BG1: Newbie observations
Louie Landale
mines...
I've noticed a couple things:
[] You get way too much treasure. I just hate deciding which of my trifles
to leave behind and which of my spell scrolls or magic weapons to sell. Or
figuring out which of those gems I need to keep.
[] Line-Of-Sight and distance-of-sight rules are rigidly enforced. Your six
archers can whoop on one of the enemy archers while his buddy right next to
him is "too far" way to see you, and does nothing until you move up a couple
more feet after killing the first. Thus the "pause when enemy is sighted"
option rules since you never step one foot closer to the rest of the bad
guys after seeing the first. This makes wandering around too easy, so long
as you stock up; REALLY stock up, on missile ammo. I figure I'm shooting
between 40 and 60 shots per area. Everybody.
[] The AI kicks in the turn AFTER your last order. So if you command the
party to "stop" they won't voluntarily shoot until next round (when the
monster has closed 2/3 of the way); whereas if you command to "stop" and
then "shoot" they'll shoot right away.
[] Since you get more shots than swings, it looks like you should just
forget melee weapons unless you have a two-handed sword against big things.
The enemy swinging at you doesn't seem to stop you from shooting.
[] If everyone is shooting at the same target, some PCs lose their shot when
their buddy kills the target on that same round (they cannot retarget). So,
you might want to split up your targets if there are a lot of them, rather
than focusing on one at a time.
[] The NPC chatter may sound consistent, but it has definitely changed from
"cute" to "irritating".
[] Keeping track of the quests is a nightmare. The journal should be
interactive in some way.
[] Why do SO many monsters need foreplay arguments before you kill ..err..
before they fight?
- Louie
Kish
>
> Got my party together and have already gnocked out the gnols; ready for the
> mines...
>
> I've noticed a couple things:
> [] Since you get more shots than swings, it looks like you should just
> forget melee weapons unless you have a two-handed sword against big things.
> The enemy swinging at you doesn't seem to stop you from shooting.
I believe they get a +4 bonus to hit you if you have a missile weapon
equipped and they're attacking with a melee weapon. You may also have a
penalty to hit at extremely close range. Turn on To-Hit rolls and
check, if you care.
Karkadinn
>Got my party together and have already gnocked out the gnols; ready for the
>mines...
Good job. :) After the gnolls, the mines shouldn't be much trouble....
>[] You get way too much treasure. I just hate deciding which of my trifles
>to leave behind and which of my spell scrolls or magic weapons to sell. Or
>figuring out which of those gems I need to keep.
I like that you have to pick and choose what to take and what to leave behind.
After all, if you were always able to carry everything, there'd be no point in
giving any treasure other than coins most of the time, since you'd always be
able to take it to town and sell it. However, long swords +1 do seem to be a
bit too thickly interspersed for some reason.
>[] Line-Of-Sight and distance-of-sight rules are rigidly enforced. Your six
>archers can whoop on one of the enemy archers while his buddy right next to
>him is "too far" way to see you, and does nothing until you move up a couple
>more feet after killing the first.
I don't think of this as the "sight" rules so much as a very bad overlook,
nearly a bug, in the monster AI. It's very immersion-breaking and stupid, but
I'll admit to being a wussy enough to take advantage of it occasionally (most
frequently against spellcasters who have bodyguards in front of them for
protection).
>[] Since you get more shots than swings, it looks like you should just
>forget melee weapons unless you have a two-handed sword against big things.
::nod::
More of a problem with AD&D 2nd edition than the BG games, though. No sense
bitching at 'em for implementing the rules correctly. :)
>[] The NPC chatter may sound consistent, but it has definitely changed from
>"cute" to "irritating".
Heh. Finally someone who agrees. Whee.
>[] Keeping track of the quests is a nightmare. The journal should be
>interactive in some way.
Hell yes. Would it really have been so hard for the quest entries to have some
visual sign letting the player know when they've completed 'em? Graying out
the text, or putting them in a different section, or something.
>[] Why do SO many monsters need foreplay arguments before you kill ..err..
>before they fight?
Because the designers felt that it added "depth" to the game, probably. The
problem is that this depth has all the attractiveness of cardboard scenery in a
high school play.
"Give me your money or die!"
"Um, gee... okay! Here's all my gold!"
There was one bandit encounter where you could say something that lost you a
little gold but gained experience... something about robbing the robbers, I
believe. It would've been nice if that sort of thing had been more frequent.
Ah well.
--
Signing off as Stephen Mackey, the Multi-Threaded RFE Database Liaison.
"I told you two years ago Kark was a psycho."
sqweek
I think the +4 attack bonus is only in BG2...
You get a -8 attack penalty for attacking something next to you with a
ranged weapon in BG1.
sqweek
> Louie Landale said:
>
> >[] Line-Of-Sight and distance-of-sight rules are rigidly enforced.
> >Your six archers can whoop on one of the enemy archers while his
> >buddy right next to him is "too far" way to see you, and does
> >nothing until you move up a couple more feet after killing the first.
>
> I don't think of this as the "sight" rules so much as a very bad
> overlook, nearly a bug, in the monster AI.
I'd agree with that. They should be able to see their friend is getting
hurt and check out what's going on...
> >[] Since you get more shots than swings, it looks like you should
> >just forget melee weapons unless you have a two-handed sword against
> >big things.
>
> More of a problem with AD&D 2nd edition than the BG games, though.
> No sense bitching at 'em for implementing the rules correctly. :)
Not at close range though... You get a -8 penalty for trying to attack
something right next to you with a ranged weapon.
