I want to take advantage of the multiplayer, multiple points of view systems *as a single player*. I want to create four characters and make them battle each other (or work together) as appropriate. I do *not* want to have just one character who is "me" and deal with party members only as AI NPCs. I want to switch perspectives at will and pursue all four stories.

There have been some weak assurances that single-player will be just as robust as MP, but I need to be reminded and convinced again that I'll be able to take advantage of all the amazing systems without having to schedule three friends I trust to commit to a 60 hour campaign.

Pretty sure you'll be able to do exactly that. SP should be functionally identical to MP. I think most people will find it awkward to roleplay and compete against themselves, but if you want to do that, should be just as possible in SP as in MP.

I think for next update Larian should show how these systems work in single player. It would assuage a lot of concerns.

Again, they've already been showing how these systems work in single player because they work exactly the same as how they do in multiplayer, except you're controlling each character, just as in D:OS 1 you can roleplay your two different characters antagonistically. Many find self-competition awkward, but if you're willing to roleplay multiple competing characters, you'll have basically the same experience as a multiplayer game (naturally, you'll only be able to control one character at a time, so perhaps some encounters requiring more or less simultaneous action will be impossible in single player, but I'm not sure if those will exist.)

In a direct confrontation, your characters will surely become hostile to each other just as in multiplayer, and I'm sure you'll be able to set up contracts between characters just as in multiplayer (though it's still unclear how this will work exactly.) Larian's ethos seems to be that single player and multiplayer experiences should complement each other, where design for multiplayer naturally creates a robust single player experience, so I wouldn't worry too much about them neglecting single player, even if they have been emphasizing multiplayer a lot.

Will Larian develop ai for my companions so they do their own thing? That is if I don't want to roleplay multiple characters and want them to act as independent beings can we expect that?

Combat would be a tad less tactical if you didn't know what most of your party would be doing, and couldn't count on any combos or support. It would also quarter your active time in combat, increasing the time watching the computer make moves.

I was thinking for non-combat actions not combat. In combat I would expect the party to be player controlled.

So a dialogue AI like with D:OS?

Yeah ai should control dialogue and also decide if the party member needs to leave the party to carry out plans. In other words they should be pursuing their origin goals independently.

So competitive questing would be optional in multiplayer, but mandatory in single player?
If it was optional, it would be the same amount of work implementing and testing, but almost nobody would use it (party members leaving at unknown plot points, possibly taking equipment, supplies and quest items with them, and placing the relevant quests on a timer, so you have to race if you want to be able to do it the way you want).

Any game I've played where a party member leaves has triggered reloading the last save, replaying up to just before that point, and then removing all equipment, etc. Adding in quest sabotage if you don't do them fast enough wouldn't make it more fun, IMNSHO.

Don't think self-interested companions should be mandatory by any means, but perhaps they'll implement something like the AI options (self-interested to death, vocally self-interested but won't fight, cooperative, etc.) they have in D:OS where your party members will respond in dialog as they would to uphold their interests, though not sure if they ought to take on AI control for combat, nevermind leaving the party. I'm not sure basic AI for dialogwould take all that much more testing than is required anyway since the AI would just be making decisions that are already available to players anyway (they added AI for your fellow source hunter in D:OS1 in a single patch, if I recall). I think the AI for dialog (or combat) for party members would actually be more popular in D:OS2 than for D:OS1 for people who like having more of a feel of one primary character with companions rather than four primary characters with separate goals.

Yeah, any role-playing AI used in single-player should be kept pretty shallow. Like Fallout 4 shallow. I mean, sure, your companions have emotions and objectives, etc, but in the end you don't really have to worry too much about these things getting in the way of whatever you want to do.

In order to have any deep character development, you would pretty much need a linear story in order to avoid the kind of issues you've mentioned. That's near impossible when you're talking about a fully customised party.

So according to today's PCGamesN preview (http://www.pcgamesn.com/divinity-or...inal-sin-2-origin-story-pvp-arena-combat), you only get to create one PC. I can't say I'm surprised, but ... what the hell?

You didn't want to repeat Icewind Dale, didn't you?
More like Baldur's gate

Yes. I wanted a real party-based game, not "Chosen One plus companions".

If you play multiplayer, you can do this that you mention.

Personally, I don't mind one created character and existing companions, as that allows for more fleshed-out companions. Of course, that assumes that Larian will actually create said fleshed-out companions.

