what's a munchkin ?
flake
a munchkin player ? Just wondering.
Duncan Young
super-beefed up charaxters etc, but at the sacrifice of one stat
"flake" <fl...@itcwcom.net> wrote in message
news:jaLo6.16544$Cq.358592@news2-hme0...
mark.glen
members of a group who, when they find an unidentified wand that's red, hot
to the touch and has the word FIRE inscribed on it, use it on a member of
their group to see what it does. Very upsetting i can tell you.
Mark
"flake" <fl...@itcwcom.net> wrote in message
news:jaLo6.16544$Cq.358592@news2-hme0...
Htn963
Scarlet Herring
>Thought they were they little fellas in Oz. But what are the attributes of
>a munchkin player ? Just wondering.
It's someone who uses some of the idiosyncrasies of a computer game to
his advantage to win battles he isn't supposed to be able to win.
Examples of munchkin tactics are:
* Using the Wand of Wonder on a difficult enemy, and keep reloading
the game until the Wand petrifies him on the first shot.
* Sending volleys of cloudkills towards a dragon while out of his
sight, so he will die without ever seeing you or becoming angry.
* Save and reload the game when you do a backstab until you hit a
natural 20.
Sort-of munchkin tactics are:
* Saving and reloading the game when you level up until you get
maximum HP.
* Saving and reloading the game when you write a spell until you
manage to write it.
I say these are sort-of munchkin, because Bioware also acknowledges
that it's very annoying that when they put just one cloudkill scroll
in a game (BG1) it's a major disappointment when you don't manage to
write it. That's why in BG2, they decided to in normal mode have a
write magic always succeed and a level up always give you max HP.
Barbarian X
"Scarlet Herring" <scarlet...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:oa77atobra2r1nec7...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:54:24 -0000, "flake" <fl...@itcwcom.net> wrote:
>
> >Thought they were they little fellas in Oz. But what are the attributes
of
> >a munchkin player ? Just wondering.
>
> It's someone who uses some of the idiosyncrasies of a computer game to
> his advantage to win battles he isn't supposed to be able to win.
> Examples of munchkin tactics are:
I don't agree with you at all.
> * Using the Wand of Wonder on a difficult enemy, and keep reloading
> the game until the Wand petrifies him on the first shot.
Well if somebody wants to do that, then fine.
(I have actually never used that wand btw)
> * Sending volleys of cloudkills towards a dragon while out of his
> sight, so he will die without ever seeing you or becoming angry.
Hey that's what I usually do, sort of (with a few modifications).
If the AI allows it, its not cheating. Just like slamming the door in the
face of some monsters. Or taking advantage of the fact that the admantite
and steel golems are too big for most doorways. (the AI doesnt make it
possible for them to crawl thru the door).
As long as the game permits it, I see nothing wrong in using it.
> * Save and reload the game when you do a backstab until you hit a
> natural 20.
*Boooooooooooooooooooring* :P
I would never have the patience to do such a thing.
> Sort-of munchkin tactics are:
>
> * Saving and reloading the game when you level up until you get
> maximum HP.
*Boooring again* :P
> * Saving and reloading the game when you write a spell until you
> manage to write it.
I do that too.
To me, a a Munchking character is someone created only to reach maximum
power, to be as dangerous as possible; with no roleplaying involved.
(Which means picking the ideal race / class combinations etc, escpecially
combined with the "int 3" stats).
/Stefan
Scarlet Herring
<this...@validadress.com> wrote:
>Hey that's what I usually do, sort of (with a few modifications).
>If the AI allows it, its not cheating.
No, it's not cheating, but it is certainly not RPG like for a level 7
character armed with nothing more than a wand of cloudkill to be able
to defeat a dragon. I agree it's not cheating, and I agree that it can
be fun to do it, but it's munchkin tactics.
> Or taking advantage of the fact that the admantite
>and steel golems are too big for most doorways. (the AI doesnt make it
>possible for them to crawl thru the door).
I agree that that is probably as intended. The golems are simply so
stupid that they try to get to you even when it's impossible and even
when you are slowly killing them. But dragons is another matter. No
RPG dragon would simply stand still in a cloudkill which is killing
him.
>As long as the game permits it, I see nothing wrong in using it.
Nothing wrong, no, but I also see nothing wrong in using Shadowkeeper
to turn all your stats into 25. I mean, if that is what you want to
do, fine, it's your kind of fun and you are harming nobody with it.
Chris Rondeau
>
> Thought they were they little fellas in Oz. But what are the attributes of
> a munchkin player ? Just wondering.
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/byzantium/55/munchkin.htm
I think that should do it..
Jeremiah
"Barbarian X" <this...@validadress.com> spake thusly:
>
> If the AI allows it, its not cheating. Just like slamming the door in the
> As long as the game permits it, I see nothing wrong in using it.
Sure, there's nothing *wrong* in doing it... it's your game,
if you wanna be a munchkin, that's your right. But at least be honest
about it...
