Solo vs Group: Why not both?

[Kide]

Indeed, I agree that that is the age difference. I am kind of lucky enough to at least have been able to experience some of the latest real party based rpg games, and I did definitly like them, ans I can understand the idea of having the party of the role player's and that this party is the one that the story unfold's not just for one person.

Unfortunatly I for example have not had any oppoturnity to experience the original table top roleplaying games. It might be also because of region, not sure how mutch it has been available even in here, even if I would be older. And it might have been easier to at least get into such a group if I had been male, alas I am not. Still would be awesome to be part of one at some point. But as I have always been interested in roleplaying outside PC games as well, I can understand the concept, just had never though of the party based game like that. I could not have known of that kind of roleplaying when I was teenager and starting to get into pc roleplaying games, so understandibly, my 4 pc main charachter's really did not have my own imagined personality of their own.

[krellen]

And it might have been easier to at least get into such a group if I had been male, alas I am not.

I've always preferred my PnP groups with females over those with none. It's a shame that's a minority opinion among tabletop gamers, as far as I can tell.

Though interesting that the bias appears to transcend national borders.

[Kide]

^Well it is a shyness factor too. I don't get to group's that easily, guys usually always like to be in groups or have bigger friends group, whitch would have helped in this case. As I only really had my best friend who we chared these intrest's a real roleplaying experience would not really have been possibly. At older age I am sure I could fin a group, if I would just be "brave" enough to go and say I want to join in a game. Alas that is kind of hard for me. =)

[krellen]

guys usually always like to be in groups or have bigger friends group

As an introverted male, I don't think males actually are more extroverted than females. We introverts are the minority, though.

[Kide]

Generally speaking it is more often the case though. ^^ It would be interestning to know how many females are involved with table top roleplaying games in here, but probably a lot fewer than males.

And of course there are introverted males too. =)

[Drool]

That's why it was novel when games like Hard Nova, Fallout and even Hillsfar (yes, Hillsfar) came out.

Holy crap. Someone using Hillsfar to make a point. Hell, someone even remembering Hillsfar.

As for the rest, you're spot on. The games I grew up with (well, the RPGs) were all party based. I cut my teeth on Bard's Tale 3, Wasteland, and a whole slew of Gold Box games (ie: pretty much all of them, even Savage Frontier), as well as Might And Magic 4 and 5. For the younger players who aren't familiar with true party-based gaming, perhaps you could look into Might and Magic. M&M 1-6 are available on GOG as a single big pack. Frankly, I wouldn't bother with 1 and 2, but from 3 on, you'll get a good feel for it, especially with the enormous world of Xeen with 4 and 5.

I don't mind RPGs with a central character, but I do plenty of PnP gaming where I, obviously, only play one character, but there's a certain charm to a good party-based game. I still remember having pretend conversations between my characters while playing the game. Usually it would be one making fun of the other after a miss or a jammed weapon. And with the Party Attack feature in Bard's Tale 3, it would sometimes escalate to fisticuffs. Or just the Chronomancer blasting some poor party member with FADE...

[krellen]

I'm going to make two statements that shall apparently prove me as weird:

even Savage Frontier

I always thought Savage Frontier was the best of the Gold Box games.

M&M 1-6 are available on GOG as a single big pack. Frankly, I wouldn't bother with 1 and 2

2 is by far my favourite M&M game. I really didn't like the switch to quasi-real-time with the later titles.

[paultakeda]

That's why it was novel when games like Hard Nova, Fallout and even Hillsfar (yes, Hillsfar) came out.

Holy crap. Someone using Hillsfar to make a point. Hell, someone even remembering Hillsfar.

You know what was awesome about Hillsfar? It was a Chosen One game (i.e. you played one main character) but that character was importable from a party-based RPG (any SSI published TSR D&D RPG like Pool of Radiance or Azure Bonds).

How awesome was that? You created a character in a party and suddenly that character shows up in a single PC RPG, going on to do great things alone. And OF COURSE the character you import was the one you identified with most (usually because that was the dude in slot 1 and pretty much alpha shoots anything that moves).

And guess what, boys and girls, it had action-based LOCKPICKING. Yeah. Fallout 3, eat your heart out.

And now let me blow your mind: when you were done with Hillsfar, you could import your character BACK to the party-based RPG.

