To address the character questions: 1. Companions are the single most integral aspect of a good RPG, so, yeah, I like that a lot. If there's one thing I like the most, it's companions that establish a great relationship with the player, who I can care about, or not, depending. Evoking some kind of emotion in a character is wo
2. Uniqueness is paramount when it comes to companions. I love having the usual characters, but having someone as a companion who is so different than everyone else draws me in. Planescape did this very well, as in all the companions were unique in their own way, and set entirely apart from the rest of the world. Each companion is as unique and important as the player. I also think that stereotype-breaking characters are great as well, so, less dwarf fighters and more dwarf thieves. Thirdly, interactions constantly. I want my companions to be opinionated. I want them to disagree with my choices. I want them to voice their opinions, instead of silently standing on the sideline while your character makes world-shattering decisions. Finally, I want to take companions for their personalities alone. Let's try and make a character with all 9s in statistics worth bringing around. BG1 did a good job at this; I love all the characters despite their flaws and viability from a powergaming standpoint. Also characters who are just thrown into the game's story accidentally, and stick along for the ride.
Summary:
1. I love companions the most. 2. Unique, stereotype-breaking, opinionated, and flawed characters, who possibly have nothing to do with the story.
I'm also a fan of the way that BG1 makes characters work, at least in providing nearly-flat characters and giving them such large personalities that you can grow fond of them and decide who to bring, as I am of LGBTQ characters. One of the best things about Dragon Age: Inquisiton was its inclusion of these characters, but I liked them for their personalities, not simply because of their sexual orientation.
I'd like to see a wider age range of companions. I'm talking like, from both ends of the spectrum. There's something about inter-generational friendships both in fiction and real life that really touches me emotionally, even more so than romances most of the time. Ageless/long-lived races do not count, by the way, unless they act the part. It gets boring when every playable character occupies the similar 20-30 age range.
I think one thing that is sometimes overlooked is how companions fit into a party in terms of game play mechanics.
A character can have a wonderful personality, but if they are going to be a liability every time a fight breaks out then they may spend most of thier time on the bench.
Obsidian are the most prone to this. Pretty much all the companions in NWN2 and PoE have lousy builds and no unique skills. Of the "Gaider" characters, Carth falls into this catagory. Fairly early on better built characters who can fill the same role come along, and he spends the rest of the game sitting in the cockpit.
SoD also suffers from a variant of this, with it's poor selection of evil party members (too many magic users and not enough rogues) limiting options.
Sometimes a companion should turn round and say "No, I don't agree, and I'm not going to help you kill the goblins." or whatever. They should be complex with their own wants/needs/desires/motives. Many games have companions as lost little puppies that turn up and follow the PC around doing whatever the hero wants regardless - occasionally only with an 'approval' or 'disapproval' statement.
I want the characters to turn round and call me on my actions, to disappear for a bit and then come back in a later chapter and say "Oh hello again, are you still being evil or can we work together now?" and should support the main character by suggesting alternatives ("Rather than killing them, why don't we find out why the goblins are attacking the town?")
Also - I don't mind romances, but I want realistic ones...
Romance should be more than: - Said the right things at the right time (TICK) - Completed the specific romance quest and beat the dragon (TICK) - Ended up in bed (TICK) - Happily Ever After (DEPENDS IF THERE IS A SEQUEL) or Dump Them To Romance The Next Character (MOST LIKELY)
Romances should be tested throughout the game - what happens when a character you are romancing disagrees with you? What happens if they let you down? What happens if you let them down?
I think the thing that frustrates me with romances is that it feels that some content is missed if you don't complete the necessary romance path for that character. You can't say "Yup, let's kill the evil zombies that killed your sister, but let's just be friends while we do it."
So, good friends should be able to see that content too (or maybe a slightly different spin on it ).
2) There are two types of characters I'd like to see:
Comedy Characters - Every hero has a sidekick (or a couple). That sidekick is usually some sort of comic relief = Think C3PO and R2D2, or Fred and George from Harry Potter. I find that humour, being very subjective, is difficult to do well, and these type of characters are often polarising in their success level. So a well written comedy character (or two) would be great.
I'd also like to see a 'foil' character - eg one that pops up from time to time and acts as a foil to the main quest line but also sometimes helps. So while not directly a companion as such, they sometimes find themselves fighting on the same side as our heroes for PLOT REASON, and against the hero for DIFFERENT PLOT REASON. A bit like Spike from Buffy...
1. I know some people are allergic to romances, but there are many people who just "love romances" and play only those cRPGs that include them (+there are those who just think they're fine). I personally think there should be some balance between "normal" content and the romance - NPC can't be silent if not romanced. Companions should be interesting with or without the romantic content. The aim of the romance is to allow the development of emotional closure between the player's character and the written NPC (rather than an option to "hear all of the character's secrets"). I can admit that I studied (well, study, as I am going to continue it) the romances in video games and MANY players and modders believe romances are of great importance; that this kind of content bound gamers to specific titles and allow to create nice memories. Also let me point out "some number". You know the mod called Sarevok Romance that can be downloaded at SHS? Yes, it may be controversial, BUT between the relsease date and 15.07.2016 (dd/mm/yyyy) the mod was downloaded 171158 times. That makes exactly 67,01 downloads per day (average). Remember Nathaniel NPC? Yes, the mod that provides homosexual romance for men. Between the release date and the day mentioned before the mod was downloaded 191460 times. That's 71,28 downloads per day. Want some data from G3 website? Angelo NPC's (yep, there's a romance with that guy, too!) downloads per day: 52,28. People download romance mods (like Sarevok Romance) and NPCs that may be both romanced or befriended (like Nathaniel or Angelo) because there is a need for complex characters that may be loved, may be befriended, or may just serve as useful companions. Romances should not be exluded because not every gamer need them. There is also a huge group that needs that kind of content. So, yes - there is a need of complex, interesting characters, that may be loved, liked or hated. Oh, obviously (as I said before) they should be diverese - of different age, genders, orientation, skin colour etc. Please, don't include only 20-30 years old characters, all sharing simillar features.
