literally not one. this blows my mind. there are crpgs where the roster is all scripted companions, but they are all swappable. there are games where the roster is unswappable, but they are player created. there is no game that has a fixed cast. not a single one that tries to take advantage of the player party being present at every scene so they can actually write about and integrate the characters as integral parts of the plot. 4 decades of the genre, and not one has done my preferred format. only things that come to mind that are close are disco elysium which is really not party based, or non-isometrics like krondor. why the fuck not? you could still do c&c, and it would in fact feel way more consequential, you could still have absolute freedom in speccing if you wanted, or you could utilize the fixed nature of the roster to tailor more interesting combat scenarios.
>not a single one that tries to take advantage of the player party being present at every scene so they can actually write about and integrate the characters as integral parts of the plot.Tower of time. Party selection is for combat only. The full party is present for plot.
>>3979796I suppose I don't really think of it as a classic isometric crpg, more of a strategy game with rpg elements with set encounter scenarios. I have played that though.
>>3979832How did you come to form that perspective?
>>3979871it just doesn't feel like it to me, the combat almost feels like tower defence more than classic rtwp, it's all levels in the tower rather than more open exploration. the systems are very simple, which means it could easily have been on console. I'm not opposed to calling it a crpg I'm just saying I never thought of it as one. what I can say is that it heavily benefits from having a fixed roster, so why are we essentially never seeing it?
>>3979773Yes, it feels really silly how something that's just the norm for JRPG stories is basically unheard of for western style RPGs. It seems to be a matter of western PC devs making 'systems' focused games that are engines that happen to have whatever content put into them, as opposed to art driven games where the scenario, the characters, the space things take place in and how you'd want things to fit into the world etc. are the driving force and the gameplay is build to fit in with that and make it all work..
>>3979773So you want a JRPG type of story in an isometric crpg? I would be really surprised if none existed already
>>3980159I mean I just want classic crpgs but where the characters are immutable fixtures in the stories rather than feeling like they're conditionally intervowen as a bit of flair while never actually being consequential because you need to program with their absence in mind. even when they're consequential it's usually a one-off "you must have X in party for this mission" which strongly limits how much the script can rely on callbacks. and yes, I also thought "I would be really surprised if none existed" yet I can't think of even a single one.
>>3979773>why the fuck not?People love customization (cosplay). If you fuck up the cast, sales will suffer. Larian wanted to lock the team past act 1, but they chickened out. Rightfully so, it would've crippled sales. If anything, there should be something to do for the couch companions.
Planescape
>>3979773CRPGs are all about making choices that affect the story, and especially with their D&D heritage they often try to cover a player character from 'paragon of virtue' to 'child-eating monster'. That gives you two big issues with a static party:>restricted choices until the party is assembledThe beginning of the game has to force the player into getting all the party members, which can take quite some time. Now the first impression is that the game doesn't have what the players want.>player choices that conflict with charactersImagine evil player and paladin companion vs good player and that same companion. Not having that companion react in-character waters down any evil choices the player makes, but that reaction forces you into modular writing, and at that point you might as well make the recruitment optional.Of course that doesn't mean its impossible to get this working. I'm sure many devs want the characters to feel as if it were one fixed story, it's just near impossible due to exploding complexity and coordination.>>3980159I've been working on the opposite for a while: CRPG-like choices and branching quests with a simpler JRPG-style combat that is designed around controlling the full party. There is quite a lot of design space between CRPG and JRPG left to explore, I hope we get a bunch of experimental games in the wake of BG3 and Expedition 33 making waves for turnbased combat.
>>3980334>Imagine evil player and paladin companion vs good player and that same companion. Not having that companion react in-character waters down any evil choices the player makes, but that reaction forces you into modular writing, and at that point you might as well make the recruitment optional.Amiga Ishar I-III had some kind of recruitment mechanic in inns, where party members could block somebody that "doesn't fit" from joining the party.At the same time there was no dialogs or unique quests, the party was there just for combat.
>>3980334>CRPGs are all about making choices that affect the story,Nothing about a swappable roster facilitates this, nothing about a fixed roster prevents this. tw2 has no roster at all and has more c&c than most isometric rpgs. generally if you have a static party there are MORE ways to have your playstyle be consequential. it's not even that all characters in the party has to be there the entire game, it's just that they'd have to truly branch to facilitate it, rather than make every character just be a little extra dialogue here and there. and you'd not need many branches either, just a couple checks, maybe just one point of no return. even as it is, many crpgs with swappable rosters just don't react to your actions, especially not if they're on the bench. it's also easy to narratively justify why a team has to stick to the mc. so many ways to go by it, I'm not saying there's no scenario where making a swappable immaterial roster is preferable, I'm just saying it's really weird that there's no games AT ALL in the genre that has even taken a swing at it.
