The trouble with Baldur's Gate is ...
Roger Musson
would be silly. After all, I have played it to a conclusion almost at
the expense of any other game. But I do want to point out some
negatives as a counter-balance to the various rave reviews the game
has received. This is not the ultimate CRPG at all, though it is an
excellent fantasy skirmish game.
I'll concentrate on what I see as the two main issues.
Issue 1 - Is it a good idea to base a CRPG on the AD&D system?
Much is made in the promotion of BG that it follows closely the 2nd
edition AD&D rules rather closely, as though this were necessarily a
good thing. Leaving aside the matter of how good 2nd edition AD&D is
in its own right, what works as a face-to-face RPG isn't always what's
best for a computer RPG. The introduction to the BG manual addresses
this to some extent, pointing out that some modifications were
inevitable. I would argue that an even freer approach should have been
used.
Incidentally, that introduction by Zeb Cook contains a lie so obvious
it amazes me it ever got into print: "AD&D 2nd Edition Rules, the
oldest and most popular role-playing game rules ...". I'm sorry, but
the oldest RPG rules were the original D&D rules of 1974 or
thereabouts, still in use in some quarters. The original D&D system
may not have been very realistic, but it had the merit of simplicity,
and in its own terms it worked tolerably well. The introduction of 1st
Edition AD&D for the most part added needless complexity for no
advantage in realism or gameplay or anything else. It is strongly
suspected by some that the main motivation for AD&D was to remove any
claim David Arneson had on the D&D product. The 2nd Edition rules were
an improvement, but it is still possible to see a cynical motive - to
reissue the rules in as many different volumes as possible to keep the
punters shelling out their cash. The 2nd Edition still kept a lot of
the baggage of the 1st Edition, and this has made its way into BG
where it really doesn't belong. Just look at the rules on dual-class
and multi-class characters to see what I mean about needless
complexity. These are arbitrary rules with no realism in them, and
there was no need to foist them on BG.
Alignment is another area. The original D&D alignment system made
sense if, and only, if, the game world was informed by the "Young
Kingdoms" world of Michael Moorcock, which is where the idea was taken
from. The AD&D nine-way system is a senseless mish-mash with a
post-hoc rationalisation. A simpler approach for BG would have been
better.
A key issue here is that AD&D is very tough on novice characters.
Keeping 1st level characters alive long enough to make it to 2nd level
is a GRIND in AD&D - especially for wimpy magicians with one spell, a
dagger and no armour. There are ways around this in a table-top game
but a CRPG demands more rapid character progression. BG is far too
hard to get into; one gets killed far too frequently; and it's all
because the designers elected to play AD&D straight rather than think
about what makes a good CRPG.
Finally, the spell list is a disappointment, particularly the Mage
spells. This seems to be as a result of taking the spells only from
those available in the AD&D rulebooks. Again, what is a good spell in
a table-top RPG is not necessarily what you need in a CRPG. The game
cries out for the equivalent of "Town Portal" or "Lloyd's Beacon" from
Might & Magic 6. Trekking backwards and forwards through the plank
maze below the Thieves' Guild is tedious and irritating, especially
with the poor route-finding of characters (I hear there's now a patch
for the route-finding, but I'd still rather teleport out). Dimension
Door is feeble by comparison; much more useful in a free-form RPG than
in the more restricted medium of a CRPG.
Issue 2 - Exploring Baldur's Gate
The other thing that disappoints me in BG is the way that exploration
of the world is managed - a pretty important part of the game. The
isometric approach is OK - it worked fine in, say, Ultima 7. But in
Ultima 7 the world was revealed seamlessly as you wandered round it.
In BG you get a chunk at a time. It becomes all too obvious that
effectively, each time you enter a new area, you get presented with a
big picture (nicely painted, to be sure) initially covered up with
black smudge. You wander around, removing the black smudge rather as
one might remove the silver coating from a scratch card, revealing the
pretty picture underneath. (Or more rapidly if you have Clairvoyance.)
I cannot believe in this. I cannot feel myself "there" when it's so
obvious one is just revealing a picture by successive scrapings.
There's no logic to it. Enter a new area and you find yourself
standing at one end of a field, with the other end obscured by some
strange black smog. It doesn't matter whether there are hills or
trees, visibility is just the same. Next time you enter the area you
can see the whole field, because you've been there before and scraped
the fog away. Whatever happened to line of sight? Visibility depending
on line of sight was implemented as long ago as Ultima 3! I would
rather compromise on the graphics and have something that convinced me
I was exploring a real world than have really nice paintings that look
and behave like paintings, not territory.
For me the best CRPG ever is still Daggerfall. It may have problems of
its own, but, with its seamless integration of towns and countryside
it gives a feeling of exploring a real world that I have not seen with
any other game. This should be the fist objective of a CRPG - to make
you feel that you're there. In this BG signally fails. It's a really
good skirmish game, especially later on when characters are developed
enough to have some options open to them other than running away.
Daggerfall is much more immersive - indeed, you can continue to play
(and I do) long after having completed the main plot line. In BG the
game just stops at the concluding video; and by then your characters
are probably XP capped anyway. Roll on Morrowind ...
---
Roger Musson
Mac
Ro...@abaxial.demon.co.uk says...
> BG is far too
> hard to get into; one gets killed far too frequently; and it's all
> because the designers elected to play AD&D straight rather than think
> about what makes a good CRPG.
>
the system.
Eric Peterson
>> hard to get into; one gets killed far too frequently; and it's all
Only true after you return to Baldurs Gate City from Candlekeep. After that
the fights are far too difficult for my liking. I shouldn't have to reload
my game 3-4 times for every fight until I find the right tactic or get
lucky. That and the botched multiplay option are my only complaints.
>> because the designers elected to play AD&D straight rather than think
>> about what makes a good CRPG.
>>
Wences
David G.D. Hecht <David...@email.msn.com> schrieb in Nachricht
eRgR9R4Z#GA.270@upnetnews05...///
>
>Roger Musson wrote in message <36e06458...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>I'm not going to try and say that Baldur's Gate is a bad game; that
>>would be silly. After all, I have played it to a conclusion almost at
>>the expense of any other game. But I do want to point out some
>>negatives as a counter-balance to the various rave reviews the game
>>has received. This is not the ultimate CRPG at all, though it is an
>>excellent fantasy skirmish game.
>>
>>I'll concentrate on what I see as the two main issues.
>>
>>Issue 1 - Is it a good idea to base a CRPG on the AD&D system?
>>
>
><snip>
>
>Here's my only response, which you can take for what it's worth:
>
>I, too, started back in the late 1970s with Original (White Book) D&D, and
>then incorporated selected elements of AD&D 1st Ed as it came out. I have
at
>various times tried computer RPGs (the various Ultimas, the various M&Ms,
>etc.) other than AD&D derivatives and have always found them somewhat
>lacking. Call it irrational, but it's the same reaction I had to Chivalry &
>Sorcery, Runequest, Empire of the Perverse Crone <g> and the various other
>D&D derivatives: "It's nice, but it's not D&D."