I would love a source on this. So far, every preview I've seen shows the player able to make one (1) character. Please link one that shows a single player making multiple characters.

Unless by playing multiplayer you mean buying four copies of the game and playing with four controllers.

They did... The companions are taken from the unique backgrounds that are available. This means the character you create can in fact be one of the available companions.

Based on the RPG Codex Gamescom interview, as a single player you are stuck with a "Chosen One plus sidekicks" model:


Silly Swen ... more than anything I was excited to pick the four Origin characters and have them battle it out with no Chosen One bias.

Instead, based on this
it looks like your main character will be the anointed hero who ends up fulfilling his story no matter what, and any characters with opposing tags are doomed to get killed off or whatever. Fuckin' weak. The whole reason I was excited about this was so that I could sincerely role-play two opposing points of view and let the dice determine who wins.

He said the stories might not go well... not that they will die in a fire.

Which yeah of course plots might not go so well for the character if you happen to prevent them from solving it (or worse)

Well, I did say "killed off or whatever".

The point is that the Chosen One main character gets to do his quest and the other characters, even the villains, are just spear carriers. This ruins the entire appeal of competitive questing, because we know from the beginning that Joe Hero is going to win no matter what.

In fact, it turns out from later in the same interview that competitive questing was deliberately removed. CQ was the whole reason I backed this game in the first place. Intra-party conflict was the most interesting thing about D:OS 1, and now they've removed it for the sequel. Oh well, the game will probably still be good.

The information I've seen is that once a character joins the party, he will be just as important as any other characters in the party.

That is, if there's a disagreement, there's nothing to say that "the chosen one" will be the victor. I'll have to check this a little more.

i really do hope the avatar has other options than just becoming The Chosen One. This whole Joe-nobody-becomes-jesus-story really annoys the heck out of me (DOS1 was especially annoying on that one b/c it was clear almost from the get-go that your chars were the busdrivers on a trip on the highway to heaven).

I totally love to become superhuman-powerful, but this saviour-shit really, really, really, really ... REALLY is fucked up

id rather have it like you can (via questing) decide not to become The Chosen One and yield somebody else the "honor". Or, alternatively, become Baal (or some other nice guy).

Let me just back up here and make sure I understand...

What does competitive questing have to do with this "chosen one" issue?

Aren't you just annoyed that the player character might end up being the protagonist?

You're controlling a party, not just a character. The point is that companions are mostly under your control, so it's kind of silly to be actively undermining your player character while controlling your companion.

All it would take is for your friend to join your game and you can do all the competing you want.

i dont have an issue with "saviour-story-telling" per se. i just dont like it when MY char (the one i identify myself to a degree) has to be "the one".

i controll a party, but i play my char. thats a subtle but important difference.

and normaly in single player rpgs you play the protagonist who also becomes jesus at the end of a saviour-story

introducing a way of avoiding this becoming-jesus-syndrom via competetive questing sounds like a lot of fun.

and sadly, i dont have friends that also play computer games (anymore), so i am doomed to playing alone

Everything. Swen said that the "main" PC gets to have his origin quest, and the rest of the PCs don't. They're just there to support the One Hero. There's no competition, there's no question of who's going to win in the end, there's no tension or genuine interest. The question is now "HOW is the One Hero going to win?" Before, the question was "WILL PC #1 win at all?" In terms of narrative, these questions are night and day. I was excited for a game with conflict that was meaningful on a level that RPGs have never dared to go to before.


The fact that you're talking about "THE player character" instead of "the player CHARACTERS" illustrates the entire point in a nutshell.


Sure it is, and it's equally silly for friends to work against each other in a game ... yet people do it all the time and it's fun.

The player character is not "me", and I am not "him". He is one character I am manipulating in order to make an enjoyable story. If I'm manipulating more than one character, why should they become mindless slaves serving the motivations of the One True Character? Is my party a "blob", a single person with eight arms and eight legs, but only one mind? Why? Why is that good?

Have you ever played pen & paper role-playing games? Watch the GM. He plays more than one character every session, and they aren't a hive mind that all work together. NPCs fight each other, argue with each other, work at cross purposes, even go to war against each other. Nobody questions why this is good and important. So if it's fun and good storytelling for one person to write the actions of more than one character if he's the GM, why is it bad and wrong for a player to want to do the exact same thing when controlling multiple PCs?


