Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#814116 25/04/22 04:52 AM
Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Should Larian provide a reason why you need to leave party members at camp? In other words, if you don't leave 1 or 2 party members to guard your stuff, you might run risks of something happening to your camp. Also, party members have tasks at camp.

The idea is that you assign each companion left at camp 1 task while you're out. Things like:

1. Guard - If no one guards, chance that something steals some of the stuff you left in your chest at camp. Send to camp, but if no guard at camp... Possible loss of items.
2. Crafting - party members at camp can be left with crafting materials. While you adventure, they do crafting for you.
3. Food - instead of finding food EVERYWHERE that doesn't spoil, food spoils and those at camp can spend time foraging and hunting. Survival roll required to see if they succeeded while you were out adventuring.
4. Selling - While you are out, camp companions go to vendors and sell your Wares for you - anything you mark as Wares and then Send To Camp or leave at camp before adventuring.

What do you think? Any other ideas you might have?

GM4Him #814120 25/04/22 07:25 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
NO!
NO! NO! NO! Thousand times NO! And thousand more on top of that!
And then once again around!

There should be no RP mentioning about party limit AT ALL, EVER!
This should be pure mechanical limitation ... if we got full party we should get SYSTEM message telling us we cant get any more.

And our companiins should not be aware of this.

Bcs no matter the reason ...
They will never ever make sense. -_-


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
GM4Him #814124 25/04/22 10:22 AM
Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
While I don't hold the opinion quite so...vehemently, I do generally agree with Ragnarok on this point. I think the idea of giving companions in camp stuff they can do isn't a bad idea, and if Larian has an idea for implementing that, I'd be fine seeing how that goes, but I don't think that's a thing which needs to be addressed at all. It's just one of those ways players need to suspend their disbelief, and ultimately I've never considered it an important issue at all. I think drawing attention to it in the game with a half-formed or shallow system could strain credulity morethan not bringingit up at all.

Though on the subject, I think of the games I've played, Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition handled the party limit issue the best froma storytelling perspective. With 2, all your companions were living in the city with you. Bringing them along was the equivalent of asking your friends to help you run errands. high-risk errands at times, but still. It made perfect sense that you would only bring a few companions at a time because they still have lives that they're living when they're not with you. In Inquisition, most of your companions also had other jobs of some description that they would be doing around Skyhold. Like Varric managing his network of contacts, Vivienne organizing the mages, Iron Bull coordinating his mercenaries and Qunari contacts, etc. Both games gave you a logical reason not to bring along everyone but also they did not actively draw attention to the fact, so they never made you think too hard and risk making you poke holes in the logic.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
There should be no RP mentioning about party limit AT ALL, EVER!
This should be pure mechanical limitation ... if we got full party we should get SYSTEM message telling us we cant get any more.

I also find the party size limit very artificial, story-wise. It is purely a video game feature and it should be presented as such, using a purely video game UI, instead of being made part of the in-world, canon events.

So I wish Larian would get rid of Lae'zel's "You're full up. Dismiss your weakest warrior".

That just doesn't work well, in my view.


Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
It's just one of those ways players need to suspend their disbelief, and ultimately I've never considered it an important issue at all. [...]

I can certainly separate things, and I'm ok with a number of "video game things" in my video game.

For instance, I know that I (the player) can manage the inventory and equipment of all my companions, using the corresponding video game interfaces, and I'm aware that if I equip my Cleric with Lae'zel's Gith armour and Lae'zel with my Cleric's starting armour, this is just me (the player) doing video game things.

The problem comes from the video game notifying you of the video game things through the story instead of through the video game interfaces and tutorials.

Last edited by Drath Malorn; 25/04/22 01:38 PM. Reason: reaction to Gray Ghost's post

Hoping we'll be able to create great assumptions-free Custom Characters and be given great roleplay options.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
There should be no RP mentioning about party limit AT ALL, EVER!
This should be pure mechanical limitation ... if we got full party we should get SYSTEM message telling us we cant get any more.-
+1

I'll change the question to something(s) more interesting imo:
a.) Should out-of-party companions be aware of everything we do, only the BIG decisions, or should we have to specifically tell them about any decisions made while adventuring?
b.) Going even further, should out-of-party companions be considered FULLY present for everything but combat, and correspondingly speak up during relevant cutscenes?

