Petition to Allow Game Completion with NPCs of Choice

billbisco

SoD should allow players complete the entire game with characters of their choice. Both BGEE and BG2EE allow players to complete the entire game with a party of their choice; SoD should follow in those footsteps.

It is not fun to travel with party members throughout BGEE to have them slowly or quickly be forced to disappear. Gameplay and fun considerations outweigh story considerations and the story should bend and adjust for fun and player choice.

The BG2 developers originally intended to kill off Imoen and changed the story to accommodate player wishes. Please, do so likewise with SoD; alllow us to use any party of our choice throughout the entire game.

Gallowglass

It seems to me that you're trying to destroy the entire plot objective of the expansion. It is there to explain how we ended up with the canon party at the start of BG2, regardless of how we ended BG1.

I agree that there's a lot more to a game than plot objective alone, but the plot objective is the reason for setting the expansion in the time between the existing games. Otherwise, they may as well (for example) have simply produced an expansion which was a pack of interesting side-quests within the time-frame of existing material, in the same way that Tales of the Sword Coast expanded original BG1. Indeed, a pack of add-on side-quests within the ToB section of BG2 would actually be quite a good idea, since it'd alleviate the linearity of ToB and easily fit within ToB's XP cap. They could have done that, but no, they decided on the more ambitious project of trying to fill the gap in the main storyline ... and that means explaining how we ended up with the canon party, else it'll be nonsense.

Fardragon

If you are going to have a decent level of interaction, you can't have 30-40 characters. That is way more than even BG2 managed.

Whilst you could allow players to take NPCs with nothing to say, I don't think many people would want to play Russian roulette in order to pick the few characters that talk.

Some of them are required to be elsewhere anyway. For example, Xzar and Monteron had been in Athkatla for some considerable time before the CHARNAME arrived.

Mikey205

They're letting you import your party from BG1 so they are supporting freedom to a large extent. However there will almost certainly be different/special treatment for the more canon NPCs and I'd be very disappointed if this didn't extend to banter (I definitely heard new VA lines for Minsc, Jaheira and Khalid). For me I wouldn't mind forcible withdrawals of NPCs, but it should happen (both for gameplay and story reasons) near/right at the end of the game.

deltago

Even before the end of the game.

The NPCs in baldur's gate all had different reasons for following you, and with the death of Saravok, may wish to follow their own path.

The world does not revolve around character name and having characters excuse themselves for personal reasons adds more believability to both the world and story being told.

billbisco

A couple of notes

1. The game can easily be designed so that any NPC combination can make it to the final battle. After that point the game can go into cinematic or cutscene mod and have Irenicus snatch CHARNAME and whomever else Irenicus wishes. Who is to say that he has to snatch everyone. Irenicus can snatch Jaheira, Khalid, Imoen, Minsc, and Dynaheir, dead or alive outside of CHARNAME's party. There is no gameplay or story reason why at the SoD final battle I must suddenly have a group of NPCs that chunked to death way back

2. There will never be perfect timing. You can travel and rest months before reaching Nashkel. You can skip Sarevok's coronaation and spend some months hanging out on Wolfwere island and back. The gameplay doesn't change as a result because that would not be fun. The same logic should be applied to SoD.

Consequently, one can probably beat BGEE in a few weeks if desired and probably SoD likewise. There is similarly no required gameplay or story reason to restrict options due to timing.

3. The devs have said they have contemplated the possibility of an official EE Trilogy game in the future, combining BGEE, BGSoD, and BG2EE. The stage should be set, in case an EE Trilogy materializes later, for NPCs to travel in full from SoD to BGEE2 just like NPCs do from BGEE to BGSoD.

AstroBryGuy

billbisco said:

SoD should allow players complete the entire game with characters of their choice. Both BGEE and BG2EE allow players to complete the entire game with a party of their choice; SoD should follow in those footsteps.

That's not true.

Yoshimo

billbisco

Good point that the above is a minor exception. There is still a way around that however.

