In my opinion having full party control is requirement for proper D&D feel. But, as I understand, Trent said that's not an option. What do you think? Are you happy with only main character control or you also would like to have proper party control, just like in every IE game?
I noticed yesterday playing the module The Accursed Tower, which is really well made and worth the playthrough if you haven’t had the chance, I had to keep reloading battles because my multiple henchmen would just do the dumbest things, like ranged characters charging into melee range because they lost line of site, then continuing to fire away while getting cut down in melee. Or everyone crowding a choke point and again getting cut down while my tanks were stuck in the back.
I ended up having to issue commands to get everyone to stand still, then attack nearest as I tried to lure enemies to my group...
Which reminded me how clunky it is to organize combat by issuing commands. Better AI would definitely help, but the ability to just click on a henchman and move them to where you want them to move would be so much more efficient.
And tactical. With the current state of henchmen I feel there is always as much luck as tactics involved in a challenging fight.
True, but there are many people who play this game as single players, and many (most?) modules built to accommodate this style of play. Why not make it smoother?
Another thing that would help greatly with party control on the UI side, having to use the radial menu to open a henchman inventory or get them to use a special ability is pretty clunky too.
I know this is more of a UI issue, but it’s one full party control would presumably fix.
In "proper" D&D each player only controls one character.
I would say that in multiplayer (whether it is tabletop or computer generated) players control one character, but in single player computer games (D&D or otherwise) it has been common to have one player control ~6 characters at the same time, so I disagree it is a improper playing style.
If full party control is not in the cards, then at least an improvement in AI for players than want to play with a full party but dislike their fellow party members doing stupid things when at combat (or simply getting stuck on a wall).
In "proper" D&D each player only controls one character.
Sort of-
in "proper" D&D we can usually find hirelings who are mostly DM controlled (not always) but act in a realistic manner.
I'm playing through the OC and I cannot believe how dumb the Ai is- After being fully rested and running upon a trash mob my caster henchmen will throw every nuke they have at it. For a wielder of magic with an intellect surpassing Einstein they sure act dumb. The 'dm' will usually allow us to talk to the henchmen and plan strategies (which they will usually follow) which is very much akin to giving commands.
The whole "add full party control" debate is probably pointless because I doubt they will add it but its something I would like to see. Adding some strategy and tactics it allow a more realistic game and is better than having henchmen who are supposed to be seasoned adventurers run into a room full bore and aggro everything- Or throw out every nuke they have at a single trash mob when they would know that we are close to a boss fight.
I'm all for making party combat better, but that can be done in a variety of ways, including complete party control, but even simply improving the controls incrementally would be sufficient to improve quality of life. Or just improving the AI.
Personally, I'd rather BD spent more of their resources on improving the AI instead of trying to figure out full party control. It would be more likely to succeed, and would result in wider improvements in the game, because AI also would affect enemies in addition to allies.
Full party control was always a must for a computer D&D game.
Which is why NWN2 went with it.
Although I understand the thrust of NWN's aim - to make MP the "party system" with each character being controlled by a Player, one does need to keep in mind that SP outnumber MP by a large margin (and all research points to this as a fact). So the bold move on the part of Bioware failed in that respect.
This should not be seen as a criticism of the MP side of NWN - anyone who has played an online role-playing campaign of NWN will testify that this is the closest that one can come to true P&P style play (and yes, I have).
I personally use OMB's (OldManBeard's) party system in SP - but it has serious shortcomings due to limitations of the NWN engine.
So, in light of Trent's comment that a true full party control will not be implemented, I would suggest that perhaps opening up the NWN Engine to allowing third parties (re: modders like OMB) to truly implement a full party control mod.
It is definitely a detriment to the single player experience, which does seem to be the bulk of how this game is played.
I haven’t played NWN in years until I downloaded the headstart... and I had forgotten how frustrating it can be, not only to have terribly dumb AI, but even just to open a henchman’s inventory, or get them to move off a trigger.
Yes, but did it fail? I don't think it did. I agree that full party control is a better option, but I question whether NWN's solution is really as bad as people are saying it is.
I want full party control. It's my most wanted feature, actually. If NWNEE added party control, I'd buy it just for that. If nothing else, I'd at least like for Beamdog to open up the code so that modders can add it.