2. I think we need interesting "short characters". You added Glint in SoD and he was quite interesting. We rarely see characters like... female dwarves (I'm afraid there are even no portraits for female dwarves in BG(EE) or BG2(EE) - some of those present in game could work with halflings or even gnomes, but not for female dwarves). Apart from "short NPCs", I would love to see interesting characters like Grieving Mother (PoE) which was well written (Chris Avellone is just great) and felt quite complex when compared to other PoE companions who sometimes just felt a bit blant. Many dialogues with them felt formal. But there are also those mysterious and deadly characters of Viconia that work great in many parties. It's always nice to see a fair mix of classic NPCs (brave warriors and wise mages) and NPCs that break stereotypes (Iron Bull who apart from being a huge man and strong warrior actually thinks and struggles with some moral problems; Cassandra, also from DA:I who knows how to take care of herself and doesn't repell many gamers as Shar-Teel does).
Obviously relationships can lead to romance. I just don't like the idea of a companion to be there purely as a romance option.
What determines whether a companion is there "purely as a romance option", I wonder?
I can't say I've ever put a companion into a game just for that reason. Making them a romance has always been something decided after the rest of their character concept. That doesn't mean one might not perceive it as such, however. But what would cause it to be perceived so? Is it romances with gay options, or romances which receive a lot of attention from the community? Or something else?
The above quote doesn't surprise me, and maybe why so many people are opposed to romances. They are less organic than the other character traits that a player character possesses and is very binary in it's execution.
If PC is MALE , If PC is ELF, if PC has XXX relationship points then WILL SHAG.
Its implantation is more mechanical, making choices based off of icons (click the heart to proceed) rather than a role the player is attempting to play. As others have stated, you usually need these binary points to build a better connection with the NPC, and it is that connection that the player is craving when it comes to romances.
An NPC should have feelings, desires, motives, flaws, inspirations, morals, regrets, passions, peeves, quirks, and other thoughts and emotions that shape them. It is up to the player to either nurture these aspects of a character to create a stronger bond with them, or ignore them completely.
A player shouldn't be told what these are, they should, through interactions, learn about them subtly, with the NPC opening up more the stronger of a bond is formed. There is more you share with your best friend than there is with a co-worker.
A player's actions should influence this bond more than dialog choices, as it is actions that define a person, more than the words that they speak. These actions can be as large as accepting quests to as subtle as choosing what type of room to sleep at in an inn, to how the player performs in combat.
Example:
A female NPC tells the player, that she needs to feel independent. She doesn't like to rely on others and she needs to be her own person. She may have a reason for this, something that has happened in the past, or a reflection of another relationship she has with another person, but she isn't willing to share this information yet, the bond between the NPC and the player isn't strong enough.
During battle if the PC heals, casts a buff or uses his reaction to protect the player, the PC will lose relationship points (because that is how the game will measure it) with that NPC. They are neglecting the NPCs desire to be independent and the bond doesn't get strengthened, or worse, weakens.
The game shouldn't tell us when these bonds strengthen or weaken either. It is immersion breaking to see a flood of "This Character Approves! This Character strongly disapproves!" after a choice is made. If a NPC likes or dislikes a decision that the player made, they should tell them in their own words, right then and there, or later, depending on their personality.
~
The NPCs should also have their own motives to follow the PC around. Once those motives are fulfilled, they should depart from the company of the PC unless the bond between the two has strengthen. If the PC neglects these motives, the NPC should leave, as it isn't being addressed. But they shouldn't leave for good. There shouldn't be an ultimatum when it comes to NPCs unless the action the player is taking is strongly against that NPCs morals.
Example of this using BG:EE
Neera wants to go visit Adoy. She feels she can learn to control her wild magic better if she talks to a wild mage as old as he. If the player refuses (or doesn't go within an allotted time), her desire to better herself will feel neglected, and she will go off and find Adoy herself.
If this happens, you can re-encounter her in Baldur's Gate when she is being accosted by the dwarf (gnome?) accusing her of stealing his gem bag. The player can restrengthen the bond with Neera here by taking her side, or sever it completely by siding with the dwarf.
This action will not only effect Neera's bond with you, but other companions as well, depending on how they would have handled the situation.
This would make the game more organic. The world shouldn't revolve around the player, but the choices a player makes should affect it.
Example 2:
The player meets Faldorn. Her motive is to remove the trespassers from Cloakwood forest. During the travels, if the player doesn't build a strong enough bond with Faldorn, she will leave the party once the mines are cleared and flooded. Her motive of joining the player has been fulfilled and there is no reason for her to continue travelling with them (unless a stronger bond has formed).