Oh, and why are two-handed swords good against big things?
> >[] The NPC chatter may sound consistent, but it has definitely changed
> >from "cute" to "irritating".
>
> Heh. Finally someone who agrees. Whee.
You can always turn it off...
> >[] Keeping track of the quests is a nightmare. The journal should be
> >interactive in some way.
>
> Hell yes. Would it really have been so hard for the quest entries to
> have some visual sign letting the player know when they've completed
> 'em? Graying out the text, or putting them in a different section,
> or something.
Yeah, they didn't get around to that until BG2 :)
> >[] Why do SO many monsters need foreplay arguments before you kill
> >..err.. before they fight?
Because the monsters have personalities too?
> Because the designers felt that it added "depth" to the game, probably.
> The problem is that this depth has all the attractiveness of cardboard
> scenery in a high school play.
It's far better than just running into groups of people and having no
idea who they are or why they are trying to kill you for _every_
encounter.
> "Give me your money or die!"
> "Um, gee... okay! Here's all my gold!"
What would you expect in an area plagued with bandits?
> There was one bandit encounter where you could say something that lost
> you a little gold but gained experience... something about robbing the
> robbers, I believe. It would've been nice if that sort of thing had
> been more frequent.
Actually, I thought that was a worse encounter...
You demand money from the bandit, and then he laughs at you, takes some
of your money (from the edge of my line of sight, pretty impressive) and
leaves - I mean, I just demanded money from him, I'm not exactly going
to give up my money without a fight.
--
"The legendary / Invisible rock singer
I would open my mouth and speak forth"
Karkadinn
>It's far better than just running into groups of people and having no
>idea who they are or why they are trying to kill you for _every_
>encounter.
Sorry, disagree. :) If it was like that, it would be an open slash and hack
fast. Honest and straightforward. Like Wizardry 8 or something. Instead, we
get dialogues that don't really matter because there's almost always only one
attractive option: fight. I'd prefer no dialogue to dialogue that makes no
difference in things.
>What would you expect in an area plagued with bandits?
The option to steal money from them, with a high level thief in your party?
Or, with high enough Charisma, convince them to give up their Evil Wayz? Or
something. Anything, really. "Give me your money or die" is realistic, but
realism should be tossed out when it makes a game boring instead of fun. Give
me unrealistic dialogues where I can convert the bandits to my side and let
them go around killing evil monsters with me as temporary additional party
members, or something.
>Actually, I thought that was a worse encounter...
>You demand money from the bandit, and then he laughs at you, takes some
>of your money (from the edge of my line of sight, pretty impressive) and
>leaves - I mean, I just demanded money from him, I'm not exactly going
>to give up my money without a fight.
>
True, but at least you got a reward from something other than fighting,
unrealistic though it may be.
Derville
"Louie Landale" <llan...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message
news:4hD99.3968$ob2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Got my party together and have already gnocked out the gnols; ready for
the
> mines...
>
> I've noticed a couple things:
>
> [] You get way too much treasure. I just hate deciding which of my
trifles
> to leave behind and which of my spell scrolls or magic weapons to sell.
Or
> figuring out which of those gems I need to keep.
Flog everything which you don't want. Hell, hoarding treasure on maps is a
game in itself - try and take all the loot from the Bassilus encounter back
to Beregost to sell in one trip only. It can be done, but requires quite a
bit of preparation beforehand. Having said that, if you don't have TOTSC
then do yourself a favour and buy it now - the improvements to inventory
management (i.e. arrows stack up to 40 per slot) give some much-needed help
to a very fiddly process.
> [] Line-Of-Sight and distance-of-sight rules are rigidly enforced. Your
six
> archers can whoop on one of the enemy archers while his buddy right next
to
> him is "too far" way to see you, and does nothing until you move up a
couple
> more feet after killing the first. Thus the "pause when enemy is sighted"
> option rules since you never step one foot closer to the rest of the bad
> guys after seeing the first.
Well, try and melee with the enemy. Nope, didn't think that would last too
long. Sure the enemy AI is pretty ropey in some respects, but marching out
to slap them in the face with a leather gauntlet is just asking for trouble.
Remember, you're a low level character who has to fight for his life at
every turn. Mocking the occasional dopey Gnoll is a fair pay-off for this,
I reckon ;-).
> [] The AI kicks in the turn AFTER your last order. So if you command the
> party to "stop" they won't voluntarily shoot until next round (when the
> monster has closed 2/3 of the way); whereas if you command to "stop" and
> then "shoot" they'll shoot right away.
Can't say I've ever had the AI on long enough to notice this. It's always
best to issue as many commands as possible when paused - the 'stop' function
isn't really a command as I see it, more a way of cancelling the previously
stored orders. Also, be aware that if you control characters individually,
then each person has their own 6-second round, which won't necessarily start
at the same time as everyone else on your team. Use this to your advantage,
to fire volleys of arrows while the rest of your group reload and wait for
their next turn.
> [] Since you get more shots than swings, it looks like you should just
> forget melee weapons unless you have a two-handed sword against big
things.
> The enemy swinging at you doesn't seem to stop you from shooting.
True, in BG1. Kish noted the -4 to-hit penalty when using a ranged weapon
in melee combat - AFAIK, this applies to BG2 only, so you can keep on firing
arrows at point-blank range in BG1 (doesn't explain critical misses at that
range, though!). You miss out on the defensive bonus of a shield,
naturally, and you run a greater risk of damage, as most enemies are more
lethal in melee than at range.
> [] The NPC chatter may sound consistent, but it has definitely changed
from
> "cute" to "irritating".