GM4Him #814134 25/04/22 03:14 PM
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Personally I never liked "hoarding" companions. I liked that in BG1&2 we built our party and that was that - other potential companions "lived" in the world, rather then crowding in our basement, happy to deliver their monologues for completionists sake, while not actually contributing in the story. It feels a bit more natural when our "basement" is a mobile base (like ship in KOTOR or ship in Mass Effect or ship in PoE2) - them being there just makes a bit more sense. But giving player access to all companions in everyplaythrough cuts into RPGnessness of the experience - choosing who our companion is and the company he keeps.

As such I am not terribly worried if Larian ends up axing off spare companions like they did D:OS2 - by principle I do prefer commiting to the party and loosing access to story beats if we are not willing to invest in said companions, even if I find Larian's approach a bit heavy handed, and unnecessarily cuts access to companions in later acts if for anyreason player (or the roleplayed character) changes his mind.

If one has static base/keep I think it is a nice touch if companions appear to be busy with something - while PoE1 keep was mostly disposable, I did like having an ability to assign tasks to spare companions. That said, while adding a flavour to make the whole ordeal feel less artificial is welcome, making a "base management system" is not. A bad management minigame is worse then having none. I also don't want to be punished for not hoarding companions - if any of the core mechanics are tied to spare party memebers, then lets say killing Astarion becomes a handicap. And no one should be punished for killing Astarion.

EDIT:
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
I also find the party size limit very artificial, story-wise. It is purely a video game feature and it should be presented as such, using a purely video game UI, instead of being made part of the in-world, canon events.

So I wish Larian would get rid of Lae'zel's "You're full up. Dismiss your weakest warrior".

That just doesn't work well, in my view.
I must say that BG1&2 system ("sure I will join you" followed by UI where we need to dismiss a companion if we have too many) just works better for me. It doesn't unnecessarily point out the artificial limitation (I think there is a big difference between UI popping out, and in world, voiced character stating that such limitation exists) but what's more important to me: is more convenient. Having to go to a companion and dismiss him, before I am able to recruit a new one is just unnecessary step - though Larian likes those #toiletchainsystem smile

Last edited by Wormerine; 25/04/22 03:20 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
Originally Posted by Wormerine
I must say that BG1&2 system ("sure I will join you" followed by UI where we need to dismiss a companion if we have too many) just works better for me. It doesn't unnecessarily point out the artificial limitation (I think there is a big difference between UI popping out, and in world, voiced character stating that such limitation exists) but what's more important to me: is more convenient. Having to go to a companion and dismiss him, before I am able to recruit a new one is just unnecessary step - though Larian likes those #toiletchainsystem smile

It's funny. Before posting my reply above, I had initially mentioned BG1&2. Then I figured that Larian might be getting a bit tired of hearing about all the things that these 20 years old game did better than BG3 (even if, in most case at least, it's just Larian's fault). So I removed this. But ... yeah. I too find that BG1&2 did this better. They only use the video game's UI, and don't try to present this through in-world characters.

And as you point out, BG3 also has a big issues with the ease-of-use of its UI. From party controls, to action bar, to items and inventory, to resting, to swapping companions.

Not that BG1&2 were perfect here (if you wanted to remove equipment of a companion before letting them go, you had to do know ahead of time which NPCs were recruitable, because once recruitment happened and the party-management UI opened, you couldn't access inventories again before kicking out someone).

But BG3 does really poorly on companion swapping. The way you have to dismiss and re-invite companions through cinematic conversations is tedious. And, again, it makes this whole Party Size Limit be an in-world thing, when it should not be. A dedicated party composition management UI could really kill two birds with one stone here.


Hoping we'll be able to create great assumptions-free Custom Characters and be given great roleplay options.
mrfuji3 #814137 25/04/22 05:18 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
a.) Should out-of-party companions be aware of everything we do, only the BIG decisions, or should we have to specifically tell them about any decisions made while adventuring?
Yes, most definietly they should be aware ...
Honestly i see no reason why they should not.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
b.) Going even further, should out-of-party companions be considered FULLY present for everything but combat, and correspondingly speak up during relevant cutscenes?
You mean like ...
"In cinematics there is 8 of us (for example) but in combat we are only 4?"

That is interesting idea to be honest. O_o

But since i still hope that our companions will get option to at least try change our minds in some decisions, instead just standing there, following orders and disagreeing hard (looking at you Shadowheart!) ... that would make it incredibly tedious. laugh


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
But BG3 does really poorly on companion swapping. The way you have to dismiss and re-invite companions through cinematic conversations is tedious. And, again, it makes this whole Party Size Limit be an in-world thing, when it should not be. A dedicated party composition management UI could really kill two birds with one stone here.