Makes sense? hope so.
~
Something I would prefer modern RPGs get away from is having all the companions in one area or base. If they aren't in the main party, they should be off doing their own thing. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to recruit them in the future (see the above Neera example), but they shouldn't be standing around in the exact same spot when we want to go talk to them. This adds replayablity to a game.
Camps and the dialog that happen there become tedious after the first play through, especially if the player doesn't relate to that companion. Running around an area (and an expanding area in Bioware terms: DA:O camp -> Mass Effects ship -> Dragon Age 2 city -> DA:I -> massive layered compound) after every major quest just to see if a NPC has something new to tell you is unrealistic. If the NPC has something to tell you, they can seek you out instead of vice versa. Most conversations, in my opinion, should happen while the player is interacting with the environment and not at set binary intervals.
A NPC may question whether the party should be robbing the dead while exploring an old crypt for example, which could lead to a conversation regarding his or her faith. Other NPCs can interject their own responses to the NPCs concerns or stories and it is up to the player to balance those views.
The companions who travel with you should also have bonds with each other as well. They should bicker if they don't share the same ideals, but they should also bond and show affection if they do. Using the Neera example above, if another NPC has a stronger bond with Neera than the player, they may also leave and help Neera find Adoy.
~~
Your second question.
Many people (at least on this forum) ask for a female dwarf. They feel that they have been under represented in games, forgetting about Dorna Trapspringer and Sigrun.
They may forget about those two because its feels like the developers were creating characters based off of check boxes instead of personalities. "We need a female dwarf, and make her a rogue as most dwarves are warriors. That will make them unique and memorial."
I want a character that is memorable for the right reasons. The connection I get from them isn't because of their race or class, but because of how my PC relates to them and their desires. This is what I want when you and your team comes up with compelling characters.
I'm really not sure how I feel about romances in Smaulder's Bait 3, I'm leaning toward no, but I'm not sure
From my experience with in game romances:
1. They lock character development and content behind a barrier. It doesn't actually matter if this is true or not, only the perception. Most of the time players will have no idea how much story, character development and quests result from a romance unless they actually choose that romance
2. Players make their character personality conform with their love interests desires, through fear of breaking up. Often this means the player selects certain like minded party members rather than other characters they might prefer
3. Often love interests are treated as more important than characters with no romance, essentially relegating all but the most plot central npcs (like Imoen or Alistair) as 2nd class party members
4. Sex is used as a reward or an end goal of finishing a romance, which is not really how a lot of relationships work or develop
5. Most of the time romances are initiated by the player to a certain NPC. It would be good to have some examples of NPC characters developing a crush on, or falling in love with the player character
6. Romances between 2 (non player) party members haven't been explored very much. The player could even help or sabotage it if they want
7. Boobs are kinda cool, Viconia is my Waifu, Make anime real
8. The game should be marketed on it's own merits, some games with romances in end up looking like dating sims even when they are not.
9. Well written romances are good. Badly written romances are bad.
I have a big important point I want to make, but I'll make it it's own separate post
I find it interesting that "followers need a relationship path that isn't romance" comes up repeatedly, as I haven't done a follower where the majority of their content is locked behind a romance since...oh, maybe Carth and Bastila in Knights of the Old Republic? I remember the reactions to those characters were very different by gender, based on the fact that much of their more pleasant qualities were gated to their romance arc.
Since then, I've always prioritized having a fully-realized arc with a romanceable character even if you weren't romancing them...so yay?
Yay indeed! [and thanks @David_Gaider for sparking this great discussion]. Dorian in DA:I is a great example of such a character for me.
I second those who've already written very well about 'relationships' versus 'romances'. I'm very pro relationship-building, or friendship-building, in RPGs but don't really care for romances. And what I want in my companions in particular are characters that I feel so strongly about that I can't bare to have bad things happen to them. The Dragon Age games had several such companions, but so does PoE (contrary to others' views) in which Eder is such a companion for me. He may be the most superfluous companion in that game and yet I cannot bare to not take him along with me on my adventures, kinda' like Alistair in DA:O. And in PoE where there is that situation where you can sacrifice one of your companions to gain a major boon, not only do I never sacrifice anyone I feel personal affront that the game tries to get me to do that!
A HUGE part of what I enjoy in RPGs is having that party of companions with me, shepherding them through the perils of the world, helping them with their troubles and goals, seeing them evolve and develop in the same way as my PC, sharing with them the treasures we find/win in an equitable and appropriate way, jointly celebrating the good and grieving over the bad, etc. I exclusively play only RPGs that are party-based because having those companions along for the ride is key to my enjoyment of the game, and the bigger the party I get to take along with me the happier I am.
Having said this, I will add this one thing about romances. If you're going to include romances in the game, @David_Gaider, please give me a Morrigan (or three). For me personally, Morrigan is the greatest romance companion of all time.
Please don't let us take everyone and "force talk" then in camp to pry details about their personal lives.
Let them grow organically either through friendship paths or romance paths, let them interject and speak when they want to.
The whole da:o thing to me was far too gamey and made me feel like these people were just sitting around waiting for the protagonist to counsel them.
Make npcs feel like real people who are with you for good reason (whether you know that at the time or not) and have their own views, opinions and agency.
