I really like it when the hero discovers the villain he's fighting is someone he knows and may even be one of his friends. The unexpected villain may be a really good tool to throw some hard decisions on the hero.
Yoshimo is someone you don't know who becomes your friend but in the end is forced to betray you. This is also a nice story tool when used correctly. Just look how many people complain there is no way to redeem him
I really like it when the hero discovers the villain he's fighting is someone he knows and may even be one of his friends. The unexpected villain may be a really good tool to throw some hard decisions on the hero.
Like Mellisan?
or more like Yoshimo?
Mellisan = obvious and predictable villain who we are railroaded into co-operating with by awful writing. See also: Kreia.
I really like it when the hero discovers the villain he's fighting is someone he knows and may even be one of his friends. The unexpected villain may be a really good tool to throw some hard decisions on the hero.
Like Mellisan?
or more like Yoshimo?
Mellisan = obvious and predictable villain who we are railroaded into co-operating with by awful writing. See also: Kreia.
Kreia is a fantastic character. Neither can she be categorized as a plain villain, nor does the term "awful writing" belong anywhere close to her.
I take it you never tried to shove her out of an airlock whilst on the mining station.
I object to any companions who I can't get rid of. I wasn't betrayed on my first playthough of Baldur's Gate because I thought Yoshimo was dodgy the first time I met him.
Your fallacy is to see Kreia as an ordinary NPC companion. She's your mentor. Sith Lords is not a freeroam-do-want-you-want sandbox RPG. It has a heavy focus on the narrative. The story it wants to tell doesn't work without her, your protagonist wouldn't work without her. If you can't get over this, fine. Doesn't make its writing bad either, though.
No fallacy. What if I don't WANT a mentor? Given the backstory of the protagonist - one that is kept hidden from the player - more bad writing - it would bake perfect sense for them to not want to reconnect with the Force.
Nobody can deny you the right to not like something. What you should try to avoid is to make that infamous "I don't like thing, hence it's bad" connection. Yeah, it would make sense for the protagonist to not want reconnecting. Unfortunately, there's some powerful people after his south side, so it becomes a simple question of surviving.
Nobody can deny you the right to not like something. What you should try to avoid is to make that infamous "I don't like thing, hence it's bad" connection. Yeah, it would make sense for the protagonist to not want reconnecting. Unfortunately, there's some powerful people after his south side, so it becomes a simple question of surviving.
If I'm playing a character, and the Gamesmaster doesn't tell me all the information that character knows, I don't see how you could class that as anything other than bad GMing.
The protagonist could have pursued a non-Force path in order to survive. Or, given their history, they might simply prefer to die. Going along with Kriea is clearly railroading, and it relies on the player not knowing what his character knows in order to not be a clearly bad idea.
Nobody can deny you the right to not like something. What you should try to avoid is to make that infamous "I don't like thing, hence it's bad" connection. Yeah, it would make sense for the protagonist to not want reconnecting. Unfortunately, there's some powerful people after his south side, so it becomes a simple question of surviving.
If I'm playing a character, and the Gamesmaster doesn't tell me all the information that character knows, I don't see how you could class that as anything other than bad GMing.
The protagonist could have pursued a non-Force path in order to survive. Or, given their history, they might simply prefer to die. Going along with Kriea is clearly railroading, and it relies on the player not knowing what his character knows in order to not be a clearly bad idea.
This isn't a PnP game. This game is about a certain story it wants to tell. This game is not about the player creating the protagonist she wants, it's about the exile and her mentor. So, if you cannot enjoy games, that don't give you 100% player agency, then stay away. If you don't like not having 100% information about yourself from the very get go, fine. Others enjoyed discovering the story behind your character over the course of the journey immensely. I'm one of them, and by far not the only one. There's a reason why this game is praised so much, even if it doesn't suit your taste. I can only repeat myself, "I don't like thing" doesn't equate to bad.
The thing is: I can make a list of elements, tropes and themes and I don't like, and then read a story which has them all and enjoy it I can also make a list of ideas that I really do like, and read a story written very well in a compelling style and gripping pace addressing them, and still not like it
I think expectations play an important part. I have played lots of game which I expected to have a trashy or forgettable story, and maybe they do, but then I find one part I really like, and I remember it more since it was a nice surprise I wasnt expecting
Overall it's easy to forgive faults, cliche and plotholes in a game whose main attraction is something other than its story.