Awesome. Such a shame Hillsfar didn't quite get it right (it could be downright infuriating, especially lockpicking).

So let me make a deal with you Chosen One afficionados: let's make Wasteland 2 a party-based mechanic and if popular enough, a Wasteland Lone Ranger action RPG can come out where you can import your WL2 character into a 3D environment. Then when you're done, you can import him into WL3 into a party again, where he gets to regale his squad mates with his adventures out east (your Lone Ranger feats perfectly documented and therefore writable into the game).

But for now: give me my group and get off my lawn.

[Kide]

Hillsfar sounds like an awesome concept. Will have to try and look at it at some point too.

But as said, now that I do understand the idea, I don't really need a main charachter as such. I actually prefer to customize part members a lot, I could be making a party in wizardry 8 for ages. I like that, but adding on the ways to customize them as mutch as possibly in game? That is what I would prefer. ^^

And as such I am not against lockpicking mini game for example. Bethesda does that stryle, that is fine, but games whitch do not have those minigames now are very few. Dragon ge origin's would be the only role playing game where I even had party and did not have minigames of lockpicking, but it was still in so many ways inferior to the games of older age to me, that really any old game beats it in my mind pretty mutch.

But I don't know why games have to be made for so casual consumer's, that everything the charachter does pretty mutch need's to feel effortless. I like to see "trouble" in game, I don't want to be given things. I like to explore in an open world, where you can be suprised how as you have science and doctor skill you find something you could not have even though of finding, not just text that tells you you need lockpicking skill of 25 to do this...

[wickedinsane]

Just giving my two cents, I would prefer playing as a loner rather than control a group of people.
NPCs should be recruitable though - just like in Fallout

[paultakeda]

That's jumping to conclusions to support your argument. In the interview he did clearly stated some of the changes like FPS, or what color boots people were wearing and things of that nature. If he comes on and says that wasteland wont have a leader character or that we can play a solo character then we will politely shut up and move on. However, until that happens, we will assume he is at least open to the idea of a leader/solo character.

He has clearly stated that publishers had no interest in a party based RPG.

Publishers just had no interest in a party based RPG and they felt like they would need to go up against the production costs of BioWare which are in the tens of millions of dollars.

So yeah. Not jumping. At all.

[SDF121]

Wasn't there already a sequel to Fallout? Wasteland was a party based game, the sequel is going to be a party based game. I don't want it to be "more like Fallout" any more than I want it to be more like Super Mario Sunshine.

Nor do we. We all want this game to be great and some of us believe that including a variety of options will only enhance this game by appealing to both camps. Want the standard party play of the Desert Rangers, fine you can do that. Want the more personal story of a Lone Wanderer, we have that too (although the main story arc would revolve around the Desert Rangers and whatever their mission would ultimately be in Wasteland 2).

What is the reason for being against the OP's idea? The discussion part of this is important, so what kind of sacrifices do you think would have to be made or in what way would it detract from the game?.

Exactly, the purpose of this forum is for us to discuss these matters in calm and orderly fashion. I really don't think that Brian Fargo and his team are going to incorporate some of our ideas simply because a majority of fans or a vocal minority cry out for them to do so. Rather, these forums are to provide them with a sort of litmus test from which they can gauge their ideas while also getting a feel for what interests their fans. I also think that these forums will become an indispensable to discuss the games features and mechanics once they release the beta. I trust Brian Fargo's judgment and I hope that everyone else will too. For now, let us discuss a variety of ideas and leave it to Fargo and his team to decide.

A game with two different opening scenarios requires more coding, more scripting, and more time spent doing the beginning twice. Furthermore, the whole point of the game is for it to be party based. It's not a lone hero game any more than it's an FPS or a platformer.

Your first point is indeed a valid point and one worth expanding upon in discussing this issue. However, your second point trivializes the matter with yet another straw mans argument by equating the idea of 'having the option to play the game solo while occasionally recruiting an NPC' to 'making Wasteland 2 into a fps or platformer'. Furthermore, I do not fully understand why some of you have the impression that I suggested that the second option be a 'lone hero' game. All I suggested was that an alternative route featuring a Lone Wanderer would provide for a more personal experience to the wasteland. This route would not play a significant role in the main story arc pertaining to the Desert Rangers but would provide for a supporting role to the stories main characters who are the Desert Rangers. We're not asking to hijack the game or plot with some epic story of a super man and his exploits, rather we would like to see the option for a more personal story from a different perspective. After all, I'm sure that many purists would find the idea of being able to play through the main story arc as a Lone Ranger offensive as it would diminish the need for a party of Rangers to complete objectives.

