The only major thing missing

[Zero_]

Like everybody else, I like the ideas of rivers, a greater variety of flora, a greater variety of and more dynamic fauna, better looking trees (and realtime growth), but I don't really think the addition of any of that would make me much more engaged.

The only thing that would, that keeps me looking at other games, keeps me playing games like Stardew Valley, and Grimshire, keeps me away from this one, is the relationships. The social systems of those games are rudimentary. There are different personalities as indicated by different values/preferences, and differences in dialogue; give gifts and get a verbal thanks, and raise their relationship status - usually only indicated by a series of hearts on a profile card; marry somebody and the only thing that changes is now they live at your house instead of theirs. Those systems are not complex at all, but they still feel rewarding. A huge part of human life is the social interaction. We live to love and be loved. In Vintage Story you're alone, unless you play multiplayer and then you're alone all the time other's you know aren't online. Multiplayer as such doesn't really appeal to me. I would like to come across a tribal village, with various personalities living in their own little houses, moving about, and I'd love to be able to build my own house next to theirs, and interact with and contribute to the little community. Beyond that I don't really know how it should or would work best. All I know is that it's the one thing I feel is really missing, and I know that it doesn't need to be complex. The social systems in Stardew Valley and Grimshire really aren't complicated at all - but they are rewarding, and I feel they would be rewarding even if they were simpler - besides I often skip dialogue and gift people things even without looking at their preferences.

[Perdido Street]

As far as I know the developers have said that they don't intend to add player build-able villages as a base game feature; and, while I do see it as a missed opportunity, I respect their overall reasoning about maintaining a tighter focus on individual survival. Plus, they want to avoid those weirdly exploitative relationships (crossing the line into slavery) between players and villagers in games like Minecraft (which I think is more a product of the player to npc interactions being too underdeveloped as a system in that game, but that is beside the point here).

- -

That said, deeper npc to player interactions are on the road map, it is just not clear yet what those will look like. Personally, I really like this suggestion of a Stardew-esque model. Maybe we can't make our own villages, but we can definitely develop relationships with the NPCs by completing quests, just so long as the emphasis is on adding something new to the world through the interaction (be that dialogue options, a physical object/structure, or a modifier), and not just an arbitrary in-put for out-put of different resources.

This might need a new thread to discuss, because this one here seems to be more about the relationships themselves, but I think that there is a lot of room to explore in developing NPC Locations through player investment. That, I hope, is an avenue for creating deeper interactions while respecting the dev team's vision.

Edited May 29 by Perdido Street
Decided that my statment was more of it's own topic

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, Zero_ said:

In Vintage Story you're alone

Probably worth noting that, at the end of the day, it's a survival game heavily based on realism and natural processes. Adding lots of NPC interactions to that really cuts down on the survival aspect. Likewise, the world in the lore is described as medieval post-apocalyptic and sparsely populated...there's really not many people to encounter, and lots of NPCs running around would make such a setting feel rather inauthentic.

That's not to say there won't be more depth to NPC interactions when the player does encounter them. The devs certainly seem to be heading this route. However, I don't expect it to extend further than the player simply befriending NPCs and maybe earning some special perks or a plot in a settlement they can actually build/live in. It's not a life sim game, so adding romance doesn't really add anything other than open a can of controversy for players to fight over, which isn't ideal(plus the player characters are immortal beings so...not a good idea to run around reproducing, if it's even possible). Likewise, as @Perdido Street already noted, the devs seem to want to avoid the player exploiting NPCs as is common in Minecraft, as well as just avoid having a village seemingly over every hill(which Minecraft seems to have now).

[Rainbow Fresh]

With the main points about going too in-depth with NPC interactions and world-building already being said, there is a mod out there (VS Village) which lets you build a functioning village with autonomous NPCs. Not quite the relationship building "marry and reproduce" Stardew Valley kind but certainly a way to add life and progression to the world as a whole, as well as adding a reasonably designed prupose to interact with the NPCs in the first place, all head-canon roleplay reasons included and not quite Minecraft Villager Trading Hall themed.

