How much control do you like over recruited party members?

[Monkeyfinger]

As far as leveling up goes, do you like predetermined growth paths for them that you can't influence? (I don't want to say completely predetermined here because randomness can be a factor in how big the growths are, the important idea here is that you have no control) Or do you like being able to customize and teach them abilities to some extent, or even to the same extent as your main character?

How about in combat? Do you like having full control over them, just as you have over your main character? Or being able to give them general orders,maybe a bit of scripting, then leaving them to their own devices and hoping they carry out your orders competently? Or no control at all, they are left completely to their own devices?

Keeping them around? Do you want the personalities of your party members to affect what they're willing to do in your name? I.E do you want your goody goody cleric to leave and tell you to fuck yourself if you choose to burn down a village to solve a quest? Or do you prefer that they loyally follow you no matter what you do once they agree to join you?

What about out of battle skills? Should they not even have them, with such skills being the sole dominion of your main? Should they have them and use them when they feel like it, maybe with willingness based off of how much they like you? Should they always use them when ordered to and never use them otherwise? Or hell, should your main character's noncombat skills all be considered equal to the highest skill present in your party, like in mass effect? (For the unfamiliar, say you have garrus and tali with you. You have no decryption skill, garrus is a novice decrpyter, tali is a master decrypter. Only you can manipulate objects that require decryption, but you are considered a master when doing it, because that's tali's rank.)

My own answers will be in a separate post because this wall of text is big enough without them.

Yes there's already a topic about this, but it's 5 years old. I'm not comfortable with performing necro on it.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I like to have control over the other party members like in BG2 and KotOR - I can level them up (although I have also no objections against auto-leveling), I can control them in battle and other stuff like that, but they also have their own personality, they can choose to leave if I piss them off, and there is the 'influence meter'. Making them handy in out of battle skills is a good thing, because you don't have to spread your main character's skills so much that in the end he is good in everything and nothing.

I started to *really* appreciate the ability of controlling them manually after I played Fallout... "Oh hey, Vic just shot me in the back for the 10th time...", "Oh dammit, that retard is again in my goddamn line of sight and now he turns hostile because a wayward bullet hit him".

 

[Monkeyfinger]

I'm for having complete control of my party members in combat. Some say that it hurts the role-playing aspect, kills immersion, etc. to be able to do this.... whatever. So do the alternatives. No AI controlled party member will be able to act completely in line with his personality, it's just impossible to program. No available option will be perfect from a role-playing perspective, so I say go with the one least frustrating: the one where you can hold the hands of your party members so they don't do incredibly stupid shit. Gives you a lot more options in combat too.

I like most noncombat skills to work the same way. The exception is conversation ones. Only you should have access to those. You lead your party, you speak for them, you shouldn't have the option of talking like a retard and having some more charismatic party member bail you out in all conversations.

Leveling, now? That can be left completely up to the party members. Ordering them around completely in combat I can swallow, but telling them to take a completely different life path and train in something else... no. Make party members level up in a pre-determined way, and make the player factor that into choosing who he takes along with him.

How you choose to solve quests should be able to make your party members happy or angry, and make them leave if you rub them too far the wrong way.

 

[DraQ]

I like the RPCs to act semi independently, like in Fallout. Of course, some order system working in combat would be nice, but it should still be up to RPC how they actually act.

They should have their own skillsets.

Their loyalty should be bounded by their personality, etc.

Player shouldn't be able to influence their developement, except for some characters, through dialogue.

 

[mondblut]

Re: How much control do you like over recruited party member

As far as leveling up goes, do you like predetermined growth paths for them that you can't influence? Or do you like being able to customize and teach them abilities to some extent, or even to the same extent as your main character?

I demand total control over all party members' stats and inventories. In games that force prerolled NPCs into my party I cheat/hexedit them the stats I wish when I can.

How about in combat? Do you like having full control over them, just as you have over your main character? Or being able to give them general orders,maybe a bit of scripting, then leaving them to their own devices and hoping they carry out your orders competently? Or no control at all, they are left completely to their own devices?

No control at all is out of question. As for full control vs set of instructions, depends on a game. Set of instructions works fine in Mount and Blade, but in Fallout NPCs just make combat a pain, constantly shredding one another or yourself (which, admittingly, can be a fun on its own, in a lulzy masochistic kind of way).

Keeping them around? Do you want the personalities of your party members to affect what they're willing to do in your name?

If there are fair alternatives to any single character, by all means they may leave due to karma/reputation differences. If there are no viable replacements, I want my loyal paladin followers to rape, kill, dismember and then rape again little babies when I so wish. Case in point: FO2, if you're a slaver, no worthwile NPC will join you > WRONG. Give me an alternate set of equally valuable "evil" NPCs or make "good" NPCs shut up.

What about out of battle skills? Should they not even have them, with such skills being the sole dominion of your main? Should they have them and use them when they feel like it, maybe with willingness based off of how much they like you? Should they always use them when ordered to and never use them otherwise?

When ordered. In case of direct control, this is obvious, in case of set of instructions, I want to be able to script them like "cast fireball only when there are at least 5 enemies in area of effect, not a single friend in area of effect, total level/hp/whatever of enemies is over X and they are known not to be fire immune or spell resistant".

 

[Topher]

In Final Fantasy 12 you could give NPC's scripts like the ones you mentioned at the end of your post mondblut. In fact, all of those suggestions are possible in FF12.

 

[GroupHugz4evar]

How much control do you like over recruited party members?

LOTS PLZ!!! LOL

 

[Unradscorpion]

Predetermined character growth paths with an amount of control varying from RPCs seem like the best choice as a limited number of choices is sometimes harder(and more fun) to make.

In combat some amount of control is needed to stop them from being stupid and letting other party members die, but AI should be at least good enough that no micromanagement is needed for killing a group of weak side road kobolds.

Their personalities should definitely affect their behavior because it breaks the suspense of disbelief otherwise.

All noncombat skills should be handled ala ME, except maybe conversation ones. This would make you choose people who are not warriors in your party too. You don't want your party being combat based, unless it's a Diablo clone.