Rangers ,essential or not?

[The_A_Drain]

Not going to happen. That's a main character (i.e. "Chosen One") RPG

Not necessarily. In fact you could even add another layer of team-creation strategy by doing it this way for an entire team. There's nothing that says you can't be an expedition from a wasteland settlement, a squad of rangers, a group of raiders, etc.

Each of their openings could even offer longer term strategic decisions, perhaps the raider opening gives players access to some explosives earlier on whereas the ranger one provides better equipment, the settlement team might start out with worse equipment but more food/water/money, etc.

I'm still not entirely sure if I think the style would fit but there's no reason it can't apply to more than one person and still function as intended. Nothing precludes a single-character storyline, in fact the main story in Dragon Age: Origins didn't even kick in until long after the openings had ended.

And Dragon Age 2 didn't even have those origin stories so I don't know why you felt it pertinent to mention it. I'm not talking about any other features from those games, I'm literally just suggesting the origin style as a potential opening candidate to accommodate people who want multiple starting factions, that's all.

[paultakeda]

Not necessarily. In fact you could even add another layer of team-creation strategy by doing it this way for an entire team.

You want to play up to four distinct solo PC quests before you can even get started with a ranger squad?

I'm still not entirely sure if I think the style would fit but there's no reason it can't apply to more than one person and still function as intended. Nothing precludes a single-character storyline, in fact the main story in Dragon Age: Origins didn't even kick in until long after the openings had ended.

I disagree. I can go with a background pick list during character creation, but I don't want to play an origin quest. Not for this game. For DA:O, sure. That's the design of the game and the main story started the instant you created your main character.

And Dragon Age 2 didn't even have those origin stories so I don't know why you felt it pertinent to mention it.

I bring up DA2 as an example of a major change in format for a supposed sequel to DA:O. Some would say F3 did much the same "disservice" to F1/2.

Wasteland is about the rangers. The origins of these rangers can be incorporated in many ways during character creation but the game itself is about rangers. As I've mentioned in the thread on character creation, it's a nice idea to select background that can be incorporated into the game. But again, I do not want to play an origin quest, let alone multiple origin quests, before I then have a ranger squad for the main game.

[The_A_Drain]

You want to play up to four distinct solo PC quests before you can even get started with a ranger squad?

What? No. That would be ridiculous. Just a brief opening as the squad you've created based on whether or not that squad is raider, slaver, ranger, settler, whatever.

EDIT: I think I've been unclear on what I mean. I didn't mean an enclosed questline that is separated from the rest of the world. I simply meant a different starting location. Take the geography of Fallout 1 for example, as a vault dweller you begin in the cave outside the vault. If it were a raider you could start in the raider camp, if it were a settler you could start in shady sands. All of those are close together, provide a good starting platform and with a different opening scene for each one could easily provide different ways for a player to start as whatever kind of character they prefer.

Also worth noting that in Fallout you start as a Vault Dweller, whereas Fallout 2, a tribal. But it really makes no difference to the kind of game or settings contained. So I don't see how something similar here would do anything but add a bit of diversity to the games opening few minutes, essentially just expanding character creation into the first few minutes of the game to really ground a player in his chosen background.

I disagree. I can go with a background pick list during character creation, but I don't want to play an origin quest. Not for this game. For DA:O, sure. That's the design of the game and the main story started the instant you created your main character.

Or a background selection, that would be fine also. I was just offering suggestion for a way to get groups to start from different backgrounds that didn't require being a ranger and starting at Ranger HQ, because a few people seemed to like that idea.

I bring up DA2 as an example of a major change in format for a supposed sequel to DA:O. Some would say F3 did much the same "disservice" to F1/2.

Change of format does not necessarily equal disservice. So that's a little bit out of whack.

Wasteland is about the rangers. The origins of these rangers can be incorporated in many ways during character creation but the game itself is about rangers.

The first game is about the Rangers journey through the wasteland. I'd say the world itself plays the bigger role.

As I've mentioned in the thread on character creation, it's a nice idea to select background that can be incorporated into the game. But again, I do not want to play an origin quest, let alone multiple origin quests, before I then have a ranger squad for the main game.

A background will perform the same function if you don't want to play a quest. I'm not really hung-up on the origin quests, just making suggestions for opening the game from the perspective some people put forward of Ranger HQ/being a Ranger not being the only starting point.