> To me, a a Munchking character is someone created only to reach maximum
> power, to be as dangerous as possible; with no roleplaying involved.
What roleplaying is involved in cloudkilling a dragon outside
the fog of war? Or cloudkilling a room of mind flayers and shutting
the door? Or buffing before a fight by using exactly the protective
spells you know you're going to need? Or using the fog of war to draw
out enemies one at a time?
bob
>
>"Scarlet Herring" <scarlet...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
>news:oa77atobra2r1nec7...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:54:24 -0000, "flake" <fl...@itcwcom.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Hey that's what I usually do, sort of (with a few modifications).
>If the AI allows it, its not cheating. Just like slamming the door in the
>face of some monsters. Or taking advantage of the fact that the admantite
>and steel golems are too big for most doorways. (the AI doesnt make it
>possible for them to crawl thru the door).
Thats game/computer limitations, not ai - a _real_ dm could make the
golom bend/crawl through the doorway or come up with some creative way
to get to you (be interesting to see how this is delt with in NWN),
but the programmers can only come up with a limited number of things a
critter is able to do - they cannot foresee and counter every tactic
that peolpe will come up with (otherwise the critter ai would be
bigger then the game itself).
>As long as the game permits it, I see nothing wrong in using it.
I don't mind doing that _if_ I can see no other way of getting past a
critter/situation, but I prefer to work from within the game
limitations/intentions.
>> * Save and reload the game when you do a backstab until you hit a
>> natural 20.
>
>*Boooooooooooooooooooring* :P
>I would never have the patience to do such a thing.
You'd be surprised how many people do :-)
>> Sort-of munchkin tactics are:
<snip>
>To me, a a Munchking character is someone created only to reach maximum
>power, to be as dangerous as possible; with no roleplaying involved.
>(Which means picking the ideal race / class combinations etc, escpecially
>combined with the "int 3" stats).
I agree with Scarlet Herring, and this interpretation. Whats the point
of becoming the most powerful char possible if you're afraid to risk
them in a fight? Working out non-munchkin tactics to deal with a
monster is one of the 3 major things that keep me engrossed in bgate2
(the others being trying to get it on with Jahiera - in my current
incarnation I've reached day 73 (by going back to my stronghold to
rest after _every_ quest) and post-dermin, gotten bored and now doing
underdark, hopefully El. will turn up in the forest outside of Sundel.
- and trying out all the char classes/party combos).
__
Replies to anakha{at}paradise{dot}net{dot}nz
To stop your toasting, before you go posting, read this:
http://www.demonspawn.net/bg/usage.htm
- the alt.games.baldurs-gate posting guide - read it, learn it, do it
Htn963
>Working out non-munchkin tactics to deal with a
>monster is one of the 3 major things that keep me engrossed in bgate2
>(the others being trying to get it on with Jahiera - in my current
>incarnation I've reached day 73 (by going back to my stronghold to
>rest after _every_ quest) and post-dermin, gotten bored and now doing
>underdark, hopefully El. will turn up in the >forest outside of Sundel.
You're supposed to be a couple before El. turns up. See my past posts or
go to http://www.gamebanshee.com for a romance summary. Such love should not
be denied.
And have you tried maple syrup?
bob
>bob wrote:
<snip>
> And have you tried maple syrup?
We decided to forego the mable syrup in favor of whipped cream...
Chris Basken
> > power, to be as dangerous as possible; with no roleplaying involved.
>
> What roleplaying is involved in cloudkilling a dragon outside
> the fog of war? Or cloudkilling a room of mind flayers and shutting
> the door? Or buffing before a fight by using exactly the protective
> spells you know you're going to need? Or using the fog of war to draw
> out enemies one at a time?
um, strategic roleplaying? where is it written that to roleplay you can't
think ahead? using cloudkill in a room and shutting the door is a perfectly
reasonable and -- if you're playing a reasonable char -- in-character thing
to do. why *wouldn't* your character do that? image being in his life or
death situation -- i'd go for the "nuke 'em from orbit" tactic every time.
granted, if i was playing a chaotic neutral insane bard, i might load myself
up with goodberries and run in naked. 8)
as for buffering myself up before a fight -- how is that munchkinism? i use
Farsight to look into the room ahead, see a bunch of 'Flayers, cast Chaotic
Commands and Haste on my party, run in and spank 'em. that's being a
munchkin? what am i supposed to do -- deliberately *not* cast the
appropriate spells in a situation?
munchkinism, IMHO, involves any kind of meta-game knowledge. if my
character -- in his little reality that is the AD&D universe -- could come
up with the plan (e.g. using Farsight, Chaotic Commands, and Haste), then i
can't see how that's munchkinism. likewise, if he's a fighter and he finds
a magic sword and identifies it as a +5 vorpal ass-kicker, he'd be a fool
not to use it.
however, the character *can't* say "on page 212 of the DM's Guide there's a
description of the Rod of Lordly Might", so if the *player* transfers his
meta-game knowledge to the character, that's being a munchkin. likewise,
any poring through the source books and becoming more knowledgable than the
folks at TSR about the rules, then trying to use those rules to bend the
spirit of the game, is munchkinism.
but using strategy and logic is not.