Oh good, so all I have to do is schedule 40+ hours of concurrent play time with 3 other busy adults. Nothing inconvenient about that.

So only play in multiplayer.

How the ***k exactly do you expect "competitive questing" to work in SINGLE-PLAYER? Because playing against yourself is lame, it would be just as predetermined if you chose which of the different heroes competing objectives won.

Even if it was possible to write AI which was smart enough to compete versus fellow party members, it still wouldn't work right because there's no way to make a timer for the AI completing objectives which would work without always beating the player or always losing. A large part about the appeal of D:OS and such is the freeform nature which let you wander around and take your time.

Plus with combat being turn-based and letting other players wander around in real-time, that would create even more headaches with an AI timer.

None of this problem is new, it was talked about when the D:OS 2 kickstarter started. It was said back then that single-player would not have competitive questing. I can only conclude that you were not paying attention.




Sorry this isn't Icewind Dale 2. Maybe what you're looking for is Pillars of Eternity? Oh wait, I don't think that has competitive questing in it.




There is a difference between a human GM and a computer program. The program is infinitely more restricted in what it can and cannot do.



Sorry. Your computer game which allows you to create all party members with custom backgrounds and have AI which lets them feasibly compete against each other to complete conflicting objectives simply does not exist within the current limits of technology, AI, and design. Check back in a couple hundred years.

Right, because as we've established, scheduling 3 other busy adults to join me in a 40+ hour game is assumed to be no problem.

And even if I did only play in multiplayer, I would still only be controlling one character. I can already do that.


Uhh. Assuming that I knew the outcome of every dialogue decision, every branching path, and every dice roll beforehand? I guess you're right. Oh wait, that logic applies equally well to normal single-player. So I guess you're saying RPGs suck in general. Sorry you feel that way.


I'm not talking about fighting against an AI. I'm talking about controlling all four characters and having them pursue different objectives ... you know, exactly like the game is already set up in multiplayer.


I was paying strict attention to the kickstarter and have been asking this question for a full year, and the opposite is the case. I'd love to see a source for your information. I haven't been on these forums much so maybe I missed something. Show me.


Yes, the Icewind Dale games were actual party-based games. Why are you speaking of them disparagingly? What's wrong with that format?

And you're mistaken about Pillars of Eternity. It is a Chosen One game, not a party-based game. Learn the difference quickly if you want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation.


Read closer. I'm not talking about AI. I'm talking about a single human person controlling more than one character, in a way more meaningful than "another pair of arms and 30 more hit points".


Missed the point. We actually do have the entire game you described, except for the AI, and I'm not talking about AI. The only thing missing is the UI structure that allows a single player to pursue more than one origin quest, to have one character fail while another succeeds.

@Zombra

Well given the modding support this game is going to have I'm sure someone will mod the game to allow single player to control all 4 characters and pursue different objectives.

*I'm hoping someone attempts to add greater ai for the single player campaign myself so it can play closer to multiplayer.

I don't see a problem with competitive questing in the single player portion. You don't need the AI to do things specifically and it is a called ROLE-PLAYING-GAME for a reason: People like role-playing; Sometimes that involves controlling how your characters react and/or interact with each other and determining their motives and other things; It can be fun, just like writing your own story or playing table-top board game by yourself (that is created for 1 OR more people).

Due to the lack of definition, I don't even understand what the OP wants.

I fail to see what practical difference OP has in mind. Seems to me that if he wants to focus on "secondary character" questline, and force the party to fulfill this one first, he can. He can even stop the game once it's done. What are the mechanics the OP wants?

Feeling like you are playing a multiplayer game when you play single?
You cray-cray.

With a bit of experience in this area, while it's not impossible it would be a bit of a task to say the least.

Mainly because of all the increased party dynamics in D:OS 2 and that one of the characters is still by default considered the player character.

What he wants in D:OS2 is what D:OS already had in a less sophisticated form. And since the "playing against yourself" mode already/still exists for QA and plain old testing purposes, not providing this option to players strikes me as... surprisingly petty.

To be honest, while reading the latest interviews, the single player portion of the game seems like a stripped version of the multiplayer version.

I think I described it pretty well, but I'll try again.