Fardragon

@billbisco I take it from your various comments that you have no interest in dialgue, character or story when it comes to NPCs. You see them as chessmen defined completly by their combat abilities.

billbisco

Fardragon said:

@billbisco I take it from your various comments that you have no interest in dialgue, character or story when it comes to NPCs. You see them as chessmen defined completly by their combat abilities.

I care a lot about those things. Which is why I ask for the freedom to play and complete the game with a party of my own choice. I hope others recognize how vital actual choices are to the enjoyment of the game.

doggy

@billbisco I agree with you on the cutscene and ending in general.

I figure some sort of ending like tob where you are told why other than the canon party have to leave. And why the other stays.

Then there could be a cutscene where you meet those from the canon and get jumped.

(As a sick side note I do plan to have a play where all canon members get chunked then ctrl+t for a year plus. Fix that evil megalomaniac previously known as Jon Icarus)

shawne

billbisco said:

I care a lot about those things. Which is why I ask for the freedom to play and complete the game with a party of my own choice. I hope others recognize how vital actual choices are to the enjoyment of the game.

You can't have it both ways, though. If the plot dictates the presence or absence of certain characters, then you must respect the story; if you want total freedom of choice in terms of who stays and who goes in your party, play Icewind Dale.

Fardragon

billbisco said:

Fardragon said:

@billbisco I take it from your various comments that you have no interest in dialgue, character or story when it comes to NPCs. You see them as chessmen defined completly by their combat abilities.

I care a lot about those things. Which is why I ask for the freedom to play and complete the game with a party of my own choice. I hope others recognize how vital actual choices are to the enjoyment of the game.

Those things are mutually exclusive. There is a fixed amout of development time allocated to character and dialogue. Therfore you can have a small number of characters with lots of dialogue, a medium number of characters with a medium amound of dialogue, or lots of characters with minimal dialogue. And if you are going to have minimal dialogue, you may as well start a multiplayer game and create any characters you like.

billbisco

shawne said:

billbisco said:

I care a lot about those things. Which is why I ask for the freedom to play and complete the game with a party of my own choice. I hope others recognize how vital actual choices are to the enjoyment of the game.

You can't have it both ways, though. If the plot dictates the presence or absence of certain characters, then you must respect the story; if you want total freedom of choice in terms of who stays and who goes in your party, play Icewind Dale.

I'm not having anything both ways. I posted above that there is no story necessity in excluding NPCs.

Fardragon said:

billbisco said:

Fardragon said:

@billbisco I take it from your various comments that you have no interest in dialgue, character or story when it comes to NPCs. You see them as chessmen defined completly by their combat abilities.

I care a lot about those things. Which is why I ask for the freedom to play and complete the game with a party of my own choice. I hope others recognize how vital actual choices are to the enjoyment of the game.

Those things are mutually exclusive. There is a fixed amout of development time allocated to character and dialogue. Therfore you can have a small number of characters with lots of dialogue, a medium number of characters with a medium amound of dialogue, or lots of characters with minimal dialogue. And if you are going to have minimal dialogue, you may as well start a multiplayer game and create any characters you like.

They're not mutually exclusive in the slightest. The appeal of Baldur's Gate is the ability to adventure the way you want to and with whom you want to. So yes it's very reasonable to ask for these things. ToB didn't kick out Haer'Dalis and Cernd because the Devs didn't have enough time to make epilogues and dialogues. Our BGEE NPCs deserve the same consideration for SoD.

Fardragon

You really have no idea what is involved, do you? Why not wish for immortality and infinite money whilst you are at it.

shawne

billbisco said:

I'm not having anything both ways. I posted above that there is no story necessity in excluding NPCs.

Short of actually playing SoD, you have no way of knowing whether there is or is not an in-story explanation for those exclusions. But hey, keep on truckin', hope that works out for you.

billbisco

shawne said:

billbisco said:

I'm not having anything both ways. I posted above that there is no story necessity in excluding NPCs.

Short of actually playing SoD, you have no way of knowing whether there is or is not an in-story explanation for those exclusions. But hey, keep on truckin', hope that works out for you.

There is no need for story exclusions, explanation or not.

Fardragon said:

You really have no idea what is involved, do you? Why not wish for immortality and infinite money whilst you are at it.