[ifoz]

I think the best way to do this while keeping with the established lore and survival gameplay would be a reputation system among traders, as well as potential radiant quests.
Traders could generate with a preset personality and backstory, which would each influence one another. A trader who has a shady personality might have one of a few 'thief' backstories, while a trader with an introverted personality might have one of a few backstories involving their choice to live alone in the wilds.

This could also influence player interactions and trades. Shadier traders might trust Malefactor Seraphs more, while polite traders might strike a better deal with Tailor Seraphs for their manners. It could also lead to some unique dialogue per trader, even if that's just in the form of different greetings and maybe a few special dialogue choices dependant on the trader's backstory and player's class.

If they really wanted to go all the way, personality could even influence trader occupation and stocklists. More timid/cautious traders might be much more likely to have occupations like clothing or artisan, while more confident ones might be treasure hunters and survival goods traders. It wouldn't be hard locked or anything, but just different chances at the likelihood of each personality belonging to a different trader category.

I think something along these lines would make traders feel more like proper NPCs, as opposed to all having the same generic dialogue as they do right now. Their looks were updated in 1.22 which is something I love, making them more visually distinct from each other, but their dialogue has stayed the same, and I think that's a real missed opportunity.

--------------

If I had to make a list of ideas for potential personalities, I would say something like;

-Cautious (more likely to be a clothing trader or artisan trader. Probably also a little more wary of the player, especially the Malefactor. This could be alleviated after continuous successful trades, proving the player is friendly. Their prices might also start higher and then decrease with this).
-Confident (more likely to be a treasure hunter or luxuries trader. Their prices might start out reasonable, but ramp up a little bit with many continuous successful trades, realising you're a repeat customer).
-Shady (more likely to be a treasure hunter, commodities or luxuries trader. Their prices might fluctuate, with some being outright scams and some being more reasonable. Like the cautious traders, this would get lowered the more trust they had in you. They would also trust the Malefactor more to begin with).
-Stoic (more likely to be a building materials, agriculture, survival goods or furniture trader. The usual run-of-the-mill trader, with no gimmick).

Edited May 29 by ifoz

[LadyWYT]

3 hours ago, ifoz said:

This could also influence player interactions and trades. Shadier traders might trust Malefactor Seraphs more, while polite traders might strike a better deal with Tailor Seraphs for their manners. It could also lead to some unique dialogue per trader, even if that's just in the form of different greetings and maybe a few special dialogue choices dependant on the trader's backstory and player's class.

I'm guessing most of them probably wouldn't like Blackguards.  The treasure hunters might, since Blackguards are tough enough to go delve into a dangerous ruin and live to tell the tale and share the goodies, but at the same time, that same strength means the Blackguard might just settle for considering the trader's home to be prize enough and allow them to take it by force.

Given the personalities you suggested though, it could just mean that it takes a Confident trader to act completely unphased when dealing with unfamiliar Blackguards. Cautious traders might actually lock the door and refuse trade until the Blackguard in question has completed a small quest or two. Shady traders seem like they could go either way--being confident enough to assume the Blackguard might have be one of the less scrupulous ones, or being overly cautious and requiring a "favor" before they'll let their guard down.

[Heegrim]

I don’t think developing full on relationships would fit this game, but I think the NPCs should have a bit more personality and different dialogue options based on what kind of trader they are. Maybe more options that unlock as you trade and complete tasks for them (like the treasure hunters). 
 

Some of them should be wary of the Seraphs or even superstitious of them. You would think a few of them would start going crazy after being alone in the forest for all this time but they all just welcome you with open arms and let you sleep in their bed. 

[LadyWYT]

On 5/29/2026 at 11:56 AM, Heegrim said:

Some of them should be wary of the Seraphs or even superstitious of them. You would think a few of them would start going crazy after being alone in the forest for all this time but they all just welcome you with open arms and let you sleep in their bed. 

I know bandits are a somewhat common suggestion, but the main counterpoints against such an addition is that...well, it would really only make sense for them to hang around a settlement or known active trade route so they actually have things to pillage, and those are pretty few and far between from a lore standpoint. The other is that the player is generally presented as a hero type and the game tends to focus a little more on humanity's better qualities(like working together to overcome a challenge), so adding a human enemy can run contrary to that.