Hmmm, I take it you haven't met Tiax yet?
> [] Keeping track of the quests is a nightmare. The journal should be
> interactive in some way.
Very true. Sadly, it isn't, so the good old pencil and paper is as good a
way as any of keeping track of quests.
> [] Why do SO many monsters need foreplay arguments before you kill ..err..
> before they fight?
Haven't you ever watched any films? Where would the bad guy be in a
swashbuckler without the chance to fiddle with his eeeeevil moustache while
grinning in an eeeeeevil fashion and giving an eeeeevil speech of his
nefarious intentions to the hero. Failing that, let's just assume they were
neglected by their mothers and feel the need to establish emotional closure
before getting their insides spilled all over the carpet.
--
Phil
(remove 'your.inhibitions' to reply)
"If I have to sacrifice my integrity for politics, I guess I'll just have to
stay a lawyer!"
sqweek
> Sqweek said:
>
> >It's far better than just running into groups of people and having no
> >idea who they are or why they are trying to kill you for _every_
> >encounter.
>
> Sorry, disagree. :) If it was like that, it would be an open slash and hack
> fast.
Exactly. Which would do nothing for the story and atmosphere of the
game.
> Honest and straightforward. Like Wizardry 8 or something. Instead, we
> get dialogues that don't really matter because there's almost always only one
> attractive option: fight. I'd prefer no dialogue to dialogue that makes no
> difference in things.
They might not make a difference _to_you_, but they do to anyone who is
willing to give up their money.
> >What would you expect in an area plagued with bandits?
>
> The option to steal money from them, with a high level thief in your party?
Why do you need a dialogue option for that?
Hide in the shadows, walk up to the bandits and pick pocket them (of
course, I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't have anything to pick
pocket, but hey)
> Or, with high enough Charisma, convince them to give up their Evil Wayz? Or
> something. Anything, really. "Give me your money or die" is realistic, but
> realism should be tossed out when it makes a game boring instead of fun.
You really think these dialogues make the game boring?
I can't see how removing them would make it less boring... it'd just be
more monotonous...
Anyway, I'd agree that more choices should be available (like, being
able to _try_ to convince them to give up their evil ways, even if it
had 0 chance of success), but that's probably because I would prefer if
you typed in your response, rather than chose from a list :)
Karkadinn
>> Sorry, disagree. :) If it was like that, it would be an open slash and
>hack
>> fast.
>
>Exactly. Which would do nothing for the story and atmosphere of the
>game.
::shrug::
Bandits, hobgoblins, kobolds, xvarts, what's the difference? I see no reason
why some should be graced with dialogue, and then you kill them, while others
you just kill.
>They might not make a difference _to_you_, but they do to anyone who is
>willing to give up their money.
>
Heheheh. Okay. Raise your hands, everyone who has played a BG game, given
their money to robbers, and then continued playing the rest of the game from
that point without reloading to kill them instead? Come on now, don't be shy.
If there's anyone who has actually done this, I will be extremely impressed.
>> The option to steal money from them, with a high level thief in your party?
>
>
>Why do you need a dialogue option for that?
>Hide in the shadows, walk up to the bandits and pick pocket them (of
>course, I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't have anything to pick
>pocket, but hey)
Okay, you have a point there... OTOH, does picking a pocket kill your Stealth
Mode or nay?
>> Or, with high enough Charisma, convince them to give up their Evil Wayz?
>Or
>> something. Anything, really. "Give me your money or die" is realistic,
>but
>> realism should be tossed out when it makes a game boring instead of fun.
>
>You really think these dialogues make the game boring?
That's what I've been saying, right? Unlike SOME people (::glares at Matija::)
I don't say things I don't mean.
>I can't see how removing them would make it less boring... it'd just be
>more monotonous...
It would make them just one more random encounter of monsters to kill. No
biggie. If you think that makes too many monsters, just take a few encounters
out. Easily fixed.
>Anyway, I'd agree that more choices should be available (like, being
>able to _try_ to convince them to give up their evil ways, even if it
>had 0 chance of success), but that's probably because I would prefer if
>you typed in your response, rather than chose from a list :)
Oh, now we're back to text game methods and "Guess the verb". No thank you. ;)
And for the most part, I don't want an option to be available of there's no
chance of success. It's a cheap tease, making me expect roleplaying when it
turns out to be nothing but hack'n slash after all. The Dark Sun games
suffered from a similar affliction at points... for instance, in Dark Sun
Shattered lands, early on you have the option to ally with a templar. He will
pretend to be peaceful, but instead just lures you to his room, calls for some
guards, and tries to chop your head off. You might as well kill him as soon as
you see him. A pity, because the way he talked sounded like he had an
interesting quest in store for the party.
(While we're talking dialogue, has anyone checked out the previews and such for
Icewind Dale 2? The alignment, stats, and race of the party leader is
apparently going to have heavy effects on conversations. Sounds like a lot of
fun.)
Louie Landale
"Karkadinn" <kark...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020825154653...@mb-cf.aol.com...
> Sqweek said:
>
... snip...
> >Anyway, I'd agree that more choices should be available (like, being
> >able to _try_ to convince them to give up their evil ways, even if it
> >had 0 chance of success), but that's probably because I would prefer if
> >you typed in your response, rather than chose from a list :)
>
> Oh, now we're back to text game methods and "Guess the verb". No thank
you. ;)
... snip ...