Yes, but did it fail? I don't think it did. I agree that full party control is a better option, but I question whether NWN's solution is really as bad as people are saying it is.
NWN1 succeeded despite the lack of party control, not because of it. And I really do think it's as bad as everyone says. For one thing, it makes pure spellcasters almost completely useless as companions. It's not a coincidence that most modules have companions that are either completely non-magical or some kind of hybrid. The only thing caster companions are reliably good for is pre-combat buffs. And why is that? Because the dialogue system can allow you to tell them exactly what to cast and who to cast it on - in other words, direct companion control, albeit incomplete.
The lack of party control also holds module developers back. They know they can't make encounters too complex or challenging, because the lack of control severely restricts the player's tactical options. Even something as simple as having a heavy-armored fighter hold down a choke point to keep enemies from getting to the mage is damn near impossible with NWN1's system. I can't count the number of times I've been playing NWN1 and knew exactly what I wanted to do, but couldn't do it, because it would require direct control. Combat already has enough randomness with the dice rolls. We don't need "Will my party members do something really stupid or not?" as another random element.
Interestingly enough it seems like, from Trent’s live stream comments on it, it’s not on the table more because of a design decision in how the game should be played, a la multiplayer as opposed to the type of single player games that the IE engine gave us.
But the number of single player modules- most with at least partially developed henchmen- suggests the single player story driven experience (I think Trent referred to the BG games as more like books) is actually mostly how the game is played.
But the number of single player modules- most with at least partially developed henchmen- suggests the single player story driven experience (I think Trent referred to the BG games as more like books) is actually mostly how the game is played.
That would be an inaccurate assessment, there are no single player multi-party modules simply because the NWN engine does not allow it out of the box; you need to add the OHS Henchman System which is not compatible with other popular scripts (Tony K. Battle AI or PrC) and does not work 100% (due to the NWN engine limitations) it the best of cases.
That is akin to saying people was not interested in color games when the first macintoshs only had screens with black/white capacity.
I meant the game is mostly played as a single player, story driven experience as opposed to a multiplayer DM guided experience.
But here we are really speaking of neither single player (with or without henchmen) or multiplayer (one character per player), but about a third player experience that with the current engine is out of reach, single player with full control over a party of 2~8 characters (like in the SSI gold box series of old).
I meant the game is mostly played as a single player, story driven experience as opposed to a multiplayer DM guided experience.
But here we are really speaking of neither single player (with or without henchmen) or multiplayer (one character per player), but about a third player experience that with the current engine is out of reach, single player with full control over a party of 2~8 characters (like in the SSI gold box series of old).
I’m not sure that I follow. We are speaking specifically about single player with henchmen.
Interestingly enough it seems like, from Trent’s live stream comments on it, it’s not on the table more because of a design decision in how the game should be played, a la multiplayer as opposed to the type of single player games that the IE engine gave us.
But the number of single player modules- most with at least partially developed henchmen- suggests the single player story driven experience (I think Trent referred to the BG games as more like books) is actually mostly how the game is played.
Yeah, that kind of surprises me. I would have expected him to cite technical difficulties or not having enough time or resources to do it, not for him to basically say "Single-player full party control is badwrongfun." Maybe he's just unaware of how many people only play single-player? I don't know. I bought NWN strictly for single-player, and I have no real interest in multiplayer at all.
Here's the quote I think you're referring to:
Neverwinter Nights was never intended to be a Baldur’s Gate game. Baldur’s Gate poses the question of “what if you were the sole hero of a D&D adventure and you met interesting companion NPCs along the way”.
I don't quite get it, because if you ask me, the "sole hero of a D&D adventure" thing is more applicable to NWN than it is to BG. So I'm not sure what he's getting at here.
What's interesting is that he also said this:
We added companions into NWN to address playing the game as a single class character and needing access to other skillsets to fully enjoy the game.
So apparently he agrees that party members are necessary and the system works best when it's not just one character, but he believes that giving the player direct control over party members would be crossing some kind of line. I can't say I find that argument particularly compelling.
I meant the game is mostly played as a single player, story driven experience as opposed to a multiplayer DM guided experience.