A game with two different opening scenarios requires more coding, more scripting, and more time spent doing the beginning twice. Furthermore, the whole point of the game is for it to be party based. It's not a lone hero game any more than it's an FPS or a platformer.

The fund goal has been met and exceeded already, don't you think those funds can be used to expand the game, just as always intended?
Also, there is no lone hero, that puts the wrong spin on the whole thing. Lone wanderer is a better term, and it only starts that way. As the OP mentions, the player who prefers are more singular identity still gets it, but can/will recruit party members. It's not as if starting with one PC means you can't ever have any party members (as the OP explains).

Exactly. Assuming that this game will continue to exceed it's initial goal, would my idea not provide for a means of expanding the game in a manner that would satisfy a fans of both sides?

Just because the two styles are somewhat similar doesn't make them interchangeable. Turn-based tactical and RTS are similar too. Should we have a third opening that's an RTS that's eventually folded into the rest of the game?

Yet another straw man argument which attempts to misrepresent my proposal. I never suggested that the two styles of solo or group play were necessarily interchangeable. Nor have I suggested that we replace group play with a solo campaign. All I suggested was to provide players with the option to either start the game by controlling a party of Desert Rangers or a single playable character or Lone Wanderer who can later recruit NPC's or PC's to his party. This is the general thrust of my idea and one that I thought would be the least controversial while appealing to a variety of fans of both Fallout and Wasteland. What does this have to do with turning Wasteland into an RTS? We don't want to see this game become an RTS and I seriously doubt that anyone genuinely believes that such a danger exists. Everyone here is a fan of the kind of RPG that Wasteland and (to a degree) Fallout represent. However, while some prefer the experience of guiding a group of PC's, some of us prefer the more intimate experience of controlling a single character in which we can identify with. Can we please confine the discussion to constructive criticism instead of making appeals to fear in place of reason?

"Some people can't tell the difference" ... "RTS"...? Why the sarcasm and hostility? We're all here supporting the same cause. No one is here saying Wasteland 2 should be first-person, no one is saying it should be hack and slash. Everyone here is a fan of what Fargo does with a cRPG. Wasteland is 24 years old, a lot has happened and changed since then, not all of it bad. Fargo has already said that Fallout did a lot of things well and he intends to use those things to make Wasteland 2 the best of both worlds.

Fallout was a party based game. I don't understand why you're saying it wasn't. Again, it just put less emphasis on party play than did Wasteland. If your only concern is if something like this will detract from the "pure Wasteland experience", why not let the devs worry about that part? If they can implement it and maintain Wasteland's core gameplay, great, if they can't, so be it. If it's going to absolutely ruin the game for every Wasteland fan out there and destroy their dreams, you needn't worry, because the idea will certainly be put to rest by the devs.

I maintain that it's a fantastic idea and, in my limited view as just a gamer (not designer), I can't see any major downside to it.

Exactly. Again, let us seriously discuss these issues rather than make gross generalizations or unsubstantiated appeals to fear and tradition. What would be some serious issues that my idea would represent. One concern raised was the additional coding that would have to be done to implement such an idea. This is a valid concern and one we should consider delving into. Would an increase of funds provide a means to alleviate this concern? Would using 2d sprites instead of 3d models provide for another means of implementing this? After all, 3d models complete with a rotational camera (as some of requested) requires more resources into detailing objects from every perceivable viewpoint. Would we still want 3d models or would we rather have 2d sprites from a fixed perspective so that more resources could be directed towards expanding the world and enhancing the gameplay?

Fallout was a party based game. I don't understand why you're saying it wasn't.

Because it wasn't.

So it's pretty black & white in your opinion then. In order for the game to be "party based" it has to: A. Have the player create all characters, and B. All characters are expendable. So, as you say with the case of Dragon Age, in spite of the fact that you actually play all of the characters in the party, none of them die, so it's not "party based".