18 years ago I played a text-based game on "state of the art" 8086. You
entered an area, the computer explained what you saw and kept a crude map
for you. You decided what to do. The interface was DOS-like: you issued a
command and waited for the response, like "Go Chest" (go to the chest), or
"read paper" "attack orc
or "look window" or my favorite "drop bear" to stop the bear who has been
following you (and defeated some other monster) from following you onto the
suspension bridge and breaking it. Anyway, this silly game seemed to
understand LOTS of verbs and routinely figured out what you want. "Leave
bear", "Shoo Bear", "Put Bear" all worked.
Having said that, how hard can it be for brilliant minds to come up with
text interpretation or whatever its called?
- Louie
m...@tadyatam.invalid
> -snip-
>
> True, in BG1. Kish noted the -4 to-hit penalty when using a ranged weapon
> in melee combat - AFAIK, this applies to BG2 only, so you can keep on firing
> arrows at point-blank range in BG1 (doesn't explain critical misses at that
> range, though!). You miss out on the defensive bonus of a shield,
> --
> Phil
> (remove 'your.inhibitions' to reply)
> "If I have to sacrifice my integrity for politics, I guess I'll just have to
> stay a lawyer!"
BG1 does have penalties when using, for eample, a bow in melee.
Just run a little test -- the difference between "backstabbing"
and long-range can be as much as 8 (depends on type of the
monster).
--J
Replies to: jNpolak(at)Ojuno(dot)Tcom
Ojerasmus
>Heheheh. Okay. Raise your hands, everyone who has played a BG game, given
>their money to robbers, and then continued playing the rest of the game from
>that point without reloading to kill them instead?
I have, I was as bored with those dialogues as you obviously are and was just
hitting the top ones without reading to get onto the fight, I let it go as a
lesson to myself.
Karkadinn
>I have, I was as bored with those dialogues as you obviously are and was just
>hitting the top ones without reading to get onto the fight, I let it go as a
>lesson to myself.
::is extremely impressed:: ;)
Phaenar
> mines...
>
> I've noticed a couple things:
>
> [] You get way too much treasure. I just hate deciding which of my trifles
> to leave behind and which of my spell scrolls or magic weapons to sell. Or
> figuring out which of those gems I need to keep.
I'm not so sure. Some really nice items for sale and I could never
afford to buy them all, it was a tough choice picking between various
weapons, armor and magic items.
>
> [] Line-Of-Sight and distance-of-sight rules are rigidly enforced. Your six
> archers can whoop on one of the enemy archers while his buddy right next to
> him is "too far" way to see you, and does nothing until you move up a couple
> more feet after killing the first. Thus the "pause when enemy is sighted"
> option rules since you never step one foot closer to the rest of the bad
> guys after seeing the first. This makes wandering around too easy, so long
> as you stock up; REALLY stock up, on missile ammo. I figure I'm shooting
> between 40 and 60 shots per area. Everybody.
Totally agree here. At 1gp per item slot arrows/bullets fill all my
excess slots and I dump excess when I need room. I'd say I go through
yes at least 60 per area, I guess it depends on the area.
>
> [] The AI kicks in the turn AFTER your last order. So if you command the
> party to "stop" they won't voluntarily shoot until next round (when the
> monster has closed 2/3 of the way); whereas if you command to "stop" and
> then "shoot" they'll shoot right away.
Killed more _Everything_ using the stop/stand-and-deliver command than
anything.
>
> [] Since you get more shots than swings, it looks like you should just
> forget melee weapons unless you have a two-handed sword against big things.
> The enemy swinging at you doesn't seem to stop you from shooting.
In melee there are bad penalties for using missiles. The enemy gets
+4 to attack.
>
> [] If everyone is shooting at the same target, some PCs lose their shot when
> their buddy kills the target on that same round (they cannot retarget). So,
> you might want to split up your targets if there are a lot of them, rather
> than focusing on one at a time.
I have my AI for the most part set to "ranged" type so my characters
deftly retarget and I don't worry about missed shots overly.
Sometimes I do "stop/stand-and-deliver" in the midst of battle if I
want to target a certain enemy but overall I just let the group have
at em.
>
> [] The NPC chatter may sound consistent, but it has definitely changed from
> "cute" to "irritating".
I never got tired of my group, except I got a headache listening to
Minsc screaming all the time :-)
>
> [] Keeping track of the quests is a nightmare. The journal should be
> interactive in some way.
BG2 is hugely improved! But yes, BG journals is hard to deal with.
>
> [] Why do SO many monsters need foreplay arguments before you kill ..err..
> before they fight?
There is a joke somewhere in BG2 where you can say something like,
"I'm sick of long winded monsters! Have at you!"
>
> - Louie
sqweek
> Sqweek said:
>
> >> Sorry, disagree. :) If it was like that, it would be an open slash
> >> and hack fast.
> >
> >Exactly. Which would do nothing for the story and atmosphere of the
> >game.
>
> ::shrug::
> Bandits, hobgoblins, kobolds, xvarts, what's the difference? I see no
> reason why some should be graced with dialogue, and then you kill them,
> while others you just kill.
Well, they all have different personalities. Some of them are just
bloodthirsty (mind you, there's at least one xvart that talks to you)
And they do all talk, to an extent - not all of them have written
dialogue though.
> >They might not make a difference _to_you_, but they do to anyone who is
> >willing to give up their money.
>
> Heheheh. Okay. Raise your hands, everyone who has played a BG game,
> given their money to robbers, and then continued playing the rest of the
> game from that point without reloading to kill them instead? Come on
> now, don't be shy. If there's anyone who has actually done this, I will
> be extremely impressed.
I'd do it, if I was playing the appropriate RP
> >Why do you need a dialogue option for that?