Jeremiah
"Chris Basken" <ch...@basken.com> spake thusly:
>> > To me, a a Munchking character is someone created only to reach maximum
>> > power, to be as dangerous as possible; with no roleplaying involved.
>>
>> What roleplaying is involved in cloudkilling a dragon outside
>> the fog of war? Or cloudkilling a room of mind flayers and shutting
>> the door? Or buffing before a fight by using exactly the protective
>> spells you know you're going to need? Or using the fog of war to draw
>> out enemies one at a time?
>
> think ahead?
Abusing flaws in the AI or limitations of the game engine is
not thinking ahead...
> using cloudkill in a room and shutting the door is a perfectly
> reasonable and -- if you're playing a reasonable char -- in-character thing
> to do. why *wouldn't* your character do that?
Your character could try, but most likely he wouldn't get away
with it. Imagine trying to cloudkill a room of mind flayers. Do you
really think they'd just sit there for 8 rounds and allow themselves
to die? No, they'd open the door. *That's* why the technique is
munchkinism; it's abusing a flaw in the AI. (Note: for a room full of
umber hulks, it's a reasonable thing, since they probably couldn't open
the door...)
> as for buffering myself up before a fight -- how is that munchkinism? i use
> Farsight to look into the room ahead, see a bunch of 'Flayers, cast Chaotic
> Commands and Haste on my party, run in and spank 'em. that's being a
> munchkin? what am i supposed to do -- deliberately *not* cast the
> appropriate spells in a situation?
It depends upon whether you *know* what spells you're going
to need. (heh... now I sound like a Gith) If you scope out an area
using an invisible scout/wizard eye/farsight, and cast spells you think
might help you in the upcoming fights, that's fine... but if before
encountering Draug Fea and his band in the Temple sewers you cast only
Resist Fear on your party (because you know that the AI script has the
mage cast Symbol, Fear first), then that's munchkinism.
Basically, it boils down to this: if you obtain your foreknowledge
fairly (using your limited number of wizard eyes, farsights, or an
invisible scout), it's fair, but if you use outside techniques (previous
times through the game, the first level mage spell "Reload Game", etc.),
then it's not...
Derville
Duncan Young <ds...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:980f65$clf$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> "flake" <fl...@itcwcom.net> wrote in message
> news:jaLo6.16544$Cq.358592@news2-hme0...
> > Thought they were they little fellas in Oz. But what are the
attributes
> of
> > a munchkin player ? Just wondering.
> >
> AFAIK character with 18 in all/most stats except charisma (or
intelligence)
> super-beefed up charaxters etc, but at the sacrifice of one stat
That sounds more like a min-maxer to me, by beefing up certain stats at
the expense of others. Hence a min-maxed fighter would have 18 in
strength, dexterity and constitution, but as low as 3 in his other
stats.
A munchkin is a guy who (normally) stops just about a half inch short of
blatant cheating. Rest assured, they will find the page in the rulebok
which says they are allowed to dual wield two handed swords, and will
prove it by creating two Holy Avengers to swing at once. They tend to
push the envelope beyond what is normally acceptable in polite gaming,
and as such are the bane of an arbitrary rules system such as those used
in CRPG's. At least PnP gamers can sort out munchkins by creating a
ridiculously out of depth monster (or perhaps having their armour rust
solid and paralyse them while kobolds feast on their exposed body
parts), but in a game like BG2 where a lot of encounters are fixed,
munchkinism can run riot. Munchkins are invariably found in chapter two
sporting a Staff of the Magi, Celestial Fury and Crom Faeyr, to be used
on their fighter/mage/cleric/thief/monk/housewife/babykiller.
To put it bluntly, munchkins look for loopholes in the game and exploit
them ruthlessly, and generally contravene all the general principles of
traditional PnP gaming, to the point of exceeding bad etiquette.
--
P. (one time min maxer, but who needs it when you can hit level 20?)
(Remove 'your.inhibitions' to reply)
Read the alt.games.baldurs-gate Usage FAQ:
www.demonspawn.net/bg/usage.htm
Chris Basken
> > reasonable and -- if you're playing a reasonable char -- in-character
thing
> > to do. why *wouldn't* your character do that?
>
> Your character could try, but most likely he wouldn't get away
> with it. Imagine trying to cloudkill a room of mind flayers. Do you
> really think they'd just sit there for 8 rounds and allow themselves
> to die? No, they'd open the door. *That's* why the technique is
> munchkinism; it's abusing a flaw in the AI. (Note: for a room full of
> umber hulks, it's a reasonable thing, since they probably couldn't open
> the door...)
that's a gray area, IMHO. i've had creatures open doors or follow me down
stairs, or follow me from one area to another. the game engine is perfectly
capable of making the flayers open the door and nail me. my assumption is,
if the don't actually see me shoot off the spell, they didn't know where
it's coming from.
sure, they'd probably run from the room like it was on fire, but who can say
how flayers' minds work? it may be a game limitation, but i consider it
compensation for a number of limitations it places on me (limited speech
responses; my party's reputation spontaneously changing when my PC does
something by himself, far away from the prying eyes of civilization; pissed
NPCs leaving and somehow "walking" home, even if i'm stuck in the planar
sphere, in an asylum, in the underdark, etc).
