I'm against adding human NPCs in The Long Dark, except...

[Morrick]

Some people seem to like the idea of seeing other human NPCs added in the game in the future, having interactions with them, even trading stuff, etc. I'm not one of them. I truly believe one of the defining characteristics of The Long Dark is the loneliness of the player. I'm talking of course about Survival sandboxes here.

I also try looking at the NPCs issue from a design and development standpoint. I believe it would be difficult to implement them in ways that don't interfere with the game's general atmosphere and that survival/exploration balance I think The Long Dark has achieved in its current state. Introducing NPCs you can interact with would also introduce a cascade of problems related to that interaction, ethical dilemmas (Are they friendly? Hostile? Could I kill them? Could they kill me? Why barter resources when you can kill and rob an NPC? It sounds harsh, but it's post-apocalyptic survival after all). I also fear that NPCs have the potential to change a lot of the current feel and atmosphere of the game, and attenuate that uniqueness The Long Dark holds in the survival game category.

At the same time, I've tried to think of a way human NPCs could be made to work within The Long Dark's world, introducing interesting effects and consequences for the players and gameplay, breaking the current balance and atmosphere of lonely quiet apocalypse as little as possible, and being something that is also hopefully development-friendly.

1. Human NPCs would appear in a sandbox mostly as background characters, in very low numbers (but customisable in custom games), as other survivor/explorers who share the same situation and issues of the main player.
2. There would be no direct interaction with them, but the player could see them in action, like exiting buildings, hunting wildlife, making campfires. There would be an aura of mutual distrust, so that NPCs would flee on approach, or fire distant warning shots to deter you. While these warning shots would never kill you (but hardcore players could customise this parameter in custom games), they might injure you -- flesh wounds that would need to be treated, clothing damage to repair, etc.
3. Since an NPC could visit buildings in your absence, they could take away items from your stash if you leave something. This would discourage hoarding and alter the sense of security you get by 'setting up base' somewhere. At the same time, the tables would be turned if you entered a building e.g. after seeing an NPC leave. Perhaps they left something there you could take. This could make the game potentially more interesting, because players would be driven to revisit places more than once. You may have looted Camp Office completely, then gone elsewhere, but what if another NPC survivor set it as their temporary base and have left firewood, heavy tools, or pieces of harvested meat there? Let's return there and check again. I think this could be an intriguing dynamic that pushes players to explore repeatedly, and to reconsider their tactics when they need to leave resources behind (they could lose something, but gain something else if they keep exploring or even if they track an NPC's movements.)
4. I think this implementation of NPCs would contribute to the survival atmosphere and mood of the world of The Long Dark, instead of altering it. Players would have to face another element in the world that keeps them on their toes. The uneasy feeling that 'You're not alone here', and that everyone's for themselves. And that this could be a hindrance but also something to exploit. (They can leave loot behind as much as you can). 
5. Development-wise, this would entail the creation and animation of a new character type, but rifle shots effects could be reused (only, you're the target); no direct interaction could save a lot of development-resources (no new dialogue or bartering interface to create), and as for the loot, it would be a matter of items spawning/despawning when you revisit a building.

Sorry for the length. This is just brainstorming, I may have missed things or not considered further side effects. But hey, it's just a wish in a wishlist...

-Rick

[s7mar7in]

35 minutes ago, Morrick said:

Players would have to face another element in the world that keeps them on their toes.

Well done @Morrick.
This was a most enjoyable post. Imagining this version of the game, it feels that two things become mandatory. 

• The player may not enter a structure while it is occupied by an NPC.
• No NPC may enter or loot a structure while it is occupied by a player.

This extremely limited, low-level interaction would inject a great sense of the survival realities into the mood of the game.

• A large well stocked base makes a big target for looters.
• Smaller, scattered outposts should attract far less attention.
• Does an outdoor vs. indoor fire affect the level of seclusion from NPC looting.

Please know this is just a little more brainstorming.  

[Morrick]

Yes @s7mar7in, all that you added is perfectly in line with my wish/proposal. I actually meant to explicitly write the first two bullet points you suggested, but forgot. Thanks! And thanks for the kind words.

[Mroz4k]

I am putting my previous part of the post under a spoiler below, and I will re-write it again because I gave it some more thought. Pay no special attention to whats under the spoilers, but for the sake of context I dont want to remove it. Also would be disrespectful to @Morrick and this original idea that I initially criticized quite a bit.

