Originally Posted by Sozz
I remember us having some interesting conversations, even if most of the particulars escape me. I do remember head canons coming up quite a bit before on the forum, there are two camps of crpg players that have very different expectations from their characters, and what constitutes customizability.

I think the tadpole is a perfectly valid reason for all of our disparate characters to want to journey together, it's why Tav is de facto leader where I have to eat my ludonarrative pease.

This evident intrigue around our condition is part of the mystery box that I was referring to earlier. The dynamics of the party and our MC might change drastically at the climax of Act 1, but as it is, most of us seem to be treating this thing as a tadpole we can remove, this becomes less and less the case as we draw closer to the Moonrise plot, but it still doesn't change that Tav problem.

There's a reason I hardly play BG 1 compared to BG2, the companions are mostly just memorable catchphrases that I projected a lot onto, so we can agree there. But I don't think you need to say its a trade off to have more companions or better companions. Not to mention all the speculation around having our roster locked in after Act I. Who knows, all the characters you kill or avoid meeting might end up at Moonrise anyway, similar to the end of DOSII, and we'd have less reason for them to subject themselves to our party in the interim.

Your murderhoboism makes my lawful stupid self apoplectic. :hihi:

Murderhobo? We prefer the term amoral-homicidally-indulgent-transient, thank you very much.

Well, you don’t need to choose between more or better companions; better is subjective. But the more energy you spend on each discrete companion means you have fewer total resources with which to design more. Ideally I think it would be great to have 12 companions representing each PHB class. If we did then I think having companions more willing to leave if upset would be better justified. But since we don’t have that, I at least understand the design principle being exercised.

Just like the design decision of having companions wait at camp. I don’t like that. I actually prefer the older BG style of you are in the party or you aren’t. It feels silly to me when I meet somebody in a game and say “you, look like a worthy and capable warrior. Now please go attend the campfire and keep the fire burning vigorously because we’re all going to be exhausted after clearing this den of werewolves.”

But I get why developers do this, so I just kind of find a way to go with it. (Murder unwanted companions)

This conversation made me think though. Does your character need to be the party leader? If I decide to play the entire game doing every conversation as Shadowheart while I cuck out in the background, isn’t Shadowheart really the leader and my character just the group mother hen making sure everybody is getting along and feeling seen? How often does the game force your character into dialogue over whomever you have selected?

Last edited by Warlocke; 28/01/23 07:53 AM.