Preferred party size in Wasteland 2 [poll added]

[Garfunkel]

Designing characters from the start feels too mechanic for my taste. It's only my opinion though...

And your opinion sucks and this topic has already been beaten to death several times. Stop flogging the poor dead horse and let lie in peace. Fargo has explicitly stated that the game will be party-based. There won't be a special character. End of story. Please save your energy and ideas for other, better threads.

[alexandergr]

I remember it's system being so fucked up that I would play the game without a thief, and if I needed one to open a door I would create one, open the door and dismiss him...

The system is fucked up? Sounds like cheating to me.

[Preceptor]

And your opinion sucks and this topic has already been beaten to death several times. Stop flogging the poor dead horse and let lie in peace. Fargo has explicitly stated that the game will be party-based. There won't be a special character. End of story. Please save your energy and ideas for other, better threads.

Like I told the guy at the beginning of the toppic, I have the right to express my opinions as much as anyone here and couldn't care less what you or anyone here (except the game designers) think about them.

The system is fucked up? Sounds like cheating to me.

How can it be cheating if the system explicitly allows it? I remember going to the options and doing it...

[alexandergr]

How can it be cheating if the system explicitly allows it? I remember going to the options and doing it...

OK, lets look it from another point of view.

I remember its system being so fucked up that I would play the game without a thief, and if I needed to open a door I would bring up the console command and open it...

How can it be cheating if the system explicitly allows it? I remember pressing ` and doing it...

Common sense guys, common sense.

[paultakeda]

To those writing about character personalities, etc. There's a thread about this topic where character generation can involve a number of potential ways to fill out the character. It was buried in my last post so I'm making it more explicit here.

Character Creation W/ Humanizing Stories

[Madball357]

Developer: Guys! I'm gonna make a party-based RPG!

Gamer: *pledges money* But I don't want a party-based RPG!

DUH.

[Preceptor]

And then again I will reiterate ... I thought that by party based he meant full control of the party like we had in IWD and BG and I didn't know it had to do with how the story was created. I still stand by my preferences, even though I know Fargo will do the game justice with whatever system he use

[readme]

I don't think that the party-based system in Wasteland 1 will satisfy Mort and Perceptor. It's been a long time since I played Wasteland but if I'm not mistaken it was nearly impossible to play with just one single character. It only would work if you were able to recruit npcs right in the beginning. I recommend that this should be possible. So everybody would be happy.

[drake]

would have liked 4 + 4 npc / clones .
But 4+2 would do , people the lack of imagination lately is killing me , not meant in a disrespectfull way .

Here wasteland first 4 characters were the ones you trained with before being sent out .
So cause people don't like to create 4 characters , just create 1 and load 3 defaults.
Use them as special npc you have to create your own storyline in your head .

Anyway less is not always beter , less is more casual fríendly , but more is beter cause for replay and learning value.

[Drool]

It's been a long time since I played Wasteland but if I'm not mistaken it was nearly impossible to play with just one single character.

You could play. Just probably not for very long before you were dead.

Although, I'm tempted to try a single Ranger playthrough of the game to try. It's not quite the same since I know the game inside and out, but I'll try to avoid major sequence breaking (ie: nabbing Covenant and Christine first thing) and, of course, I'll avoid using the super loot bag.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Crazy idea but why not make it like Jagged Alliance? Each recruitable person has his/her own personality, instead of being "Cannon Fodder #628". I know I know, old school cRPG, party matters people not and so on. But really, why not?

Nobody is saying they want one dimensional NPCs. Within the technology and space limits of the time, Wasteland gave its characters backgrounds.

Mort was a slick gambler. Mayor Pedros and Felicia were husband and wife. Danny was a young man being tortured for his knowledge of a hidden treasure. Jackie was a terrified little girl. Ralf was a bum caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ace was skilled technical man on a desperate mission for Faran Brygo and willing to work with people he personally hated if it got the job done. Christine was a tough survivalist chick who took no gruff from nobody. Dr. Mike Scott was a cultist doctor who longed to see the rest of the world. Mad Dog Fargo and Metal Maniac were tough-as-nails mercenaries laid low by poison. Vax was a robot designed to improve relations between humans and androids, which made him either a lost soul or a would-be insidious spy.