> >Hide in the shadows, walk up to the bandits and pick pocket them
>
> Okay, you have a point there... OTOH, does picking a pocket kill your
> Stealth Mode or nay?
Yep. I believe it makes you 'leave the shadows', so you still have time
to run away before you actually come out... I'm not sure if you can get
out of their visual range before they notice you or not (with the boots
of speed you'd be able to easy though).
> >> realism should be tossed out when it makes a game boring instead
> >> of fun.
> >
> >You really think these dialogues make the game boring?
>
> That's what I've been saying, right? Unlike SOME people
> (::glares at Matija::) I don't say things I don't mean.
Well, you hadn't explicitly said it, and I just can't understand your
view...
You're wandering around the map, slaughtering various monsters, and then
when one of them does something different and talks to you it boring?
> >Anyway, I'd agree that more choices should be available (like, being
> >able to _try_ to convince them to give up their evil ways, even if it
> >had 0 chance of success), but that's probably because I would prefer if
> >you typed in your response, rather than chose from a list :)
>
> Oh, now we're back to text game methods and "Guess the verb". No thank you. ;)
Nonono. I'm talking about intelligent Natural Language Parsing
Like, instead of the designers specifying exactly what the bandits or
whatever say, they just define a personality for the bandit, and you can
have a conversation with them.
This, IMO, would be the greatest innovation for role-playing games
possible.
> And for the most part, I don't want an option to be available of there's no
> chance of success. It's a cheap tease, making me expect roleplaying when it
> turns out to be nothing but hack'n slash after all.
Why does roleplaying have to involve talking? Is someone trying to kill
you not roleplaying?
> The Dark Sun games suffered from a similar affliction at points... for
> instance, in Dark Sun Shattered lands, early on you have the option to
> ally with a templar. He will pretend to be peaceful, but instead just
> lures you to his room, calls for some guards, and tries to chop your head
> off.
So it's treachery? What's wrong with that?
> You might as well kill him as soon as you see him.
But him double-crossing you is totally different in RP terms... You say
it is early on in the game, does that not give you an idea of what the
world is like?
It'd also be slightly different in fighting terms, because he'd be in
his choice of environment (and presumably have you surrounded?).
sqweek
However, some monsters, such as Ogre Beserkers, can attack from such a
range with their melee weapon that you don't get penalties (I attacked
without penalties, then walked next to the ogre and got penalties)
Karkadinn
>
>Well, they all have different personalities. Some of them are just
>bloodthirsty (mind you, there's at least one xvart that talks to you)
>And they do all talk, to an extent - not all of them have written
>dialogue though.
I liked the xvart chieftain. He had one brief but interesting line, didn't
give you any "cheap tease" options, just attacked after he said it.
>I'd do it, if I was playing the appropriate RP
But you're never going to "play the appropriate rp". You're going to take the
most advantageous option under the guise of justifying it as roleplaying when
you're really doing it just because it's the best thing to do, not because it's
the most in character thing to do.
>Yep. I believe it makes you 'leave the shadows', so you still have time
>to run away before you actually come out... I'm not sure if you can get
>out of their visual range before they notice you or not (with the boots
>of speed you'd be able to easy though).
Well, I don't want that. It's not logical or necessary. A CHANCE for it,
maybe, but all the time? Bleh.
>Well, you hadn't explicitly said it, and I just can't understand your
>view...
>You're wandering around the map, slaughtering various monsters, and then
>when one of them does something different and talks to you it boring?
I don't find talking boring. I find false dialogue options boring. If there
is only one rewarding dialogue option and the others all penalize, or lead to
the rewarding option, then why have the options at all? What's the frikkin'
point? It's just trying to hide the shallowness of the world behind a flimsy
curtain. The xvart leader, again... I liked him. No false options there.
>Nonono. I'm talking about intelligent Natural Language Parsing
>Like, instead of the designers specifying exactly what the bandits or
>whatever say, they just define a personality for the bandit, and you can
>have a conversation with them.
That would be incredible. And also extremely difficult to code. :)
>Why does roleplaying have to involve talking? Is someone trying to kill
>you not roleplaying?
Oh, come on, don't be deliberately obtuse. Under that definition, almost any
game in the world is "roleplaying". Computer "rpgs" have been nothing but hack
and slash for the longest time. They've got that part DOWN. What they're
missing is the OTHER part to roleplaying... the socialization aspects, either
with other real people or lifelike computer AIs. This is what I desperately
crave, why Planescape and Fallout are lauded as supreme rulers of the rpg
genre, and why I'll probably eventually buy Neverwinter Nights despite having
some severe issues with its experience handout system, pathfinding, and the
very weak default singleplayer campaign.
>But him double-crossing you is totally different in RP terms... You say
>it is early on in the game, does that not give you an idea of what the
>world is like?
>It'd also be slightly different in fighting terms, because he'd be in
>his choice of environment (and presumably have you surrounded?).
There's a difference between "what is realistically possible within a story"
and "what would be FUN for the reader to happen in a story". Ideally every
situation a person will write will fit into both categories. The situation I
described above only fits into the first. This is because a half dozen more
cannon fodder guards and a slightly different location that makes no different
in combat tactics really makes no difference in the end. If you're too weak to
survive it, you'll consider it a penalty and most likely reload and kill him
the other way. If you're strong enough, you'll just kill 'em all and enjoy the
extra xp and equipment, meager though it is. People are emotionally and
logically wired to take the route that offers the greatest rewards. If you
want them to use many different options, then the options must all have rewards
of some kind. Not necessarily the same, but roughly equivalent in value.
