Build or recruit a party?

[octavius]

By firing up Wiz8.

Only Wiz 8?
Is it easier due to the different voice sets?

 

[Lhynn]

And it applied to how many characters and gear pieces? Edwin had his amulet - ok, anyone else?
Exactly, why wouldn't, for example, a somewhat asshole dwarf interesting in killing shit for fun and profit (but mostly profit) give up all his stuff and go up to willingly become a dorf roast?

Because thats how much control the game gives you over the recruitables, it isnt a bad thing. This games gameplay would be influenced negatively if it was.

If anything Wiz 8 RPC (oh the irony) behaviour should be absolute minimum, with personal items that are unequippable but can't get moved out of character's inventory and stuff like turning on the party if they, for example, attack character's friends.

Sure, except maybe thats part of your strategy, a fire immune character getting bombarded with fireballs on the frontlines would be good. That some character complained and turned against you in the middle of the combat because of this would be ass.

Ideally, you should have this, plus stuff like characters refusing to give up gear unless given better or equal gear of their favoured type unless in specific circumstances.

Ideally for another game with other mechanics and a different gameplay, and it would not be better for it, it would be different.

Yeah, well, no.
A game where you can make a paladin with established character (or better yet, a chaotic good type) skewer orphans for no reason then whine about party being assholes instead of flat out refusing or even attacking your murderous ass is a shit one.

Sure, they should have added more scripts for stuff like that,

You don't need to be able to strip independent characters naked or make them stab townsfolk either for vast majority of sensible strategies.

Uh, yeah you do, give the best armor to two of your frontliners and have the third wear a leather armor or nothing because hes going to be sitting on the backlines. i dont want him bitching that "i took his armor away". Itd be fucking retarded.

Even modern day bethpizda can accomplish that (see Skyrim which has - kludgy and not very useful in the thick of things, but still - command menu and characters that refuse to perform actions conflicting with their morality and don't give up their personal gear even if they can replace it with better one if you give it to them).

This is not impressive at all, also, it adds nothing.

Control is good because tactics is good, but characters should filter the commands through their own judgement. This could mean a moral character refusing killing innocents in cold blood or stealing shit

You had this in bg.

a cowardly character running from battle,

You had this in BG.

a berserker ignoring your orders and just charging in

You had this in BG.

Also pretty much any character not just giving up vital gear.

Why not? They dont need it, someone else in the team does.

This could mean some interesting tradeoffs too - for example would you like a disciplined, average fighter or a powerhouse that charges in ignoring your orders and brains townspeople for looking at him funny?

Sure, stronger personalities would be good. Tho there are tons of factors you cant communicate to the game, it could create a lot of frustration not being able to do the obviously most effective things because the game simply cant understand what you are trying to do.

 

[Zombra]

How do you LARP 6-8 different characters?

I do it in every party RPG. This is probably a conversation that deserves its own thread if you're interested, but the main point is that the "main character" in a party RPG is not "you", because there is no "main character". "You" are the whole party, but that doesn't mean that they are a hivemind or should be considered such. Consider film: an actor can only portray a single character, but a director motivates all the characters, including those in conflict with one another. Be the director.

 

[Daemongar]

Eh, I can play both, but I prefer 6 player custom parties over all. Just allows so much flexibility, beyond normally stated reasons. My #1 reason is that no character is indispensable/the main char to the story, so the story doesn't take the "You are secretly king, savior, ultimate being" route. They all can die, and may. As long as one makes it out of combat alive, they get all the xps and you are free to dump off the dead and add more players. The players are there to support or mess up the storyline.

There is a place for pre-gens/scripted companions, but there is a lot of baggage with that:
1. They can all be really annoying. In BG1, you just had to bypass their text at your own liesure. Now, with everything voiced, it can be brutal. That elf gal singing in DA:O (fuck!) and Alister, aslo in DA:O. I need them, but I also need them to shut up. Too prone to cutscenes.
2. They spend too much time reflecting on how important or whatever the "main character" is.
3. Too many quests to flesh out their lives, background, whatever. Again, BG1 didn't do a bad job of this with the statue of that broad at the circus. I just don't want to visit their mother or whatever to get that damn 50k xps. I need the xps, but come on, don't make me do this.