3. Often love interests are treated as more important than characters with no romance, essentially relegating all but the most plot central npcs (like Imoen or Alistair) as 2nd class party members 4. Sex is used as a reward or an end goal of finishing a romance, which is not really how a lot of relationships work or develop
These are mostly a matter of bad romance design. There are mods like Arath NPC who is fart from doing it like that. You may sleep with him rather early in the game, he's not into serious relationship. Yet you talk and talk, and share your time, joke together. And somehow this romantic relationship goes on and may end up quite fine.
6. Romances between 2 (non player) party members haven't been explored very much. The player could even help or sabotage it if they want
Would be great to see something like that, but only if protagonist-NPC romance is included. It would be unfair to give companions romantic options without giving them to the players.
7. Boobs are kinda cool, Viconia is my Waifu, Make anime real
Aaaaaaand.... I'm not sure where you're going here... I don't think romance with Viconia is bad. Could have more options, but it actually works fine. Not a huge fan of the romance, but it includes some great ideas. Speaking about breast - well, I know there are gamers who would love to se some nudity, that there are mods to make NPCs breast bigger (for example in Skyrim), but I think when we talk about romances, we don't really talk about that kind of stuff...
Would be great to see something like that, but only if protagonist-NPC romance is included. It would be unfair to give companions romantic options without giving them to the players.
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?" Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis." Protagonist: "Okaay, nevermind. So Vicy, lets hit a bar or something tonight, what do you say?" Viconia: "Pff, I'm going out with Anomen. He's so much more handsome than you!" Protagonist: "Okay okay *sigh*... Sooo, Jaheira..." Jaheira: "Don't even think about it. My husband's dead for like five hours and besides, I could be your mother for crying out loud!" Protagonist: "I hate this game."
If they create a new game ill be interested in dnd version. They can hold the adnd, with its multiclass balance problems. Or use dnd 3 as nwn, its not bad system. I think the minority played and wanted the 4th edition. The dnd nxt is nice and i prefer it to a new game, but maybe more expensive to get the rights.
If they create a new game ill be interested in dnd version. They can hold the adnd, with its multiclass balance problems. Or use dnd 3 as nwn, its not bad system. I think the minority played and wanted the 4th edition. The dnd nxt is nice and i prefer it to a new game, but maybe more expensive to get the rights.
Any new D&D game will have 5e rules, so sayth the wise Hasbro.
And why wouldn't it, 5e has been getting nothing but positive reactions from what I've seen. I'd finally like to give it a try, if I could find a group
Complex theft/fence/merchant system. Basic idea - A smarter merchant system where you can be caught fencing or even wearing ill-gotten goods. This system will have sweeping consequences throughout the game and include quests for both good and evil characters with both positive and negative outcomes.
Expounded idea and rational - For every merchant interaction where the character is wearing or selling stolen items of value, say over 200 GP, there will be a 1% (cumulative!) chance of that merchant recognizing said item as being stolen. Merchants have connections with other merchants and the public in general. They regularly trade goods to have greater variety and talk with other merchants, and people in general, to keep tabs on what items are selling and what people have (e.g. If Lord Highwater is always seen around town wearing a particular pair of boots, that curiously make no sound while he walks, the wearing of or sale of those boots when interacting with a local merchant will trigger the above check with an even a greater chance of the character being called a thief).
I envision a very complex mercantile system including - a. A behind-the-scenes faction point system that all merchants belong to. Several merchant factions will exist and each merchant will belong to multiple factions. This system alters merchant reaction (item cost, whether or not he'll buy stolen goods, or even call the guards!) to the character based on several criteria. There will be a greater chance to recognize stolen goods between merchants and 'the gentry' along stronger trade routes (faction scores). The strength of trade routes will change, growing stronger, weaker, forming and dissolving dynamically, during the game, depending on the character's decisions during gameplay. b. Items of value sold to one merchant can 'make the rounds,' ending up in other merchants stores encountered later in the game. This opens up all sorts of quest/contingency goodness! Even if you weren't caught selling those stolen boots in one town, they end up in sister "Highwater's" store in a nearby city. You'd better not even set foot in there! c. There will be several 'good' merchant quests that will alter faction scores but it's not all bad news for the villain - not all merchants get along with one another. For the underhanded and/or downright evil characters, there will be merchant quests to sabotage, steal from, frame, [insert dirty deed here], other merchants or people in general, that will alter faction scores. d. Consequences for 'being caught' will also be dynamic. If certain faction scores, character rep, and/or storyline advancement criteria are met, the merchant may be willing to excuse a small indiscretion or even offer the character a job (quest).
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?" Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis." Protagonist: "Okaay, nevermind. So Vicy, lets hit a bar or something tonight, what do you say?" Viconia: "Pff, I'm going out with Anomen. He's so much more handsome than you!" Protagonist: "Okay okay *sigh*... Sooo, Jaheira..." Jaheira: "Don't even think about it. My husband's dead for like five hours and besides, I could be your mother for crying out loud!" Protagonist: "I hate this game."
@Pecca they should hire you as one of their writers! I laughed so hard reading this.
And @Buttercheese you are so right. 5e is about as good as it can get as far as D&D rulesets go. But like you I too am struggling to find a tabletop group. Since I post this in every forum every chance I get, I'll do it here as well. If any of you have a tabletop D&D gaming group in the North Shore area of Massachusetts, PLEEEEASE invite me to join!