Yes. They all had stories. You had to read a little bit into them, but that's part of the game. Your PCs also have stories. You are supposed to supply them. Like "Lilly and her rangers" in the "Let's Play." The characters didn't have stories only if you didn't give them stories. True, their stories didn't really factor into the game directly, but their names did, and their skills did, and your character creation asks you to create a character, not just some stats. So, I guess what I'm saying is, it would be nice if your character history can be reflected in the WL2 world along with their names, but if we are free to make up our own history too, I'll be happy.

I was thinking about the idea of starting off with pregens, and I think it could work. The only issue is that the idea of starting off with pregens can be a turnoff for some people (not a deal breaker for me, but I do enjoy creating my own character). There's a certain charm about going "this is the group that I created." Furthermore, having these people with personalities will complicate things if/when they die off. Eventually you'll run out of characters with personalities.

Note, I'm assuming by "recruitable characters" you're referring to the standard party that you start off with, not the people that will join you in your travels.

By rercuitable (from here on recruitable, for some reason Chrome claims it's incorrect but checked it out so yeah) I mean people from Desert Ranger HQ. Of course people outside DRHQ should have their personalities too.

Why not add in possibility to create characters from scratch too? Jagged Alliance 2 pulled it off, although they only gave you one character you could make. As for running out of personalities, there is one idea I got.

Have certain number of pre-generated character attributes, such as likes, morals, etc. When character is created, these are assigned to character. See Dwarf Fortress to see what I mean. Personalities are created on the fly.

When you create Bob the Goon, he gets randomly assigned that he has no trouble killing children, likes color red, likes killing, isn't very smart (based on IQ) and such.

Then you make John the Fool and he gets does not like child killing, likes color red, prefers diplomacy but doesn't shy from killing.

This could lead to John and Bob having not so good internal relationship since they have very different views on child killing. Or not, depending how much we want our character personalities to factor into the game.

That is interesting. It's kind of how I imagine a party banter system functioning. (I would like to see an elaborate party banter system based on social skills that you develop, but that's another story.) If these kinds of character details can be generated, then they can be chosen too. Some more details about your characters would be nice, especially if it means they will be reflected in the game world. I always like the WL combat which put my characters' names into the the story. If WL2 can deliver the same thing with more details about the character and in more circumstances than combat, that would be very cool.

Nobody is saying they want one dimensional NPCs. Within the technology and space limits of the time, Wasteland gave its characters backgrounds.

Feeling I have got from these forums so far has been "no character interaction" and in general, displeasure to having any character personalities/qualities that could play into game outside their skill sets. As if characters were nothing but containers for skills. Then again, I freely admit that I am new here so I might have missed a lot already but I did check forums around.

Very true. I have also observed the same atmosphere. It's up to us to change the atmosphere. IMO these people are concerned about changing the RPG into a dating sim or a resource-management game. I think they do not have to fear about that. I don't want that either and I doubt you do too. I want to discuss how we can augment and enhance the RPG with more situational and contextual options for the characters, but I do not think that is turning it into a "sim" game, whatever that means. (IMO all computer games are a kind of "sim.")

[alexandergr]

In my country we have a saying that I will try to translate.

"When someone is burned from eating mush, he will blow even yoghurt."

[Prometheus]

Dumb question, but why can't we have our cake and eat it too?

Why does a player-created party have to be one-dimensional and have no personality? Why can't I do something akin to Fallout Tactics where I recruit "people" (read: character portraits and/or voices) into my party, tweak their stats/skills and then be able to level them and adjust them as I please as I play the game?

It doesn't even have to be that rigid; the point is to have party characters that have some personality, and I don't see why I can't be in charge of creating them and then having a character that's interesting to play with.

Another option/alternative could be to have backstories generated somewhat randomly based on character generators for PnP RPGs. So you could easily have backstories for party characters without having to sacrifice player creativity.

Want a squad of snipers or ninjas? You can get that, but still have personalities from the party characters.

[Rink]

Hmm it isn't a dumb question, but I guess it is hard to make a personality that is completely different than the skills are.
I don't know what skills will be included in the game, but if someone has a mental limitation in charakter writing (you know: Minsk), then it just doesn't fit if you are able to set his IQ to 140.

For the developers it is good if they don't have to write backstories, personalities, comments and quests for all that party members, but for me as a gamer it would be nicer, if I would at least be able to only create 1 character and fill my party up with people that have stories, are able to interact and react, can be included in romances or not agree with my actions etc. I don't mind if others fill their parties with soulless quiet powergamer-characters though.