How is that entirely different? I just don't see it. Any game that has a party, which you can control even minimally, is still a party game. Are these criteria you mention your opinion, or is there some type of classification somewhere that shows it is concrete?

I still don't understand how a game where you recruit members to create a party, and can then either control or influence this party throughout the game, is not a party based game. What is it, if not that?

Yes, what authority states that a party based game MUST include the features that you suggest? Is there a formal definition to back your claim or are you simply making an appeal to tradition? Is this just an expression of your opinion?

Linked so I don't have to rewrite it.

Fair enough, that explains exactly why you prefer full emphasis on party play. I can understand that. It does not however show where the idea came from that the only party-based game is one where it meets your specific criteria.

The piece of that post that strikes me as relevant is when you mention the narrative/story. Indeed, if the option to start alone or with a party was implemented, the two methods would have to coalesce at some point in the story, and the beginning would have to be different, but that's something that could be resolved, could it not? I'm not a game designer, so I can't think up some perfect way for this to happen, but I think the OP has great ideas in this regard.

The bottom line is that what the OP is talking about is not taking away the elements that you love, but rather adding more elements that other people love too. Ultimately, for any idea posed by the fans, the devs will have to determine if it will work for their game or not. This particular idea is a good one, and if the devs can implement it without it being half-assed, the end result will be good for everyone.

Bravo!

Indeed, if the option to start alone or with a party was implemented, the two methods would have to coalesce at some point in the story, and the beginning would have to be different, but that's something that could be resolved, could it not?

Probably not.

You're playing the "main character" version. You get to the part where "main" and "party" are supposed to mesh. Your main character dies. Do you keep playing?

That is the beauty of having options. For those who want to go the route of the Desert Rangers, the game continues until everyone in your party has perished. If you go the route of the Lone wanderer, wanting a more personal experience, your journey ends when your character dies. When your character dies, you simply load up an earlier save and try again. It's already become apparent that many fans of the strictly party based route despise the idea of the game ending when your main character dies. However, that is the point in having the route of the Desert Ranger- which would be the focus of the main story- be for them. For those who want a more personal touch to the wasteland and want to feel invested in their character, there would be the supporting role of the Lone Wanderer. Again, this discussion is about ways to provide options that will cater to fans of both routes. Aside from the extra coding that will be required, I don't see any serious issues with this approach so long as the route of the Lone Wanderer is incorporated into the main story as a supporting role.

[L]et's say Fargo and team decide to make it a game with a main character for everyone. All other party aspects remain fully "party based", with the caveat that you have a squad leader, for example. Would that ruin the game for you?

"Ruin"? Probably not. But I wouldn't be comfortable calling the game a true "Wasteland 2".

The name is it for the background and world interaction or for the gameplay?

If it's for the gameplay, I have bad news for you, wasteland 2 wouldn't have the same gameplay than wasteland, party based or not.

And in every team there are a leader who take decision, so a main character.
You talk about create 4 different characters, but in fact they don't have own personality but the same, they can't leave the group by themselves or being outraged by your choices, you just have one character divided in 4 parts.

The best choices for a rpg imo it's to have one character who is the "incarnation" of the player, and recruit others character who think by themselves. (and have a full developed background)

I agree. Having a party of blank slates is the one thing that put a blemish on my experience with Wasteland and Fallout Tactics. It doesn't help that both games center around members of an elite paramilitary unit which only seems to reinforce the uniformity of these characters. However, just because I have a preference for one PC does not warrant the removal of party play which is why I have suggested the inclusion of the Lone Wanderer as a supportive role. I still thoroughly enjoyed Wasteland and Fallout Tactics but think that the option of a Lone Wanderer as a supporting role would only add to the experience while making the game more inviting to those who may otherwise shy away from this kind of game.

If you really want to go solo, if i remember right the first game does allow you to do this. There are 7 total character slots that you can fill in the party, and you are allowed to make UP to 4 characters at the start of the game, however if you wanted to you could just make one and fill out all the slots with npcs that you meet. I see no reason why the new wasteland game wouldn't allow you to start after having made just one character. There is no need to have separate starting stories unless the developers choose to create multiple starting vignettes like in DA:O or ToEE, you just create one Desert Ranger instead of 4.