I still believe that with this original idea, there is a significant issue with ESRB ratings. Humans firing guns at each other posseses a whole set of problems that could increase the age limit of the game. And I dont think that having a RNG "you lost some of your items" option would be something that the community would be kind to. But, as long as the NPCs and player cant hurt each other directly, and if the stolen items can be recovered, the NPCs could work in the game and be something of a reminder to the player, without actually having a direct impact on the game.

My ideas in the post below are really not much of my own - in fact, I would go out and say they were made by Hinterland themselves. I got the idea based on the Hank side-quest in Wintermute, and on an animation in the first official Wintermute trailer, where Will observes some NPC violence. The Hank side quest is an excellent idea of how the NPCs could affect the sandbox world by showing their presence without actually having to interact with the player at all.

A very nice post, and some pretty interesting ideas and points you made there.

NPCs have always been a controversial topic. They were mentioned on the roadmaps, but there is a sizeable community in the game that does not want them. I belong to both camps - at one point, I dont think its a horrible idea to run into NPCs rarely, at the same time I do like the solitude.

Since there are two camps, the NPCs will have to be an option you can turn off. Or rather, turn on.

I will be honest - I dont see a lot of ways these could work , Edit: There are ways to make this work, just couldnt see it before. as great and unique ideas as they are. Hopefully you wont hold it against me for disagreeing with ya. And I hope you will argument for your ideas even further, I think this topic and your insight on it is of great merit  

1 & 2. I am very impressed, this is trully an unique idea. Sadly, I dont find it very realistic, for a reason you mentioned before. Edit: I now believe that there is a way to make it realistic, and very immersive, too. If done properly). You mention these NPCs would fire "at you" - but what happens if the player fires back at them? You couldnt kill them - else you have an obvious issue with ESRB rating of the game - ups the age limit because of "murder" (Hinterland would love to lower the ESRB age suggestion, to the initially planned 13 from current 16, not increase it ). So, they would have to be invulnerable, and even then, someone could argue that it depicts violence. Even if they "just" injured you, and you died as a result of that injury, it would still be technically a murder. Edit: I think there is a way to do this if we can ensure that the NPCs dont "hurt" the player and player cannot hurt them.

3. This would be a slippery slope. I see no issue with hoarding, except that it is an inefficient way of handling resources. But the moment people can start losing items at random out of their bases and have no way of protecting them, it would start an avalanche of complaints - the community would be enraged and blame Hinterland for every time they lost something of value to this "RNG". Im sure you can relate - RNG is quite disliked feature of some of TLDs aspects. I get your idea here, but it would not be very wise in my opinion. Also, if the people could place traps to protect their base from looters, we are back at the square one with a problem that it would technically be violence of people against people. ESRB ratings are merciless... Edit: I was too rash to consider this so problematic. Assuming there is an option for players to recover their equipment back, I really see no issue with this what-so-ever.

4. I see your point here. Even if they left their things behind, I dont think it would be considered a robbery. My issue with this is that it could take away that "I am alone" kind of feeling. When I play TLD, my senses are already heightened all the time. But I guess this is not something I have a big issue with - people who want solitude could turn NPCs off. 

5. You are correct here - there could be problems development-wise Edit:(Ironically, my alteration would be even far more challenging animation-wise. Talk about irony here.) - they would have to animate these NPCs and their interactions. Opening doors, hunting, skinning, articulations, everything would have to be animated. Sounds like it would be a lot of work for something you would come across rarely. But, that is my opinion - and if it had a potential of leading to some non-renewable valuable items, I imagine it would be worth the effort. Also, you mentioned there would be no need for dialog or barter option - but we already have those in the game from Wintermute. Edit: Then again, Hinterland just got new reinforcements in the amount of animators. And new shooting equipment of their own. So perhaps this wouldnt be such a huge issue like in the past anymore. Ah, the potential in the future...  

And we are at the heart of what I believe will be Sandbox NPCs. Basically a more "plain" rip-off of the Wintermute characters. 
I imagine you will only be able to come across NPCs in locations that do not have wildlife (indoors, the fenced-off area before the Dam) - and that it will be impossible to draw weapons in these locations, or lure animals in there. NPCs will always be friendly in actions, though probably not very friendly in expression, at least at first. I guess they will have some "set" items that you can give them to up their trust, and a set of items, knowledge or possibly even quests you can get from them as a return. 
That would be my guess for what the sandbox NPCs will look like. Not particularly immersive, but likely not very balance intruding. Probably just a way to spice up the looting (by encountering that someone has already occupied your favorite base spot, meaning you have to live elsewhere) - and as a way to get to some non renewable resources through trading.