>
>Baldur's Gate is D&D. even for someone like me, who has never even opened
an
>AD&D 2nd Ed book, let alone played a campaign or scenario, it's still
>recognizably the system I was playing 20 years ago. I like that. Coupled
>with the new look (isometric), the detailed attention paid to the graphics,
>soundtrack, dialogue, the nearly unnoticeable interface (compare the BG
>interface with, say, Infinite Worlds), it's been an immersive--no, a
>TOTAL--experience.
>
>Now, this is an intangible and nothing you can take to the marketeers, but
I
>suspect I'm not the only one who reacts this way.
>
>>Issue 2 - Exploring Baldur's Gate
>>
>
>
><snip>
>
>The geography could have been improved, and there is certainly (for me at
>least) a tendency to "lawnmower" an area the first time through. But,
>frankly, I like the fact that there is recognition of the island-like
>quality of the "interesting" parts of the world. If anything, they could
>have gone further with this, although I believe every area depicted has
some
>unique encounter, NPC or mission. As far as the representational paradigm
>goes, it is like the old argument about hexes versus area (or
>point-to-point) movement systems in wargames: the hexes may _appear_ a more
>"realistic" representation to our modern eyes, but perhaps they are really
>not any more so than a representation that logically partitions the space
>using a lower degree of granularity. Certainly I have no quarrel with the
>fact that discrete areas on the main map remain undisclosed unless you try
>to go there.
>
>I just wish they had made intra-map transit as easy as inter-map (how many
>times do I have to walk all the way around the Friendly Arm to get into it
>anyhow?).
>
>
>
>
Anthony Law
gives a flying shit anyways! =)
(See the reply by Wences to this message to understand)
--
Anthony Law
"Remove the words 'remove this' from my e-mail address to e-mail me
directly"
Roger Musson wrote in message <36e06458...@news.demon.co.uk>...
John Secker
writes
>Runequest is certainly no derivate of D&D, you moron.
>
and certainly the 'sword and sorcery' ones are derivatives of D&D.
Before Gygax and Arneson, nothing like this existed. Once they had the
original big idea, then many others picked it up and produced their own
versions. They all had different mechanics, usually claiming to be more
'realistic', and in many cases (Tekumel being perhaps the extreme of
this, though Runequest is an example also) having a specific world or
universe to go with the rules. We then saw a breakout into other genres
- Traveller, Boot Hill and so on almost ad infinitum (anyone for a game
of Bunnies and Burrows?). However they are ALL derivatives of D&D, every
one of them, because it was the first ever RPG, and they just took the
idea and applied it in a different way.
--
John Secker
Neil Burton
like the AD&D 2nd edition rules and find their application in BG to be, for
the most part, truthful to the spirit of AD&D.
In terms of the system itself, I do find some things irritating, though. For
some reason I find the XP awards, which I believe (although I haven't
checked) to be the same as in AD&D, extremely low. I don't believe there's
any justification for receiving 7 XP for a creature that can kill one or
more of my party with one hit, for example. However I'm quite prepared to
admit that I may just be whining because it took me ages to work out valid
combat tactics..!
There's one point that I wholeheartedly agree with, and that's the
difficulty of combat (tied in with my above point). The game is sometimes
blissfully unaware of the strength of your party, and frankly, if as a DM I
had a party of a first level cleric and a second level thief, and I set upon
them a mercenary magic user who was of sufficient level to launch FOUR magic
missiles, my players would soon lose the will to live. At that level, we're
talking automatic death of any character targeted by that attack. Who else
had to reload a whole bunch of times to get past that guy at the Friendly
Arm..? This is offset by the cheapness of Raise Dead (a bargain), but made
more annoying by the fact that you have to disperse the dead character's
equipment about the party if you want to keep it (does a dead body lose its
capacity to carry a backpack? Of course not).
Like almost everyone else who plays BG, I will close with this point. For
all its flaws, BG is the most engrossing, rewarding, and enjoyable game I
have played in years. I'm totally addicted.
David G.D. Hecht
Neil Burton <**neil....@thorcom.co.uk> wrote in message
<7c0gvb$7rv$1...@post.thorcom.com>...
<snip>
>more annoying by the fact that you have to disperse the dead character's
>equipment about the party if you want to keep it (does a dead body lose its
>capacity to carry a backpack? Of course not).
>
But bear in mind that they don't make you carry the body around, which,
unless you routinely go around with multiple party members wit 18/xx
strength, would be a real problem.
They don't make you worry about the weight of all the gold you're lugging
about either. I remember in original D&D encumbrance was measured in gold
pieces and each one weighed the equivalent of an ounce! Try doing the math
on that when you kill someone who is carrying around a few hundred GP in
addition to their other items!
<snip>
Hong Ooi
<**neil....@thorcom.co.uk> wrote:
>missiles, my players would soon lose the will to live. At that level, we're
>talking automatic death of any character targeted by that attack. Who else
>had to reload a whole bunch of times to get past that guy at the Friendly
>Arm..?
The first time, yes. The 4th time? Pretty much an auto-kill...
Tarnesh is dangerous only if he manages to get his spells off
(especially the mirror image). What you need here is friends. Did you
pick up the wizard and halfling you meet on the road? Xzar's spells can
really help to keep Tarnesh in check. If you can get him to attack when
some guards are on screen, they'll jump in as well. He's only got around
10 hit points, so a couple of good hits and he's dead.
--
Hong Ooi | "You are missing the point aren't you -- or have you just
ho...@zip.com.au | not played a lot of CRPGs or P&P RPGs" -- J. to DL
Sydney, Australia |
Neil Burton
thought they were gits and didn't want them to join my lawfully-oriented
party.
My point is not that I'm still stuck there, because obviously I'm not, but
that the encounter was so off the scale in terms of the probable hit dice
and abilities of the party that encounters him. You should not have to
reload so many times, have to find the only strategy that feasibly works,
have to wait for that run of lucky hits that finishes him off. You should
feel - as p&p RPG'ers insist - that the encounter is fair and that - while
you may die - you'll have a reasonable chance of completing it as long as
you're remotely strategic about your attack. This was not the case with
?Tarnesh?, and is not the case with many encounters that afflict the party
as the game progresses.
If encounter difficulty was couched in terms of locale, that would be fine,
since you could be told in rumours or general conversation about dangerous
environs and the creatures that live there, and you could make a tactical
decision as to whether you felt your party was powerful enough to overcome
it/them. However you're not. I avoided the Gnoll Stronghold for ages because
I felt it would be too hard. When I eventually got there, it was a cakewalk
that I could have attempted relatively early... this is the sort of
information that should have been available to me in books (God I hope that
there are no books in the game with this sort of info!), or via research, or
whatever.