If I'm playing scripted companions, I want quantity over quality. A metric ton of them that have shallow existences and personalities summed up in a few sentences, rather than 4 or 5 that all have deep wounds that only my character can heal.

 

[Fargus]

I think i'll go with recruiting. It's nice when your companions have something to say and not just created for the only sake of being killing machines.

 

[naossano]

Sadly it isn't (though it should).

Take BG you presumably love, for instance.
It tries to work like full party game despite it being effectively a solo game with followers.

It results in all sorts of sad mishaps like evil, self interested characters willingly walking up to the protagonist, giving up all their possessions and meekly getting the fuck out or a game built like party based one but ending when just one character bites it making it dependent on either metagaming or avoidance of certain, otherwise perfectly valid builds.

If a game has predefined *characters* joining you, they should act like independent characters which in BG only happens when they start to duke it out between themselves (which is the only part of BG I would describe as awesome), rather than player's compliant pawns.

A proper party based game is something like Wizardry - player makes all their characters and gets to define them in full, including their agendas and behaviour.
A proper solo + followers game is something like Fallout - characters not created by the player are not controlled directly and can't be made to do everything player wants (although some sort of command interface is definitely welcome addition as it enables proper tactics, a follower should be able to say "no and fuck you" if they find a command objectionable).

Baldur's nativelly allow you to make your own party, through the multiplayer mode.
So it actually let you choose between building and recruiting.

 

[DraQ]

Because thats how much control the game gives you over the recruitables, it isnt a bad thing. This games gameplay would be influenced negatively if it was.

How so? What drawback does an inability to cheese game by making pre-made characters do shit they wouldn't confer?

And it doesn't even take particularly cheese-minded person to end up exploiting this - you leave Candlekeep without having the foresight to get spare leather and some stabby bit for Imoen as a good-aligned guy, meet the derpy wizard-halfling duo and want to ditch them immediately because hey they seem incompatible with your goody-two shoes fuckwad (and why the fuck would you even be able to see their alignment on character sheet anyway?), but the halfling has a shortsword and studded leather and you can help yourself to wizards scrolls - oops, you have just made the game go full derp ahead by refusing to LARP actively.

Sure, except maybe thats part of your strategy, a fire immune character getting bombarded with fireballs on the frontlines would be good. That some character complained and turned against you in the middle of the combat because of this would be ass.

If he's fire-immune then a well designed AI wouldn't make the fuss because he wouldn't be affected now, would it?

Ideally for another game with other mechanics and a different gameplay

You mean an actually good one?

As I see it it would reinforce the sole advantage the BG actually had - when the party members did show the bit of autonomy they had and for example tried to spill each other guts rather than being obedient drones working together for greater good(TM) regardless of their actual worldview.

Sure, they should have added more scripts for stuff like that

You could turn the script processing off, so not really.

Uh, yeah you do, give the best armor to two of your frontliners and have the third wear a leather armor or nothing because hes going to be sitting on the backlines. i dont want him bitching that "i took his armor away". Itd be fucking retarded.

A guy sitting in the back would probably be using a long reach or ranged weapon and specialize in it or sling spells. Again different characters should consider different equipment essential and preferred. A ranger for example could for example have bias for leather armour. There are many flexible ways to do it - a character could switch their preference for armour depending on weapon given, but only swap out the weapons for another ones (unless a monk or caster), there could be a function checking entire party inventory so if you had less suitable gear pieces than characters capable of using them, they could (reluctantly) give them up without swapping, there could be alignment/reputation/adventuring time function to check the level of trust character puts in the protagonist, etc.