Which overall I guess is just about the least helpful suggestion I could possibly offer. If you ever need any more incredibly unhelpful advice, please let me know
That you can dislike some of them, adore others and pretend that some don't even exist if, after one run with them, you never want anything to do with them again. Something the EE NPC didn't manage.
In both games, forced to watch a cut scene with Neera. Rasaad takes your kill in BG without invitation, in BG2 another cut scene. Dorn BG, scene when moving between areas, BG2 thankfully you can just kill him. Hexaat, the thief is killed without Charname being able to stop her.
In SOD, I don't need Corwin tagging along, I just conquered Sarevok, the city was my playground for a while, including the sewers, undercellar ect. and the FF did nothing much to help when I did actually need it. But now I need a nursemaid?
Well written NPC don't require that level of intervention to make people take them along. So write the characters first as if you were writing a book rather than a game and give them agency that happens to coincide with Charname but doesn't overwhelm Charname and their quest.
Tall order though, sometimes you can only catch lightning in a bottle once. Good Luck.
I think you are trying to stop the tide coming in there. Personally, I think Beamdog manages to strike a good balance between the casual approach of BG1, and the "you must take them" approach of pretty much every modern crpg, from NWN2, to KotOR, to Mass Effect, to Dragon Age, to PoE, to T:ToN.
Form me, it's NWN2 and KotOR2 that are really really bad at forcing me to take characters I really really hate.
I don't play modern CRPG so can't compare, I did play KOTOR 1&2 but so long ago can't remember.
I just find it strange the decisions were made when there have been so many warnings about how players don't like being railroaded. How many times is the complaint made about Chateaux Irenicus and ending up there with Minsc/Jaheira? There's even a mod to get rid of the dungeon altogether and I reckon that's partly the reason why.
I'm not sure there has to be any reason to achieve a balance between old/new with regards to this. Other things of course, graphics, interface, playability ect. need to be modernised to attract a new audience. But are players of newer games complaining that you can ignore NPC's should you chose to do so?
The reasons for those decisions are fairly straightforward. In a modern CRPG, NPC companions are expected to be fully fleshed out with detailed stories of their own. This means that each one takes quite a lot of developer resources. It's not considered efficient or cost effective to spend significant developer resources on content that many players will never see.
You might think there the complaints about being forced to take Minsc and Jaheira where significant, but I assure you there would be many times more (including me) if a game where released that went back to the almost non-existent character development of BG1.
The reasons for those decisions are fairly straightforward. In a modern CRPG, NPC companions are expected to be fully fleshed out with detailed stories of their own. This means that each one takes quite a lot of developer resources. It's not considered efficient or cost effective to spend significant developer resources on content that many players will never see.
You might think there the complaints about being forced to take Minsc and Jaheira where significant, but I assure you there would be many times more (including me) if a game where released that went back to the almost non-existent character development of BG1.
I am not arguing at all for content that many players will not see, just arguing that having seen the content once and not liking it, you can then play ignoring the NPC. As you can do with BG Minsc for instance.
Of course I have tried out and completed all the quests for the new EE NPC, and also quite happy to buy the EE (and future expansions with new content/NPC).
Why on earth have you interpretated my complaint about the new EE NPC intruding on my game, having decided not to take them along, as a request for non existant character developement?
The way the EE NPC are incorporated comes across as writer/developer arrogance, the writer/developer of Minsc didn't seem to feel that need but I'm pretty sure the cost/resources used were no less.
And what about Edwin BG2? You won't even meet him if you decide not to do the shadowthief guild quest, a perfectly reasonable decision if playing lawful good. Did it bother the creators of all that content that many will miss the content, and consquently it's something to discover on later playthroughs?
1. moves dorn to the mine area and will never start the cutscene from vanilla unless you talk to him. [ i do belive dorn never shows up during that random encounter f you never speak to him at the friendly arm inn.] 2. makes neera's bg1 and 2 cutscenes not fire unless you speak to her 3. makes rassad's not start in bg2 unless you speak to him
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?
The reason people have to remind about other type of relationships than romance is probably because of many custom-mod NPCs with romance, where you do get significantly more content if you utilize that romance (probably due to scripting limitations). It's definitely not about your writing.