Maybe it all comes down to the lack of information available to the party,
then...?
Comments?
nospam
>My point is not that I'm still stuck there, because obviously I'm not, but
>that the encounter was so off the scale in terms of the probable hit dice
>and abilities of the party that encounters him. You should not have to
>reload so many times, have to find the only strategy that feasibly works,
>have to wait for that run of lucky hits that finishes him off. You should
>feel - as p&p RPG'ers insist - that the encounter is fair and that - while
>you may die - you'll have a reasonable chance of completing it as long as
>you're remotely strategic about your attack. This was not the case with
>?Tarnesh?, and is not the case with many encounters that afflict the party
>as the game progresses.
Yeah, a lot of people miss this point. Unless you have really pimped-out
characters, many of the battles are virtually impossible the first time
through. It's only until you do the battle a few times and you're able to
work out a strategy that it becomes possible, and then eventually it becomes
quite simple. But as you point out, this isn't the way PnP games work, and
when you are forced to load/reload half a dozen times to work out the proper
way to approach the battle, it takes something out of the game. I mean, how
many people managed to finish off Prat the first time they encountered him?
Or the group right before the battle with Sarevok? Or Nimbul? Or Sarevok
himself for that matter? Chances are, unless you cheated or used cheesy
tactics, you were taken out within seconds of meeting these people. Same for
many of the major encounters in the game. Unless you know what's coming and
how to prepare, some of the battles simply aren't possible to win (one
extreme example I can think of is when the opposing party has Arrows of
Detonation... if you don't know this in advance, you're likely going to go
down *fast*).
I don't know why there aren't more people bringing this up. Maybe the
satisfaction one gets from finally figuring out the way to beat the opponent
makes people forget that CRPGs shouldn't be an ongoing trial-and-error
die/reload/die/reload/die/reload/win process. But whatever anyone else might
say, your point is quite valid, and Bioware would do well to take it into
consideration when developing future products.
>If encounter difficulty was couched in terms of locale, that would be fine,
>since you could be told in rumours or general conversation about dangerous
>environs and the creatures that live there, and you could make a tactical
>decision as to whether you felt your party was powerful enough to overcome
>it/them. However you're not. I avoided the Gnoll Stronghold for ages
because
>I felt it would be too hard. When I eventually got there, it was a cakewalk
>that I could have attempted relatively early... this is the sort of
>information that should have been available to me in books (God I hope that
>there are no books in the game with this sort of info!), or via research,
or
>whatever.
>
>Maybe it all comes down to the lack of information available to the party,
>then...?
This is, of course, the ideal solution, and no, there are no books in the
game that contain any useful information. If one could do research, or at
least be able to get some hints in advance as to what they would be up
against, it would certainly improve the game and check the reloading. One
thing that would be extremely useful in battles against the mercenaries you
come across is if the invisible/stealthed characters (1) didn't trigger the
dialog, and (2) could spy on the group for a while to learn something about
their attack strategy. This would make scouting a lot more useful and make
the game a lot more fun as well. Think of what one could learn if a druid
character could shapechage into a bear and then go rest by some enemies. By
spying like this, one could potentially avoid constantly marching into
instant death.
And the books/research would be nice as well. Why can't I find out in
advance how different weapons affect different monsters? Or what kinds of
beasts populate the various regions? Why can't I get a map to the Nashkel
mines? Why does no one in Beregost know who Mirianne is? Or why does no one
in Nashkel know who Joseph is or recognize his ring? Why can't I follow some
kind of trail to find Brage or Bassilus? Did you know that by choosing the
"right" dialog path all of Bassilus' skeletons & zombies will self-destruct,
leaving only Bassilus himself? Why can't I get some hint of this in advance,
perhaps by visiting a sage or a cleric?
You bring up a good point Neil; I hope others will recognize it's merit
instead of hastily criticizing it.
Arnaldo Horta
certainly. However, this is equivalent to saying that all murder mysteries
are derivative of Edgar Allen Poe! What the poster you were responding to
probably meant (apart from
his rudeness), is that Runequest is a completely different system. Many of
the
early RPG's were D&D+, just adding some new features. Runequest was
one of the first new RPG systems that was substantially different from D&D
and yet worked (and, in my opinion, worked MUCH better). Many of the
others just added/modified rules to make the game "more realistic", as you
said, but rendered the game completely unplayable (can anyone say
"Rolemaster",
boys and girls...I still can't bring myself to play that one).
I loved Runequest...that would be a great CRPG system...of course, I mean
the old, Chaosium
rules, not the travesty that is called the Avalon Hill version....
Arnie Horta
John Secker wrote in message ...
John Secker
<aho...@nospamhome.com> writes
>Well, all RPG's are derivative of D&D in the sense that D&D was the first,
>certainly. However, this is equivalent to saying that all murder mysteries
>are derivative of Edgar Allen Poe! What the poster you were responding to
>probably meant (apart from
>his rudeness), is that Runequest is a completely different system. Many of
>the
>early RPG's were D&D+, just adding some new features. Runequest was
>one of the first new RPG systems that was substantially different from D&D
>and yet worked (and, in my opinion, worked MUCH better). Many of the
>others just added/modified rules to make the game "more realistic", as you
>said, but rendered the game completely unplayable (can anyone say
>"Rolemaster",
>boys and girls...I still can't bring myself to play that one).
>
>I loved Runequest...that would be a great CRPG system...of course, I mean
>the old, Chaosium
>rules, not the travesty that is called the Avalon Hill version....
>
Tunnels & Trolls, and had some very new mechanics, but nevertheless it
was in a clear line of inheritance from the original D&D idea (ie
fantasy roleplaying games). It is the difference between having a
completely original idea, and taking that idea and improving on it
substantially. I don't know if Edgar Allen Poe wrote the first murder
mystery, but if he did then it is true to say that all subsequent ones
were derivative from his. All telephones are derivative from Bell's
original, all lightbulbs from Edison's. In any case, given the rudeness
of the original reply, I wasn't going to start being reasonable with
him.
--
John Secker
Big Dave
I thought they could not do that when True Nuetral?
and also, if you shoot an arrow of detonation at a party member and
miss it still detontates yet the fire does not damage party members, but
does it's damage to enemies?
Dave
John Secker wrote in message ...
Arnaldo Horta
Yep...I agree that his rude response didn't deserve a measured reply...one
of the dangers of USENET, I guess :-)
And yes, Poe's story, "Murders in the Rue Morgue" is considered to be the
first modern murder mystery.
Jeez...I forgot Tunnels and Trolls...at least that one had a sense of
humor...too bad the
rules didn't make up for that!
John Secker wrote in message ...