This is not impressive at all, also, it adds nothing.

Of course it's not impressive, it's bloody fucking common sense and trivial to make.
And it adds quite a lot even with bethpizda design especially after you mod the game so that you can't reliably do everything yourself - can't open locks and don't have criminally minded/unquestioning follower? Too bad, you won't be getting shit from that chest.

You had this in bg.

Characters refusing to attack or grab stuff? That's news to me.
All they could do was whine and eventually leave.

A pally wouldn't have left after you made him stab too many orphans. He would have done so before the first one and tried to kick your ass either immediately or by returning with backup.

You had this in BG.

Yeah, but it ddn't really made much difference between characters. The only notable exception was Khalid who was a bit prone to sir Robin-ing his way out of the fray.

Why not? They dont need it, someone else in the team does.

It's vital if its lack makes the character just sit on their ass waiting to be killed by shit. Also it's not necessarily needed by anyone if the party is swimming in loot.

Sure, stronger personalities would be good. Tho there are tons of factors you cant communicate to the game, it could create a lot of frustration not being able to do the obviously most effective things because the game simply cant understand what you are trying to do.

The thing is most effective to you doesn't mean most effective to your party members and not everyone is rational anyway. Choice between mediocre but reliable, and awesome, but not would be fun to have.

Baldur's nativelly allow you to make your own party, through the multiplayer mode.
So it actually let you choose between building and recruiting.

Yeah, but it breaks its main significant strength.

 

[Lhynn]

How so? What drawback does an inability to cheese game by making pre-made characters do shit they wouldn't confer?

And it doesn't even take particularly cheese-minded person to end up exploiting this - you leave Candlekeep without having the foresight to get spare leather and some stabby bit for Imoen as a good-aligned guy, meet the derpy wizard-halfling duo and want to ditch them immediately because hey they seem incompatible with your goody-two shoes fuckwad (and why the fuck would you even be able to see their alignment on character sheet anyway?), but the halfling has a shortsword and studded leather and you can help yourself to wizards scrolls - oops, you have just made the game go full derp ahead by refusing to LARP actively.

Wouldnt know, they seemed like bad guys so i murdered them on my first playthrough.

If he's fire-immune then a well designed AI wouldn't make the fuss because he wouldn't be affected now, would it?

Sure, my point remains, just how good does it need to be? how many variations or permutations of skills and effects can you possibly prepare your AI for?
You are pants on head retarded if you believe an AI should be able to tell the difference and react to everything and that it should be a standard. No rpg has ever done this and i doubt well ever done this and i doubt well see one doing it any time soon.

You mean an actually good one?

No, i mean a different game. There are few universal rules to game design, and a lot of circumstancial ones that come down to both how well executed it is and how apropiate it is.

As I see it it would reinforce the sole advantage the BG actually had - when the party members did show the bit of autonomy they had and for example tried to spill each other guts rather than being obedient drones working together for greater good(TM) regardless of their actual worldview.

It would detract from the tactical experience that provides the game if some RNG assholery ruined your entire tactic. A fairly rustic implementation of it was done in BG1 in the form of morale, and it was shit. Your party members running away in the middle of battle because they had low hp detracted from the experience. Which is why it was scrapped in BGII.
Get your head out of your ass, there is such a thing as a mechanic that fits into gameplay and one that doesnt, no matter how good it sounds "in theory".

You could turn the script processing off, so not really.

Was refering to scripted events. so whatever.

A guy sitting in the back would probably be using a long reach or ranged weapon and specialize in it or sling spells. Again different characters should consider different equipment essential and preferred. A ranger for example could for example have bias for leather armour. There are many flexible ways to do it - a character could switch their preference for armour depending on weapon given, but only swap out the weapons for another ones (unless a monk or caster), there could be a function checking entire party inventory so if you had less suitable gear pieces than characters capable of using them, they could (reluctantly) give them up without swapping, there could be alignment/reputation/adventuring time function to check the level of trust character puts in the protagonist, etc.