I want to create four characters, each with the ability to make their own decisions, and pursue individual and even incompatible goals. I do not want any of these four to be "the" player character; none of them should be the Chosen One. It should be possible for any of the four to succeed or fail at their personal objectives. It should be possible for them to take different sides in a conflict and work against each other. It should be possible for any of the four to die (perhaps even by killing each other), and the game will continue as long as someone is left.

From what Swen described, none of this is in the (single player) game. We can only make one player character, and this character will be a "Chosen One"; the game will center around his personal story, and any companions he acquires will be subservient to that story (if they do have goals incompatible to the hero's, they are doomed to fail). The party will all agree to pick one side of any conflict (probably whatever Our Hero decides). PCs #2, 3, and 4 will not be able to pursue their "origin" quests. If PC #1 dies, the game is over, making him "essential" while the rest are just sidekicks.

/this

since QA @Larian plays with all origins stories active (ie including companions origin stories) it seems more like setting some flag somewhere than doing "modding" in the common sense of the word

As far as I understand, the Origin quests are separate (or perhaps layered on top of) the main quest line. However, the main quest line is basically the same regardless of your origin. Your main quest line relates, in some way, to the fact that you are a sourceror . All 4 members of the party share this trait and so share an interest in the main quest.

None of the party are mortal, as such. It's designed for 4-player co-op, and the they have stated that permadeath is not going to happen. I'm not sure if they're planning to give you a game over screen if only the player character/s die, but it seems unlikely based on current information. Theoretically, there's nothing stopping you from killing the player character, and simply choosing not to resurrect him.

Yes, one character will be more important than the others. When you create your character, you can choose which one will be most important and play him as the protagonist. I also understand that if you're playing multiplayer (which is drop-in), then the party member they control can start competing for the role of protagonist.

I'm sure there are some people who are so committed to role-playing that they'd enjoy competing against themself, but this really takes a special kind of roleplayer. I really imagine that most people who are so interested in actively creating (and not just participating in) a story would be much more interested in creating their own campaign in the mod tools (assuming it's usable).

Just because only the player characters can be protagonists, it doesn't mean he's the "chosen one". When you watch a movie about Nelson Mandela, he didn't achieve great things because he was chosen, or because he was born with a special power that would change the world forever. But they made a movie about him because he achieved great things. When you start watching the movie, you do it knowing that he's the protagonist and you'll be watching to see what he achieved and how he did it.

I really don't understand how you're conflating protagonist with chosen one. I love Game of Thrones, but this is not Game of Thrones. We don't need to have the expectation that permadeath can happen at anytime.

I agree. This would be a good and easy idea for a mod, but I agree with their decision to not include this as an option in the published game.

Chosen One does not refer to a literal messiah, but simply to an "essential" main character. Stories with this format are okay and there's nothing wrong with them - but this game was sold partly on the idea of multiple perspectives and meaningful conflict, and these are the reasons I backed the game. It's very disappointing for these innovative ideas to be removed from the single-player experience, and for no good reason.

Whether death is permanent or not is also beside the point, which is simply that no one character should be the infallible hero. In a true party-based game, individuals are expendable; what matters is the group.

I just think it's incredibly interesting to have characters with different goals, and not have them all able to fulfill them all because some of them are in conflict. This becomes far less interesting when PC #1 gets to fulfill all his goals because and only because he's been anointed as the magical protagonist.

As for mod tools, I have no interest in writing a novel in this world. I just like portraying characters accurately according to their motivations and seeing what happens, and that is much more satisfying when the conclusion isn't predetermined.

Basically the game is only going to have one ending based on which character I choose. In a sense the game will be over as soon as it starts. How much better it would be if I didn't know who would come out on top?

I don't think that means what you think it means.
The Chosen One - TV Tropes

What you're asking for is an ensemble cast -- ie, a story without a protagonist.

From the D:OS2 kickstarter (emphasis mine):

Do we know whether, in multiplayer, it is possible for one player to control more than one character?

Should be possible, since it worked in D:OS 1.

Thanks for that comment - in which case it seems to me that one player could control all four characters with quests and aims to fulfil? Does this answer the concerns in previous posts?

Well, TV Tropes isn't a dictionary, and despite the broadening of its scope it is focused on definitions that apply best to, well, TV. That definition focuses on the story role of the character; in terms of game design the definition really is pretty much the same. The characters in the world may or may not demonstrably worship the one true PC in a Chosen One game, but the game itself does; the world completely revolves around them. I stand by my use of the term.

