once again the dozen of reasons why I would prefer a larger party for reasons entirely unrelated to the difficulty setting when I already did it for moths and we have a thread specifically dedicated to it where I posted countless times. I'm sure it would have been a real epiphany. @Arvguy: I would assign all those feelings to nostalgia. Most people have it for something. As someone who has not played the old games in their time I found the characters pretty bland. But go on any forum with old garde fans and they will jerk oneliners like "I serve the Flaming Fist!!". I have a special place in my heart for some other old games and their characters, but I'm honest: if you would implement them the same way as 20 years ago, it would be a disappointment. That was my point. What they implement now is another standard. Its fully voiced and often animated stories, not just a few sound one-liners and some quirk. If you would do the latter thing, you could easily make double the potential companions, if not even more. They just would need a model and a few lines of sound and characterization. Today, I'd rather have less, but more fleshed out companions.
|
|
|
|
|