Blah blah blah, i dont care for your inanity and your bullshit, fighters were perfectly capable of staying in the back and using ranged weapons or going to the front and wrecking havoc and if you were panning for such a flexible strategy you may either keep them heavily armored and in the back or lightly armored and in the second line or maybe preparing the field for the lightly armored warrior to make a beeline for a character that is weak to melee but strong or immune against most forms of ranged attack, or you could have ran out of ammo or ranged spells etc.
There are practically an unlimited number of possibilities, attempting to prepare the game for each and every one sounds time consuming and it adds little, time would be better spent bringing other systems up to par, creating new content or fixing bugs.

Of course it's not impressive, it's bloody fucking common sense and trivial to make.
And it adds quite a lot even with bethpizda design especially after you mod the game so that you can't reliably do everything yourself - can't open locks and don't have criminally minded/unquestioning follower? Too bad, you won't be getting shit from that chest.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA "my modded experience made this thing possible in this simplistic 1 character rpg where you get to give a simple order to your companion so that he will try and fail to execute." You really are fucking retarded.

Characters refusing to attack or grab stuff? That's news to me.
All they could do was whine and eventually leave.

They could comment on your behaviour and leave. true. because they couldnt recognize what you were doing other than it was a bad thing. But i distinctly remember having to either side with dynaheir and misc or edwin and thats more than you could ask for.

A pally wouldn't have left after you made him stab too many orphans. He would have done so before the first one and tried to kick your ass either immediately or by returning with backup.

Sure, and its perfectly doable. But what you are asking for is an AI capable of determining exactly what you are doing and reacting realistically to it. and you are saying its a failure of the game not being able to do it? and you are quoting skyrim as a game that did it more sensibly. the game were you put buckets on merchants heads.

Yeah, but it ddn't really made much difference between characters. The only notable exception was Khalid who was a bit prone to sir Robin-ing his way out of the fray.

All of them could run away in BG1 due to low morale, in BG2 berserker did take control out of your character as well.

It's vital if its lack makes the character just sit on their ass waiting to be killed by shit. Also it's not necessarily needed by anyone if the party is swimming in loot.

Sure, lets add item recognition to the matrix that will be running the AI, sounds like our budget RPG will be grate. and before you tell me BGs were not budget RPGs, they certainly are compared to the costs of what you are proposing.

The thing is most effective to you doesn't mean most effective to your party members and not everyone is rational anyway. Choice between mediocre but reliable, and awesome, but not would be fun to have.

Sure, lets put every single reason anyone could think of for every scenario to justify every action the player makes that the characters may not be on board with. in dialogue, and as it is nowadays, fully VA.

Yeah, but it breaks its main significant strength.

Its main significant strenght was its combat, itemization and content, especially in 2. characters were decent tho and playing it multiplayer was ass.

 

[Saber-Scorpion]

obvious answer to the poll question:

Baldur's Gate II companion banter was fun, but so was starting a multiplayer game by yourself so you could create your whole party from scratch. I joined the shouting in the comments of the PoE Kickstarter about this until they added a similar option (recruiting "mercnaries" at taverns). Every game with recruitable NPC companions should have an option to replace them with your own generated characters if you desire.

But NOT this half-and-half shit where some of your party slots must be generated or must be recruited. Locking party slots to either one or the other is bullshit. I modded TOEE and SOZ so I could put my own characters in those NPC-only slots, and I'd do the same for D:OS and WL2 if I could find good mods for it. There should be an option to recruit the whole party too, and generate only 1 character, if that's how you roll. You should be able to fill all your party slots however you damn well please.

 

[Zombra]

Sure, and its perfectly doable. But what you are asking for is an AI capable of determining exactly what you are doing and reacting realistically to it. and you are saying its a failure of the game not being able to do it? and you are quoting skyrim as a game that did it more sensibly. the game were you put buckets on merchants heads.