> > as for buffering myself up before a fight -- how is that munchkinism? i
use
> > Farsight to look into the room ahead, see a bunch of 'Flayers, cast
Chaotic
> > Commands and Haste on my party, run in and spank 'em. that's being a
> > munchkin? what am i supposed to do -- deliberately *not* cast the
> > appropriate spells in a situation?
>
> It depends upon whether you *know* what spells you're going
> to need. (heh... now I sound like a Gith) If you scope out an area
> using an invisible scout/wizard eye/farsight, and cast spells you think
> might help you in the upcoming fights, that's fine... but if before
> encountering Draug Fea and his band in the Temple sewers you cast only
> Resist Fear on your party (because you know that the AI script has the
> mage cast Symbol, Fear first), then that's munchkinism.
i haven't run into this guy yet (i'm doing BG2, never finished BG1). but
what happens if you run into the guy -- not knowing to cast Resist Fear --
and he does his Fear Symbol and promptly kills you. you reload from your
last save, and when you get up to just before encountering him, you either
1) cast Resist Fear, and kick his ass, or 2) don't cast Resist Fear, because
technically, you don't "know" he's there and gonna do his Symbol thing, run
in, get killed, and reload again. at what point does it become munchkinism
to decide you're in an endless loop unless you anticipate his presence?
taking it to a ridiculous extreme, i suppose the true non-munchkin way to go
would be to never reload from a saved game -- if you get killed at any
point, you start all over again. and even that's not fair, since you, at
least to a small degree, know the layout of all the maps you've been in the
last time.
obviously, that's silly. there's room in reasonable, responsible
game-playing to use knowledge you learned last time through.
> Basically, it boils down to this: if you obtain your foreknowledge
> fairly (using your limited number of wizard eyes, farsights, or an
> invisible scout), it's fair, but if you use outside techniques (previous
> times through the game, the first level mage spell "Reload Game", etc.),
> then it's not...
well, i don't do that because it's more annoying for me to wait through the
"clearing data, loading game" cycle than it is to lose the spell. but i can
see the frustration someone might feel through losing a spell not because of
any bad decisions on his part, but because somewhere inside the guts of the
computer, the rand() function for the game happened to hit a certain number.
SPOILER ALERT
when in the Underdark, i walked into the Mind Flayer arena quest. i
couldn't do it. i couldn't kill the flayers. i kept dying. so after a few
hours playing, i got fed up and reloaded from before i walked into the
Flayer area, completed a few more quests, raised some levels, and went back
to solve it. i'm sure that's munchkinism to you. to me, that's called
"trying to enjoy the game."
Christian Landry
> > "flake" <fl...@itcwcom.net> wrote in message
> > news:jaLo6.16544$Cq.358592@news2-hme0...
> > > Thought they were they little fellas in Oz. But what are the
> attributes
> > of
> > > a munchkin player ? Just wondering.
> > >
I think a true munchkin would 'fail' all of the tests near the end game.
Especially the one concerning Blackrazor!
Christian Landry
Barbarian X
"Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:983cr4$u06$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> To put it bluntly, munchkins look for loopholes in the game and exploit
> them ruthlessly, and generally contravene all the general principles of
> traditional PnP gaming, to the point of exceeding bad etiquette.
I have never done anything like that in PNP games, tho in CRPG I take
advantage of AI flaws to compensate for the fact that I cant outhink the DM
;)
In a normal PNP game I might enter a monster's lair hanging in the ceiling
where it cannot reach me without exposing itself to my friend's melee / bow
attacks, while I drop a molotow coctail on it (if I play as a thief) for
example, instead of running straight up to it, or simply (if it's an
unintelligent / semi intelligent beast) put poisoned food outside it's
lair... etc.
/S
Barbarian X
"Jeremiah" <br...@spam.to.dev.null> skrev i meddelandet
news:L_ep6.349758$w35.56...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> In article <Hi6p6.6689$hi2....@nntpserver.swip.net>,
> "Barbarian X" <this...@validadress.com> spake thusly:
> >
> > If the AI allows it, its not cheating. Just like slamming the door in
the
> > face of some monsters....
> > As long as the game permits it, I see nothing wrong in using it.
>
> Sure, there's nothing *wrong* in doing it... it's your game,
> if you wanna be a munchkin, that's your right. But at least be honest
> about it...
ANd I say I am not.
> > To me, a a Munchking character is someone created only to reach maximum
> > power, to be as dangerous as possible; with no roleplaying involved.
>
> What roleplaying is involved in cloudkilling a dragon outside
> the fog of war? Or cloudkilling a room of mind flayers and shutting
> the door? Or buffing before a fight by using exactly the protective
> spells you know you're going to need? Or using the fog of war to draw
> out enemies one at a time?