>I quite agree - Runequest was much less derivative of D&D than was, say,
Roger Musson
>
>I don't know why there aren't more people bringing this up. Maybe the
>satisfaction one gets from finally figuring out the way to beat the opponent
>makes people forget that CRPGs shouldn't be an ongoing trial-and-error
>die/reload/die/reload/die/reload/win process. But whatever anyone else might
>say, your point is quite valid, and Bioware would do well to take it into
>consideration when developing future products.
>
< lengthy post snipped >
An excellent post. I am very much of the same opinion. One should
contrast Ultima 7 with Ultima 8 in this respect. In the former, it is
very unusual for the PC to die, and if he is, he gets resurrected
automatically. Consequently, when one looks back at the whole game, it
is posssible to see it as a continuous and believeable narrative. With
U8, the Avatar dies every time he slightly misjudges yet another
hard-to-calculate leap from one rock to another. The player
dies/reloads so often it is impossible to feel other than the baddy
has, in reality, triumphed, as the Avatar was only saved by the highly
unrealistic benefit of being able to reload the game.
If, as a GM for table-top games, I killed off PCs as rapidly as most
CRPGs do, I wouldn't keep many players. Can this lesson not be learned
by the games companies?
---
Roger Musson
Simon Nejmann
>
>Neil Burton <**neil....@thorcom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7c0sh2$fba$1...@post.thorcom.com...
<snipped lots of good points>
>I don't know why there aren't more people bringing this up. Maybe the
>satisfaction one gets from finally figuring out the way to beat the opponent
>makes people forget that CRPGs shouldn't be an ongoing trial-and-error
>die/reload/die/reload/die/reload/win process. But whatever anyone else might
>say, your point is quite valid, and Bioware would do well to take it into
>consideration when developing future products.
I for one agree completely with both of you.
Just wanted to let you know that you are not alone (important if
Bioware is listening).
>Did you know that by choosing the
>"right" dialog path all of Bassilus' skeletons & zombies will self-destruct,
>leaving only Bassilus himself?
Yes - I reloaded several times to be able speak more with him and maby
find out more about him, and then suddently:
Bassilus: "What, you are not my famely - imposters die now"
Zombies and skeletons: "Aarg"
Me: "Hmm, great - now you die Bassilus"
>You bring up a good point Neil; I hope others will recognize it's merit
>instead of hastily criticizing it.
I haven't seen anybody criticize it yet - Bioware listen up.
--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
cra...@inspireddesign.com
> If, as a GM for table-top games, I killed off PCs as rapidly as most
> CRPGs do, I wouldn't keep many players. Can this lesson not be learned
> by the games companies?
I didn't see the original post, but I agree.. some situations were outright
crazy IMO.. for example the mergirl.. no matter what you do.. and I like to
talk with the leader. Make it a nasty hit, but c'mon..
Really what happened was all the early bad encouters.. and some middlish ones
(havent gotten near the end) revolve around a single protagonist baddie that,
focusing on you, will find you dead, quick. And now we dance..
Craig
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Chris Moran
James Risse wrote:
>
> >> If, as a GM for table-top games, I killed off PCs as rapidly as most
> >> CRPGs do, I wouldn't keep many players. Can this lesson not be learned
> >> by the games companies?
> >
> >I didn't see the original post, but I agree.. some situations were outright
> >crazy IMO.. for example the mergirl.. no matter what you do.. and I like to
> >talk with the leader. Make it a nasty hit, but c'mon..
> or Start Your Own
>
> The quest quoted above was ... I believe a mistake because it does require
> that you talk with an NPC. But if done correctly your NPC will be raised on
> the spot. Not so bad.
But if you talk with the leader (and there is no visible reason not to,
at first glance), it's hello, reload screen. The leader can't die at
all in BG... for whatever reason, he's not held by the same standards as
the other characters.
James Risse
Chris Moran
Chris Moran wrote:
> But if you talk with the leader (and there is no visible reason not to,
> at first glance), it's hello, reload screen. The leader can't die at
> all in BG... for whatever reason, he's not held by the same standards as
> the other characters.
Make that "can't die at all in BG without having to reload". Let it be
known that no correction can exist without errors.
John Secker
<aho...@nospamhome.com> writes
>Jeez...I forgot Tunnels and Trolls...at least that one had a sense of
>humor...too bad the
>rules didn't make up for that!
>
killed in a duel with another member of the group. I thought this was so
new and different - a game where you could basically do anything you
could think of. T&T had very crude mechanics with all those dice - the
only good thing about it was all the solo dungeons they released.
--
John Secker
Hong Ooi
>
>Yeah, a lot of people miss this point. Unless you have really pimped-out
>characters, many of the battles are virtually impossible the first time
>through. It's only until you do the battle a few times and you're able to
>work out a strategy that it becomes possible, and then eventually it becomes
>quite simple. But as you point out, this isn't the way PnP games work, and
>when you are forced to load/reload half a dozen times to work out the proper
>way to approach the battle, it takes something out of the game. I mean, how
>many people managed to finish off Prat the first time they encountered him?
I did. :) But then the friggin' basilisks got my scout, so I reloaded
the autosave. And _then_ Prat and his goons kicked my butt over and over
again.
Having read the posts about the difficulty level for encounters such as
these, maybe I'll just post my experience.
I've replayed the game maybe 2-3 times now, and I don't think I'm the
only one. I think at least part of the reason why it has that replay
value is _because_ of these tough fights in the game. Nobody cares about
the gnoll stronghold fight, but someone like Tarnesh or Nimbul -- that's
something else. Sure you get slaughtered at first, but that also creates
an incentive to go back and try again -- and I don't mean just reloading
a save. IOW, there is still a challenge left to the game even if you've
finished it already. (There are plenty other reasons for replaying, but
this is the one that's relevant to the subject at hand.)
The fact that these fights are deadly, also means they're memorable.
Obviously in all my games after the first, I knew all about Tarnesh so I
usually squashed him quick smart. And yet, I always found myself doing a
quick-save just before I got to him. Why? Because I _remembered_ what he
was capable of, and I knew if I screwed up, he could hand me my head on
a platter. Similarly I got trashed the first time against the group on
the top floor of the Iron Throne building, so every time I went back
there, there was the adrenaline rush associated with a fight that could
actually cause the party serious hurt. This is in spite of the fact I
haven't lost that battle since.
The downside of this is that the game can be very frustrating the first
time round. Certainly, I found it so -- after getting killed one time
too many, I gave up and restarted solo multiplayer so I could have a
min-maxed party. Life was a lot easier with a party of 6 maxed-out
characters. Naturally, after finishing the game I had to restart to see
if I could also do it in single player mode. And after that, I had to
restart to check out the NPCs I left out in the 2nd game. And after
that... well, you get the point.
>I don't know why there aren't more people bringing this up. Maybe the
>satisfaction one gets from finally figuring out the way to beat the opponent
>makes people forget that CRPGs shouldn't be an ongoing trial-and-error
>die/reload/die/reload/die/reload/win process.