But I am just guessing.

Honestly, I think your idea would be infinitely cooler, if we can figure out how to bypass some of the issues that could arise from it. So, any ideas how to do that?

Hmm... I actually might have an idea. Will share it later after I thought about it for a bit.
 

[Mroz4k]

You know what? I think this idea COULD actually really work. It was just a manner of looking at your idea from a different view. Also, I hope I didnt hurt your feelings with my critique. I am a firm believer in constructive criticism, and almost no idea was ever born perfect. Time and work makes them perfect. And the help of the rest of the community  

I was thinking of how to make the NPCs a "random" interaction like you mentioned, by not having to deal with the issues of the dreaded ESRB ratings, or with people trying to commit acts of violence against the NPCs. I may have a solution.

What if, instead of walking into an NPC randomly in the middle of woods and seeing it hunt, and then start shooting at you, you could only encounter NPCs when you leave Indoor areas, or enter new outdoor areas, at randoms. And these "meetings" would be scripted in a way.

To give you an example: Imagine you just spent the night at quonset gas station. You leave it and a short cinematic starts: An NPC is walking towards the gas station, when a pack of wolves swarms him. The gun he carries goes off, and the wolves are scared off and disperse in different directions.

The game is resumed, you have several wolves in your surroundings and there is a new freshly spawned NPC corpse with a rifle and no bullets, and maybe some extra supplies on the road in front of you.

These sort of "events" could work as NPC interactions. I dont think they would affect the gameplay too much, they would certainly be very immersive, albeit they would also be difficult to animate. 

I also had an idea of what you mentioned before about "things, being missing from your base". What if you came back to your base in the Camp office, for example, found a few things missing, but there would be a visibly place note that would say something like this:
________________________________________
Stan,

we left this note in case you find this place too. We took some supplies from here and will come back later to pick up the rest. For the time being, we headed back to our camp at the clearcut to meet with others. Come find us.
________________________________________
This would give the player an option to go "recover" their lost items by heading for this camp at clearcut. Upon discovering it, he would find that the camp was attacked by some animal, there would be a corpse or two there, and a backpack with the stolen items in it, plus some minor food loot and matches.

And this "note" and taken things would be an issue that would only happen once per game, I reccon. 

Not all of these "interactions" would also have to be animations or cinematics. Some could just be a random encounter that spawns after you re-enter that ourdoor location. Say, you would go by Max´s last stand 13 times and it would just be a tree with dead Max by the bottom... then one day, you go by it again, and you see a new "body" of a poor NPC who could not handle the solitude, and decided to "end" it with a rope. (though I imagine this couldnt work because of ESRB ratings of suicide, I mentioned it more as an example of the "concept")

This could be a way to avoid the issue of having to interact with NPCs directly, but still have them in the game to give the player that "reminder" they are not alone. 

Any thoughts on this?

[s7mar7in]

1 hour ago, Mroz4k said:

Sounds like it would be a lot of work for something you would come across rarely.

A minimal animation NPC option easily comes to mind from pieces of the existing story.

What if we only saw NPCs as dark shadows backlit by their campfire and if we approached we would find only the abandoned camp.

We could add an emotional layer of humanity to the survival mood of the current game in the way we resolve choosing how to survive without losing our compassion.

What if we only communicated though notes that we would leave/find by a “mini-signal fire”:

• Do we leave a signal fire and a gift of food or clothes to help these strangers?
• Do we rather ignore them and hope they leave us alone as well?
• Do we find a request for any fire-starter to help them survive and respond with a donation or ignore it, (looking out only for our own wellbeing)?
• When we fail to help, do we later regret our choice when we find that the camp of strangers did not survive the cold for lack of a fire?

It is easy to build upon this level of interaction using notes, gifts, care packages, and signal fires…requires minimal added sounds and animations.

"...what will you do to survive..."

[Mroz4k]

Yes! I like this avenue a lot. I am unsure about the part of the siluette - I guess that could work, in a specific setting as an animation/small cinematic.