No one's saying Skyrim doesn't have problems, but its many failures don't actually undercut his point. As bad as Skyrim's AI is, it's a (blundering, baby) step towards good, procedural behaviors. It's bad that a merchant will sit still while you put a blindfold on him, but it's good that he has to have line-of-sight on you to see you steal shit. The one does not nullify the lessons learned from the other.

You're describing a situation in which every possible permutation of behavior and every possible reaction must be hand-scripted ... but this is silly. You don't have to write a unique script for each orphan in the game, or for each paladin in the game. You can flag all orphans as something paladins like, and create a routine where any paladin (or any other heroic character) will react any time you harm any orphan (or any other innocent). There doesn't have to be a chart of every possible weapon loadout with a separate script for each to determine whether a given character will tolerate being assigned light armor. It's pretty easy to envision an algorithm encompassing available inventory and weapon/armor assignments to the rest of the party, and assignment thresholds of "reasonable" and "unreasonable".

I agree that making stuff like this work in a way that doesn't seem forced and exploitable will be resource intensive, and may not even be possible with today's technology. But to advocate the abandonment of procedural AI behaviors and to cleave to strict case-by-case scripting is woefully shortsighted, not to say stagnant.

As for the impossibility of procedural dialogue due to the modern necessity of prerecorded VA ... well, I've been saying for decades that game devs need to focus on sound synthesis just as much as graphic improvement. As far as I know they're still all too dumb to take the hint, but luckily voice synthesis studios are working on it anyway. I think I'll see (hear) VS good enough to eliminate the need for video game VA in my lifetime.

 

[Jimmious]

I generally enjoy having NPCs created from the devs as in my opinion they contribute to the lore of the world much more.

What I really hate though is when the devs don't offer the chance to have a somewhat diverse party due to their NPCs. Good examples were the lack of a thief NPC in PoE or the

Spoiler

inevitable death of Niam in Blackguards

or the lack of a mage in SR: DF... I know balance is something that shouldn't matter in RPGs but I hate it when I feel I miss out on parts of the gameplay simply because there was no NPC to fill the role...

 

[Ivar the Boner]

I prefere to build my own party mostly because of cRPG Companion Sass (tm). Another factor is that pre-made companions tend to throw their life story at you, just like drunk old people you meet in bars. I sometimes like to talk with drunk old people in bars, but I would rather not take them with me on a killing spree.

There are of course some exceptions, but they are few and far between so I pretty much always build my own party when I'm given the chance.

 

[Lhynn]

No one's saying Skyrim doesn't have problems, but its many failures don't actually undercut his point. As bad as Skyrim's AI is, it's a (blundering, baby) step towards good, procedural behaviors. It's bad that a merchant will sit still while you put a blindfold on him, but it's good that he has to have line-of-sight on you to see you steal shit. The one does not nullify the lessons learned from the other.

Bro, half the fucking companions need a teleport to the player, otherwise they get lost. No idea in what world this is a step forward. Also line of sight has been there since probably the 80s, so i dont see the big advancement there.

You're describing a situation in which every possible permutation of behavior and every possible reaction must be hand-scripted ... but this is silly. You don't have to write a unique script for each orphan in the game, or for each paladin in the game. You can flag all orphans as something paladins like, and create a routine where any paladin (or any other heroic character) will react any time you harm any orphan (or any other innocent). There doesn't have to be a chart of every possible weapon loadout with a separate script for each to determine whether a given character will tolerate being assigned light armor. It's pretty easy to envision an algorithm encompassing available inventory and weapon/armor assignments to the rest of the party, and assignment thresholds of "reasonable" and "unreasonable".

Sounds like a lot of work to me, and very prone to bugs or glitches. Not to mention that it sounds like something that would stop you from enjoying the game at every oportunity it gets. Whiny companions that dont want to do what they are told when im too busy trying to win the game is not my idea of a leap forward. Not to mention that said interactions would hold little to no weight in the main storyline or in your relationship with said character. He will not bring up the time you had to bitchslap him when he didnt want to use a bow when fighting those pesky goblins and their king.