Well, this _is_ combat, and there _should_ be an element of risk
involved. If every battle could be won easily, there would be no fun in
it -- it would be just going through the motions, rather like playing an
adventure game. Take Ultima 7: combat in that was pretty much _always_ a
cakewalk (as long as you remembered to throw away your ranged weapons so
you wouldn't get shot in the back). I slaughtered the bad guys in the
final battle in a handful of rounds. It was great for continuity, but as
a climax to 4-5 weeks of gameplay, it was a bit of a letdown. The fight
with Sarevok in the temple, OTOH, never seems to get old.
Gellor Aerdy
game, doing some of the quests that I enjoyed/bypassed before and the big fights.
Trying to do the basilisks HTH without magic (usually suicide), the top floor of
the Iron Throne, Prat and his buddies, the 4 mages in the Sorceress Sundries (sp),
the mage in the NW corner of the city, Sarevok and his gang, and others.
Mind you, I make these fights tougher than necessary since I rarely if ever use any
summoning/animate spells and I almost never use archers. A little bit of magic, a
LOT of strategy and some old fashioned finger crossing luck.
Neil Burton
>these, maybe I'll just post my experience.
>
>I've replayed the game maybe 2-3 times now, and I don't think I'm the
>only one. I think at least part of the reason why it has that replay
>value is _because_ of these tough fights in the game. Nobody cares about
>the gnoll stronghold fight, but someone like Tarnesh or Nimbul -- that's
>something else. Sure you get slaughtered at first, but that also creates
>an incentive to go back and try again -- and I don't mean just reloading
>a save. IOW, there is still a challenge left to the game even if you've
>finished it already. (There are plenty other reasons for replaying, but
>this is the one that's relevant to the subject at hand.)
<snip elaboration on same point>
I can see your point of view, and it is certainly one which is shared by a
whole 'breed' of modern gamers across a whole range of genres. But from my
point of view your comment 'Sure you get slaughtered at first' sums up
exactly what my beef with this type of blueprint to the gameplay experience
is: there should be no encounter in which you 'get slaughtered', because
there should be no encounter that you don't reasonably expect to be
moderately or well prepared for, or in which you don't expect to have a
reasonable chance of surviving. There should be plenty of encounters where
you get killed - otherwise there is no challenge - but none where you don't
think you were given a fair stab at coming out the other side. You should
get killed because you were simply unlucky, or because you made mistakes, or
because you underestimated the power of your opponent etc. etc., not because
you haven't yet formulated the exact sequence of attacks that beats the
encounter. That sort of gameplay was dispensed with ten years ago with the
Dragon's Lair arcade game.
In terms of replaying the game, I agree it has huge replay value, but while
I'm sure your 'other reasons' match my own for playing BG through more than
once, I personally do not see how attempting to reduce my 'reload'
coefficient on each pass through the encounter counts as one of them. That's
an artificial challenge, especially in the RPG/CRPG genre.
>Well, this _is_ combat, and there _should_ be an element of risk
>involved. If every battle could be won easily, there would be no fun in
>it -- it would be just going through the motions, rather like playing an
>adventure game.
Completely agree with you there.
However, this is a CRPG, not a first-person shooter, and there should be
more to the game outside combat so that if every fight was easy, you would
not simply be 'going through the motions' (and I certainly don't agree with
your assessment of the adventure game - the adventure genre has far more in
common with CRPG's than combat-oriented games do... or at least, it should
have <g>). Thankfully, BG by its very nature has a massive rewards scale in
terms of nudging your character up through the levels, getting access to new
spells and powers, uncovering new environs, etc., so it doesn't wholly rely
on combat. It is - perhaps (and I have no evidence - although I'd be
interested to know) - possible that you play a lot of combat-oriented (first
person shooter, RTS etc.) games, so your requirements for getting utility
from a computer game are biassed toward the sorts of rewards that they
offer.. (and that's in no way a criticism, just an interested observation).
>Hong Ooi | "You are missing the point aren't you -- or have you
just
>ho...@zip.com.au | not played a lot of CRPGs or P&P RPGs" -- J. to DL
I also think your signature is interesting based on our respective opinions.
My major criticisms of BG are based on the fact that it tries to get away
with crimes that a P&P RPG would never dare contemplate...
Comments?
nospam
Hong Ooi <ho...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:36ed004...@news.zipworld.com.au...
>only one. I think at least part of the reason why it has that replay
>value is _because_ of these tough fights in the game. Nobody cares about
>the gnoll stronghold fight, but someone like Tarnesh or Nimbul -- that's
>something else. Sure you get slaughtered at first, but that also creates
>an incentive to go back and try again -- and I don't mean just reloading
>a save. IOW, there is still a challenge left to the game even if you've
>finished it already.
Ok, so you're content with the way the game plays. That doesn't change the
fact that the game *doesn't* play like pnp D&D. Instead, in a lot of cases,
it plays a lot more like Zelda or Super Mario Bros. And it shares a
replayability factor much like those games. You run around getting Power-Ups
and until you reach the next "boss", then you try over and over until you
figure out the proper strategy for beating him. I certainly won't argue that
this kind of arcade-type game isn't replayable, even addictive, but that
wasn't entirely what I was after when I bought BG. I'll assume by the ng
quote in your sig that you have played pnp d&d; certainly the battles in
your campaign didn't occur as they do in BG, did they? When you look back
over the course of months of playing pnp, the journey is epic and
continuous. But in BG, the "bosses" introduce discrete breaks in the plot as
you are forced to replay the scene over and over to get it right, and
ultimately you lose sight somewhat of the overall story because of it. It is
in cases like these that BG becomes more of an arcade game than an RPG.
I agree with you that it is fun to go back and whip the asses of the people
that once gave you trouble, and some of the battles I have played a number
of times over just for the thrill. But in all of these cases, I knew exactly
what was coming, my strategy was worked out beforehand, and there was really
no suspense or suprise. The disappointing thing is knowing that if I
*didn't* know what was coming, I wouldn't have stood a chance. The first
time through, everything is new and exciting, and you're on your toes going
around every corner. *This* is the way D&D is supposed to feel. The second,
third, & fourth times through? Sure, it's interesting to see the different
ways some things can turn out based on your actions, and there may still be
a few new things to see which will put you back on your toes, but it's hard
to recapture the feeling that you get on the first pass. The play becomes a
lot more mechanical. It's replayable, to be sure, but it gradually turns
into arcade play.
The point I'd hoped to drive home to the developers is that the game needs
to be made possible on the *first* time through. The way it is now, it
simply isn't possible to do everything right and still come out alive. In
many of the battles, you absolutely must play the battle a couple of times
and know what is coming in order to win (baring a stroke of luck, of course,
as you apparaently had with Prat). This may make for arcade replayability,
but it is certainly *not* D&D. Either the battles need to be toned down in
difficulty, combat mechanics need to be improved, or there needs to be a
better way of telling what you will be faced with upon entering a certain
area. The battles shouldn't be made trivial, but they should be able to be
won the first time through by the player who plays wisely.