As for the cooperation through "notes" - this reminds me of the Ammo side-quest with the eco-activist in the house during the Wintermute campaign. And I believe this "show off your humanity" option is kind of what the NPCs should really be about - to give player an option to turn blind eye, or help them out for a good feeling. As long as we dont get close to violence, it should work.

There are certainly some cool ways the NPCs could be added into the game without making it a drastic change, I guess.

[Morrick]

13 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

What if, instead of walking into an NPC randomly in the middle of woods and seeing it hunt, and then start shooting at you, you could only encounter NPCs when you leave Indoor areas, or enter new outdoor areas, at randoms. And these "meetings" would be scripted in a way.

Yes, this is an interesting suggestion, and I like the Quonset Garage example.

I wanted to clarify a few bits of my original idea, so that we don't end up overthinking things too much. 

The very first input for my idea of inserting human NPCs into the game came by observing wildlife behaviour, especially on Pilgrim setting. You see wildlife go on with their daily activities, you occasionally see wolves and bears acting as predators (as they are), but when they sense your presence they flee. If provoked enough, however, they might attack you (like a moose recently did with me — in Desolation Point — on Pilgrim setting, oh yes).

So I thought: why not create another 'predator' model that basically behaves the same way — a presence you may see in the background, trying to survive, with a default mistrusting behaviour so that any direct interaction is avoided. The number of these survivor NPCs would be scarce (think something a little more frequent than the moose, not something very frequent as deers or wolves). They would always flee on approach (like wolves do on Pilgrim), but may react if provoked enough (like wolves/bears do on Pilgrim).

Now, since they're all survivors like the protagonist and they have access to the same resources in the game world, they may or may not be armed. The fundamental distinction here between provoking a wolf/bear and another human being is that the human being has no intention of killing you [insert my idealistic optimism here ] — the idea is only to deter you. The warning rifle shot is just an example, possibly the most extreme. The default 'warning' behaviour could just be throwing stones in your general direction, for example. This defensive behaviour could be customised, so that on Pilgrim it rarely occurs and is limited to stones, while on more difficult game modes it could be ramped up to arrows and rifle bullets, therefore increasing the possibility of being injured. But never outright killed. And when a flesh wound occurs, treating it could be a matter of applying antiseptic and bandages. If left untreated, it could definitely lead to some percentage points of condition loss, and to related nuisances as reduced carrying capacity, or inability to sprint in case the injured part is a leg instead of an arm. But never to death. (Unless you never ever treat it, not even with herbal remedies and natural bandages, which I think is a quite extreme scenario. But correct me if I'm wrong.) 

As for loot items that might disappear from the main player's stash: I didn't intend to make it look as if it's something that happens all the time. It's just an added variable to remind the main player that he/she is not alone, and that there are no entirely secure bases anywhere. @s7mar7in's suggestions apply very well:

• A large well stocked base makes a big target for looters.
• Smaller, scattered outposts should attract far less attention.
• Does an outdoor vs. indoor fire affect the level of seclusion from NPC looting.

These could be excellent tactics to minimise the risk of loot loss. There could be other factors at play, so that the loss of items doesn't look entirely random: 

• Time — the more you leave items somewhere, the higher the risk of loss of some of them. Example: you leave a stash at the Forestry Lookout in Mystery Lake, then you leave for 7 or more in-game days to explore other regions, like Desolation Point. You can't expect to move back to the Forestry Lookout after almost two weeks and find everything you left there. 
• Your behaviour towards NPCs — There could be a sort of balancing mechanism here. You could make an NPC flee on purpose so that they leave items behind in their hasty escape (imagine you see an NPC at a campfire). You could do that once or twice without consequences; maybe you're pushed to do that in the hope the NPC drops an item that's particularly useful to you in that moment. But if you keep doing that as a way to exploit the game, then you start being tracked, and the risk of losing some items you leave in a building increases as a consequence. 

Regarding the matter of the 'random loss' of items being perceived as unfair by players: the key is all in the tuning of this parameter/occurrence. With a scarce population of NPCs and big regions to explore, by default it should happen only occasionally. The likeliness of it happening should definitely be linked to what the player is doing in the first place (don't leave too much loot all in one place; don't make NPCs flee on purpose all the time; don't 'abandon' resources in one place for too long; etc.). In other words, it shouldn't feel random at all. And again, there should be a balance at play: you may lose something, but you may also gain something by exploring more, by following an NPC's movements from afar, by returning to previously-visited places in the hope of stumbling into another NPC's stash.