Would be great to see something like that, but only if protagonist-NPC romance is included. It would be unfair to give companions romantic options without giving them to the players.
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?" Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis." Protagonist: "Okaay, nevermind. So Vicy, lets hit a bar or something tonight, what do you say?" Viconia: "Pff, I'm going out with Anomen. He's so much more handsome than you!" Protagonist: "Okay okay *sigh*... Sooo, Jaheira..." Jaheira: "Don't even think about it. My husband's dead for like five hours and besides, I could be your mother for crying out loud!" Protagonist: "I hate this game."
I like the idea of all the companions getting together for a party and night of wild sex, while the protagonist is sitting in camp reorganising the inventory and refilling healing potions
Each time the protagonist pokes their head of of the tent to check on things, everyone quickly hushes and pretends to be minding thier own buisness, inspecting their boots or moodily staring off into the distance, except Anomen is wearing one of Viconia's socks and Aerie has her robe on backwards
Would be great to see something like that, but only if protagonist-NPC romance is included. It would be unfair to give companions romantic options without giving them to the players.
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?" Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis." Protagonist: "Okaay, nevermind. So Vicy, lets hit a bar or something tonight, what do you say?" Viconia: "Pff, I'm going out with Anomen. He's so much more handsome than you!" Protagonist: "Okay okay *sigh*... Sooo, Jaheira..." Jaheira: "Don't even think about it. My husband's dead for like five hours and besides, I could be your mother for crying out loud!" Protagonist: "I hate this game."
Um, I think it would actually go like this:
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?" Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis." **Protagonist reforms party, stripping Haer'Dalis naked, booting him from the party and sending him back to the playhouse* Protagonist: "What about now?"
Would be great to see something like that, but only if protagonist-NPC romance is included. It would be unfair to give companions romantic options without giving them to the players.
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?" Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis." Protagonist: "Okaay, nevermind. So Vicy, lets hit a bar or something tonight, what do you say?" Viconia: "Pff, I'm going out with Anomen. He's so much more handsome than you!" Protagonist: "Okay okay *sigh*... Sooo, Jaheira..." Jaheira: "Don't even think about it. My husband's dead for like five hours and besides, I could be your mother for crying out loud!" Protagonist: "I hate this game."
Um, I think it would actually go like this:
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?" Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis." **Protagonist reforms party, stripping Haer'Dalis naked, booting him from the party and sending him back to the playhouse* Protagonist: "What about now?"
And @Buttercheese you are so right. 5e is about as good as it can get as far as D&D rulesets go. But like you I too am struggling to find a tabletop group. Since I post this in every forum every chance I get, I'll do it here as well. If any of you have a tabletop D&D gaming group in the North Shore area of Massachusetts, PLEEEEASE invite me to join!
Well, I do have a pen and paper group, but we are playing DSA, which is way more popular around these parts. And hey, even Pathfinder is more popular here. I think in all my time I only ever had one legit, orthodox D&D group. And even that one only lasted for two sessions.[/spoiler]
Comments
1. Companions are the single most integral aspect of a good RPG, so, yeah, I like that a lot. If there's one thing I like the most, it's companions that establish a great relationship with the player, who I can care about, or not, depending. Evoking some kind of emotion in a character is wo
2. Uniqueness is paramount when it comes to companions. I love having the usual characters, but having someone as a companion who is so different than everyone else draws me in. Planescape did this very well, as in all the companions were unique in their own way, and set entirely apart from the rest of the world. Each companion is as unique and important as the player. I also think that stereotype-breaking characters are great as well, so, less dwarf fighters and more dwarf thieves. Thirdly, interactions constantly. I want my companions to be opinionated. I want them to disagree with my choices. I want them to voice their opinions, instead of silently standing on the sideline while your character makes world-shattering decisions. Finally, I want to take companions for their personalities alone. Let's try and make a character with all 9s in statistics worth bringing around. BG1 did a good job at this; I love all the characters despite their flaws and viability from a powergaming standpoint. Also characters who are just thrown into the game's story accidentally, and stick along for the ride.
Summary:
1. I love companions the most.
2. Unique, stereotype-breaking, opinionated, and flawed characters, who possibly have nothing to do with the story.
I just deleted a whole wall of text that took me 2 hours to write
I guess I will rewrite it all tomorrow.
A character can have a wonderful personality, but if they are going to be a liability every time a fight breaks out then they may spend most of thier time on the bench.
Obsidian are the most prone to this. Pretty much all the companions in NWN2 and PoE have lousy builds and no unique skills. Of the "Gaider" characters, Carth falls into this catagory. Fairly early on better built characters who can fill the same role come along, and he spends the rest of the game sitting in the cockpit.
SoD also suffers from a variant of this, with it's poor selection of evil party members (too many magic users and not enough rogues) limiting options.
Sometimes a companion should turn round and say "No, I don't agree, and I'm not going to help you kill the goblins." or whatever. They should be complex with their own wants/needs/desires/motives. Many games have companions as lost little puppies that turn up and follow the PC around doing whatever the hero wants regardless - occasionally only with an 'approval' or 'disapproval' statement.
I want the characters to turn round and call me on my actions, to disappear for a bit and then come back in a later chapter and say "Oh hello again, are you still being evil or can we work together now?" and should support the main character by suggesting alternatives ("Rather than killing them, why don't we find out why the goblins are attacking the town?")