An "ensemble cast" does indeed describe the TV version of a true party-based game.


Good quote - thank you for that. I was evidently mistaken about being able to make multiple PCs - I must have jumped to that assumption because the first game did such a nice job with multiple created PCs in conflict with each other. It never occurred to me that they would actually cut back on characters in the sequel. Does DOS1 qualify as an ensemble cast with two equally important protagonists? Why change that?

Anyway, that very quote of yours also talks a about intra-party conflict and how every PC is equally important and has their own story - at least in multiplayer. This is the stuff that I fixated on and have been asking about for the past year. "Can I do this in single player also"? The answers I received were vague yeses ... but vague. Don't think that I'm screaming that promises were broken - I'm not. But I was led to believe - vaguely - that I'd be able to have my ensemble cast. I'm (understandably, I hope) disappointed that the opposite has turned out to be the case - particularly since the infrastructure is all right there; Swen has simply chosen to make it unavailable in single-player.

As stated before, given that they're using this mode for QA purposes but keeping it out of the published game for "design reasons", it should theoretically be easy to make this one of the first mods once the game exits Early Access. Officially you won't get what you want, but you should still get what you want.

While I do not mind being able to make multiple characters during character creation in single player...

I respect their decision not to.

The upside is that Swen also talked about the possibility (not a guarantee, but at least a possibility) of adding party-based single player (or "ensemble mode", I really like that word for it) later down the line. Very likely I'll just end up waiting a year or so to see what kinds of improvements are made before playing. See if they do an "EE" version with that functionality added back in.

This is actually an option I'd prefer. I'd like to choose the characters I like, while still being able to balance my party.

I expect this should be easily modded in too. (I hope?)

Given that there are mods for the first game that
A) Allow you to have more then 4 characters
and
B) allow 4 person multiplayer where you can all make a character.

I think it is likely.

I don't believe that 'it can be modded in' is a decent answer for Larian. This is stuff that should be available by default.

Well the fact is Larian can do it, but explicitly don't want to do it.

It's like asking why there aren't space marines armed with lasers in the game. That's not the game they decided to make.

So the most reasonable request is that it should be easy to mod.

I mean yes I do agree that "There is a mod for it" and "Mod it in" is never a appropriate response to one of these threads (well on its own)

But I have respect for conscious decisions.

But ... that's exactly the game they decided to make! They just don't want certain people playing it.


I respect conscious decisions too - when they make a damn bit of sense.

Again, here's Swen's reason for denying a party-based option in single-player:

So ... he's worried that people might make their own characters instead of picking premade ones with cool stories, you know, because when you make a character for a party you want them to be less interesting.

... Huh? How on earth do those two things correlate? I might as well say no banana splits after 2:30PM - hot fudge sundaes only! - because I'd rather you ride your bicycle than take the train.

If you want to force the player to only use the premade characters, you can simply force the player to only use premade characters. Why put those character creation tools in in the first place if you don't want people to use them? How come I'm allowed to make my own character for the normal single-player game if that's the "wrong" way to play?

This rationale simply doesn't hold water, and I hope Larian rethinks it sooner rather than later.

OHhh They are ALREADY doing that.

If you want to use the origin system, you have to use their premade characters :P

Haha, yes, but the point is that they're letting you choose whether or not to use the origin system for your Chosen One, but they're worried that if they give you that exact same choice in an ensemble format, somehow you will choose "wrong". So not only do they deny you that choice, they refuse to have a party-based mode altogether just to make sure you don't make that "wrong" choice. Yet you still have that same choice in the single character version of the game. The mind boggles.

Part of the design is that the characters are supposed to be able to keep secrets from each other, and a lot of the design is focused on the idea that you'll surprise each other with your betrayals.

When Swen was participating in co-op with a friend, at one point this led to an awkward real-life conversation about the fact that Swen wanted to kill her temporarily so that he could advance the quest. At another point, he gave her a fake healing potion just to be a troll.

From seeing this, it's easy to see that the point of competitive questing is that it provides narrative motivations that help to foster rivalry between real players. Co-op is the entire point.

While it technically can work in single player, the experience they are trying to create is NOT a single player experience and they don't see it as improving the single player experience.