What determines whether a companion is there "purely as a romance option", I wonder?
When romance is all that companion brings to the table? No other involvements in the story (or so insignificant you can easily skip it), just a personal quest (at best) plus romance. Something like this.
I am too late to original question (3 most important D&D-RPG elements) but hope can still add some votes to the companions discussion.
1) Do you enjoy these sorts of companions? Is there a single element common to them in RPG's which you simply must have, or which you would prefer to do without?
2) Is there a particular type of companion character you feel hasn't been done (or done enough) and which you'd like to see? You can make this as specific to D&D as a setting or not, as you like.
1. Yes! (insufficient) YES!!! Companions deeply involved in the story are the best companions. And their one common feature is own agenda - hidden, which you see some hints of (even if only on the second play-through) or obvious (when they try to recruit you to their cause), but still their own. Then you know those companions here are not something created for your convenience\pleasure\fan-service\pure sake of number of choices and group composition.
2. Specifically to D&D - there is one problem: too many powerful creatures that can (should, if used to full D&D potential) make any journey trivial, but so interesting you do want to have them as companions. I would love to have a dragon in my party, but who can oppose me in that case? One type of companion you can not go wrong with is a "bro" - a real friend who is here for you no matter what (I know, controversy to "I want them to have own agenda"). And the type which is used not often is a mentor-type. Probably for a reason (and a good reason) but it is. Not sure if I truly need one, but Kreia, already mentioned here, made you feel like your burden of a leader is shared (if only to some degree), like there is someone equal to you who does not look up to you all the time.
The reasons for those decisions are fairly straightforward. In a modern CRPG, NPC companions are expected to be fully fleshed out with detailed stories of their own. This means that each one takes quite a lot of developer resources. It's not considered efficient or cost effective to spend significant developer resources on content that many players will never see.
You might think there the complaints about being forced to take Minsc and Jaheira where significant, but I assure you there would be many times more (including me) if a game where released that went back to the almost non-existent character development of BG1.
I am not arguing at all for content that many players will not see, just arguing that having seen the content once and not liking it, you can then play ignoring the NPC. As you can do with BG Minsc for instance.
Of course I have tried out and completed all the quests for the new EE NPC, and also quite happy to buy the EE (and future expansions with new content/NPC).
Why on earth have you interpretated my complaint about the new EE NPC intruding on my game, having decided not to take them along, as a request for non existant character developement?
Since you haven't played a modern MMO, you don't seem to be able to grasp what I am talking about.
Neera in BGEE. Sure, you have to encounter her, and the encounter would have been better if it had given you the option to fight alongside the Red Wizard. But you can then ditch her and never see her again.
Compare to NWN2. In NWN2, you MUST encounter ALL the NPCs. You MUST allow them all to join your group. Sometimes you MUST have certain NPCs in you party. Even if NPCs are not in your current party they will talk during cut scenes. This is typical of modern crpgs.
The way the EE NPC are incorporated comes across as writer/developer arrogance, the writer/developer of Minsc didn't seem to feel that need but I'm pretty sure the cost/resources used were no less.
And what about Edwin BG2? You won't even meet him if you decide not to do the shadowthief guild quest, a perfectly reasonable decision if playing lawful good. Did it bother the creators of all that content that many will miss the content, and consquently it's something to discover on later playthroughs?
Bioware have said that there are things that they incorporated into BG2 that the would NEVER do again, because they where not a cost-effective use of resources.
And even the level of NPC development in BG2 is very small compared to what is expected in modern crpgs.
It's worth noting that statistically, the greater proportion of players do not play through a crpg more than once, and many never even complete it once.
bioware was mostly talking about every class having thier own strong holds. most modern rpgs have a set number of npcs. 9 at most. baldurs gate is the outlier as they have so many and more can be added with fan content. even pillars and torment games based on those old games have a set amount of party members.
"It's worth noting that statistically, the greater proportion of players do not play through a crpg more than once, and many never even complete it once."
It's worth noting that because the writers of BG/BG2 didn't cost cut in the way you are describing, we are here talking about those games years and years after their release.
And I presume the new EE versions and SOD expansion is hoped to be a money making endeavour.
