No, you missunderstand me ... I didnt want to say that they should be exclusive for each other ... my point was: Maybe by picking Gale (for example) you loose Group A, containgig: Wyll, Shadow, Astarion, Lae'zel, Karlach ... And instead of them, you get Group B, containing: Halsin, Volo, Alfira, and i dunno ... Aradin for example, w/e laugh
So you didnt "loose" anything ... you simply swithed one for another. :-/ Simmilar to Goblin, or Tieflings ... you have to choose side ... i know there is possibly third way to ignore them all (so maybe that isnt best exmple once again ... but if you try at least little bit to get what im trying to say, instead of searching where im wrong ... it should surfice laugh ) but so far i didnt try it, so im not sure if that path isnt dead end.
To me that is still "losing," I am losing one group of characters and in return gaining another. Hence my greed, i don't want to do that. I want to be able to finangle the situation to keep almost anyone except in situations where it makes no sense for the character or story. A lot of this is my opinion of what like and dislike.
Quote
That example that i concider to be fanmade, and never confrimmed ... since the begining of this theme.
The thing is, with this kind of discussion we can only work with speculation and what we like and dislike. Somethings to look at are precedence with a company, which is the example I am working with. I want to make it clear to Larian I do not want them to repeat what they did in DOS2.
And your example is again more individual characters, in that kind of situation how much the character likes us and possibly some checks could influence the outcome. It is a conflict, and more likely Shadowheart and Laezel would have the conflict, not her and Astarion.
Quote
But then you could hardly call that a "comitment".
Think I made it clear above, I am not a commitment guy with this. I want to switch people out at will and play around with a "large" greater party, switching characters in and out of the active party as I get to know them and their stories.
Quote
I would not call that replacing ... its just being still "almost full" combat effective, even after you made your choice.
While yes, there'd be combat effectiveness, it'd still be the removal of a character, which I find more important. An example of something I didn't like was actually in the weird JRPG Last Remnant where, without properly spoiling, events led to a character being replaced, with their replacement being essentially the same in combat style and effectiveness. To me that feels like a cop out, to where they want the oomph of someone being gone, but don't want the commitment of the character being gone.
I realize I am weird and can be contradictory, but what I want is individual characters and circumstances to be way more important than game mechanics or "commitment." While I focus a lot on mechanics on this forum, the thing that matters a lot to me with a game like this is characters and story.
Ultimately, my line is it has to be a fair consequence, and is on an individual basis instead of a group basis. I don't want Group A and Group B. If a character leaves, I want it to be a natural consequence of what has happened. Not a forced consequence.