Yes, it is work, but that's part of the quality game gig. These requests are reasonable.

Gallowglass

shawne said:

billbisco said:

I'm not having anything both ways. I posted above that there is no story necessity in excluding NPCs.

Short of actually playing SoD, you have no way of knowing whether there is or is not an in-story explanation for those exclusions. But hey, keep on truckin', hope that works out for you.

I'd bet that there will be some story explanation, it'd be ridiculously lame otherwise.

Quartz

billbisco said:

The BG2 developers originally intended to kill off Imoen and changed the story to accommodate player wishes.

Yes, by instead eliminating Yoshimo, a much more interesting character. Thanks BioWare!!

Erstarrung

billbisco said:

Fardragon said:

You really have no idea what is involved, do you? Why not wish for immortality and infinite money whilst you are at it.

Yes, it is work, but that's part of the quality game gig. These requests are reasonable.

Yes, and while they're carrying out your instructions.... erm, I mean, while they're heeding your reasonable advice, they really should implement all of the BG1 NPCs as recruitable group members in BG2, and posthaste, as anything else limits my freedom of choice (to which I am entitled to) in an unduly manner! How dare they! "Story reasons", pshaw! Then they're obliged to rewrite the story, as there's no need for a story which limits my freedom of choice in any way! Such a "story" is not part of the quality game gig!

And now to something completely different!

Gallowglass said:

It seems to me that you're trying to destroy the entire plot objective of the expansion. It is there to explain how we ended up with the canon party at the start of BG2, regardless of how we ended BG1.

Actually, this is not entirely true. While it is canon that (e.g.) Dynaheir and Minsc also were invited to visit the exclusive chambers of Château Irenicus, they needn't have been standing next to CHARNAME while receiving said invitation - they could very well have taken their leave of CHARNAME to travel home (or onward to new adventures, or whatever) when the invitation reached them.

So, if at all, the expansion has to explain why certain NPCs (and the PC!) end up in Irenicus' clutches (and why certain NPCs don't, even if they were travelling with CHARNAME), but for that, these NPCs don't have to necessarily be group members...

Jarrakul

Every example I can think of where a long-term character in an RPG was removed from the party permanently for story purposes, it turned out positive from a writing standpoint. I don't think every game should necessarily do that, but it doesn't seem to hurt the games that do. If the Beamdog crew feels it's the right thing to do, I say they should go for it.

shawne

Erstarrung said:

So, if at all, the expansion has to explain why certain NPCs (and the PC!) end up in Irenicus' clutches (and why certain NPCs don't, even if they were travelling with CHARNAME), but for that, these NPCs don't have to necessarily be group members...

Well, presumably that was the point of getting David Warner in on this - we can assume that Irenicus has a part to play in SoD...

Jarrakul

Every example I can think of where a long-term character in an RPG was removed from the party permanently for story purposes, it turned out positive from a writing standpoint. I don't think every game should necessarily do that, but it doesn't seem to hurt the games that do. If the Beamdog crew feels it's the right thing to do, I say they should go for it.

Schneidend

Siege of Dragonspear presents the opportunity to amend the "canon party" start of BG2, not a chance to make it even MORE "canon." That would be idiotic. Your SoD party should appear in multiplayer cells in Chateau Irenicus and Jaheira and Minsc should simply vanish if they weren't in your SoD party. That wouldn't be altering original NPC content, and would thus should be perfectly kosher within Beamdog's contract.

shawne

Schneidend said:

Siege of Dragonspear presents the opportunity to amend the "canon party" start of BG2, not a chance to make it even MORE "canon."

Except they've already said they're not going to do that, so...

Schneidend said:

Your SoD party should appear in multiplayer cells in Chateau Irenicus and Jaheira and Minsc should simply vanish if they weren't in your SoD party. That wouldn't be altering original NPC content, and would thus should be perfectly kosher within Beamdog's contract.

You don't see deleting Jaheira and Minsc from the game as altering original NPC content?