The basic idea is to introduce a new class of NPC 'predator' as an added challenging factor. The purpose is to make the player warier, not paranoid. And, more importantly, how NPC behaviour affects the player and the gameplay ought to be as customisable as possible. On Pilgrim, NPCs are basically another presence in the background that adds to the atmosphere, and their interference is kept at a minimum. On Interloper, as the game description says, the world becomes more hostile the longer you survive, and that includes NPCs. In Custom games, you can decide how much of a challenge you want in this regard. 

Sorry again for the verbiage, but I hope that some aspects of my original idea are a bit clearer now. And I thank again everyone for their input & criticism: I have appreciated everything so far. 

Cheers, Rick

 

 

[s7mar7in]

1 hour ago, Morrick said:

There could be other factors at play, so that the loss of items doesn't look entirely random: 

Please consider:
Your base is stocked and you sleep to trigger a game save and then quit game, (All in base items are safe from NPC looting).
Wishing the Custom Game settings offered "chance for looting by NPC" = None/Low/Medium/High.
You return to base and find that (1) / (10) road flares is missing, [10% Looting Limit = Low]...but, you also find a most heartfelt note of gratitude from a fellow survivor NPC along with a small gift of thanks, (I would rush to start playing that custom game right now)!

1 hour ago, Morrick said:

Your behaviour towards NPCs — There could be a sort of balancing mechanism here. You could make an NPC flee on purpose so that they leave items behind in their hasty escape (imagine you see an NPC at a campfire). You could do that once or twice without consequences; maybe you're pushed to do that in the hope the NPC drops an item that's particularly useful to you in that moment. But if you keep doing that as a way to exploit the game, then you start being tracked, and the risk of losing some items you leave in a building increases as a consequence. 

This is so well done @Morrick, and as regards the term "preditor", Hinterland might simply decide that warnings are the limit of interaction with an NPC, and that an attack will also be limited to risk of looting but never injury or harm to the character.

If implemented with the usual Hinterland care and wisdom, this small game element could be the 'Wilson Volley Ball' of Tom Hank's movie 'Castaway' mixed with the moral and emotional struggle of the 'Weighted Companion Cube' from 'Portal'...mixed with the true survival situation inner struggles of the book/movie 'The Road'...

I am so looking forward to Hinterland's vision for a moral compass within The Long Dark.

[Mroz4k]

I understood the point. Yet still, there is a fine line in between animal hunting for the neccesity of obtaining food or starving, and people shooting at each other because they are scared of each other. Whether the intend to kill is there or not, the ratings would look at it the same way. No matter the way you classify the NPCs, they are still people in the way they look. And as long as the player has an ability to draw a weapon and shoot at the NPC, even if the NPC cannot be harmed, the ratings would see this as violence. 

I am not saying the idea cant work - in fact, I believe it can, just not the way you would like to do it. I think it would be really great if there is a way to include NPCs into the middle of the wilderness hunting, but the one thing they cant do is shoot at each other upon contact. Neither the player, nor the NPCs should show direct violence towards each other. 

Extreme situation or not, if you could die from that gunshot warning wound, it is still a case of murder. 
(I want to stress that Hinterland expected to gain the ESRB rating of 13, but got 16. Those ratings are merciless and nothing that will risk upping it further is something Hinterland will be particularly interested in.)

There are lines Hinterland wont cross, and they said so, repeatedly, in the past. An example of that is cannibalism, for instance. Another one is that they do not condone wanton destruction of wildlife and needless animal cruelty. I expect that intentional violence towards other people is going to be one of these lines. But perhaps I am wrong, that is just my own personal opinion. I would be very sad if I was. This neednt be a violent game. I am not saying that moral choices shouldnt be in the game - but they can be seen in the kind of decision like that already mentioned side quest with ecoactivists. Do you take the ammo, or leave it there and help the person out, even though it is something you could really use... those are better moral choices then "will I shoot at this person to make them running or not?"

In regards to the looting suggestion.

I get the feeling you would like this to force your own playstyle on other players as well. To prevent "hoarding". What is wrong with hoarding? It makes complete sense that you would eventually move anything of major importance back to your base, and stockpile it for the rainy days. Why does everyone have to play in the fashion of "moving in between smaller bases"? 
Not to mention the way you described it with that Forestry lookout suggestion, I would wage that having several smaller bases would actually mean that you lose more items over time then from a single big building.