Also - I don't mind romances, but I want realistic ones...
Romance should be more than:
- Said the right things at the right time (TICK)
- Completed the specific romance quest and beat the dragon (TICK)
- Ended up in bed (TICK)
- Happily Ever After (DEPENDS IF THERE IS A SEQUEL) or Dump Them To Romance The Next Character (MOST LIKELY)
Romances should be tested throughout the game - what happens when a character you are romancing disagrees with you? What happens if they let you down? What happens if you let them down?
I think the thing that frustrates me with romances is that it feels that some content is missed if you don't complete the necessary romance path for that character. You can't say "Yup, let's kill the evil zombies that killed your sister, but let's just be friends while we do it."
So, good friends should be able to see that content too (or maybe a slightly different spin on it
2) There are two types of characters I'd like to see:
Comedy Characters - Every hero has a sidekick (or a couple). That sidekick is usually some sort of comic relief = Think C3PO and R2D2, or Fred and George from Harry Potter. I find that humour, being very subjective, is difficult to do well, and these type of characters are often polarising in their success level. So a well written comedy character (or two) would be great.
I'd also like to see a 'foil' character - eg one that pops up from time to time and acts as a foil to the main quest line but also sometimes helps. So while not directly a companion as such, they sometimes find themselves fighting on the same side as our heroes for PLOT REASON, and against the hero for DIFFERENT PLOT REASON. A bit like Spike from Buffy...
I can admit that I studied (well, study, as I am going to continue it) the romances in video games and MANY players and modders believe romances are of great importance; that this kind of content bound gamers to specific titles and allow to create nice memories. Also let me point out "some number". You know the mod called Sarevok Romance that can be downloaded at SHS? Yes, it may be controversial, BUT between the relsease date and 15.07.2016 (dd/mm/yyyy) the mod was downloaded 171158 times. That makes exactly 67,01 downloads per day (average). Remember Nathaniel NPC? Yes, the mod that provides homosexual romance for men. Between the release date and the day mentioned before the mod was downloaded 191460 times. That's 71,28 downloads per day. Want some data from G3 website? Angelo NPC's (yep, there's a romance with that guy, too!) downloads per day: 52,28. People download romance mods (like Sarevok Romance) and NPCs that may be both romanced or befriended (like Nathaniel or Angelo) because there is a need for complex characters that may be loved, may be befriended, or may just serve as useful companions. Romances should not be exluded because not every gamer need them. There is also a huge group that needs that kind of content.
So, yes - there is a need of complex, interesting characters, that may be loved, liked or hated. Oh, obviously (as I said before) they should be diverese - of different age, genders, orientation, skin colour etc. Please, don't include only 20-30 years old characters, all sharing simillar features.
2. I think we need interesting "short characters". You added Glint in SoD and he was quite interesting. We rarely see characters like... female dwarves (I'm afraid there are even no portraits for female dwarves in BG(EE) or BG2(EE) - some of those present in game could work with halflings or even gnomes, but not for female dwarves). Apart from "short NPCs", I would love to see interesting characters like Grieving Mother (PoE) which was well written (Chris Avellone is just great) and felt quite complex when compared to other PoE companions who sometimes just felt a bit blant. Many dialogues with them felt formal.
But there are also those mysterious and deadly characters of Viconia that work great in many parties.
It's always nice to see a fair mix of classic NPCs (brave warriors and wise mages) and NPCs that break stereotypes (Iron Bull who apart from being a huge man and strong warrior actually thinks and struggles with some moral problems; Cassandra, also from DA:I who knows how to take care of herself and doesn't repell many gamers as Shar-Teel does).
***Warning***
Wall of Text Approaching
The above quote doesn't surprise me, and maybe why so many people are opposed to romances. They are less organic than the other character traits that a player character possesses and is very binary in it's execution.
If PC is MALE , If PC is ELF, if PC has XXX relationship points then WILL SHAG.
Its implantation is more mechanical, making choices based off of icons (click the heart to proceed) rather than a role the player is attempting to play. As others have stated, you usually need these binary points to build a better connection with the NPC, and it is that connection that the player is craving when it comes to romances.
An NPC should have feelings, desires, motives, flaws, inspirations, morals, regrets, passions, peeves, quirks, and other thoughts and emotions that shape them. It is up to the player to either nurture these aspects of a character to create a stronger bond with them, or ignore them completely.
A player shouldn't be told what these are, they should, through interactions, learn about them subtly, with the NPC opening up more the stronger of a bond is formed. There is more you share with your best friend than there is with a co-worker.
A player's actions should influence this bond more than dialog choices, as it is actions that define a person, more than the words that they speak. These actions can be as large as accepting quests to as subtle as choosing what type of room to sleep at in an inn, to how the player performs in combat.
Example:
A female NPC tells the player, that she needs to feel independent. She doesn't like to rely on others and she needs to be her own person. She may have a reason for this, something that has happened in the past, or a reflection of another relationship she has with another person, but she isn't willing to share this information yet, the bond between the NPC and the player isn't strong enough.
During battle if the PC heals, casts a buff or uses his reaction to protect the player, the PC will lose relationship points (because that is how the game will measure it) with that NPC. They are neglecting the NPCs desire to be independent and the bond doesn't get strengthened, or worse, weakens.