>The fight
>with Sarevok in the temple, OTOH, never seems to get old.
I suppose this is a matter of opinion. I've played the game all the way
through a few times now, but the last couple of times I didn't even bother
with Sarevok or that band waiting outside his shack. Those big
chaos-explosion warzones don't appeal to me at all. It's not that they give
me a problem, but that the entire battle feels contrived. I know what
they're going to do, and I know it's important for me to know what they're
going to do, and I know that if I didn't know what they were going to do,
I'd likely not last 20 seconds. In contrast, I'd much rather go through the
gnoll stronghold journey again. Sure, it's simple now that I've become an
experienced player and have the game mechanics down. But the difference is
that I can allow myself to forget what's coming; to play the game as if I
were playing it for the first time again. I don't have to have any advance
knowledge of what's in store for me. As long as I play intelligently, I can
make it there, rescue Dynaheir, and make it back. Somehow, even though I've
been down that road a half a dozen times, there's always a fresh sense of
adventure. I can't exactly say the same for the battle with Sarevok.
Hong Ooi
<**neil....@thorcom.co.uk> wrote:
>I can see your point of view, and it is certainly one which is shared by a
>whole 'breed' of modern gamers across a whole range of genres. But from my
>point of view your comment 'Sure you get slaughtered at first' sums up
>exactly what my beef with this type of blueprint to the gameplay experience
>is: there should be no encounter in which you 'get slaughtered', because
>there should be no encounter that you don't reasonably expect to be
>moderately or well prepared for, or in which you don't expect to have a
>reasonable chance of surviving. There should be plenty of encounters where
>you get killed - otherwise there is no challenge - but none where you don't
>think you were given a fair stab at coming out the other side. You should
>get killed because you were simply unlucky, or because you made mistakes, or
>because you underestimated the power of your opponent etc. etc.,
That's what happens in BG, though. In many cases the fights are tough
because you underestimate your opponent the first time. Also, the
interface does take some getting used to, eg the quick slots or best
uses for magic. It's very easy to forget to stock up on those healing
and antidote potions.
I think that was why I got tired of my first game, where people
regularly kept dying. It wasn't just the big battles where I was getting
beat up (in fact many of them turned out to be fairly straightforward).
It was also simple stuff like a giant spider poisoning me when I didn't
have any antidote potions, or encountering spellcasting opponents when I
was all out of magic spells myself, or blundering into ettercap traps.
I agree, it would be good if players could find out some info about
monsters and maps beforehand. At least have people warn you that a
certain map can be deadly, if you want to keep an element of suspense
("That coastline near the lighthouse is haunted by evil water spirits, I
tell you!"). Bioware did an okay job of keeping the really difficult
maps way off the beaten track, but that's only a half-measure.
> not because
>you haven't yet formulated the exact sequence of attacks that beats the
>encounter. That sort of gameplay was dispensed with ten years ago with the
>Dragon's Lair arcade game.
It's not really the case that there is an "exact sequence of attacks
that beats the encounter". One of the things about combat in BG is that,
unlike Dragon's Lair or the jumping sequence in U8, there usually _are_
many ways of beating even the tough encounters.
For example, summoning monsters is a great strategy for toning down even
the tough fights. But I practically never use monster summoning -- it's
just not my style. You can also keep a thief in stealth mode via a
script, and use him to backstab -- works particularly well if you've got
a fighter/thief with 18/xx strength. Again though, not my style.
>have <g>). Thankfully, BG by its very nature has a massive rewards scale in
>terms of nudging your character up through the levels, getting access to new
>spells and powers, uncovering new environs, etc., so it doesn't wholly rely
>on combat. It is - perhaps (and I have no evidence - although I'd be
>interested to know) - possible that you play a lot of combat-oriented (first
>person shooter, RTS etc.) games, so your requirements for getting utility
>from a computer game are biassed toward the sorts of rewards that they
>offer.. (and that's in no way a criticism, just an interested observation).
The last FPS I played regularly was Doom 2 -- I've basically missed out
on an entire genre since then. I don't like RTS games either, although I
do play turn-based strat and wargames. My favourite genre is probably
still CRPGs. The best gaming experience I've had, counting BG, would
have to be Ultima 5.
>
>>Hong Ooi | "You are missing the point aren't you -- or have you
>just
>>ho...@zip.com.au | not played a lot of CRPGs or P&P RPGs" -- J. to DL
>
>
>I also think your signature is interesting based on our respective opinions.
Heh. Actually, Judy[something]@aol.com was an obnoxious troll who got
into a flamewar with half the newsgroup. That was an insult of hers
aimed at Desslock, of all people. It was so silly I had to grab it for a
sig.
--
Hong Ooi | "Was 666, now only 4.95! Markdown of the Beast!!"
ho...@zip.com.au | -- F
Sydney, Australia |
Roger Musson
<**neil....@thorcom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In terms of replaying the game, I agree it has huge replay value, but while
>I'm sure your 'other reasons' match my own for playing BG through more than
>once, I personally do not see how attempting to reduce my 'reload'
>coefficient on each pass through the encounter counts as one of them. That's
>an artificial challenge, especially in the RPG/CRPG genre.
>
Since people obviously ARE replaying it, I suppose it must have replay
value, but I can't say I feel inspired to replay it myself. The
thought of tramping over the same ground again doesn't appeal (I
visited pretty well all the areas the first time through). This is all
the more the case because I don't really like the load-a-new-picture
approach to exploration. It doesn't draw me in.
Rather I've gone back to playing Daggerfall again, exploring new
countries I never visited much before. (So they look pretty much like
the other ones - I don't care.)
---
Roger Musson
Hong Ooi
Musson) wrote:
>Since people obviously ARE replaying it, I suppose it must have replay
>value, but I can't say I feel inspired to replay it myself. The
>thought of tramping over the same ground again doesn't appeal (I
>visited pretty well all the areas the first time through). This is all
>the more the case because I don't really like the load-a-new-picture
>approach to exploration. It doesn't draw me in.
That's fair enough...
>
>Rather I've gone back to playing Daggerfall again, exploring new
>countries I never visited much before. (So they look pretty much like
>the other ones - I don't care.)
... although how you could like one but not the other boggles me. But
then, lots of things boggle me. :)
--
Hong Ooi | "You are missing the point aren't you -- or have you just
ho...@zip.com.au | not played a lot of CRPGs or P&P RPGs" -- J. to DL
Sydney, Australia |
Daniel Demus
Neil Burton wrote:
>
> >Having read the posts about the difficulty level for encounters such as
> >these, maybe I'll just post my experience.