But here we are really speaking of neither single player (with or without henchmen) or multiplayer (one character per player), but about a third player experience that with the current engine is out of reach, single player with full control over a party of 2~8 characters (like in the SSI gold box series of old).
I have to agree with cherryzero - I don't quite know what you're talking about here. We're discussing single-player with henchmen, but controllable henchmen. I don't think that's out of the engine's reach.
I hope that Beamdog will listen to the feedback here and elsewhere, realize how many people want this feature, and add it to the game. No one would lose anything, and a large number of fans would get something they've wanted for years. It would be a huge improvement to the game and open up a lot of possibilities for future modules. If they ultimately decide not to implement it, I'd at least like to see them open up the code enough for the modding community to do it. The latter option seems like something they could do without too much trouble.
I prefer to control my party myself, but I do object to people who try to claim a party (and usually a party of six at that) is the only valid form of RPG.
With that on mind, lets look at some of the issues. Firstly, the idea that NWN2 has "full party control". It does not. It only lets you control one party member at a time. Whist you can queue instructions for other party members, these are frequently invalidated by movement, causing the rather stupid AI to take over. KotOR also has this issue.
Secondly, viewpoint. As you increase the party size it becomes harder to undestand what is happening without playing in some variation of a "top down" perspective. I generally reckon the critical party size of this is four. Again an issue for NWN2. Whilst NWN does support "top down" play it means the resources spent on developing other viewpoints are wasted.
Thirdy, their are the extensive changes made to NWN rules specifically to compensate for the lack of a party. These include, but are not limited too:
I prefer to control my party myself, but I do object to people who try to claim a party (and usually a party of six at that) is the only valid form of RPG.
I don't think that's what FPC proponents are saying. There are RPGs I enjoy that don't have a fully-controlled party, like Skyrim. But I also really want party control in NWN, because I think having that option would make the game better and give module creators more room to make challenging encounters.
With that on mind, lets look at some of the issues. Firstly, the idea that NWN2 has "full party control". It does not. It only lets you control one party member at a time. Whist you can queue instructions for other party members, these are frequently invalidated by movement, causing the rather stupid AI to take over. KotOR also has this issue.
That's a problem with the AI, not with the idea of controllable party members. Is it really any better to allow the stupid AI to act completely on its own? At least direct control gives you a chance to mitigate the AI's stupidity. And when people say "full party control", they mean you can directly control the actions of everyone in your party, even if it has to be done one at a time. Hence, full control over the party, or full party control. I don't think people are asking for an RTS.
Secondly, viewpoint. As you increase the party size it becomes harder to undestand what is happening without playing in some variation of a "top down" perspective. I generally reckon the critical party size of this is four. Again an issue for NWN2. Whilst NWN does support "top down" play it means the resources spent on developing other viewpoints are wasted.
Are they planning to add new viewpoints? I haven't heard that they are. If they're not adding any new viewpoints, no resources are going to waste.
Which raises the issue: should these changes be reversed if party control is added to the game?
I think individual modules could be balanced around the combination of those elements and full party control. Aren't all of those things moddable anyway? Resting and potion quantity certainly are. Resting isn't just about healing, either. It's also about getting spells back so that spellcasters don't have to spend all their time missing with a crossbow. Personally, I'd like to see a system that gives you another way to recover spells, like a mana potion equivalent, and also restricts resting so you can't fully heal all the time.
I'm for NWN2 style party control, but if that's simply not going to happen for whatever reason, I would settle for access to companion inventory and dialog-box based controls like we see in Savant's "Saga of Aielund", implemented for the NWN OC.
That doesn't seem to me like it should be that big of a deal to do, unless there's some hard-coding in the OC standing in the way. I know if I attempt to access a companion's inventory in the OC, it says "The original campaign does not support this function."
Why not? Is there a reason it can't be done, or is it just that the original developers never had time or desire to backport the features?
Since Trent *was* an "original developer", his attitude seems to be the official one, that they only did a single-player campaign because they had to, not because they wanted to. They were all about the multi-player potential of their game engine, apparently.
I hope that Trent can be convinced to change this attitude. I think we single players are a bigger portion of the market for NWN than he seems to think at this time.