Experience or a weapon or gold or just the emotional satisfaction of saving
that demon's little doggie woggie.
sqweek
> Sqweek said:
>
> >I'd do it, if I was playing the appropriate RP
>
> But you're never going to "play the appropriate rp". You're going to take the
> most advantageous option under the guise of justifying it as roleplaying when
> you're really doing it just because it's the best thing to do, not because it's
> the most in character thing to do.
*smirk*
So now you're telling me what I'd do?
In all truth, I don't see myself playing a meek RP, nor a dynamic RP
where I start off meek and grow - that just seems to contrived in a
static environment where I know everything that's going to happen...
OTOH, playing a character that values life over everything, I could see
myself playing.
> >Yep. I believe it makes you 'leave the shadows', so you still have time
> >to run away before you actually come out... I'm not sure if you can get
> >out of their visual range before they notice you or not (with the boots
> >of speed you'd be able to easy though).
>
> Well, I don't want that. It's not logical or necessary. A CHANCE for it,
> maybe, but all the time? Bleh.
Oh hang on a second...
Unless you fail the pickpocket, the guy isn't going to be hostile (if
he's hostile to begin with you can't pickpocket him), so you'll just be
able to hide in the shadows straight away again (with a chance of
failure).
> >Well, you hadn't explicitly said it, and I just can't understand your
> >view...
> >You're wandering around the map, slaughtering various monsters, and then
> >when one of them does something different and talks to you it boring?
>
> I don't find talking boring. I find false dialogue options boring. If there
> is only one rewarding dialogue option and the others all penalize, or lead to
> the rewarding option, then why have the options at all? What's the frikkin'
> point? It's just trying to hide the shallowness of the world behind a flimsy
> curtain. The xvart leader, again... I liked him. No false options there.
For the RP in talking to them.
Like, when talking to the bounty hunter groups, all the options lead to
fighting them (well, some of them you can pay off), but by choosing
different routes, you can learn some things...
> >Nonono. I'm talking about intelligent Natural Language Parsing
> >Like, instead of the designers specifying exactly what the bandits or
> >whatever say, they just define a personality for the bandit, and you can
> >have a conversation with them.
>
> That would be incredible. And also extremely difficult to code. :)
It's pretty much my goal in life, at the moment :) (though at this stage
I've nowhere near the skill to implement it)
> >Why does roleplaying have to involve talking? Is someone trying to kill
> >you not roleplaying?
>
> Oh, come on, don't be deliberately obtuse.
Hmm? I'm not.
I don't see the relevance of the rest of your reply there either.
Though, I'll say this: I used to play a RP mud... When another player
tried to kill you, there was always the possibility that they weren't
playing the game to RP, just playing to kill/have fun, and all their
actions were OOC (because they didn't _have_ a character).
However, (I'd like to think more often than not) they could have also
have had a reason to kill you (maybe they hate your race). In this
situation, you aren't necessarily going to know why they are killing
you, but they were indeed roleplaying when they attacked.
In a single player game, the first possibility is erased, so it's always
going to be in their role to attack you...
> >But him double-crossing you is totally different in RP terms... You say
> >it is early on in the game, does that not give you an idea of what the
> >world is like?
> >It'd also be slightly different in fighting terms, because he'd be in
> >his choice of environment (and presumably have you surrounded?).
>
> There's a difference between "what is realistically possible within a story"
> and "what would be FUN for the reader to happen in a story". Ideally every
> situation a person will write will fit into both categories. The situation I
> described above only fits into the first.
For you, maybe. I like those kind of ambushes :)
But then, I am a fan of realism... My aforementioned goal in life
involves creating a world, more or less, that will evolve on it's own
(the NPCs will build towns and stuff on their own), and you can join in.
> If you're too weak to
> survive it, you'll consider it a penalty and most likely reload and kill him
> the other way. If you're strong enough, you'll just kill 'em all and enjoy the
> extra xp and equipment, meager though it is. People are emotionally and
> logically wired to take the route that offers the greatest rewards.
I'd probably agree with that, but I think it'd be more fun to just RP,
without being concerned about the power you might be missing by taking a
certain route.
> If you
> want them to use many different options, then the options must all have rewards
> of some kind. Not necessarily the same, but roughly equivalent in value.
> Experience or a weapon or gold or just the emotional satisfaction of saving
> that demon's little doggie woggie.
That I don't agree with...
If you had 2 different options, one to be an asshole to whoever you are
talking to, and one to be nice, I don't think the reward should be
roughly equivalent.
After all, if all the rewards were roughly equivalent, what's the
frikkin' point in having different ones? *smirk*
Karkadinn
>> But you're never going to "play the appropriate rp". You're going to take
>the
>> most advantageous option under the guise of justifying it as roleplaying
>when
>> you're really doing it just because it's the best thing to do, not because
>it's
>> the most in character thing to do.
>
>*smirk*
>So now you're telling me what I'd do?
Yep. I'm not saying I know you specifically that well, I just know human
nature in general.
>In all truth, I don't see myself playing a meek RP,
Guess what? NO ONE DOES, IN A COMBAT-ORIENTED GAME. No one wants to be the
wussy and run away from fights when fighting is what you do most of the time.
>(if
>he's hostile to begin with you can't pickpocket him),
Boo. Hiss.
>For the RP in talking to them.
>Like, when talking to the bounty hunter groups, all the options lead to
>fighting them (well, some of them you can pay off), but by choosing
>different routes, you can learn some things...
Riiiiiight. Maybe you enjoy pretending the curtain is really a lush tropical
forest filled with snakes and fruit-bearing trees, but to me it's still just a
curtain. Self-delusion has never been one of my strong points, I'm afraid.