I agree that making stuff like this work in a way that doesn't seem forced and exploitable will be resource intensive, and may not even be possible with today's technology. But to advocate the abandonment of procedural AI behaviors and to cleave to strict case-by-case scripting is woefully shortsighted, not to say stagnant.

Not advocating for shit, but this is an old game and the asshole over there is criticizing it for not featuring shit that hasnt been invented yet, and that would have added NOTHING to it compared to stuff like more and better content.

As for the impossibility of procedural dialogue due to the modern necessity of prerecorded VA ... well, I've been saying for decades that game devs need to focus on sound synthesis just as much as graphic improvement. As far as I know they're still all too dumb to take the hint, but luckily voice synthesis studios are working on it anyway. I think I'll see (hear) VS good enough to eliminate the need for video game VA in my lifetime.

Sure, hopefully. Tbh i dont have any fucks to give to VA in muh rpgs, so many things are more important, but i will acknowledge that it seems to sell.

 

[Zombra]

Bro, half the fucking companions need a teleport to the player, otherwise they get lost.

You're right. I should never have said that Skyrim's AI is perfect and has no problems whatsoever. Maybe I should have said the exact opposite of that.

Whiny companions that dont want to do what they are told when im too busy trying to win the game is not my idea of a leap forward.

You should play Jagged Alliance some time. It's actually awesome.

Not to mention that said interactions would hold little to no weight in the main storyline or in your relationship with said character. He will not bring up the time you had to bitchslap him when he didnt want to use a bow when fighting those pesky goblins and their king.

Of course he will, if you add in routines to track the arc of the relationship. Pretty simple really. Again, see Jagged Alliance. If they could do it in 1994 they can do it now.

Not advocating for shit, but this is an old game and the asshole over there is criticizing it for not featuring shit that hasnt been invented yet, and that would have added NOTHING to it compared to stuff like more and better content.

I don't disagree there, but please don't say NOTHING in all caps when you mean "relatively little".

And for the record, Jagged Alliance was released 4 years before Baldur's Gate ... so actually this stuff had been invented.

Sure, hopefully. Tbh i dont have any fucks to give to VA in muh rpgs, so many things are more important, but i will acknowledge that it seems to sell.

Yeah. I'm not crazy about RPG voiceover in general either - in fact I think it's a detriment since I read much faster than people talk. The point is that once procedural voice is made viable, the VA issue ("We must have full voice so everything has to be 100% scripted!") will no longer be a roadblock to procedural AI.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Re companion control, taking their equipment and dumping them: BG had a level of separation that made cheesing less of an issue. Stripping NPCs, or spamming wand of summoning while kiting Drittz, didn't feel like 'doing something really stupid in-game', it felt like deliberately breaking the game. There was enough abstraction that you knew you were 'cheating'.

 

[Azrael the cat]

I prefere to build my own party mostly because of cRPG Companion Sass (tm). Another factor is that pre-made companions tend to throw their life story at you, just like drunk old people you meet in bars. I sometimes like to talk with drunk old people in bars, but I would rather not take them with me on a killing spree.

There are of course some exceptions, but they are few and far between so I pretty much always build my own party when I'm given the chance.

Gives me an idea for a crpg recruitable NPC: one that initially does the whole 'life story' thing, but invents completely new and contradictory shit every time you ask the same questions. Kind of like the Joker's 'did I ever tell you how I got these scars...' in The Dark Knight, mocking the player/PC for expecting to get some neat explanation of the character's motivations and existence.

 

[Lilura]

Re companion control, taking their equipment and dumping them: BG had a level of separation that made cheesing less of an issue. Stripping NPCs, or spamming wand of summoning while kiting Drittz, didn't feel like 'doing something really stupid in-game', it felt like deliberately breaking the game. There was enough abstraction that you knew you were 'cheating'.