[Woolfe]

<Snip>

Yes. They all had stories. You had to read a little bit into them, but that's part of the game. Your PCs also have stories. You are supposed to supply them. Like "Lilly and her rangers" in the "Let's Play." The characters didn't have stories only if you didn't give them stories. True, their stories didn't really factor into the game directly, but their names did, and their skills did, and your character creation asks you to create a character, not just some stats. So, I guess what I'm saying is, it would be nice if your character history can be reflected in the WL2 world along with their names, but if we are free to make up our own history too, I'll be happy.

Ok, but in respect to this particular Poll, all we are talking about is how many people are in your party. The story elements or the lack of, are a different issue, and should be argued in a different thread.

That is interesting. It's kind of how I imagine a party banter system functioning. (I would like to see an elaborate party banter system based on social skills that you develop, but that's another story.) If these kinds of character details can be generated, then they can be chosen too. Some more details about your characters would be nice, especially if it means they will be reflected in the game world. I always like the WL combat which put my characters' names into the the story. If WL2 can deliver the same thing with more details about the character and in more circumstances than combat, that would be very cool.

Again, not appropriate to this thread. The existence of banter within or around the party, has little to do with the number of people in your party.

Very true. I have also observed the same atmosphere. It's up to us to change the atmosphere. IMO these people are concerned about changing the RPG into a dating sim or a resource-management game. I think they do not have to fear about that. I don't want that either and I doubt you do too. I want to discuss how we can augment and enhance the RPG with more situational and contextual options for the characters, but I do not think that is turning it into a "sim" game, whatever that means. (IMO all computer games are a kind of "sim.")

Again, not appropriate to this thread which is about how many people make up the membership of your party.

If you want to discuss the personality or lack thereof of the party, then use one of the other threads, or create a new one. This thread is just about how many characters you can have in your party, and how many of them are Player characters. (No definition on PC is being used in this comment)

Please take it to another thread. This one has been used and abused in the same way so many times, I'm thinking its got a sado masochistic streak
Seriously the argument we have been having throughout this thread has very little to do with the number of PC's and NPC's in the party, and everything to do with the way the PC's (whichever style) are done. That argument would be much more appropriate in its own thread. Heres one that is already in play. Character Creation W/ Humanizing Stories

[Mort2]

For the developers it is good if they don't have to write backstories, personalities, comments and quests for all that party members, but for me as a gamer it would be nicer, if I would at least be able to only create 1 character and fill my party up with people that have stories, are able to interact and react, can be included in romances or not agree with my actions etc. I don't mind if others fill their parties with soulless quiet powergamer-characters though.

Note that most group games that follow that easy way are tactical ones, considering that this is an RPG, I expect them too do that "extra" work.

Ok, but in respect to this particular Poll, all we are talking about is how many people are in your party. The story elements or the lack of, are a different issue, and should be argued in a different thread.

I recall arguing that this not the case. If we have "story elements" I dont care what mix will be chosen 4-2 sound nice, if we dont I vote for the option with as many NPC possible.

For that matter why there is no a six player group with up to 4 player created characters?

[BlackGauntlet]

For that matter why there is no a six player group with up to 4 player created characters?

Isn't that what the poll option, with the highest score now, mean that?

[Mort2]

or so. Kinda leaves it your interpretation.

I find this poll meaningless, in terms of party composition, because the assumption in the OP. The way I see it:
option 1 means keep the same setting as in W1.
option 3 means change the setting to allow less player-created and? (more NPC? from the start? balance?)
option 6 means give focus to "npc" "companions" "premades" or "story elements"(you pick)

people voted not because they know what anything means but due to their assumption and process of elimination. There are 4 options without any recruits, one option that says solo (in a group game...) and two other option. one of which says 4, the other says up to four, you dont need to know anything about W1, FO and or RPG's to pick the one that offers more flexibility (i.e. the later one).

I am voting for option 6 as anyone who like more focus on the RPG part should (and you can regarding the solo part as an 'or so').

EDIT: mixed 5 with 6

[Tel Prydain]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out… but does anyone else think it’s interesting that the new image Brian posted shows four rangers in clear detail, and then just the vague outlines of three other people?

I could be reading into things, but that lends a certain amount of credence to the idea of four rangers + three NPC companions.

[Son of Max]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out… but does anyone else think it’s interesting that the new image Brian posted shows four rangers in clear detail, and then just the vague outlines of three other people?

I could be reading into things, but that lends a certain amount of credence to the idea of four rangers + three NPC companions.

Yeah, I noticed that too and it's left me quite optimistic about how things are going to shake out in the end.