Do not repeat the same mistakes of the first game.
Full party creation, I have no issues with this.
But do not treat SP like a 1-player MP session like in the first game.

Bartering, Identifying, Repairing should not require item transfers to the respective character.
Separate purses should be strictly MP only.
Do not make people suffer these useless micro-management in SP just because it's identical to a 1-Player MP session.

Eh, in other words, once again they don't want you to have fun with it in the "wrong" way. I strenuously object to that philosophy.

It's not about Larian deliberately wanting custom characters to be "less interesting". It's that every response, every line of dialogue, and every quest in the game must be put in by the developers and left alone. The single-player has no human person who can put in NPC's, dialogue and reactions to a backstory which only resides in the players head, and not the game.

So yes, origin stories will have more content than generic characters will. That's just the reality of videogames. They can't match the versatility of a human GM with pen and paper.

Larian has hired an additional SIX staff members just for writing. Paying them a living wage is probably a fair amount of money. It's not unreasonable for Swen to have a preference for players to see the fruits of all the work those writers - writers he's paying for.




Swen said nothing at all about hating the idea of allowing 4 custom party members. He said that it probably wouldn't be in at the initial release.

Everyone either has or likely will have some disappointments with the game. It's impossible to please everyone. Try not to take it as you being personally slighted.

I personally have some worries and disappointments about competitive questing and other multiplayer-only gameplay taking up resources which could have been used to make singleplayer better.

And you know completely fairly they advertised giving origins to "your" characters.

A bit of bait and switch never hurt nobody :P

Instead of say

"Origins: Play as your own generic character without one or as one of our preset characters we hand crafted."

Which honestly at this point I don't know why they don't just let you make your entire team. Given that the only PCs that have backgrounds are Pregens and they are already there in the game to be found anyway.

But I guess it would make you skip their introductions. (I really hate Sebille's... seriously... and the fact that she isn't optional if you don't want to be down a companion OUCH!)

---

Actually it is funny this game, more then any others, kind of has the most companions I might have issues with...

Two are genocidal monsters... One is a sociopath... and one is normal. :P

---

But honestly given that we might get more origins (especially for undead) does mean that there MAY be a point in not letting you create your team.

From what I've seen of the alpha footage, they've designed a different experience for single-player. For example, if the Red Prince meets Sebille, the conversation plays out differently depending on who's talking, based primarily on the characteristic that Sebille hates lizardkin.

Red Prince PC -> Sebille NPC
Red Prince NPC <- Sebille PC
Red Prince PC <-> Sebille PC

The point is that they're designing these situations differently.

I'm not sure that single-player means that you'd have more or less content overall, but it will definitely be an experience that is to some extent designed specifically for single player.

From what I've seen so far, it might be better just to create your own 3 companions because it appears that they are inconsequential at best since your PC seems to be the only one that matters in single-player. It appears that any goals of your companions are removed and only in place for multi-player 'competitive questing'

That isn't true exactly. Your other companions still have their own goals. It is just up to you to decide if you want to complete them or not and who gets priority when doing so.

The reason they cannot do competitive questing is kind of simple... You are making all the decisions. You cannot work against or around... yourself.

Competative questing is NOT a result of the origins and happen in MP even if everyone chose the "generic" background, no aspirations, and everyone was the same race. What competitive questing is, ALL IT IS, is that everyone doesn't have to agree on a topic. Remember all those times in the first game where you had to play Rock Scissor paper? Replace those with fights and alternate goals and that is competitive questing.

It does feel SOMEWHAT cheap that your companions can't just go "No! this is wrong! I won't stand for this" given that even in Divinity 1 I believe there were breaking points for companions. Yet meh... you would probably dequip them and remove their skill points if you knew it was coming.

---

The "Origin" or more accurately "Pre-generated character" ones are... are quests you get from the get-go (or you can only get) that you can decide to play against your friends for.

OR you can work together... OR you can find alternate solutions... OR you can decide it isn't worth it and just give in to your allies.

So if your, for example, a member of the Thieves Guild you MIGHT want to prevent their destruction. You might even start off with a quest to steal something and the person who owns it knows someone is after it and asks the party to stop them. Yet you can always prevent this.