I know I'd pay more cash for single player DLC that appealed to me, if it were reasonably priced. I've already given them $40 for the deluxe NWN:EE, and I was happy to do so, to support the project.
It was worth it, as @BelleSorciere says , just to have a useable version of the game that works "out of the box." I was one of many who had constant trouble getting GoG NWN to work properly, on my past three computers.
I believe the henchmen in the OC are a different type of entity to companions in HotU and later modules. It would be a matter of deleting all the henchmen and replacing them with the new type. Which sounds straightforward enough, but because the Henchmen are referenced in multiple places would involve a lot of donkey-work and have a high probability of introducing new bugs.
So it's really just a cost-benefit equation. Now I've played the OC all the way though once, and I really can't see myself playing it though ever again, revamped henchmen or not.
I had not seen Lilura’s blogpost, thanks for linking it PL1. That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. It’s really well laid out and reasoned.
This is will be an unpopular viewpoint, yet this is my thoughts on the subject. I am not interested in full party control. I am also not against this feature being added for those who desire it. I prefer the NPCs behaving in their scripted fashion.
My reasons for this is, the companions in the story are not my player character. I did not create them, they have their own backstory, history, goals and dreams. They are NPCs. They should level up as they see fit and fight as suits their personality in game. With direct party control all NPCs fight on the player’s personality, not the NPC’s personality.
I would enjoy seeing the classic party of 4-6, I would love it if builders are able to customize how cleric 1 vs cleric 2 behaves in combat (A cleric of Ilmater should be more healing focused while a cleric of Tempus is smiting those who stand in his way).
I believe the henchmen in the OC are a different type of entity to companions in HotU and later modules. It would be a matter of deleting all the henchmen and replacing them with the new type. Which sounds straightforward enough, but because the Henchmen are referenced in multiple places would involve a lot of donkey-work and have a high probability of introducing new bugs.
So it's really just a cost-benefit equation. Now I've played the OC all the way though once, and I really can't see myself playing it though ever again, revamped henchmen or not.
If I remember correctly, the OC doesn't actually level up the henchmen. Instead, it replaces them with a completely new, higher-level NPC with the same name, portrait, etc. So even if you could give them items, those items would disappear when the NPC gets replaced.
This is will be an unpopular viewpoint, yet this is my thoughts on the subject. I am not interested in full party control. I am also not against this feature being added for those who desire it. I prefer the NPCs behaving in their scripted fashion.
Well, at least you're not against the existence of FPC as an option for those who want it. That's more than I can say for some of the other people I've discussed this issue with, who are vehemently against FPC implementation on principle even if it doesn't affect them at all.
My reasons for this is, the companions in the story are not my player character. I did not create them, they have their own backstory, history, goals and dreams. They are NPCs. They should level up as they see fit and fight as suits their personality in game. With direct party control all NPCs fight on the player’s personality, not the NPC’s personality.
I suppose I just compartmentalize things differently. To me, an NPC's personality comes through in their dialogue, their interactions with the player character, and the overarching plot. Combat is more of a technical thing that's kind of in its own sphere. Besides, if we were to say that their combat behavior reflects their personality, we'd be forced to conclude that every companion in every NWN1 module is an idiot. Especially the spellcasters.
Comments
The overland map was a great concept as well. It gives a good sense of distance and scale.
I ended up having to issue commands to get everyone to stand still, then attack nearest as I tried to lure enemies to my group...
Which reminded me how clunky it is to organize combat by issuing commands. Better AI would definitely help, but the ability to just click on a henchman and move them to where you want them to move would be so much more efficient.
And tactical. With the current state of henchmen I feel there is always as much luck as tactics involved in a challenging fight.
Another thing that would help greatly with party control on the UI side, having to use the radial menu to open a henchman inventory or get them to use a special ability is pretty clunky too.
I know this is more of a UI issue, but it’s one full party control would presumably fix.
If full party control is not in the cards, then at least an improvement in AI for players than want to play with a full party but dislike their fellow party members doing stupid things when at combat (or simply getting stuck on a wall).
in "proper" D&D we can usually find hirelings who are mostly DM controlled (not always) but act in a realistic manner.
