Optional relationship setting within player's squad

[junk11]

No, don't get me wrong. I'm not talking just about romance...

So I posted an idea on google, about add one relationship setting at the start of the creation
we don't really see how our own squad react with each other...back then only use the power of "imagination"
(well...still do now with games like "lengend of Grimrock" )
when player's squad is talking to npc, we have one line general decision only in the dialog...
I feel It's the weakness of party creation game and since wasteland doesn't focus only heavily on the combat system like Icewind Dale, shouldn't we add more dialogs during our own travelling once in a while?
(I know there is actually a mod for Icewind Dale series that has premade characters that interact with one player's own created character)

what I propose is an "optional" relationship setting that reflects the relationship within player's own squad members.
so there would be a ranger who is another ranger's "best sidekick", "old time rivalry" or "just can't get along"
not just somekind of "love" relationship between the two, e.g. "lovers", "unspoken love"
this then can add interaction between player's rangers during coversation, after talk or travelling.
(I know there is one topic about the dialog system used in Storm of Zehi. That's a good system, but I want to add more)
plus, you would still have interactions even no NPC is in your group.
However, it should not affect on any choice made by player. It MAY have an effect on performance for the particular quest. But they don't "leave" or whatever...this is player's own party, they should have a greaty common goal that forced them work together.

Also this setting can have effects on battlefield.
I mean, when you have a sidekick next to you, you will(maybe) perform much better than alone.
but when your sidekick gets KO'd, you get mad, raged, going kamikaze mode
add some spices on the battlefield...
so what do you think?

[krellen]

I often did things in old party-based games like have two characters be brothers, or a husband/wife team. I would play them as such - the couple would try to protect each other (sometimes to the exclusion of the rest of the party), the brothers would team up together more often than not. I don't know that the game really needs mechanics in place to encourage this - it should just be an organic part of game play.

[stonetoes]

I like it. Integrating it into conversations with NPCs could be difficult and seeem forced, but having it dictate little snippets of party banter could be cool. It could be like the reactions of Jagged Alliance mercs to eachother's actions. For instance when Tex sees Fox (who he likes) get a critical kill he says "You still got it Foxy!"

If we don't have voice acting I would guess creating a variety of these reactions would be pretty simple. It depends if they plan to have intra-party banter already, or if this would have to be created.

I like the idea of having stat bonueses or the like too. Even if it was just a moral boost or somesuch. What advantage would there be to having a rival/enemy relationship in your group though? A bonus when the loner is working alone? A morale bonus when the rival dies?

I think this could be a good way of turning your team into characters in an RPG, rather than just faceless soldiers.

The other option would be to have it randomised and secret, so you have to work out what the relationships are as the game goes on.

[paultakeda]

This would be a low priority for me. As krellen mentioned, your core party is role played by you. Nothing is stopping you from playing husband and wife, siblings, cousins, etc. and I've done as much in the past. The need to make this an affirmation via a character creation mechanic does not feel necessary to the game.

What is more compelling is to have background mechanics in character creation that have direct consequences in the game with regards to interactions with NPCs, quests and locations. I would put more priority on that as it enhances game content.

This feels more like a crutch to role playing, but I can be convinced. Show me how this would increase game immersion (beyond party banter, I tend to provide my own party banter in party-based CRPGs ) and I may change my tune.

(edited with a bit more explanation)

[stonetoes]

This feels more like a crutch to role playing.

Meh, I'd view it more as a catalyst, like rolling up random character flaws in a pnp rpg. You can ignore them or change them, but it gives you a starting point for inspiration.

[paultakeda]

Meh, I'd view it more as a catalyst, like rolling up random character flaws in a pnp rpg. You can ignore them or change them, but it gives you a starting point for inspiration.

If all character sheets had a freetext background info box where you can enter anything else you'd like not covered by a background mechanic, that may be enough to inspire people, even if all they put in is, "Hates Jon." Then you go create a character named Jon.

[ffordesoon]

I am definitely going to play at least one game of Wasteland 2 with two Rangers who hate each other, one of whom is named Jon. Jon's last name will be Warhead, and he will have mutton chops and a cleft lip. The other Ranger will be called Kenneth Violence, and he will have an affected Cockney accent and a pipe he carved out of a slaver's skull. And Kenneth will despise Jon, and Jon will despise Kenneth.

And only Todd Explosion will be able to calm them. It will be a shame when Todd Explosion steps on a land mine and only Quentin Lettuce is there to stop them going apeshit on each other.