(Honestly this is a HUUUUUUGE FREEKEN REASON to have more then pre-generated character backgrounds. The fact that anyone who played the game will immediately know what your quest is and can circumvent you with metaknowledge)

So there should be so many elaborate, inter-related quests with conflicting goals, that with prior knowledge of the game (or a wiki/walkthrough) there is no way to anticipate possible conflicts?
You do realize that for competitive questing, every quest line must have competing goals with all other quest lines, right? Not only does that mean each background takes more work than the one before, all background quest lines must become increasingly complex (or at least longer) the more backgrounds there are.

Rather than theory crafting what a game 'should' do assuming unlimited resources, consider that origins are a core component of the game and there are four times the number of writers working on D:OS 2 than D:OS. If there are X origins, how reasonable is it to add on 2 or 3X more, or design adaptable backgrounds that are 5-10 times the work of a specific character?


Also, previous experience with any multiplayer game can always be used to gain an advantage over those who are unfamiliar with it.

That isn't how it works exactly.

"The Red Prince" has a quest to drink a bottle of Red Wine... Including Everyone Else if he clues them in.

Everyone else gets a quest to stop someone from stealing the bottle of Red Wine. Including "The Red Prince" automatically. This is regardless of your origin.

They can chose to do either one or to fight for it (or complete it first)

The way the game is set up... it isn't that every quest line has an entirely different goal depending on your origin.

That is why the origins are not exponential in terms of competitive questing.

It is why knowing the person's origin immediately gives away exactly what they are trying to do if they do not work with you immediately.

All this while ultimately everyone is on the same quest anyway (not four different main quests) so you have to work together at some point.

---

Or rather this I am writing isn't how Competative Questing is done with Character Origins!

-Pregen Char 1: Has a quest to drink a bottle of wine
-Pregen char 2: has a quest to kill the winemaker
-Pregen Char 3: has a quest to deliver a bottle of wine to the cheesemaker
-Pregen char 4: has a quest to steal the reward money from the wine maker and cheesemaker.

How it works however can be!

There is a bottle of wine and you are offered a substantial reward if you can acquire it. You can
1) Steal it
2) Pay for it
3) Kill for it
4) Pregen Char: Wants to drink it

And you can chose any of these, fight for any of these, or attempt to solve it first or secretly.

So rather than hand crafted quests where there are individual motivations for conflicting goals, the quests should be simplified to the point they are generically interchangeable between almost every character, with no differences at all based on the actual origin?
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having origins?

Everyone having a wine related quest doesn't solve the problem of someone that has played the game before knowing when a conflicting quest will come up. They wouldn't know which conflicting quest, but they would certainly know when they needed an excuse to separate and get a head start.

I am not making the game, I am only translating what the information is... and even I can get it wrong.

It is better to think of it that for SOME quests a character's personal ties to it become an entirely new dimension to it that they CAN explore or subvert (assuming it isn't a quest that must be unlocked through having a specific party member.)

So if the party is dealing with a bunch of thieves... That is a quest in it of itself (whether it be by destroying them, getting them arrested, or helping them)

HOWEVER! one of your party members is secretly a member. This means that they can work against you and help the thieves guild... It also means they can use their membership as an extra solution to defeat the thieves guild. If they are so inclined (and this information COULD be found out). All of these are perfectly viable solutions as is doing the quest typically in spite of this.

Larian doesn't put put motivations into your head. You do not have to work against your party and you are not punished for doing so, or if you are there are ways out of it.

The point of the competitive questing system is that unlike before where you had to sort of begrudgingly agree with one another all the time. Now? You have solutions to get your way and it is infused into the setting... AND quests can have quite a bit of depth to them to allow people to go after separate objectives that might not even be visible to another player.

---

Not that there can't be multiple objectives brought on by multiple origins. Just that the system isn't set up so that every mission with one has all of them active at once.

I'm also sure that competitive questing will in some cases be the result of limited rewards.

For example, if there's romance in the game, then it would be normal for the romance to be monogamous. The logical outcome is that two characters have the same romantic interest, then only one of them will be able to complete the romantic storyline. Hence, competition. I'm not sure to what extent this will be explicitly designed as competitive.

There are also other scenarios with limited rewards, which I believe were seen in the alpha footage. For example, one method of escaping the prison that you can only pursue alone. Hence, if you pursue this option, your companions would have to find an alternative.

These forms of "competitive questing" also seem to be present in the single-player version of the game. Except obviously with fewer arguments.