> >
> >I've replayed the game maybe 2-3 times now, and I don't think I'm the
> >only one. I think at least part of the reason why it has that replay
> >value is _because_ of these tough fights in the game. Nobody cares about
> >the gnoll stronghold fight, but someone like Tarnesh or Nimbul -- that's
> >something else. Sure you get slaughtered at first, but that also creates
> >an incentive to go back and try again -- and I don't mean just reloading
> >a save.
Hmm. Those two were actually pretty straightforward. It's those large
groups of spellcasters who turn up later that were really tough.
Especially when they have associates who shoot arrows of
fire/ice/biting/acid at the same time.
> > IOW, there is still a challenge left to the game even if you've
> >finished it already. (There are plenty other reasons for replaying, but
> >this is the one that's relevant to the subject at hand.)
>
> <snip elaboration on same point>
>
> I can see your point of view, and it is certainly one which is shared by a
> whole 'breed' of modern gamers across a whole range of genres. But from my
> point of view your comment 'Sure you get slaughtered at first' sums up
> exactly what my beef with this type of blueprint to the gameplay experience
> is: there should be no encounter in which you 'get slaughtered', because
> there should be no encounter that you don't reasonably expect to be
> moderately or well prepared for, or in which you don't expect to have a
> reasonable chance of surviving. There should be plenty of encounters where
> you get killed - otherwise there is no challenge - but none where you don't
> think you were given a fair stab at coming out the other side. You should
> get killed because you were simply unlucky, or because you made mistakes, or
> because you underestimated the power of your opponent etc. etc., not because
> you haven't yet formulated the exact sequence of attacks that beats the
> encounter. That sort of gameplay was dispensed with ten years ago with the
> Dragon's Lair arcade game.
>
I never got the impression, that there is only one way of defeating any
given foe in BG. Most of the times you get killed because of
overconfidence and not using Khalid's "better part of valour" and a
little judicious scouting.
I haven't changed my tactics based on one encounter, but on what I know
of the area (i.e. learn prot from petrifaction in basilisk territory),
and new spells and items (i.e. hmm, I wonder what this nifty wand does).
The only time IMHO you _had_ to start doing something, (even before the
conversation initiating combat) was with the two assassins in
Underceller, where you get carved up pretty badly if you don't don't
dispel the haste and shadow door they start with immediately.
> In terms of replaying the game, I agree it has huge replay value, but while
> I'm sure your 'other reasons' match my own for playing BG through more than
> once, I personally do not see how attempting to reduce my 'reload'
> coefficient on each pass through the encounter counts as one of them. That's
> an artificial challenge, especially in the RPG/CRPG genre.
>
> >Well, this _is_ combat, and there _should_ be an element of risk
> >involved. If every battle could be won easily, there would be no fun in
> >it -- it would be just going through the motions, rather like playing an
> >adventure game.
>
> Completely agree with you there.
>
> However, this is a CRPG, not a first-person shooter, and there should be
> more to the game outside combat so that if every fight was easy, you would
> not simply be 'going through the motions' (and I certainly don't agree with
> your assessment of the adventure game - the adventure genre has far more in
> common with CRPG's than combat-oriented games do... or at least, it should
> have <g>). Thankfully, BG by its very nature has a massive rewards scale in
> terms of nudging your character up through the levels, getting access to new
> spells and powers, uncovering new environs, etc., so it doesn't wholly rely
> on combat. It is - perhaps (and I have no evidence - although I'd be
> interested to know) - possible that you play a lot of combat-oriented (first
> person shooter, RTS etc.) games, so your requirements for getting utility
> from a computer game are biassed toward the sorts of rewards that they
> offer.. (and that's in no way a criticism, just an interested observation).
>
> >Hong Ooi | "You are missing the point aren't you -- or have you
> just
> >ho...@zip.com.au | not played a lot of CRPGs or P&P RPGs" -- J. to DL
>
> I also think your signature is interesting based on our respective opinions.
> My major criticisms of BG are based on the fact that it tries to get away
> with crimes that a P&P RPG would never dare contemplate...
>
> Comments?
The difference is that a human (or demi-human for that matter) DM
wouldn't slavishly follow the rules during combat if that meant killing
off half the party. A failed saving throw here, an extra miss/hit there
and though weakened the party survives to continue the quest. You don't
really have that option in a CRPG.
Daniel
Daniel Demus
James Risse wrote:
>
> Daniel Demus wrote in message <36EE4991...@softhome.net>...
> >
> >The only time IMHO you _had_ to start doing something, (even before the
> >conversation initiating combat) was with the two assassins in
> >Underceller, where you get carved up pretty badly if you don't don't
> >dispel the haste and shadow door they start with immediately.
>
> Just to further illustrate your point ... I beat even this battle without
> using dispel magic. I was able to separate the two assasins surround the
> hasted guy with skelitons and then basically beat him into the ground with a
> variety of attacks including a want of the heavens.
>
You must have been fast on the trigger. I was walking down a corridor,
when suddenly this blur rushes up to me and chops 80 HP off my lead
character after a few lines of inane drivel. And the man had a -4 AC!
Retreat was not possible because he is hasted. Result you get screwed
unless you start casting before he even opens his mouth. Now I know my
protagonist supposed to be the son of a god, but this kind of
precognicence(sp?) is too much.
> There is no strategy that must be taken for any given combat. There are
> several strategies that won't work in certian combats (i.e. leading with the
> protagonist in a fight with basalisks) but there are a number of ways to
> beat any fight.
>
True. Peoples biggest problem is that the AD&D rules have been
implemented (nearly) verbatim from the books, and their is no nice DM to
save you when the fight is too tough, or you have made mistakes or
rushed into something you can't handle.
I actually like that. Fx the Fireball spell: I was used to the old, EotB
style point, bang, dead enemies fireball, so the first time I tried to
use it I fried half my party because I forgot about the area of effect.
Or all those rules about which direction you are attacking from.
If you die excessively, it is because the AD&D rules play that way, and
you are not supposed to wade into any enemies you might see, unless you
know that you can beat them.
Well, enough ranting for today,
Daniel
J
> using dispel magic. I was able to separate the two assasins surround the
> hasted guy with skelitons and then basically beat him into the ground with a
> variety of attacks including a want of the heavens.
>
>
to any of my party. Basically, I "set him off" with a hidden thief, waited a
while until some of his magic wore off, sent in some skeletons, and when he
attacked those hit him with range weapons and magic missles. Then I sent the
skeletons on to destroy the other enemy, the witch or whatever she was. They
killed her all by themselves. Whatever spell she cast didn't seem to affect
them at all. No problem.