I'm playing through the OC and I cannot believe how dumb the Ai is- After being fully rested and running upon a trash mob my caster henchmen will throw every nuke they have at it. For a wielder of magic with an intellect surpassing Einstein they sure act dumb. The 'dm' will usually allow us to talk to the henchmen and plan strategies (which they will usually follow) which is very much akin to giving commands.
The whole "add full party control" debate is probably pointless because I doubt they will add it but its something I would like to see. Adding some strategy and tactics it allow a more realistic game and is better than having henchmen who are supposed to be seasoned adventurers run into a room full bore and aggro everything- Or throw out every nuke they have at a single trash mob when they would know that we are close to a boss fight.
Things like that make me want to scream.
Personally, I'd rather BD spent more of their resources on improving the AI instead of trying to figure out full party control. It would be more likely to succeed, and would result in wider improvements in the game, because AI also would affect enemies in addition to allies.
Which is why NWN2 went with it.
Although I understand the thrust of NWN's aim - to make MP the "party system" with each character being controlled by a Player, one does need to keep in mind that SP outnumber MP by a large margin (and all research points to this as a fact). So the bold move on the part of Bioware failed in that respect.
This should not be seen as a criticism of the MP side of NWN - anyone who has played an online role-playing campaign of NWN will testify that this is the closest that one can come to true P&P style play (and yes, I have).
I personally use OMB's (OldManBeard's) party system in SP - but it has serious shortcomings due to limitations of the NWN engine.
So, in light of Trent's comment that a true full party control will not be implemented, I would suggest that perhaps opening up the NWN Engine to allowing third parties (re: modders like OMB) to truly implement a full party control mod.
I haven’t played NWN in years until I downloaded the headstart... and I had forgotten how frustrating it can be, not only to have terribly dumb AI, but even just to open a henchman’s inventory, or get them to move off a trigger.
NWN1 succeeded despite the lack of party control, not because of it. And I really do think it's as bad as everyone says. For one thing, it makes pure spellcasters almost completely useless as companions. It's not a coincidence that most modules have companions that are either completely non-magical or some kind of hybrid. The only thing caster companions are reliably good for is pre-combat buffs. And why is that? Because the dialogue system can allow you to tell them exactly what to cast and who to cast it on - in other words, direct companion control, albeit incomplete.
The lack of party control also holds module developers back. They know they can't make encounters too complex or challenging, because the lack of control severely restricts the player's tactical options. Even something as simple as having a heavy-armored fighter hold down a choke point to keep enemies from getting to the mage is damn near impossible with NWN1's system. I can't count the number of times I've been playing NWN1 and knew exactly what I wanted to do, but couldn't do it, because it would require direct control. Combat already has enough randomness with the dice rolls. We don't need "Will my party members do something really stupid or not?" as another random element.
I don't expect we'll get full party control in EE.
Interestingly enough it seems like, from Trent’s live stream comments on it, it’s not on the table more because of a design decision in how the game should be played, a la multiplayer as opposed to the type of single player games that the IE engine gave us.
But the number of single player modules- most with at least partially developed henchmen- suggests the single player story driven experience (I think Trent referred to the BG games as more like books) is actually mostly how the game is played.
That is akin to saying people was not interested in color games when the first macintoshs only had screens with black/white capacity.
I meant the game is mostly played as a single player, story driven experience as opposed to a multiplayer DM guided experience.
I’m not valuing one experience over the other, just pointing out how most people play it.
Here's the quote I think you're referring to:
I don't quite get it, because if you ask me, the "sole hero of a D&D adventure" thing is more applicable to NWN than it is to BG. So I'm not sure what he's getting at here.
What's interesting is that he also said this:
So apparently he agrees that party members are necessary and the system works best when it's not just one character, but he believes that giving the player direct control over party members would be crossing some kind of line. I can't say I find that argument particularly compelling.
Suffice it to say, I completely agree with Lilura's response in her article about this issue:
https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2017/12/Full-Party-Control-with-Marquee-Selection-is-Where-Its-At.html
But here we are really speaking of neither single player (with or without henchmen) or multiplayer (one character per player), but about a third player experience that with the current engine is out of reach, single player with full control over a party of 2~8 characters (like in the SSI gold box series of old).