I have to say I quite like the idea myself but even if they all became Rangers at some point and ended up where they are when you begin the game a background selection ala Arcanum would be really nice whether it involves a quest for the team you make or not.

[paultakeda]

You want to play up to four distinct solo PC quests before you can even get started with a ranger squad?

What? No. That would be ridiculous. Just a brief opening as the squad you've created based on whether or not that squad is raider, slaver, ranger, settler, whatever.

How brief? Character creation's enough of an opening for me for this type of game.

Or a background selection, that would be fine also. I was just offering suggestion for a way to get groups to start from different backgrounds that didn't require being a ranger and starting at Ranger HQ, because a few people seemed to like that idea.

I don't mind that idea, either. In fact, I like it. I just don't want it to be a production but rather a part of character creation (a wizard with choices or a simple pick list, anything that sets flags much like a stat).

Change of format does not necessarily equal disservice. So that's a little bit out of whack.

For me, a sequel really needs to stick to the basic format of the game. DA2 should not be called DA2. It should just be DA:Wolfe or something, and I would be fine with it. For Fallout 3, I actually happen to be fine with it as it kept a lot of the same mechanics as the prior Fallout games (SPECIAL, solo player RPG, a plethora of skills and perks). DA2, however, that just changed way too much and it really was a disservice.

The first game is about the Rangers journey through the wasteland. I'd say the world itself plays the bigger role.

I would say the world is the canvas upon which the story of the rangers takes place.

[The_A_Drain]

How brief? Character creation's enough of an opening for me for this type of game.

Very very very brief, technically not even really a 'quest', I edited above because I didn't think I had been clear enough.

I don't mind that idea, either. In fact, I like it. I just don't want it to be a production but rather a part of character creation (a wizard with choices or a simple pick list, anything that sets flags much like a stat).

I tend to forget just how long rolling up 4 characters takes. Last few times I've played BG for example I've rolled solo, and rolling a decent solo takes hours, so you're right. Character creation is long enough as is.

DA2 should not be called DA2. It should just be DA:Wolfe or something, and I would be fine with it. For Fallout 3, I actually happen to be fine with it as it kept a lot of the same mechanics as the prior Fallout games (SPECIAL, solo player RPG, a plethora of skills and perks). DA2, however, that just changed way too much and it really was a disservice.

I'm not disagreeing Dragon Age 2 was a disservice, that game got all of my hate. I despised it, but not necessarily for the formula change, but because I thought that change was bad, and the story pacing was crap, and the sheer level of asset re-use obnoxious, and the combat boring, and the AI intolerably stupid with the added frustration of having no direct control over them. Etc etc. Change is something that makes people understandably nervous.

I would say the world is the canvas upon which the story of the rangers takes place.

I can get on-board with that.

[Wanderer]

Through out the board I have seen words like "rangers HQ","ranger center" and ... So many times. I know rangers are a part of wasteland's identity,but should the player be forced to be a ranger? Or at least let him choose what he wants to be. Personally I like the idea of no strings attached.

I think if the player wants to be a raider,a ganger or even a lone wolf, he should have the choice.He may even want to fight the rangers, again its his choice. What do you think?

http://twitter.com/#!/BrianFargo/status ... 64/photo/1

[Brother None]

The Desert Rangers are returning



EDIT: hah, well done, Wanderer.

[Orko]

i could easaly imagin that there would be a greate sceme in the world, and you could follow that from different sides.
So you still had basicly the same overall story arc, but with different starting points. You could start as a settler from a small village to set out finding out why there are so many attacks resantly. And than there would be the keeper of wisdoms from their stell caves to find that stolen equipment. And naturaly the rangers who heard of immens build up of forces in a region and dispatch a squad to investigate.
All these could converge on the main story plot. While the open world side quest would be for all the same. Also maybe you could unlock with a playthrough the other side of the story to conquer the wastelands or recruit more for the cause.

All that would need some tweaks to the story, some dialoge changes here and there, but i can see that implemented without compromising the overall story.
The Ranger starting story would be the default but you could choose to start as a settler and would have a total different option on what you start the game. And would see the story unfold from another angle.

[Lucius]

The Desert Rangers are returning

and I can't wait!