Dee

I could be misremembering, but I think I also recall Imoen specifically mentioning Jaheira and Minsc in her first few lines of SoA dialogue. Changing the starting party for BGII has never been a viable option for official implementation.

shawne

Dee said:

I could be misremembering, but I think I also recall Imoen specifically mentioning Jaheira and Minsc in her first few lines of SoA dialogue. Changing the starting party for BGII has never been a viable option for official implementation.

Well... there actually is a tiny bit of wiggle room: Imoen's dialogue in the first scene is "We were near Baldur's Gate and got jumped" - she could be referring to a group that included herself, Minsc and Jaheira, but not Charname.

The same goes for Minsc: "Our travels are the stuff of legend! Our victories the subject of song! How could I not follow to find my friends after they disappeared?" In context, it's possible he's referring to everyone in that room other than the player.

The real problem is Jaheira: "You speak as a trapped animal, words that I know well. I hold you no grudge, for we have traveled long together, whether you choose to recall or not." That's the line that establishes canonicity regardless of your dialogue choices - not just that you met Khalid and Jaheira, but they were with you.

Permidion_Stark

There is more wiggle room than that. The real Imoen doesn't even appear in BG2. There is just some pink-haired mage who does a not very convincing impression of Imoen. She is clearly a doppelganger and you can't trust a word she says.

I suspect she was made by Irenicus in one of his jars.

billbisco

Dee said:

Changing the starting party for BGII has never been a viable option for official implementation.

Atari is gone. What barriers remain?

cmorgan

If we are talking in terms of being somewhat existing-mod-friendly, where mods exist that bring Kivan, Yeslick, etc., etc., into BG2, the ones that have dialogue pre-suppose the canonical NPCs are where they are for story reasons. So, on that point, changing who goes where makes for continuity problems. (I am specifically ignoring "silent npcs" - folks who do tactical runs seem less interested in the talking/continuity and moe interested in the combat challengeand min/max).
[indicates forced removal for continuity reasons]

On the practical player front, Mega Install players and BGT players with lots of mods are a good source of free field research - and they freely swap canonical and mod-added NPCs in and out in order to experience various content. So players in general may need the story to open up more possible content experiences by allowing them more available space in the party (this is not GemRB- the technical challenges building additional InPary() slots is... well, huge).
[indicates forced removal for available InParty() slots]

On the game licensing front, I don't really know, but since no freedom was given to build new Jaheira/Minsc/Dynaheir banters, or change the BG storyline in BG:EE, I think it is doubtful that the devs would be given the freedom to significantly change the main storyline (and if they did, there would be many, many objections!!!). So allowing removal of canonical and even "New Canon" NPCs (Dorn, Neera, Rasaad, Hexxat) at the beginning, during, or at the end of BG:SoDR gives devs the most freedom to add new content - and opens up more for modders to have fun with, too.
[indicates forced removal for freedom of story and amount of additional new content]

Regardless of the choices made by developers, @AstroBryGuy, we will need to edit the BG1NPC Dynaheir Romance component end cutscenes to not play on BG:EE if BG:SoDR is installed. Domi wrote a scene where Irenicus shows up and steals the party - and

Dynaheir dies trying to defend PC

.

billbisco

shawne said:

Dee said:

I could be misremembering, but I think I also recall Imoen specifically mentioning Jaheira and Minsc in her first few lines of SoA dialogue. Changing the starting party for BGII has never been a viable option for official implementation.

Well... there actually is a tiny bit of wiggle room: Imoen's dialogue in the first scene is "We were near Baldur's Gate and got jumped" - she could be referring to a group that included herself, Minsc and Jaheira, but not Charname.

The same goes for Minsc: "Our travels are the stuff of legend! Our victories the subject of song! How could I not follow to find my friends after they disappeared?" In context, it's possible he's referring to everyone in that room other than the player.

The real problem is Jaheira: "You speak as a trapped animal, words that I know well. I hold you no grudge, for we have traveled long together, whether you choose to recall or not." That's the line that establishes canonicity regardless of your dialogue choices - not just that you met Khalid and Jaheira, but they were with you.

You could have traveled long together. But, this doesn't require you to have kept Jaheira into SoD or that you had to be traveling with her when Irenicus jumps CHARNAME.