>It's pretty much my goal in life, at the moment :) (though at this stage
>I've nowhere near the skill to implement it)
Heh. Try doing a simpler version of it, in a text-based game. Then slowly
build up to it in future games. One step at a time. Like Adom, ya know? Rome
wasn't built in a day, and you can learn a lot from those little steps at a
time.
>Hmm? I'm not.
>I don't see the relevance of the rest of your reply there either.
>Though, I'll say this: I used to play a RP mud... When another player
>tried to kill you, there was always the possibility that they weren't
>playing the game to RP, just playing to kill/have fun, and all their
>actions were OOC (because they didn't _have_ a character).
>However, (I'd like to think more often than not) they could have also
>have had a reason to kill you (maybe they hate your race). In this
>situation, you aren't necessarily going to know why they are killing
>you, but they were indeed roleplaying when they attacked.
Self-delusion again. Self-delusion, I should hasten to add, is not always a
bad thing, but I think you're going to extremes of it here. Is Doom a
roleplaying game? How about Duke Nukem 3D? Wolfenstein? Where does
"roleplaying" end? Where's the line?
>For you, maybe. I like those kind of ambushes :)
>But then, I am a fan of realism... My aforementioned goal in life
>involves creating a world, more or less, that will evolve on it's own
>(the NPCs will build towns and stuff on their own), and you can join in.
Realistic games aren't fun, though. Games with the ILLUSION of realism, like
Half-Life, are fun. But notice where realism stops. You don't die instantly
when you get a bullet to the head. You don't bleed internally. You don't get
sick, nor do your wounds get infected. If I wanted to have total realism, I'd
go out and get a life. I don't want realism when I play a game, and I don't
think you really do either, if you think about it. If it's so realistic that
there's no difference between it and real life, what makes it FUN? People play
games because they want a break from reality, not a reality check.
>I'd probably agree with that, but I think it'd be more fun to just RP,
>without being concerned about the power you might be missing by taking a
>certain route.
You might THINK that, but it's not how things ARE. People find pleasure in
getting rewards, whether emotional or tangible. They don't have fun in
consistently doing things that give them no rewards of either sort. Power
isn't the only kind of reward... saving some peasants might give you a warm
fuzzy feeling, for instance, and that is a reward too.
>
>That I don't agree with...
>If you had 2 different options, one to be an asshole to whoever you are
>talking to, and one to be nice, I don't think the reward should be
>roughly equivalent.
Why not? Fallout and Fallout 2 did this, and got praised for it. They made
"evil" a viable, enjoyable pathway to take.
>After all, if all the rewards were roughly equivalent, what's the
>frikkin' point in having different ones? *smirk*
Because they're DIFFERENT KINDS OF REWARDS. Is getting a holy defender sword
the same as getting a tome of pestilential thought? The one glows in warning
when undead are near, the other tells you to kill your companions and sell
their corpses to the nearest necromancer. Does that feel the same to you?
Kill the sheriff in Fallout and you'll get to loot his entire store and the
safe, but kill his gangster rival and you'll get some cash from the law
officer. Feel the same? Use your brain, goofball.
Derville
<m...@tadyatam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3D6950B1...@tadyatam.invalid...
> Derville wrote:
> > -snip-
> >
> > True, in BG1. Kish noted the -4 to-hit penalty when using a ranged
weapon
> > in melee combat - AFAIK, this applies to BG2 only, so you can keep on
firing
> > arrows at point-blank range in BG1 (doesn't explain critical misses at
that
> > range, though!). You miss out on the defensive bonus of a shield,
> > -snip-
>
> Just run a little test -- the difference between "backstabbing"
> and long-range can be as much as 8 (depends on type of the
> monster).
But backstabbing does give a bonus already (+4 I think, due to attacking
from an invisible starting position). This would mean that there would only
be a penalty of -4 at best to using a bow in melee, as opposed to switching
to a dedicated melee weapon.
Also, it will depend if the penalty is to lower the attacker's THAC0 (which
your test seems to support) or improving the enemy's chance to hit. If we
take Coran as an example, he can afford to lose 4 points of THAC0 if using a
Bow in melee and still be lethal thanks to his innate brilliance with that
weapon. However if the enemy got +4 to hit, then our poor Bow-wielding (and
consequently sans Shield) hero would be in real trouble very quickly.
BTW, how does monster type come into it? Shirley if a monster can be hit by
ranged and melee attacks, then that's an end to it and penalties will apply
as and when the game says so. If we take Nimbul as an example, he'll
obviously be weaker to a melee weapon than a bow, due to the Boots of
Avoidance, but that's a penalty caused by equipment, rather than the engine
modifying this particular enemy.
m...@tadyatam.invalid
Oops -- the "backstabbing" in my prev. post means that the
bowman was as close as possible to the target. (And a bow is not
backstabbing weapons, so there would not be any bonus.)
I have no idea why the monster's type changes the bonus
(penalty). The penalty was the same for all skeletons within the
"test" group but different that for another test group (not
skeletons -- Kobolds? I forgot).
--J
Replies to: jNpolak(at)Ojuno(dot)Tcom
sqweek
> Sqweek said:
>
> >In all truth, I don't see myself playing a meek RP,
>
> Guess what? NO ONE DOES, IN A COMBAT-ORIENTED GAME. No one wants to be the
> wussy and run away from fights when fighting is what you do most of the time.
Nice of you to snip the other example (which obviously represented my
argument better, which this snippet doesn't do at all).