I buff my fighters up with EVERY protective spell when going to face an
unknown "end quest boss". You are starting to sound like someone who thinks
it's a bad thing to wear an armour at all since "the game is too easy then"
or something.
As for the cloudkilling of mindflayers; I once cleaned out a room (in a PNP
game) by lobbing a hand granade inside and then quickly close the 3 feet
thick steel door and block it. *SPLAT*.
I don't call that Munchking either. I call that good roleplaying.
(The dragon: It's not cheating if you use far sight (or whatever you call
it) to see it first. If the dragon doesn't attack it's his problem, not
mine. Especially since I have "seen" it (not doing it into the fog of war
where I know it is)
/S
Barbarian X
> Nothing wrong, no, but I also see nothing wrong in using Shadowkeeper
> to turn all your stats into 25. I mean, if that is what you want to
> do, fine, it's your kind of fun and you are harming nobody with it.
Im not a cheater thank you very much, and if you cannot tell the difference,
then be quiet. please.
/S
Robert Sprawls
> to need. (heh... now I sound like a Gith) If you scope out an area
> using an invisible scout/wizard eye/farsight, and cast spells you think
> might help you in the upcoming fights, that's fine... but if before
> encountering Draug Fea and his band in the Temple sewers you cast only
> Resist Fear on your party (because you know that the AI script has the
> mage cast Symbol, Fear first), then that's munchkinism.
This is a very difficult thread of discussion right here because I have
faced them without the Resist Fear and died quite fast. I had the spell
memorized, but hadn't cast it. So am I to throw the game away because I
wasn't victorious in this fight? Should I roll a new character and start
over? I don't use tactics such as cloudkilling outside of an opponents
visual range, or anything like that. But if I lose a fight, I will go back
and do it again with the proper protections. I've defeated Kraag and Thax
many times using good old style tactics. Mages to the rear, fighters buffed
up and up front, Anomen running interfence for the mages while sporting a
blade barrier. These I see as proper tactics, but I have lost these fights
also, simply due to some bad saving throws, and critical misses.
As for Kraag the very first time, I did a quick save upon entering his room,
simply because it looked like a Dragons lair, and I wanted to see what was
going to happen. I talked to him, and being a good ranger, I had to attempt
to destroy him. Failed 5 times, then decided I didn't have the muscle and
magic to do it, so I played through the dialog, left with the girl, and
returned at the end of chap 2 and promptly kicked his ass.
However, your reasoning is saying that since I failed the first time, going
back is a no-no. What am I to do then? Even if I roll up a new character,
I'll still have inside information. In PnP DnD, I've died many times. True
DM's are not forgiving. But you can learn alot from such encounters. I
not know that before I go dungeoning, I cast Chaotic Commands, Resist Fear,
Prot From Evil, and Death Ward on all my characters. The shortest is resist
fear which is 1 hour. Free action is 1rnd/lvl, and doesn't last long
enough to get 1/3 of the way through a dungeon, so I try to save it for when
it's needed, if I have it at all. I usually don't and find myself running
to someones rescue because they are held and getting whacked.
flake
Chris - great link - laughed my socks off ! Guess I'm 40% munchkin, 30%
roleplayer, and 30% loonie then <g> !
Barbarian X
"flake" <fl...@itcwcom.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:2Mop6.17949$Cq.407860@news2-hme0...
And reading this link I say I'm about 30% Real Man, 60% Roleplayer and 10%
Munchkin :)
/S
Caldera OpenLinux User
> Thought they were they little fellas in Oz. But what are the attributes of
> a munchkin player ? Just wondering.
There are many different answers, but here's mine: A
munchkin is someone who's chiefly concerned with
"playing to win" - which might be quite appropriate
in a game of checkers, but can be very annoying in a
roleplaying game.
Some common types of munchkin:
- The rules lawyer. This is the guy who's memorized
every page of the rulebooks, and will quote chapter
& verse to justify doing things his way. "But it says
on page 312 that I get a +3 bonus on this roll for
being an elf..." Oddly enough, these guys only remember
such rules when it's to their advantage...
- The min-maxer. This is the guy who's figured out
which stats matter, and which don't, and pumps all his
points into the ones that do. If your character has
Strength 18/00, Dexterity 18, Constitution 18, Wisdom
10, Intelligence 3, and Charisma 3, you might well be
a min-maxer... (One reason I liked Planescape: Torment -
all six stats mattered.)
Particularly a problem with social/mental stats, since
those are the ones where the player's innate abilities
are most likely to come into play. If your character
has Int 3, Charisma 3, but keeps coming up with crafty
battle tactics and has party members taking great risks
to protect him, that's definitely munchkin playing...
Not all min-maxers are munchkins, mind you. But a lot are.
- The Out-Of-Game Knowledge player. This is the guy who
acts on knowledge that the character has no way of knowing.
The character might never have _heard_ of a "medusa" before,
but the player knows how to fight them...