"It's worth noting that statistically, the greater proportion of players do not play through a crpg more than once, and many never even complete it once."
It's worth noting that because the writers of BG/BG2 didn't cost cut in the way you are describing, we are here talking about those games years and years after their release.
And I presume the new EE versions and SOD expansion is hoped to be a money making endeavour.
A few old crusties may be still talking about them, but they made considerably less profit than Mass Effect, KotOR, and Dragon Age: Inquisition.
And one thing we do know about this game is the head writer is Dave Gaider, a gentleman renowned for writing highly detailed NPCs for games like KotOR and the Dragon Age series. The simple fact of his hiring means that we are going to get a small number of detailed characters, not a large number of vague caricatures.
Now I agree with you that I want to be able to sack or murder NPCs I don't like, and I would like at least one "hidden" companion, but having dozens of characters hidden around the map that will never make their presence known unless you seek them out is simply a non-starter. Perhaps the closest viable option to what you want would be an option to create your own NPCs, as in PoE and SoD.
Comments
or more like Yoshimo?
I object to any companions who I can't get rid of. I wasn't betrayed on my first playthough of Baldur's Gate because I thought Yoshimo was dodgy the first time I met him.
Doesn't make its writing bad either, though.
Yeah, it would make sense for the protagonist to not want reconnecting. Unfortunately, there's some powerful people after his south side, so it becomes a simple question of surviving.
The protagonist could have pursued a non-Force path in order to survive. Or, given their history, they might simply prefer to die. Going along with Kriea is clearly railroading, and it relies on the player not knowing what his character knows in order to not be a clearly bad idea.
So, if you cannot enjoy games, that don't give you 100% player agency, then stay away.
If you don't like not having 100% information about yourself from the very get go, fine. Others enjoyed discovering the story behind your character over the course of the journey immensely.
I'm one of them, and by far not the only one. There's a reason why this game is praised so much, even if it doesn't suit your taste.
I can only repeat myself, "I don't like thing" doesn't equate to bad.
One wish:
If you decide to implement any form or amount of level scaling in the game, please make it completely optional (e.g. like in Pillars of Eternity).
2 special weapons with stories
3 FR gods
I can make a list of elements, tropes and themes and I don't like, and then read a story which has them all and enjoy it
I can also make a list of ideas that I really do like, and read a story written very well in a compelling style and gripping pace addressing them, and still not like it
I think expectations play an important part.
I have played lots of game which I expected to have a trashy or forgettable story, and maybe they do, but then I find one part I really like, and I remember it more since it was a nice surprise I wasnt expecting
Overall it's easy to forgive faults, cliche and plotholes in a game whose main attraction is something other than its story.
Which overall I guess is just about the least helpful suggestion I could possibly offer. If you ever need any more incredibly unhelpful advice, please let me know
That you can dislike some of them, adore others and pretend that some don't even exist if, after one run with them, you never want anything to do with them again.
Something the EE NPC didn't manage.
In both games, forced to watch a cut scene with Neera.
Rasaad takes your kill in BG without invitation, in BG2 another cut scene.
Dorn BG, scene when moving between areas, BG2 thankfully you can just kill him.
Hexaat, the thief is killed without Charname being able to stop her.
In SOD, I don't need Corwin tagging along, I just conquered Sarevok, the city was my playground for a while, including the sewers, undercellar ect. and the FF did nothing much to help when I did actually need it.
But now I need a nursemaid?
Well written NPC don't require that level of intervention to make people take them along.
So write the characters first as if you were writing a book rather than a game and give them agency that happens to coincide with Charname but doesn't overwhelm Charname and their quest.
Tall order though, sometimes you can only catch lightning in a bottle once.
Good Luck.
Form me, it's NWN2 and KotOR2 that are really really bad at forcing me to take characters I really really hate.
I don't play modern CRPG so can't compare, I did play KOTOR 1&2 but so long ago can't remember.
I just find it strange the decisions were made when there have been so many warnings about how players don't like being railroaded.
How many times is the complaint made about Chateaux Irenicus and ending up there with Minsc/Jaheira?
There's even a mod to get rid of the dungeon altogether and I reckon that's partly the reason why.
I'm not sure there has to be any reason to achieve a balance between old/new with regards to this.
Other things of course, graphics, interface, playability ect. need to be modernised to attract a new audience.