> >(if he's hostile to begin with you can't pickpocket him),
>
> Boo. Hiss.
Yeah, that might have been better with just a reduced %, but I can see
the justification behind not being able to.
> >(though at this stage I've nowhere near the skill to implement it)
>
> Heh. Try doing a simpler version of it, in a text-based game. Then slowly
> build up to it in future games. One step at a time. Like Adom, ya know? Rome
> wasn't built in a day, and you can learn a lot from those little steps at a
> time.
Actually, my final goal was a text game. :)
Not a roguelike, but like a MUD.
> >In this situation, you aren't necessarily going to know why they are killing
> >you, but they were indeed roleplaying when they attacked.
>
> Self-delusion again.
I really don't understand where you are getting this from...
> Self-delusion, I should hasten to add, is not always a
> bad thing, but I think you're going to extremes of it here. Is Doom a
> roleplaying game? How about Duke Nukem 3D? Wolfenstein? Where does
> "roleplaying" end? Where's the line?
Well, I would say the the enemies in doom or wolfenstein are indeed
playing out a role, but I wouldn't say that was sufficient for it to be
called an RPG. IMO, an RPG needs to have freeform interaction (that is,
not constrained by say - dialogue choices) with your environment. Of
course, that eliminates practically every computer game (except _maybe_
MUDs), so I'd have to have a different criteria for a CRPG... Perhaps
anything which aspires to my above definition :)
> >For you, maybe. I like those kind of ambushes :)
> >But then, I am a fan of realism... My aforementioned goal in life
> >involves creating a world, more or less, that will evolve on it's own
> >(the NPCs will build towns and stuff on their own), and you can join in.
>
> I don't want realism when I play a game, and I don't think you really do
> either, if you think about it.
Yeah, perhaps realism is the wrong word... believability and consistency
would better represent what I was trying to say.
But... I do want realism in a way. I want to be able to do things like
specify exactly
> If it's so realistic that there's no difference between it and real life,
> what makes it FUN? People play games because they want a break from
> reality, not a reality check.
What makes it fun? You could do anything you like without any real life
consequences!
Also, it could be in any other setting than the current.
> >I'd probably agree with that, but I think it'd be more fun to just RP,
> >without being concerned about the power you might be missing by taking a
> >certain route.
>
> You might THINK that, but it's not how things ARE. People find pleasure in
> getting rewards, whether emotional or tangible. They don't have fun in
> consistently doing things that give them no rewards of either sort.
I'm not really concerned with your generalisations, to be honest.
The reason I gave my previous statement is because the few times I have
done it (just RPed, not gave thought to the rewards I would get/miss out
on), I really enjoyed it.
Also, when I MUDded, I got really caught up in the game mechanic, and
trying to get good equipment (as opposed to RPing) which killed my fun.
> >If you had 2 different options, one to be an asshole to whoever you are
> >talking to, and one to be nice, I don't think the reward should be
> >roughly equivalent.
>
> Why not? Fallout and Fallout 2 did this, and got praised for it. They made
> "evil" a viable, enjoyable pathway to take.
I see where you're coming from now... I was thinking in terms of getting
a reward from the person. Like:
Yo! You rock man!
Hey, thanks, here have this gem! (worth 50 gold)
Hey, you SUCK!!!
Ahh... umm.. here, take 50 gold.
:)
> >After all, if all the rewards were roughly equivalent, what's the
> >frikkin' point in having different ones? *smirk*
>
> Because they're DIFFERENT KINDS OF REWARDS. Is getting a holy defender sword
> the same as getting a tome of pestilential thought? The one glows in warning
> when undead are near, the other tells you to kill your companions and sell
> their corpses to the nearest necromancer. Does that feel the same to you?
Allow me to refer to a previous statement of yours:
> If therei s only one rewarding dialogue option and the others all penalize,
> or lead to the rewarding option, then why have the options at all? What's
> the frikkin' point?
Because they're DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS. Is you telling them
they can shove their toll the same as paying it? The one causes them to
attack you, the other causes them to let you pass. Does that feel the
same to you?
Or, for a far more suttle variation, you telling them you'll never give
in to their tyranny, or telling them they can have it, then ambushing
them when they get close. Both have the same result (for arguments
sake), but one offers the implication that you are a lying bastard :)
Depending on what I'm RPing, I will get some small amount of
satisfaction (my reward) for chosing the line appropriate to my RP. As
opposed to me being dissatisfied at not having an appropriate choice.
Derville
<m...@tadyatam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3D6C040D...@tadyatam.invalid...
> bowman was as close as possible to the target. (And a bow is not
> backstabbing weapons, so there would not be any bonus.)
>
> I have no idea why the monster's type changes the bonus
> (penalty). The penalty was the same for all skeletons within the
> "test" group but different that for another test group (not
> skeletons -- Kobolds? I forgot).
Perhaps the difference on bonus is due to innate resistances. You mentioned
Skeletons being part of your test group, and obviously these guys are very
resistant to slashing and piercing attacks, but vulnerable to being smacked
upside the head with a big blunt mackerel. Infinity Explorer says that
Kobolds have 0 innate resistance to all types of attack, which means that
the results should be consistent for all attack types. Oddly enough, IE
also says that your common or garden Skeleton has the 90% missile
resistance, 50% resistance to slashing and crushing (!) attacks, and 0
resistance to piercing. Now unless this means zero resistance as in 'passes
right through him without slowing down', I'm at a loss to work these figures
out.
Oh, and why didn't the skeleton go to the party? Because he had no body to
go with. Haha, I crack me up sometimes!