- The Dice Roll Fudger. Self-explanatory, I think.
And various other forms. BTW, being a munchkin is not a
black-and-white thing. Just about everybody has 'munchkin
moments'. It's not always a sin, either. If you are
playing BGII alone against the computer, you can use all
the munchkin tactics you like. If you like playing that
way, and you're not spoiling anybody else's enjoyment of
the game, good for you. OTOH, if you're playing with
others who don't enjoy that style of game, munchkin
behaviour can be a serious problem. CRPGs probably
encourage munchkinism more than pen-and-paper games, since
they're more likely to be played solo and there's less
opportunity fot the other enjoyable aspects of gaming (e.g.
character interaction.)
A couple of examples of munchkin behaviour from a live-
action gaming group I used to be a member of (not AD&D
system):
(1) All characters were created on the same number of
'points' (which could be spent on strength, intelligence,
wealth, 'magic items', or any number of other things.)
But you were allowed to run more than one character. So
one player created a character who spent all her points
on cash & magic items. Then she created a second character
who spent all her points on physical/mental stats. Then
the first character gave all her gear to the second character,
and retired...
(2) One player of the Rules-Lawyer variety went through all
the gamebooks, picking the mix of abilities which would give
her the most plusses to everything. (BTW, "how many plusses
does it have" is the definitive munchkin question.) She made
sure to pick a character race that gave her bonuses to all
the things she'd ever need to do. (Min-Maxer also.) Then she
went around trampling over other people's characters.
Unfortunately, she'd missed one little weakness in the race
she chose that meant they occasionally went into a berserk
fury. The first time this happened to her, she attempted to
kill another PC. Standing behind her was a _third_ PC, who
was bound to preserve innocent life at all costs... and
because said munchkin was such a combat monster, the only
way he was able to do this involved hitting her in the back
with his halberd. Very very hard.
So, she died. And her response was not "damn, that was bad
luck", but "blast, next time I'll pick a race with no
weaknesses at all, so nobody can kill me."
Geoffrey Brent
flake
> There are many different answers, but here's mine: A
> munchkin is someone who's chiefly concerned with
> "playing to win" - which might be quite appropriate
> in a game of checkers, but can be very annoying in a
> roleplaying game.
<snip>
> And various other forms. BTW, being a munchkin is not a
> black-and-white thing. Just about everybody has 'munchkin
> moments'. It's not always a sin, either. If you are
> playing BGII alone against the computer, you can use all
> the munchkin tactics you like. If you like playing that
> way, and you're not spoiling anybody else's enjoyment of
> the game, good for you. OTOH, if you're playing with
> others who don't enjoy that style of game, munchkin
> behaviour can be a serious problem. CRPGs probably
> encourage munchkinism more than pen-and-paper games, since
> they're more likely to be played solo and there's less
> opportunity fot the other enjoyable aspects of gaming (e.g.
> character interaction.)
Ah ha ! Now understand why being a munchkin can be a problem - when you
play with other people. I don't have a PnP background - bought BG last year
because of a review in a PC gaming mag. I did play Colossus Cave years ago
on a DEC PDP-11. That was it until I bought Lemmings <g>, then Riven and
Starship Titanic on recs. from people at work. So I'm definately not an RPG
bod. That explains my inane question on munchkins. Thanks for the
background everyone.
Speaker-to-Customers
"Robert Sprawls" wrote ...
> > It depends upon whether you *know* what spells you're going
> > to need.
> I don't use tactics such as cloudkilling outside of an opponents
> visual range, or anything like that.
There are occasions when that can be a totally legitimate tactic. You enter
an area, and see a message on the screen: "Nogbad the Bad: casts
'Stoneskin'". Therefore, Nogbad has detected your presence - perhaps
hearing your footsteps, which is fair enough. Of course, the AI scripting
often has this happen when you are a Ranger or Thief, stealthed, invisible
and wearing the Cloak of Non-Detection!
However, if he can hear you, it is legitimate to assume you can hear him.
He must be muttering the verbal component of his spell. If you react to
this by fireballing the area where it seems logical that someone might be
lurking, and get the message "Nogbad: save vs. spell 3. Noggin does 34
damage to Nogbad", then you can continue fireballing, cloudkilling, etc. the
area until you get the "Nogbad: Death" message. You hear his agonised
screams, letting you know you were on target, and stop when you hear his
death rattle.
Some of the scripted reactions would put you at an overwhelming disadvantage
if you didn't use tactics like that. Outside the Cloakwood Mines, the group
at the gates reacted to the presence of invisible, silent, non-detectable
Imoen by summoning a veritable army of monsters, and hyping themselves up
every possible way. Why? Scripting. Enter the area, trigger the
behaviour.
Of course, Imoen could see all this; I simply sent her back to the party to
report, we sat and waited until the monsters unsummoned and all the spells
wore off, then attacked. Why not? Imoen was spying on them. Had I chosen
to have Dynaheir Fireball them from out of their visual range instead, to
get extra loot & xp from the summoned monsters, it would still have been
legit. We had a "forward observer".