Oh yeah, I'm with you on that. I also find it annoying that when you ask them to stay in camp, they act like you've offended them and the game presents you with an "are you sure?" If you're not familiar with crpgs, it sends the message that asking the companions to leave the party is potentially permanent, and it really doesn't add anything but creating weird feelings around the companions.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
[quote=Wormerine]I must say that BG1&2 system ("sure I will join you" followed by UI where we need to dismiss a companion if we have too many) just works better for me. It doesn't unnecessarily point out the artificial limitation (I think there is a big difference between UI popping out, and in world, voiced character stating that such limitation exists) but what's more important to me: is more convenient. Having to go to a companion and dismiss him, before I am able to recruit a new one is just unnecessary step - though Larian likes those #toiletchainsystem smile

You know... This... This is why I even created the post.

It bugs me to no end that the companions are like, "Take me with you. Let's fight side-by-side.". Then "Oh. Wait. You have HOW many? 4? Nope. That's too many.". Then I'm like, "Well, it's not ,Y choice. I want you to join me and have 5 or 6.". But they refuse. Then, when I say, "Fine. Be that way. Go wait at camp.". They're like, "Well. Fine then. Guess I'll go do nothing but sit on my butt and 'idle away the hours.'". Makes me want to say "Screw you and go away. Angsty teenager wannabe."

So then I said to myself, "Hey. Maybe we could at least have assigned roles so they aren't just doing nothing all dang day."

Last edited by GM4Him; 25/04/22 11:54 PM.
GM4Him #814166 26/04/22 12:19 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
I do not like such mechanics because in the end they are redundant anyway. Such pathfinder would not lose anything if this mechanic was removed because you always set the team on the same slots and you do it almost automatically.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I do not like such mechanics because in the end they are redundant anyway. Such pathfinder would not lose anything if this mechanic was removed because you always set the team on the same slots and you do it almost automatically.

Not if you have 4 roles and only 2 people at camp while you adventure. I'm talking during adventuring, not when everyone is together.

But whatever. Honestly, it was just a thought. I'd SO rather have party of 6 and have everyone in the party anyway.

I just thought it might be a bit more strategic and give a reason for maybe not taking everyone with you.

GM4Him #814185 26/04/22 07:19 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
I still cant imagine scenario where you say to Laezel:
"we go travel around finding any solution to the Tadpole that dont include your suggestion ... you stay here and cook."
That dont lead to your death.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
I'd SO rather have party of 6 and have everyone in the party anyway.
Wouldnt that require party of 8?
Or maybe even 14? Presuming they will do Origin char per class (and i hope they will).

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 26/04/22 12:00 PM.

Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I still cant imagine scenario where you say to Laezel:
"we go travel around finding any solution to the Tadpole that dont include your suggestion ... you stay here and cook."
That dont lead to your death.
grin

To be honest I can't imagine anyone on the team doing that. They are all selfish asshats.

Last edited by Wormerine; 26/04/22 10:54 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Wormerine
They are all selfish asshats.
I believe that is exactly the point ...
To present something new ...

In Dragon Age, you were last (present) member of ancient order with a mission to save the world ...
In Mass Effect, you are legendary human who repeately saved the galaxy (and never get promotion) ...
Eh ... i would find more examples, but im lazy today, so theese will do. :-/

In BG-3 (at least from what we know so far) you are just one of bunch of totally random people, who never known each other, have no desire to be together, but are all trying to save their own ass from something ... and that something is all that keeps them together.
It have potential imho ... but it would require very experienced DM so it dont turn into parody for itself. frown


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
GM4Him #814224 26/04/22 06:03 PM
Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
I think the dynamic isn't inherently bad, but I feel as though the execution is somewhat lacking. While I like all the companions generally, I think they need one more good binding agent, and maybe we'll get that companion down the line. A group like this needs one or two people to really act as glue to even out the various disparate personalities and make them feel a bit more unified. I also don't currently feel like the friction within the party is really being delivered on as well as it could be in the first place. For me at least, there isn't enough interaction within the party to sell me.

GM4Him #814226 26/04/22 06:28 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Glue person would be fine ...
Unless im right and our group really litteraly split up at end on Act I.

In that case such person would only cause other problem. :-/


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5