- J
J
> point of view your comment 'Sure you get slaughtered at first' sums up
> exactly what my beef with this type of blueprint to the gameplay experience
> is: there should be no encounter in which you 'get slaughtered', because
> there should be no encounter that you don't reasonably expect to be
> moderately or well prepared for, or in which you don't expect to have a
> reasonable chance of surviving. There should be plenty of encounters where
> you get killed - otherwise there is no challenge - but none where you don't
> think you were given a fair stab at coming out the other side. You should
> get killed because you were simply unlucky, or because you made mistakes, or
> because you underestimated the power of your opponent etc. etc., not because
> you haven't yet formulated the exact sequence of attacks that beats the
> encounter. That sort of gameplay was dispensed with ten years ago with the
> Dragon's Lair arcade game.
>
win each battle, not just one exact sequence. Not by any stretch of the
imagination is that true.
- J
Neil Burton
>when suddenly this blur rushes up to me and chops 80 HP off my lead
>character after a few lines of inane drivel. And the man had a -4 AC!
This encounter hasn't happened for me yet - and now I'm even more scared!
>If you die excessively, it is because the AD&D rules play that way, and
>you are not supposed to wade into any enemies you might see, unless you
>know that you can beat them.
This is absolutely true. I had similar experiences with many spells, and I
know for sure that as an AD&D DM I will learn a lot about adjudicating
battles in the future (a side-effect of buying BG that I hoped would
happen).
BTW, you included a spoiler in your e-mail without warning anyone (your 'son
of God' reference). That was naughty.
rco...@servicesoft.com
IF you respond quickly you can beat these guys, but this supports
the original posters point. That it's very very easy to be surprised
and crushed before you know what happens. Yes, the second and third
times it does get more sane but...
In article <36EF0973...@softhome.net>,
Daniel Demus <de...@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>
> James Risse wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Demus wrote in message <36EE4991...@softhome.net>...
> > >
> > >The only time IMHO you _had_ to start doing something, (even before the
> > >conversation initiating combat) was with the two assassins in
> > >Underceller, where you get carved up pretty badly if you don't don't
> > >dispel the haste and shadow door they start with immediately.
> >
> > Just to further illustrate your point ... I beat even this battle without
> > using dispel magic. I was able to separate the two assasins surround the
> > hasted guy with skelitons and then basically beat him into the ground with a
> > variety of attacks including a want of the heavens.
> >
>
> You must have been fast on the trigger. I was walking down a corridor,
> when suddenly this blur rushes up to me and chops 80 HP off my lead
> character after a few lines of inane drivel. And the man had a -4 AC!
>
> Retreat was not possible because he is hasted. Result you get screwed
> unless you start casting before he even opens his mouth. Now I know my
> protagonist supposed to be the son of a god, but this kind of
> precognicence(sp?) is too much.
>
> > There is no strategy that must be taken for any given combat. There are
> > several strategies that won't work in certian combats (i.e. leading with the
> > protagonist in a fight with basalisks) but there are a number of ways to
> > beat any fight.
> >
>
> True. Peoples biggest problem is that the AD&D rules have been
> implemented (nearly) verbatim from the books, and their is no nice DM to
> save you when the fight is too tough, or you have made mistakes or
> rushed into something you can't handle.
>
> I actually like that. Fx the Fireball spell: I was used to the old, EotB
> style point, bang, dead enemies fireball, so the first time I tried to
> use it I fried half my party because I forgot about the area of effect.
> Or all those rules about which direction you are attacking from.
>
> If you die excessively, it is because the AD&D rules play that way, and
> you are not supposed to wade into any enemies you might see, unless you
> know that you can beat them.
>
> Well, enough ranting for today,
>
> Daniel
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Hong Ooi
:
:
: IF you respond quickly you can beat these guys, but this supports
: the original posters point. That it's very very easy to be surprised
: and crushed before you know what happens. Yes, the second and third
: times it does get more sane but...
Personally I didn't have any trouble with Slythe and Kristin, even the
first time. I'd already fought enough hasted, mirror imaged greater
doppelgangers to know to cast Dispel Magic ASAP.
Hong
Daniel Demus
J wrote:
>
> > Just to further illustrate your point ... I beat even this battle without
> > using dispel magic. I was able to separate the two assasins surround the
> > hasted guy with skelitons and then basically beat him into the ground with a
> > variety of attacks including a want of the heavens.
> >
> > There is no strategy that must be taken for any given combat.
> >
> Yeh, that's the truth. I did it anoter way, and won easily without any damage
> to any of my party. Basically, I "set him off" with a hidden thief, waited a
> while until some of his magic wore off, sent in some skeletons, and when he
> attacked those hit him with range weapons and magic missles. Then I sent the
> skeletons on to destroy the other enemy, the witch or whatever she was. They
> killed her all by themselves. Whatever spell she cast didn't seem to affect
> them at all. No problem.
>
All this actually shows that the assertion somewhere earlier in the
thread that winning any given battle depends on finding the one
successful strategy is not true. Fx I killed them dispelling their magic
and using a wand of the heaven and a wand of ice, while Khalid engaged
the previously hasted guy. The witch (and most lone magic users for that
matter) died quite easily in a concerted attack. After that I could
polish off the other guy easily enough, (hooray for magic missile).
Some people play defensively, some offensively, some use magic, some use
brute force. It all works though as long as you don't make too many
mistakes, - (my favourite is Xan wondering up to the bad guys after he
runs out of darts of XXX, and drawing the collected attacks of all the
opposition) -, or try to attack something you are not experienced enough
to defeat.
Daniel
Daniel Demus
Neil Burton wrote:
>
> >You must have been fast on the trigger. I was walking down a corridor,
> >when suddenly this blur rushes up to me and chops 80 HP off my lead
> >character after a few lines of inane drivel. And the man had a -4 AC!
>
> This encounter hasn't happened for me yet - and now I'm even more scared!
>
MUAHAHAHAHA!
> >If you die excessively, it is because the AD&D rules play that way, and
> >you are not supposed to wade into any enemies you might see, unless you
> >know that you can beat them.
>
> This is absolutely true. I had similar experiences with many spells, and I
> know for sure that as an AD&D DM I will learn a lot about adjudicating
> battles in the future (a side-effect of buying BG that I hoped would
> happen).
>
> BTW, you included a spoiler in your e-mail without warning anyone (your 'son
> of God' reference). That was naughty.
Mea culpa. Sorry.
I read this group before buying the game, so I was spoiled rotten to
begin with, but I did figure out that whole angle quite early on, what
with the usual TSR mindset (whatever you or the bad guys do has to be
world-shattering) I wasn't particularly surprised.
Daniel
Chris Becke
I didn't get to cast Dispel Magic. Something went screwey in the AI, and
Kristin cast dispel Magic on herself (well, actually a fighter with some
minro enchantment directly in front of herself).Slythe couldn't move as he
was hedged in with skeletons.
Chris
--
My email address is ROT13 encoded to prevent spam: <pue...@zvpebtnzvat.pbz>
My Windows Development pages : <http://users.lia.net/chris/win32>