Taking advantage of loopholes in the AI may be munchkinism sometimes, but
often it is merely retaliation for the way scripted dialogues give the enemy
first strike unfairly.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Caldera OpenLinux User
> that's a gray area, IMHO. i've had creatures open doors or follow me down
> stairs, or follow me from one area to another. the game engine is perfectly
Are you _sure_ they've opened doors? I've never, ever had this
happen, and not for lack of opportunity.
> capable of making the flayers open the door and nail me. my assumption is,
> if the don't actually see me shoot off the spell, they didn't know where
> it's coming from.
Come, now. They're smart creatures, in a room with
precisely two exits. It doesn't take them a lot of
work to figure out where the attack is coming from.
> i haven't run into this guy yet (i'm doing BG2, never finished BG1). but
> what happens if you run into the guy -- not knowing to cast Resist Fear --
> and he does his Fear Symbol and promptly kills you. you reload from your
> last save, and when you get up to just before encountering him, you either
> 1) cast Resist Fear, and kick his ass, or 2) don't cast Resist Fear, because
> technically, you don't "know" he's there and gonna do his Symbol thing, run
> in, get killed, and reload again. at what point does it become munchkinism
> to decide you're in an endless loop unless you anticipate his presence?
Here's the catch: BGII encourages munchkinism. In fact,
it's very difficult to finish it without using tactics
that would be considered 'munchkin' in a P&P game.
> taking it to a ridiculous extreme, i suppose the true non-munchkin way to go
> would be to never reload from a saved game -- if you get killed at any
> point, you start all over again. and even that's not fair, since you, at
> least to a small degree, know the layout of all the maps you've been in the
> last time.
Indeed. I'm not criticising people for using munchkin
tactics in BGII, since you just about _have_ to do it
to make it through the game - the difficulty level of
many of the encounters is a lot higher than it would be
in a comparable p&p game. BGII works nicely as a CRPG,
but as a pen-and-paper game it'd be appalling without
making major tweaks for the sake of game balance.
> SPOILER ALERT
> when in the Underdark, i walked into the Mind Flayer arena quest. i
> couldn't do it. i couldn't kill the flayers. i kept dying. so after a few
> hours playing, i got fed up and reloaded from before i walked into the
> Flayer area, completed a few more quests, raised some levels, and went back
> to solve it. i'm sure that's munchkinism to you. to me, that's called
> "trying to enjoy the game."
Actually, it's both. Munchkinism is not always a bad
thing, especially when the game is designed on the
assumption that people _will_ use munchkin tactics.
Geoffrey Brent
Barbarian X
"Speaker-to-Customers" <oct...@mcb.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:985aa0$jui$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net...
<Snipping the whole long interesting thing>
> Taking advantage of loopholes in the AI may be munchkinism sometimes, but
> often it is merely retaliation for the way scripted dialogues give the
enemy
> first strike unfairly.
Exactly. Couldnt say it better myself :)
> Paul Speaker-to-Customers
>
>
/Stefan
Chris Basken
down
> > stairs, or follow me from one area to another. the game engine is
perfectly
>
> Are you _sure_ they've opened doors? I've never, ever had this
> happen, and not for lack of opportunity.
now that you mention it, no, i don't remember them opening doors. they
have, however, followed me through doors that take me to a new area (saving
the game first, even). if the engine could handle that, why not have it open
the doors?
> Come, now. They're smart creatures, in a room with
> precisely two exits. It doesn't take them a lot of
> work to figure out where the attack is coming from.
okay, i'm standing right next to them with improved invisibilty going -- now
neither door is the correct answer, especially if those doors are closed.
okay, i realize that we're talking about a limitation in the AI, but there
are plenty of cases where the AI enhances the monsters, too (like detecting
invisible or shadow-hidden characters, auto-unconsciousness whenever the
plot decides it needs me that way, etc).
> Indeed. I'm not criticising people for using munchkin
> tactics in BGII, since you just about _have_ to do it
> to make it through the game - the difficulty level of
> many of the encounters is a lot higher than it would be
> in a comparable p&p game. BGII works nicely as a CRPG,
> but as a pen-and-paper game it'd be appalling without
> making major tweaks for the sake of game balance.
i agree. if BG2 was PnP, you can bet your ass i wouldn't leap to attack
Balor if the dwarf just said "there's a horrible beastie in that room --
please go kill it for us!?" it would be 20-questions time. what do you
mean, "horrible beasty"? what does it look like? what did it do when you
attacked it last? did you try any magic on it? what were the effects? how
many people did you send against it? any survivors, and if so, can i talk
to them? etc...
all stuff you can ask a human DM, and he can deal with it. BG2 offers
nothing except "accept" or "deny" options. so as a player, i have no choice
but to go "ask the questions" of the game itself by attacking the Balor,
trying a tactic, getting killed, reloading from saved, and attacking again
with a different tactic.
don't get me wrong, though. BG2 handles the whole thing very well. but
what would be munchkinism in PnP is merely normal playing in BG2.