My, I'm looking forward to this game.

[junk11]

This would be a low priority for me. As krellen mentioned, your core party is role played by you. Nothing is stopping you from playing husband and wife, siblings, cousins, etc. and I've done as much in the past. The need to make this an affirmation via a character creation mechanic does not feel necessary to the game.

What is more compelling is to have background mechanics in character creation that have direct consequences in the game with regards to interactions with NPCs, quests and locations. I would put more priority on that as it enhances game content.

This feels more like a crutch to role playing, but I can be convinced. Show me how this would increase game immersion (beyond party banter, I tend to provide my own party banter in party-based CRPGs ) and I may change my tune.

(edited with a bit more explanation)

By reading the post u linked, It actully reminds me about the 2 background choices u can pick in Mass Effect 1.
By choosing Shepard's birthplace and event in previous army life leads to different quests, dialogs.
Increase the replayability and deepen the plot.

It's actually can be done with the relationship system I have done...
but this time.. the quests are not only related to one ranger in your sqaud with NPC or the world,
but also the other ranger who has the relationship with you.
This can leads to strengthen the "buff" between the two, "debuff" or new items useable only with the two
(hell, even items can be used only when the two are close to each other or far away?...etc).
Quests can be someting linked to the past, or new events challenging your relationship.
and this system can coexist with those archetypes.. so its like a mixture of things
you have ur career background but also an extra interaction with your own squad.
eg. having a sidekick doctor who can heals you more than other guys in the group.
have a quest to help your sidekick..blah..blah..blah..

So why do I want this relationship option?
I mean "ye, everyone can play their own characters' banter or relationship in their own mind". But truth to be told, not every1 can play minecraft at the start and have fun with it...not every1's "imagination" is on the same page. ye, this is one reason for me to propose such thing. To reach those people who hates the idea of creating 4 players with no interaction, pure slughtering machines and doll-like. You then might say, "this game won't be epic, if it trys to please everyone". Yeah, but I don't think adding such system is a bad thing. Basically, it's a optional setting for the group, it helps deepen the plot and increase replayabilityl. And i can see there are some people in the forum like the idea of having one protagonist as their avatar more than roleplaying four avatars.

the second reason is that, imagination of our own is like playing the game with extra rules of thumb.
It doesn't have "real" value or restriction in game when trying to play that way, and u can easily break it in some circumstances. The relationship setting can "force" you thinking that, for example, those two best sidekicks should be close together in battlefield because the "buff" they can from each other. or even a special quadruple-team killing cam in the end of the fight..(ye i'm joking, i went to far).

So does the setting only affect between the two characters only in the squad?
NO, it will have effect on other team members. It's for sure your best sidekick has more or less feeling against someone who is your rival. More related quests can address that as well. But then, the more you put in, the more workloads for the dev.

It's something I have in mind, I don't mind creating my own party. The setting can emphasise the feeling of "band of brothers"(well, at least for me ). If you think the idea is still something at the level like wife, husband, cousin or whatever setting you can do in you own brain, then I'm fine with it. After all, I'm just throwing ideas during my holidays.
(keep my brain functioning, not drinking and killing braincells)

May think to expand more on this setting, but It comes with time

[paultakeda]

I am definitely going to play at least one game of Wasteland 2 with two Rangers who hate each other, one of whom is named Jon. Jon's last name will be Warhead, and he will have mutton chops and a cleft lip. The other Ranger will be called Kenneth Violence, and he will have an affected Cockney accent and a pipe he carved out of a slaver's skull. And Kenneth will despise Jon, and Jon will despise Kenneth.

And only Todd Explosion will be able to calm them. It will be a shame when Todd Explosion steps on a land mine and only Quentin Lettuce is there to stop them going apeshit on each other.

My, I'm looking forward to this game.

I should start another social feature thread (because they are so popular ): share gamer created PCs.

[Fatman]

This thread made me think about ME 1 and the 'banter' between party members. In case someone reading this hasn't played it, the characters that were in your party at the time would have short conversations about recent events. They weren't very long... Just 3 to 4 lines. I liked this because it fleshed out the characters just that much more, and it could add some of what people are looking for in this thread without forcing it into conversations.

As for creating your own stories, the only game I really did this in was X-Com UFO Defense. Which was a terrible idea, because you could have 80% casualties on any given mission.

[Irx]

I usually metagame such things, but an actual game system would be fun.