I would like for you guys to take a look at what is the community´s opinion of sprains. Regardless how common this looting would be, it would essentially be RNG. Now, you tell me that you would not be pissed if you left your base, came back and a really rare item you needed was gone, forever, with no way to get it back. I dont believe you wouldnt be pissed. I would be... cause it would be stupid.

Now, a one, two-time random occurence that someone took something of yours and you have a chance to go and get it back, that I can agree with. It would be "unpredictable" kind of situation, but it would not be inherently unfair... you still can choose to get it back...

Just cause you guys do the smart thing and leave around several smaller bases does not mean everyone has to be forced to play that way. Lets let people play the game in a way they like to play it  

Hoarding is not a problem, it is just something some people look down upon as kind of pointless. It is not like purposeful self-starving to stretch out calories... that is kind of a problematic tactic, one that should be discouraged, as it really takes advantage of the way game mechanics work but werent really intended. Therefore why there are things like malnutrition affliction in the game.

_____________________________________________________

Here is an idea for your NPC encounters. It is a simple one. If you ran across the NPCs, then the same way it is with people in some other games, if you tried to point your weapon at the NPC, the player would immidiatedly point the gun towards the ground. The NPC would be "distrustful" of you, but would not attack either. The moral choices could still be an option, in a matter of dialog options:
A: "I have a group of 4 other survivors coming to meet me here for a hunt. Leave behind some of your supplies an get lost, and nobody needs to get hurt."
B: "Hello there. Just passing through. I mean you no harm. Have a nice day, and keep on surviving."
C: "Hello. It is really good to see another human face ´round here. Need help?"

These depict some choices a player could make in the NPC interactions, now the NPCs could react in different ways. They would be distrustful and may even refuse your help. They might even laugh you out on your threat, and leave away without leaving supplies. They may just remain neutral to you. In any case, there is no need for NPCs to just end up shooting at each other.

(there are plenty ways this could be done. Perhaps based on your level of "intimidation" and on the level of intimidation of the NPC, your gears, your "needs" status, weapons and clothing, the chance of success would be higher or lower. If a lightly geared out player with a bow strolls up to a gun wearing NPC in a bear coat and asks him for his supplies, the NPC could laugh up and force the player to give him some of their supplies instead. This way it would be "risky" to approach such an NPC in order to rob them, as there would be a chance of losing some of your own items instead. If an unarmed player strolls up and offers aid to an armed NPC, perhaps that NPC was a former "convict" from the "Blackrock Penitentiary" (aka the Prison bus in Mountain Town) and just decides to hold the player up and rob them, despite the player trying to be friendly. That would not be unfair RNG, but a calculated risk, unlike vanishing equipment. And no need for a shootout.)

[Mroz4k]

I do like the idea of paying for your actions with consequences. If you go around, robbing people, then they might come back for some payback, and steal some things of your own. Still, you should be able to "recover" those. Again, point of the moral choices is that people can play their own way. Someone likes to play a hardy outlaw highwayman. They shouldnt start losing ammo without way to get it back as a result of robbing people.

Additionally, a nice person can build up a "reputation" and some unsavory characters may pay this player a visit and steal some valuables. Again, you should have an option to track them down and recover your items.

NPC interactions would be rare, but the way TLD works, "rare" is kind of difficult to determine. The longer you live and the more places you explore, the exponentially your chance of running into an NPC would be. Eventually it may not seem as such a "rare" occurance anymore. 

But these are probably just our hopes and dreams - like I mentioned before, I get the feeling the NPCs will be just some randomly placed indoor people who have a base and supplies, have a "Trust" option with items you may give them to increase their trust and then take an item or two of their own as a "repayment". Basically the way NPCs are in Wintermute.

[Morrick]

6 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

I am not saying the idea cant work - in fact, I believe it can, just not the way you would like to do it. I think it would be really great if there is a way to include NPCs into the middle of the wilderness hunting, but the one thing they cant do is shoot at each other upon contact. Neither the player, nor the NPCs should show direct violence towards each other.

