There are two ways to approach companion characterization. One is to restrict them so that they cannot step outside of the "comfort zone" the creators have assigned them, essentially removing the player from the equation. The other is through additions and tradeoffs, so that the characterization of the companion exists not to the exclusion of everything else but rather gently nudging the player towards the intended design. One is the stick, the other is the carrot.
Needless to say, I find that additions and tradeoffs work much better than limitations and option removals. Let's take a look at, say, Minsc. He's a Rashemen Berserker. However, when Baldur's Gate came out, the Barbarian class wasn't conceptualized yet. So they took a Ranger (man of the wilderness), added the berserker skill to him, and then switched the third quickbar slot for a attack and damage bonus (boo). So with an addition (berserker skill) and a tradeoff (quickslot for bonuses) Minsc went from generic Ranger to the loonie we all grew fond of. This is characterization through mechanics done right. You may say "but his initial weapon skill is spent in Greatsword!"; that, however, doesn't keep him from learning different skills. We're nudged in a direction with him, but it is not mandatory we keep that path. Within the confines of his class (Ranger), we can have him turn into whatever we need, as long as we accept it is not the intended direction of the character.
Let's compare with Aveline. Aveline is a soldier, and later a watchwoman. Through her life, she's been a protector. She has her own specialization tree (Guardian) that replaces the regular Warrior Specializations, and her personal specialization tree focuses on defence. So far, so good: we have a tradeoff that nudges us in the intended character direction. Then, for no feasible reason, she's stolen the capability to learn to use two-handed weapons. We're being restricted in a nonsensical way, for the sake of the character: This is characterization through mechanics done wrong. Had Aveline retained the ability to wield greatswords and her defender tree, I wouldn't have any complain about her: A tradeoff that nudges the player to develop the character in the intended direction is a fine way to add companion characterization through mechanics, without limiting player options.
Through all this discussion, there is something people are clearly forgetting: That a player is given the option to build a character agaisnt its typecasting doesn't automatically destroy the character for every player ever. If you want to keep the character mechanically consistent with its concept, it is in the player's power to do so. To force other players to play the game an specific way because it bothers you that an option exists is petty, when we've already stablished that the option exisiting does not damage characterization. Again: characterization is not lost because a player has the power to develop a companion in a direction different from intended. Nothing is lost in allowing more options, and we gain the opportunity to try new things. It baffles me that people oppose this.
Modifié par Xewaka, 09 octobre 2012 - 11:14 .
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Retour en haut