That being said, given what's happened in the lore, I could see an antagonistic human faction being perhaps more than just bandits. I'll post behind spoilers just in case.

Spoiler

Most view Jonas as god-like savior, however, it's possible that some of the survivors might have turned against him and blamed him instead for all the chaos currently in the world. As such, perhaps instead of mere bandits, there could be a dedicated fanatical cult dedicated to hunting down seraphs and otherwise eradicating anything/anyone that portrays Jonas in a positive light. In that case, there's solid reasoning for why the player doesn't have options to deal with them aside from "kill or avoid".

 

[Bruno Willis]

On 5/29/2026 at 7:57 PM, ifoz said:

This could also influence player interactions and trades. Shadier traders might trust Malefactor Seraphs more, while polite traders might strike a better deal with Tailor Seraphs for their manners. It could also lead to some unique dialogue per trader, even if that's just in the form of different greetings and maybe a few special dialogue choices dependant on the trader's backstory and player's class.

This is one of the real strengths with the current dialogue system. Adding more in depth dialogue or alternative greetings is just altering dialogue trees. They can add a huge amount of personality and diversity of options without much coding work. Seems like low hanging fruit for improving the game. 

I'd love it if traders were rarer, but more often clustered together, and if you could talk with traders to learn where other traders were. It'd be cool if you had to sort of gossip to get information. Like, traders would let things slip, details about their favourite food, or reveal that they're actually in love with a nearby trader, but they're from different trading factions (the banners...) that sort of information could then be 'traded' through dialogue with other traders for juicer gossip, locations of specific traders, ruins locations, cheaper trades, etc. 

10 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Most view Jonas as god-like savior, however, it's possible that some of the survivors might have turned against him and blamed him instead for all the chaos currently in the world. As such, perhaps instead of mere bandits, there could be a dedicated fanatical cult dedicated to hunting down seraphs and otherwise eradicating anything/anyone that portrays Jonas in a positive light. In that case, there's solid reasoning for why the player doesn't have options to deal with them aside from "kill or avoid".

It seems likely that we seraphs have at least one temporal gear turning inside us which gives us our unique properties. I could imagine a faction which does not distinguish between rust foes and seraphs, and is willing to incapacitate a seraph in order to harvest a temporal gear from the seraph's chest, which might leave the seraph desperately low on stability, deep in the rust world, facing foes which the human bandits aren't even aware exist. 

[LadyWYT]

12 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

It seems likely that we seraphs have at least one temporal gear turning inside us which gives us our unique properties.

Eh, I dunno. A temporal gear doesn't seem very likely to me. Rather, seraph bodies have probably just absorbed enough temporal energy to be able to display curious properties, such as oddly colored skin or bending the rules of time.

[Bruno Willis]

6 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

A temporal gear doesn't seem very likely to me

It's that temporal gear turning in the center of the screen that suggests it to me, along with the mechanic where we cut ourselves open and insert a temporal gear to increase our stability. It makes me feel like the drifters were failed attempts, and we were the successful versions, and both run on temporal gears. That's just my head cannon, having gotten only about halfway through the existing story material. 

[ifoz]

6 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

It's that temporal gear turning in the center of the screen that suggests it to me, along with the mechanic where we cut ourselves open and insert a temporal gear to increase our stability. It makes me feel like the drifters were failed attempts, and we were the successful versions, and both run on temporal gears. That's just my head cannon, having gotten only about halfway through the existing story material. 

We don't really know how the gear is used to restore stability, but nothing in particular suggests it's necessarily by inserting it.

I always saw it as slitting the palm of a hand and pressing the gear against the wound to absorb the prima materia/energy from it, considering the animation and the low amount of damage taken. Slicing open something like your own chest would probably deal a lot more than 2hp of damage, after all!
Iirc the knife blade also faces away from the player's body in the animation, more in line with the idea of cutting a palm.

Edited June 3 by ifoz