But are players of newer games complaining that you can ignore NPC's should you chose to do so?
You might think there the complaints about being forced to take Minsc and Jaheira where significant, but I assure you there would be many times more (including me) if a game where released that went back to the almost non-existent character development of BG1.
I am not arguing at all for content that many players will not see, just arguing that having seen the content once and not liking it, you can then play ignoring the NPC.
As you can do with BG Minsc for instance.
Of course I have tried out and completed all the quests for the new EE NPC, and also quite happy to buy the EE (and future expansions with new content/NPC).
Why on earth have you interpretated my complaint about the new EE NPC intruding on my game, having decided not to take them along, as a request for non existant character developement?
The way the EE NPC are incorporated comes across as writer/developer arrogance, the writer/developer of Minsc didn't seem to feel that need but I'm pretty sure the cost/resources used were no less.
And what about Edwin BG2?
You won't even meet him if you decide not to do the shadowthief guild quest, a perfectly reasonable decision if playing lawful good.
Did it bother the creators of all that content that many will miss the content, and consquently it's something to discover on later playthroughs?
1. moves dorn to the mine area and will never start the cutscene from vanilla unless you talk to him. [ i do belive dorn never shows up during that random encounter f you never speak to him at the friendly arm inn.]
2. makes neera's bg1 and 2 cutscenes not fire unless you speak to her
3. makes rassad's not start in bg2 unless you speak to him
see a pattern here?
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/58941/mod-bgeenpc-tweaks-for-bgee-sod-bg2ee-eet/p1
this is why mods were made. don't like something theres a mod that fixes it.
Something like this.
I am too late to original question (3 most important D&D-RPG elements) but hope can still add some votes to the companions discussion. 1. Yes! (insufficient) YES!!! Companions deeply involved in the story are the best companions. And their one common feature is own agenda - hidden, which you see some hints of (even if only on the second play-through) or obvious (when they try to recruit you to their cause), but still their own. Then you know those companions here are not something created for your convenience\pleasure\fan-service\pure sake of number of choices and group composition.
2. Specifically to D&D - there is one problem: too many powerful creatures that can (should, if used to full D&D potential) make any journey trivial, but so interesting you do want to have them as companions. I would love to have a dragon in my party, but who can oppose me in that case?
One type of companion you can not go wrong with is a "bro" - a real friend who is here for you no matter what (I know, controversy to "I want them to have own agenda").
And the type which is used not often is a mentor-type. Probably for a reason (and a good reason) but it is. Not sure if I truly need one, but Kreia, already mentioned here, made you feel like your burden of a leader is shared (if only to some degree), like there is someone equal to you who does not look up to you all the time.
Neera in BGEE. Sure, you have to encounter her, and the encounter would have been better if it had given you the option to fight alongside the Red Wizard. But you can then ditch her and never see her again.
Compare to NWN2. In NWN2, you MUST encounter ALL the NPCs. You MUST allow them all to join your group. Sometimes you MUST have certain NPCs in you party. Even if NPCs are not in your current party they will talk during cut scenes. This is typical of modern crpgs.
Bioware have said that there are things that they incorporated into BG2 that the would NEVER do again, because they where not a cost-effective use of resources.
And even the level of NPC development in BG2 is very small compared to what is expected in modern crpgs.
It's worth noting that statistically, the greater proportion of players do not play through a crpg more than once, and many never even complete it once.
"It's worth noting that statistically, the greater proportion of players do not play through a crpg more than once, and many never even complete it once."
It's worth noting that because the writers of BG/BG2 didn't cost cut in the way you are describing, we are here talking about those games years and years after their release.
And I presume the new EE versions and SOD expansion is hoped to be a money making endeavour.
And one thing we do know about this game is the head writer is Dave Gaider, a gentleman renowned for writing highly detailed NPCs for games like KotOR and the Dragon Age series. The simple fact of his hiring means that we are going to get a small number of detailed characters, not a large number of vague caricatures.
Now I agree with you that I want to be able to sack or murder NPCs I don't like, and I would like at least one "hidden" companion, but having dozens of characters hidden around the map that will never make their presence known unless you seek them out is simply a non-starter. Perhaps the closest viable option to what you want would be an option to create your own NPCs, as in PoE and SoD.