I have to agree with cherryzero - I don't quite know what you're talking about here. We're discussing single-player with henchmen, but controllable henchmen. I don't think that's out of the engine's reach.
I hope that Beamdog will listen to the feedback here and elsewhere, realize how many people want this feature, and add it to the game. No one would lose anything, and a large number of fans would get something they've wanted for years. It would be a huge improvement to the game and open up a lot of possibilities for future modules. If they ultimately decide not to implement it, I'd at least like to see them open up the code enough for the modding community to do it. The latter option seems like something they could do without too much trouble.
With that on mind, lets look at some of the issues. Firstly, the idea that NWN2 has "full party control". It does not. It only lets you control one party member at a time. Whist you can queue instructions for other party members, these are frequently invalidated by movement, causing the rather stupid AI to take over. KotOR also has this issue.
Secondly, viewpoint. As you increase the party size it becomes harder to undestand what is happening without playing in some variation of a "top down" perspective. I generally reckon the critical party size of this is four. Again an issue for NWN2. Whilst NWN does support "top down" play it means the resources spent on developing other viewpoints are wasted.
Thirdy, their are the extensive changes made to NWN rules specifically to compensate for the lack of a party. These include, but are not limited too:
1) hugely boosted familiars
2) Find Traps spell removing traps
3) buffed summoning spells
4) easy healing by resting
5) plentiful healing potions
Which raises the issue: should these changes be reversed if party control is added to the game?
Are they planning to add new viewpoints? I haven't heard that they are. If they're not adding any new viewpoints, no resources are going to waste.
I think individual modules could be balanced around the combination of those elements and full party control. Aren't all of those things moddable anyway? Resting and potion quantity certainly are. Resting isn't just about healing, either. It's also about getting spells back so that spellcasters don't have to spend all their time missing with a crossbow. Personally, I'd like to see a system that gives you another way to recover spells, like a mana potion equivalent, and also restricts resting so you can't fully heal all the time.
That doesn't seem to me like it should be that big of a deal to do, unless there's some hard-coding in the OC standing in the way. I know if I attempt to access a companion's inventory in the OC, it says "The original campaign does not support this function."
Why not? Is there a reason it can't be done, or is it just that the original developers never had time or desire to backport the features?
Since Trent *was* an "original developer", his attitude seems to be the official one, that they only did a single-player campaign because they had to, not because they wanted to. They were all about the multi-player potential of their game engine, apparently.
I hope that Trent can be convinced to change this attitude. I think we single players are a bigger portion of the market for NWN than he seems to think at this time.
I know I'd pay more cash for single player DLC that appealed to me, if it were reasonably priced. I've already given them $40 for the deluxe NWN:EE, and I was happy to do so, to support the project.
It was worth it, as @BelleSorciere says , just to have a useable version of the game that works "out of the box." I was one of many who had constant trouble getting GoG NWN to work properly, on my past three computers.
So it's really just a cost-benefit equation. Now I've played the OC all the way though once, and I really can't see myself playing it though ever again, revamped henchmen or not.
My reasons for this is, the companions in the story are not my player character. I did not create them, they have their own backstory, history, goals and dreams. They are NPCs. They should level up as they see fit and fight as suits their personality in game. With direct party control all NPCs fight on the player’s personality, not the NPC’s personality.
I would enjoy seeing the classic party of 4-6, I would love it if builders are able to customize how cleric 1 vs cleric 2 behaves in combat (A cleric of Ilmater should be more healing focused while a cleric of Tempus is smiting those who stand in his way).
Well, at least you're not against the existence of FPC as an option for those who want it. That's more than I can say for some of the other people I've discussed this issue with, who are vehemently against FPC implementation on principle even if it doesn't affect them at all.
I suppose I just compartmentalize things differently. To me, an NPC's personality comes through in their dialogue, their interactions with the player character, and the overarching plot. Combat is more of a technical thing that's kind of in its own sphere. Besides, if we were to say that their combat behavior reflects their personality, we'd be forced to conclude that every companion in every NWN1 module is an idiot. Especially the spellcasters.