As I stated elsewhere in this post, I think that such an approach would only diminish the role of the Desert Rangers by making the necessity of party play seem less significant if the player can simply plow through the main story arc without any need for support.

So it's pretty black & white in your opinion then.

Definitions have a nasty habit of being black-and-white. Yes, a "party-based game" requires a party. That's why it's called a party-based game. A 2d side scrolling platformer needs to be 2d, scroll sideways, and involving jumping on platforms.

Again, you're busting out the "definition" play, when I have yet to see a definition outside of your posts. I see no sources. Where is the official claim that "party-based" means exactly what you're saying, and not just a game where you have a party that you control?
In any case, I'd say that to the majority of supporters, the OP's idea can be implemented in WL2, and it will in fact still be a party-based game. Perhaps not in your opinion, but, that's your opinion.

Agreed. Some of this threads objectors seems to be begging the question while simultaneously making appeals to tradition. Can we please calmly discuss the merits of my idea while providing genuine criticisms or concerns?

Why do I get the feeling this is exactly what a publisher was pushing on Brian Fargo and counts as one of the things that made him see red?
Wasteland is a return to the party-based CRPG, something that I don't think exists in this century's crop of RPGs. That, to me, was the pitch.

For Brian Fargo, don't forget who created this section and I just share my point of view for made the best RPG ever and I think it's the goal and the spirit of this forum.

Exactly. The point of these forums is to discuss these issues. Brian Fargo would not have created this particular sub forum if he was not at least entertaining the idea of implementing some kind of variation of a solo or party based approach. Perhaps we will be given the luxury of both options by being able to choose either one of the two as I have suggested. Again, I am not arguing for the solo route to be the main story arc of the game. Furthermore, we are not threatening to never play the game or withdraw support if our ideas of what Wasteland 2 ought to be never come to fruition. Like others have suggested, we are simply contributing to this discussion by providing our own insights and putting forth our own ideas on what we think would make Wasteland 2 great. We are not demanding that they be implemented, rather we ask that they simply be considered with the hope that we will have contributed to the games development. I trust Brian Fargo and his teams judgment and believe that they will be able to properly discern between what ideas would compliment their grand vision from those that would detract from their overall goals. There is no need for hostility.

If you aren't able to imagine personalities for separate characters, just make a single character. Be the 'chosen one' just like every other RPG out there these days.

But I don't want yet another 'chosen one' RPG that doesn't let me play my own characters. If they give joining NPCs loads of pre-generated content and story hooks, wonderful. If they give me optional story hooks that I can select for my custom party members, thats even better! But I don't want to be forced to play in the style of fallout or planescape. If I wanted to do that, I would just play those games!

Again, none of us are asking for there to be a chosen one. Can we please stop referring to the supporting role of the Lone Wanderer as 'The Chosen One'. It seems to me that such a phrase is beginning to carry an almost racist like connotation and tone with it as its increasingly being used in an almost derogatory and denigrating manner. Furthermore, it only serves to distort the true aim of this thread which was to suggest having the option to be a Lone Wanderer in a supporting role to the main story arc of the Desert Rangers.

How about you give a modern version of the party-based CRPG a chance to get made before you try to turn it into another Chosen One game?

Consult my previous remark.

This is a generation of gamers who probably never played pen-and-paper RPGs with friends, don't understand the concept of collaborative storytelling, and understand RPGs as being equivalent to "choose your own adventure" books.
They're puzzled by the idea of party-based games because they think "Hey, what do you mean party members 2 and 3 don't have a background written by a professional writer? What's the point then?" Their expectations have been trained and conditioned by the JRPGs and Bioware and Black Isle, which have produced excellent titles, but pretty much exclusively filled them with pre-constructed and exquisitely tightly-authored characters.
The pure party-driven RPG is an animal totally foreign (unless you count ToEE) to most everybody under the age of 30. Let them discover the glory. I doubt if the Wasteland 2 team is going to decide suddenly to make yet another "chosen one" game. Let us see what unfolds.