The game shouldn't tell us when these bonds strengthen or weaken either. It is immersion breaking to see a flood of "This Character Approves! This Character strongly disapproves!" after a choice is made. If a NPC likes or dislikes a decision that the player made, they should tell them in their own words, right then and there, or later, depending on their personality.
~
The NPCs should also have their own motives to follow the PC around. Once those motives are fulfilled, they should depart from the company of the PC unless the bond between the two has strengthen. If the PC neglects these motives, the NPC should leave, as it isn't being addressed. But they shouldn't leave for good. There shouldn't be an ultimatum when it comes to NPCs unless the action the player is taking is strongly against that NPCs morals.
Example of this using BG:EE
Neera wants to go visit Adoy. She feels she can learn to control her wild magic better if she talks to a wild mage as old as he. If the player refuses (or doesn't go within an allotted time), her desire to better herself will feel neglected, and she will go off and find Adoy herself.
If this happens, you can re-encounter her in Baldur's Gate when she is being accosted by the dwarf (gnome?) accusing her of stealing his gem bag. The player can restrengthen the bond with Neera here by taking her side, or sever it completely by siding with the dwarf.
This action will not only effect Neera's bond with you, but other companions as well, depending on how they would have handled the situation.
This would make the game more organic. The world shouldn't revolve around the player, but the choices a player makes should affect it.
Example 2:
The player meets Faldorn. Her motive is to remove the trespassers from Cloakwood forest. During the travels, if the player doesn't build a strong enough bond with Faldorn, she will leave the party once the mines are cleared and flooded. Her motive of joining the player has been fulfilled and there is no reason for her to continue travelling with them (unless a stronger bond has formed).
Makes sense? hope so.
~
Something I would prefer modern RPGs get away from is having all the companions in one area or base. If they aren't in the main party, they should be off doing their own thing. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to recruit them in the future (see the above Neera example), but they shouldn't be standing around in the exact same spot when we want to go talk to them. This adds replayablity to a game.
Camps and the dialog that happen there become tedious after the first play through, especially if the player doesn't relate to that companion. Running around an area (and an expanding area in Bioware terms: DA:O camp -> Mass Effects ship -> Dragon Age 2 city -> DA:I -> massive layered compound) after every major quest just to see if a NPC has something new to tell you is unrealistic. If the NPC has something to tell you, they can seek you out instead of vice versa. Most conversations, in my opinion, should happen while the player is interacting with the environment and not at set binary intervals.
A NPC may question whether the party should be robbing the dead while exploring an old crypt for example, which could lead to a conversation regarding his or her faith. Other NPCs can interject their own responses to the NPCs concerns or stories and it is up to the player to balance those views.
The companions who travel with you should also have bonds with each other as well. They should bicker if they don't share the same ideals, but they should also bond and show affection if they do. Using the Neera example above, if another NPC has a stronger bond with Neera than the player, they may also leave and help Neera find Adoy.
~~
Your second question.
Many people (at least on this forum) ask for a female dwarf. They feel that they have been under represented in games, forgetting about Dorna Trapspringer and Sigrun.
They may forget about those two because its feels like the developers were creating characters based off of check boxes instead of personalities. "We need a female dwarf, and make her a rogue as most dwarves are warriors. That will make them unique and memorial."
I want a character that is memorable for the right reasons. The connection I get from them isn't because of their race or class, but because of how my PC relates to them and their desires. This is what I want when you and your team comes up with compelling characters.
From my experience with in game romances:
1. They lock character development and content behind a barrier. It doesn't actually matter if this is true or not, only the perception.
Most of the time players will have no idea how much story, character development and quests result from a romance unless they actually choose that romance
2. Players make their character personality conform with their love interests desires, through fear of breaking up.
Often this means the player selects certain like minded party members rather than other characters they might prefer
3. Often love interests are treated as more important than characters with no romance, essentially relegating all but the most plot central npcs (like Imoen or Alistair) as 2nd class party members
4. Sex is used as a reward or an end goal of finishing a romance, which is not really how a lot of relationships work or develop
5. Most of the time romances are initiated by the player to a certain NPC. It would be good to have some examples of NPC characters developing a crush on, or falling in love with the player character
6. Romances between 2 (non player) party members haven't been explored very much. The player could even help or sabotage it if they want
7. Boobs are kinda cool, Viconia is my Waifu, Make anime real
8. The game should be marketed on it's own merits, some games with romances in end up looking like dating sims even when they are not.
9. Well written romances are good. Badly written romances are bad.
I have a big important point I want to make, but I'll make it it's own separate post
Worse yet, a lot of real world folks also view relationships like this.
I second those who've already written very well about 'relationships' versus 'romances'. I'm very pro relationship-building, or friendship-building, in RPGs but don't really care for romances. And what I want in my companions in particular are characters that I feel so strongly about that I can't bare to have bad things happen to them. The Dragon Age games had several such companions, but so does PoE (contrary to others' views) in which Eder is such a companion for me. He may be the most superfluous companion in that game and yet I cannot bare to not take him along with me on my adventures, kinda' like Alistair in DA:O. And in PoE where there is that situation where you can sacrifice one of your companions to gain a major boon, not only do I never sacrifice anyone I feel personal affront that the game tries to get me to do that!