I think it's cheesy to recruit companions just to strip them of items and then dump them, but gaining a few potions and scrolls wasn't hugely advantageous anyway, just resulting in a lil' early boost for players who don't care about cheese. Items like Edwin's birthright amulet and Xan's Moonblade were flagged as non-transferable or attuned only to the owner, so that was at least something.

Drizzt could be fairly dueled with a Fighter/Mage; it was Shandalar who was almost unbeatable without certain forms of cheese.

And yeah summons are OP with no cap, they are scrub-level tactics:

Spoiler

 

[Beastro]

They usually do, but they don't have to. Look at Final Fantasy VI and VII as examples. In VI you start as the player-identification character, and go for a while recruiting others, and then it turns out that that first PC isn't the blank slate you thought she was, she's very weird, and very early in the game she splits off, the party forms three separate groups, and you follow each story individually. As the game wears on there are several sequences in which you are forced to use one character or another, and by the end there's no question of who is the "main hero"; there simply isn't one. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it's a fascinating device that draws you closer to every character. VII has a similar device in that it sort of tricks you into thinking Cloud is the player-insert character, but at one point in the game, spoiler alert, Cloud disappears and there's a long sequence in which the secondary heroes have to step up and become primaries.

All this is meant to illustrate that the western trope of the "chosen one" where you are meant to think of a particular character as "you" is completely arbitrary. It's fine that some games, like Ultima, do it; there's nothing wrong with it; but it's absolutely unnecessary, and this is true both in games where PCs are premade and when they're player-created.

One of FFIII's (Fuck calling it VI) main shining points is it being a truly ensemble cast game lacking any main protagonist.

IIRC, it's still the only one that's every really done it well.

FFVI is different, the segment isn't long, and one of that game's major failures is presenting the idea that Cloud isn't what he or anyone thinks he is, but is just a fragment of Jenova. The idea is brought up at the end of the first disc and toyed around during your Cloud-less period, but then it's resolved too quickly. The center of the game should have revolved around it, but instead the game doesn't really revolve around anything.

 

[Beastro]

i dont want him bitching that "i took his armor away". Itd be fucking retarded.

 

[Zombra]

One thing I always hate about scripted companions is that they're inevitably (and often unconvincingly) bound to you for eternity. "You found my keys, now I am your indentured servant until the day I die." Writers are getting better about making this crap plausible, but that's the wrong direction to go. No matter how convincing the story, I don't want these assholes to all be my roommates until the end of days (and that includes going home to wait around at the base when they're not active in the party). Give them a reason to help me with one or two things, and then give them a reason to get back to their own goddamn lives. I'm so much happier when I can "finish" a companion NPC and get his deal over with. Accumulating an ever-increasing immortal harem of mules and meat shields, particularly when they all have heartbreaking backstories and various other baggage, is not a turn-on.

 

[noisenerd]

I voted "Mix of build and recruit", but for me it really depends on the game. For example, I enjoyed some of the characters in the Baldur's Gate games. Generally speaking though, I prefer to build as much as I can, that's a big part of the fun for me.

 

[laclongquan]

One thing I always hate about scripted companions is that they're inevitably (and often unconvincingly) bound to you for eternity. "You found my keys, now I am your indentured servant until the day I die." Writers are getting better about making this crap plausible, but that's the wrong direction to go. No matter how convincing the story, I don't want these assholes to all be my roommates until the end of days (and that includes going home to wait around at the base when they're not active in the party). Give them a reason to help me with one or two things, and then give them a reason to get back to their own goddamn lives. I'm so much happier when I can "finish" a companion NPC and get his deal over with. Accumulating an ever-increasing immortal harem of mules and meat shields, particularly when they all have heartbreaking backstories and various other baggage, is not a turn-on.

What is there not to like about hanging on to the coattail of Chosen One, hero who will save the world?