You seem to insist on this matter of 'direct violence,' which is something that I'm not insisting on at all, especially if you read my clarification above. The warning rifle shot was just an example in case things escalated or were allowed to escalate. If Hinterland, as you say, intends to keep ESRB ratings as low as possible, then we can eliminate the 'violent' part, and simply have the NPCs run away when you try to approach them, or when you stumble onto them by chance. Exactly like it usually happens with wildlife on Pilgrim mode. I certainly don't want to turn The Long Dark into Westworld. 

6 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

This neednt be a violent game.

Don't think for a second that I would want it to become a violent game! Or I should say, more violent than it can currently be. Because the possibility of being mauled by a bear is not exactly a peaceful scenario, either. 

7 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

I get the feeling you would like this to force your own playstyle on other players as well. To prevent "hoarding". What is wrong with hoarding?

There's nothing wrong with it. I tend to be a hoarder myself, both in the game and in real life. I'm not trying to force my playstyle on anyone.

This 'proposal' of mine is fundamentally a thought experiment. Remember the title of this thread: I'm against adding human NPCs in the game in the first place. For me, the game is mostly fine as it is. I love the post-apocalyptic loneliness and struggle to survive. I love that the environment is the biggest obstacle to face. I was just thinking about a way that NPCs could work inside The Long Dark without altering the game's spirit and atmosphere. Nothing more.

And by the way, even with NPCs implemented the way I proposed, one could be absolutely free to keep on hoarding and playing the game however one wants. But the presence of other NPCs — in very limited numbers, I can't stress that enough — who could interfere (again, not randomly, but mostly when provoked) may act as a further reality check: you are not alone, so don't treat this region/this land as if it were all yours, all for yourself. 

Again, this NPC behaviour is conceived to add a bit of a challenge to a game of survival. Not by adding complete randomness (and I'm sorry if it initially came across as such), but by adding another element the player needs to take into account in his/her explorations and survival tactics. As I said in my clarification, the key is to have this new element (NPCs and their behaviour towards the player) to be a highly customisable parameter. Their influence should range from absolutely minimal (Pilgrim mode) to noticeable (Interloper mode). In Custom games, players could even decide to leave NPCs out of the picture completely.

I hope I managed to further clarify my position. Again, thank you for keeping the conversation — and this campfire — going! 

 

[StrayCat]

I see really good debates here, although I personnaly dislike the whole concept of NPC. The main problem would be imo : what if the player chooses to shoot a NPC to steal his/her inventory ? Anyone who has played even for a little time multiplayer games, knows how many people would happily shoot each other for a small loot. So there should be a way to safely lock the trigger when the player is aiming a NPC, maybe with a dialogue line. Being able to kill NPC would completely alter TLD as how we know it, and completely change the ESRB rating (killing on sight an innocent person, come on...).

I'd rather have wolves steal meat when stocked outside, and be happy with this level of interaction.

[Morrick]

8 hours ago, StrayCat said:

Being able to kill NPC would completely alter TLD as how we know it, and completely change the ESRB rating (killing on sight an innocent person, come on...).

I absolutely agree with you. That's why, in my proposal, you simply cannot kill NPCs because you cannot approach them in the first place. They just keep their distance. The only way you could obtain items from their loot would be to try and revisit buildings, caves, mines, hoping they've passed from there and left something behind.

And yes, in general, implementing human NPCs in this game specifically is just a recipe for nightmares. There are too many things that could go wrong by adding them. Too many ways the whole gameplay could suffer from that. I was simply trying to think of one way NPCs could work.

[s7mar7in]

4 hours ago, Morrick said:

And yes, in general, implementing human NPCs in this game specifically is just a recipe for nightmares.

This discussion has begun a healthy exchange of ideas, let us agree it is important to maintain the respectful tone we all exhibit and desire while brainstorming together in this forum.

Now for a small contribution to the discussion:

Your thoughtful words inspired an idea @Morrick.

We have had NPCs in the survival mode game. During the 4DofN Event, one of the most enjoyable “challenges” many have seen in a long while…some NPC people were leaving plates of food outside the doors of houses with the understanding that we, their fellow survivors, were welcome to take the treats and that they were offered as a way to help us…someone even setup a lighted jack-o-lantern as a mini signal to alert us to a care-package that was freely given by strangers to help us improve our gear items.

It was all done anonymously, and though we cannot be sure if we ever actually sighted any of these kind fellow survivors, it was good to know that others shared in our same struggle.

Just some thoughts on a small thing in the game having a wonderful and positive effect on gameplay.