[kwanzaabot]

I say keep the rangers, but give us background options for our characters. Maybe with a bonus perk and some dialogue options. There could be things like "tribal", "ex-raider", "born and bred desert ranger", "wasteland scavenger", etc etc.

That way, not everyone's rangers are exactly the same.

[paultakeda]

I say keep the rangers, but give us background options for our characters. Maybe with a bonus perk and some dialogue options. There could be things like "tribal", "ex-raider", "born and bred desert ranger", "wasteland scavenger", etc etc.

That way, not everyone's rangers are exactly the same.

You may want to read this thread.

[SDF121]

If I remember correctly, in the original Wasteland, the Rangers had integrated themselves with several survivalist communities after the world went to hell. Perhaps the OP would like the option to make his Ranger someone who was a member of one of these survivalist communities instead of a US Ranger before the war? Ultimately, the end remains the same as these survivalists were brought into the Ranger organization but their back story would be different.

[BJAltman]

For my part I'll say I could take or leave the Rangers. In all fairness they didn't factor in that much in the original Wasteland. They provided a starting point and some blokes you radioed into after you thought you killed enough wretches. Outside of that, very little. We're given a reason for it at the very end, which worked well enough as an excuse for giving you complete freedom to run about. The rangers were good for background and a good starting point, but the real character of the game was the wasteland itself. That is the real character and the only thing I consider essential. The rangers were one product of that.

I'm fine with playing a ranger. I'm of course more interested in alternative starts, even if they are just backgrounds/preludes you play through until you join the rangers.

Where its clear the rangers are returning, its not clear what capacity they are returning in. Assuming they are the organization to which the character belongs, I would like to see them play a larger role than they did in the original Wasteland.

[phtmyr]

Even though I didn't played WL1 through, I'd prefer WL2 story to revolve around rangers. I don't think it'll hurt the game. In fact it can allow a stronger and consistent story to be written. We will probably also have all these side quests involving other people so it doesn't really matter.

Still, after WL2 is released I'd like to see an expansion pack (or DLC...) where you play as an independent wanderer.

[Son of Max]

Desert Rangers.

Wasteland just isn't Wasteland without The Desert Rangers.

[Leif]

If we're all going to be forced to start off as a Ranger I'd at least like the opportunity to leave the group as the story progresses.

[SkepticsClaw]

Personally, I think WL2 should certainly focus on the Rangers; it's a big part of the Wasteland atmosphere in my book, and also makes practical sense too. Let's not kid ourselves - this game does not have an enormous budget. Choosing character background in this way would either be superfluous fluff which has no real impact on gameplay (the very definition of that LARP thing), or it would effect parts of the story significantly, in which case the game just got a lot more complex. I think by narrowing assumptions about what the player is and where they are going will allow the designers to spend more time creating a deeper and richer experience. The core value for me in this game is not on whether I'm pretending to be a slaver or a poor boy from a broken home, but in moral dilemmas, exploration, and building an efficient and powerful team of warriors. The Rangers lore fits this like a glove.

I also would frankly prefer the Rangers as they represent the player and the nature of the game very effectively. I don't think the Wasteland should feel like home - it should be a bizarre and alien environment full of danger and the unexpected. The player should in some sense represent civilisation encountering the wilds; this is the essence of the exploratory instinct, and the Rangers provide a compelling in-game justification for that. It's a fitting set-up.

Also radioing in for promotion, character ranks, the use of the Ranger Center as a neat justification for character creation, and the immediate team aspect a military squad brings are all nice, flavourful things in WL I would hate to see gone. Being a Ranger shouldn't limit roleplaying; people who belong to an organisation can have any type of personality or motivation for being there. People are not defined by their jobs or some superficial background like 'I was born in a hut!', but by their traits and deeds.

[Plasmablaster]

My own preference on the issue raised with the thread is that I'd like to start the game free of any allegiance and choose any faction I'd like to belong to. So, rangers yes, but not obligatory.

[Lucius]

My own preference on the issue raised with the thread is that I'd like to start the game free of any allegiance and choose any faction I'd like to belong to. So, rangers yes, but not obligatory.

Oh well. As been said around these forums, this isn't choose your own RPG. Go try to warp someone else's sequel.

[Lanatir]

Simple: Dont wanna play rangers, play another Game. This is Wasteland, it is about the desert Rangers, and Brian Fargo CLEARLY STATED multiple times that part 2 will be about the Rangers too.