A HUGE part of what I enjoy in RPGs is having that party of companions with me, shepherding them through the perils of the world, helping them with their troubles and goals, seeing them evolve and develop in the same way as my PC, sharing with them the treasures we find/win in an equitable and appropriate way, jointly celebrating the good and grieving over the bad, etc. I exclusively play only RPGs that are party-based because having those companions along for the ride is key to my enjoyment of the game, and the bigger the party I get to take along with me the happier I am.
Having said this, I will add this one thing about romances. If you're going to include romances in the game, @David_Gaider, please give me a Morrigan (or three). For me personally, Morrigan is the greatest romance companion of all time.
Let them grow organically either through friendship paths or romance paths, let them interject and speak when they want to.
The whole da:o thing to me was far too gamey and made me feel like these people were just sitting around waiting for the protagonist to counsel them.
Make npcs feel like real people who are with you for good reason (whether you know that at the time or not) and have their own views, opinions and agency.
3. Often love interests are treated as more important than characters with no romance, essentially relegating all but the most plot central npcs (like Imoen or Alistair) as 2nd class party members
4. Sex is used as a reward or an end goal of finishing a romance, which is not really how a lot of relationships work or develop
These are mostly a matter of bad romance design. There are mods like Arath NPC who is fart from doing it like that. You may sleep with him rather early in the game, he's not into serious relationship. Yet you talk and talk, and share your time, joke together. And somehow this romantic relationship goes on and may end up quite fine.
Would be great to see something like that, but only if protagonist-NPC romance is included. It would be unfair to give companions romantic options without giving them to the players.
Aaaaaaand.... I'm not sure where you're going here... I don't think romance with Viconia is bad. Could have more options, but it actually works fine. Not a huge fan of the romance, but it includes some great ideas.
Speaking about breast - well, I know there are gamers who would love to se some nudity, that there are mods to make NPCs breast bigger (for example in Skyrim), but I think when we talk about romances, we don't really talk about that kind of stuff...
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?"
Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis."
Protagonist: "Okaay, nevermind. So Vicy, lets hit a bar or something tonight, what do you say?"
Viconia: "Pff, I'm going out with Anomen. He's so much more handsome than you!"
Protagonist: "Okay okay *sigh*... Sooo, Jaheira..."
Jaheira: "Don't even think about it. My husband's dead for like five hours and besides, I could be your mother for crying out loud!"
Protagonist: "I hate this game."
I'd finally like to give it a try, if I could find a group
Complex theft/fence/merchant system.
Basic idea - A smarter merchant system where you can be caught fencing or even wearing ill-gotten goods. This system will have sweeping consequences throughout the game and include quests for both good and evil characters with both positive and negative outcomes.
Expounded idea and rational - For every merchant interaction where the character is wearing or selling stolen items of value, say over 200 GP, there will be a 1% (cumulative!) chance of that merchant recognizing said item as being stolen. Merchants have connections with other merchants and the public in general. They regularly trade goods to have greater variety and talk with other merchants, and people in general, to keep tabs on what items are selling and what people have (e.g. If Lord Highwater is always seen around town wearing a particular pair of boots, that curiously make no sound while he walks, the wearing of or sale of those boots when interacting with a local merchant will trigger the above check with an even a greater chance of the character being called a thief).
I envision a very complex mercantile system including -
a. A behind-the-scenes faction point system that all merchants belong to. Several merchant factions will exist and each merchant will belong to multiple factions. This system alters merchant reaction (item cost, whether or not he'll buy stolen goods, or even call the guards!) to the character based on several criteria. There will be a greater chance to recognize stolen goods between merchants and 'the gentry' along stronger trade routes (faction scores). The strength of trade routes will change, growing stronger, weaker, forming and dissolving dynamically, during the game, depending on the character's decisions during gameplay.
b. Items of value sold to one merchant can 'make the rounds,' ending up in other merchants stores encountered later in the game. This opens up all sorts of quest/contingency goodness! Even if you weren't caught selling those stolen boots in one town, they end up in sister "Highwater's" store in a nearby city. You'd better not even set foot in there!
c. There will be several 'good' merchant quests that will alter faction scores but it's not all bad news for the villain - not all merchants get along with one another. For the underhanded and/or downright evil characters, there will be merchant quests to sabotage, steal from, frame, [insert dirty deed here], other merchants or people in general, that will alter faction scores.
d. Consequences for 'being caught' will also be dynamic. If certain faction scores, character rep, and/or storyline advancement criteria are met, the merchant may be willing to excuse a small indiscretion or even offer the character a job (quest).
-- more to come --
Each time the protagonist pokes their head of of the tent to check on things, everyone quickly hushes and pretends to be minding thier own buisness, inspecting their boots or moodily staring off into the distance, except Anomen is wearing one of Viconia's socks and Aerie has her robe on backwards
Protagonist: "So, Aerie, do you wanna see a play or something with me tonight?"
Aerie: "Uhh, sorry, I'm kinda going out with HaerDalis."
**Protagonist reforms party, stripping Haer'Dalis naked, booting him from the party and sending him back to the playhouse*
Protagonist: "What about now?"
[spoiler] Well, I do have a pen and paper group, but we are playing DSA, which is way more popular around these parts. And hey, even Pathfinder is more popular here. I think in all my time I only ever had one legit, orthodox D&D group. And even that one only lasted for two sessions.[/spoiler]