Again with the 'chosen one' remarks. While your initial claims may have some merit to them, to then attribute someones preference for a solo PC accompanied by several NPC's to ignorance coupled with a lack of imagination is a bit misguided. Where you may see a blank slate as an opportunity for the exercise of ones imagination, others may see it as lazy narration or game design. Although I can understand the appeal of a blank slate approach to party based play, understand that others may prefer a more personal experience by identifying themselves with a single PC which they use to interact with a variety of NPC's with their own distinct personalities that the player can recruit. The preference for these two distinct styles of play is something that the two route approach would attempt to remedy.

That's jumping to conclusions to support your argument. In the interview he did clearly stated some of the changes like FPS, or what color boots people were wearing and things of that nature. If he comes on and says that wasteland wont have a leader character or that we can play a solo character then we will politely shut up and move on. However, until that happens, we will assume he is at least open to the idea of a leader/solo character.

Exactly, the purpose of these forums is for a spirited discussion on these issues. Brian Fargo has a distinct vision for what he wants Wasteland 2 to be and these forums are nothing more than a litmus test to aid him in that vision. Again, there is no need for any hostility between fans of both camps. Let us continue to discuss these issues but with good will and reasoned discourse.

[Dragoslav]

I feel like prefacing this post with a bit of background: I've had a small bit of experience with traditional "party-based" cRPGs like Wasteland, and I am a big fan of PnP games, but my gaming history is mainly grounded in the "Main Character" subgenre of cRPG.

As for this issue, I'd like to discuss the merits of the proposal in a vacuum, regardless of funding concerns, but sadly I think that this is inevitable due to the nature of the game we're discussing. Expecting a different mode of gameplay is a taller order for a largely fan-funded project. On those grounds, I would reject the proposal of having two modes (a whole party of PCs vs. a single PC and various NPCs) simply because I think the man-hours and money spent on making this work would be better spent (and completely exhausted) on simply making one mode excellent.

However, another argument that I haven't seen brought up yet is a benefit of having two modes that precisely plays upon the "generational gap" mentioned earlier in the thread. That is, having two modes would be a "having your cake and eating it, too" situation where more people buy the game because the older grognards get to have their perfect Wasteland successor, while the younger players will buy it because it's an awesome PC RPG with a post-apoc setting, and then they'll probably try out the other mode, have fun with it, and show that future RPGs can be developed on this model and still be financially viable in today's gaming market.

Ultimately, if I had to choose between game whose mechanics were grounded on: 1) a party of PCs, 2) a main-character game, or 3) both, but neither really reaching their full potential, I would go with the first one because that is what would be both true to the original Wasteland and also an excellent game.

[krellen]

Dragoslav just made me realise a compelling argument against the "solo-PC" or "both" approach: it would completely fail to demonstrate the party-based system as something still viable in the modern market, which is one of the stated goals of the project.

For Wasteland 2 to truly prove party-based can still work, it has to be only party-based.

[SDF121]

I feel like prefacing this post with a bit of background: I've had a small bit of experience with traditional "party-based" cRPGs like Wasteland, and I am a big fan of PnP games, but my gaming history is mainly grounded in the "Main Character" subgenre of cRPG.

As for this issue, I'd like to discuss the merits of the proposal in a vacuum, regardless of funding concerns, but sadly I think that this is inevitable due to the nature of the game we're discussing. Expecting a different mode of gameplay is a taller order for a largely fan-funded project. On those grounds, I would reject the proposal of having two modes (a whole party of PCs vs. a single PC and various NPCs) simply because I think the man-hours and money spent on making this work would be better spent (and completely exhausted) on simply making one mode excellent.

However, another argument that I haven't seen brought up yet is a benefit of having two modes that precisely plays upon the "generational gap" mentioned earlier in the thread. That is, having two modes would be a "having your cake and eating it, too" situation where more people buy the game because the older grognards get to have their perfect Wasteland successor, while the younger players will buy it because it's an awesome PC RPG with a post-apoc setting, and then they'll probably try out the other mode, have fun with it, and show that future RPGs can be developed on this model and still be financially viable in today's gaming market.

Ultimately, if I had to choose between game whose mechanics were grounded on: 1) a party of PCs, 2) a main-character game, or 3) both, but neither really reaching their full potential, I would go with the first one because that is what would be both true to the original Wasteland and also an excellent game.

Finally, a well argued and compelling critique! I too would not want to implement the option of a main character if it means compromising the main story of the Desert Rangers. If there were some way to incorporate it into the main story, I certainly would not be opposed to it. Currently, my interest lies in ways of making this game appeal to fans of Fargo's work whether they be fans of Wasteland or Fallout. However, I think that it is important to properly discuss the implications that these ideas would have on Wasteland 2. Dragoslav has demonstrated the proper way to discuss these issues and I look forward to more critiques like them.

[paultakeda]

Dragoslav just made me realise a compelling argument against the "solo-PC" or "both" approach: it would completely fail to demonstrate the party-based system as something still viable in the modern market, which is one of the stated goals of the project.

For Wasteland 2 to truly prove party-based can still work, it has to be only party-based.

I always thought that was the point of the Kickstarter. It's how I understood the video pitch Fargo made was trying to convey.

[Svetlovska]

From someone old enough to have played pen and paper RPGs and is still a solo fan too: Apologies if this has already been addressed, but doesn't the 'mission recruitment' in Jagged Alliance 2 provide a possible workaround that honours *both* game play approaches, without karking the game play? The kind of thing I have in mind is a possible 'guild' 'gang colours', 'tribe' model, where the player (can choose to) align to a faction, and having done so can 'radio' or otherwise encounter colleagues from the faction, drawn from a wider pool - who might be capable of being created from scratch, or 'pre-rolled' with a few base enhanced skills, predisposing them to be the medic, the demo guy, the melee specialist, whatever - and capable of being recruited only from certain locations, and at some cost - maybe through a 'guild house' model. So, for the party player, the party stays together from word one, all the members of the party are acquiring skills & loot, creating stories, solving multi-person puzzles, tackling tough opponenets co-operatively etc... but, for the solo player, any or all of the party members can be drafted in and out of the 'mission' - perhaps at the various 'Guild houses' - and dead is always dead regardless.

So the hard core solo player can tough out all or most of the game solo, expecting and receiving no concessions (so the fights are 4 - 6 times tougher, but hey, buddy, if you roll that way, go for it); but with the option of drafting in back up if/when needed. (or at least at the next Guild watering hole, which might be an inconveniently dangerous distance away from where you need the help.) There's quid pro quo too - the solo player racks up all the skill, but maybe has to make difficult choices what skills branches to follow - choosing one line maybe shuts off others for good - and surely can't lug *all* the good loot; similarly, 'resting' guild members are *not* acquiring skills, so if left, the consequence of choosing not to draft them in is that they don't acquire skills at a rate to stay useful; which wouldn't happen to the all-party, all the time player.

It would mean that building a skilled team from a larger pool of possible candidates would involve shrewd choices of when to draft in help, and which personalities to call on for what anticipated tasks. I think this could square the circle, and add a whole planning/researching aspect to gearing up the best team for major in-game quests. What do others think?

[Lucius]

I strongly oppose any idea where there is options to play single person or party based. There have been many great arguments already made which I won't rehash. From a design perspective, however, having a split path would wreck balance. The design team would have to balance part of the world around single character and other sections around party play. After the two paths converge, would the lone wanderer be FORCED to take party members, thus removing choice? If not, once again balance issues. The game would also have to be balanced so that this main character isn't killed, whereas if balanced for a party an encounter can be designed that 2 or 3 party members will probably die.

Secondly, I pledged money to have a party-based game called Wasteland 2. I expect the party-based part to be similar to the experience I had with the original Wasteland. Not a very different party experience. This would alienate the core Wasteland fans in the worse possible way.

Not only that but I would be so pissed off if part of the funding for this project went to making people who like single hero rpg's happy. All the funding should be used to provide the primary audience who have waited 24 years for a Wasteland sequel with a true sequel. Not a watered down version to make a younger generation happy or Fallout fans happy.

[Drax715]

Personally, I think the only difference between starting the game solo or with an entire party should be degree of difficulty and maybe one or two sentences explaining why a Desert Ranger would go solo as opposed to in a squad. Meaning you can start the game solo, but the story would not be any different & it will be harder till you get some recruits. I prefer party members to have personalities myself, but its not a deal breaker and if it is implemented, it should be purely optional during party creation.

[Drool]

[lots of stuff]

Fun fact: "straw man" is not the same thing as "reductio ad absurdum".