Chris Rondeau
hehe I'm about 90% Loonie, 10% Going for beer. :)
Sometimes it's just easier that way.
James Macarthur
Chris Basken <ch...@basken.com> wrote in message
news:tAjp6.1916$051.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> when in the Underdark, i walked into the Mind Flayer arena quest. i
> couldn't do it. i couldn't kill the flayers. i kept dying. so after a
few
> hours playing, i got fed up and reloaded from before i walked into the
> Flayer area, completed a few more quests, raised some levels, and went
back
> to solve it. i'm sure that's munchkinism to you. to me, that's called
> "trying to enjoy the game."
>
how to play it (yes I have cheated in some games I have played if I copuld
find no other way to finish the task at hand). No I haven't cheated at BG2.
I did howevewr enjoy the game. When I created my character I bumped his
STR, CON and DEX up at the cost of INT and WIS. He was a Paladin so CHR was
hih too. Yet sinbce the character creation process lets you reroll until
you get something you like I hit that until I had 3 18s, 1x17, and a pair
of 13s. Cheating (munchkinism?) I doubt it. Creating a character I would
be happy with for the next 200 hours or so? Exactly!
I took on Firkagg and defeated him as soon as I was done Nalias quest. I
had to reload in his lair 5 or 6 times, but then I beat him without a
single death at levels like 6 or so! New tactics help too. But I didn't
resort to stupid cheating!
Knowi what was coming next because I was forced to redo a part is also a
part of the game. 90% of the readers in this NG have replayed or will
replay one of more of these games I'm sure, so telling him he has to forget
all knowledge gained on a previous playing is unfair. What is he(she)
supposed to do? See a hypnotist to clear their mind?
The whole point of the game is to entertain! And to do that you have to
enjoy without being frustrated by the same puzzle for 4.8 days! So if you
are having fun, go for it. But do keep blatent cheating out of MP.
James
Jeremiah
> game) by lobbing a hand granade inside and then quickly close the 3 feet
> thick steel door and block it. *SPLAT*.
> I don't call that Munchking either. I call that good roleplaying.
The analogy doesn't work, since a grenade is a short-duration
event. If you grenade a room, the creatures inside don't have a chance
to get out. But cloudkill lasts a long time, and does damage every
round... and yet the creatures inside just sit there and take damage
and eventually die.
Jeremiah
> stairs, or follow me from one area to another.
I've never had them open doors. It's a limitation of the game
engine.
> if the don't actually see me shoot off the spell, they didn't know where
> it's coming from.
The area I'm thinking of (you haven't been there yet), they *do*
know where you are, since they psionic blast you when you open the door.
> i haven't run into this guy yet (i'm doing BG2, never finished BG1). but
> what happens if you run into the guy -- not knowing to cast Resist Fear --
> and he does his Fear Symbol and promptly kills you. you reload from your
> last save, and when you get up to just before encountering him, you either
> 1) cast Resist Fear, and kick his ass, or 2) don't cast Resist Fear, because
> technically, you don't "know" he's there and gonna do his Symbol thing, run
> in, get killed, and reload again.
If you get killed, you change your tactics next time. Instead of
starting with a Fireball, you start with Greater Command or Hold Person
or Breach and disrupt him with bolts of biting, or you spread out so
that the Symbol only hits at most a few of you. All of these things are
reasonble things for your characters to do without foreknowledge of what
the fight will be like.
The real question here is this: why is my character taking this
action? Because *he* knows what he should do or because *I* do? Is
he using knowledge that *he* has or knowledge that *I* have?
> at what point does it become munchkinism
> to decide you're in an endless loop unless you anticipate his presence?
For almost all encounters in the game, you don't have to pre-buff
with spells.
> obviously, that's silly. there's room in reasonable, responsible
> game-playing to use knowledge you learned last time through.
I notice you said "game-playing" instead of "role-playing".
IMO, that's the difference here...
> SPOILER ALERT
> when in the Underdark, i walked into the Mind Flayer arena quest. i
> couldn't do it. i couldn't kill the flayers. i kept dying. so after a few
> hours playing, i got fed up and reloaded from before i walked into the
> Flayer area, completed a few more quests, raised some levels, and went back
> to solve it. i'm sure that's munchkinism to you.
No, it's not at all. Instead of going to the Flayer area, he
went somewhere else instead. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do;
he just chose one path instead of another.
Chris Basken
y'know, i'm beginning to think that there's a certain kind of munchkinism in
worrying too much about other peoples' munchkinism... 8)
"James Macarthur" <james.ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:OXvp6.352709$f36.12...@news20.bellglobal.com...
bob
>
>"Jeremiah" <br...@spam.to.dev.null> skrev i meddelandet
>news:L_ep6.349758$w35.56...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>> In article <Hi6p6.6689$hi2....@nntpserver.swip.net>,
>> "Barbarian X" <this...@validadress.com> spake thusly:
<snip>
>As for the cloudkilling of mindflayers; I once cleaned out a room (in a PNP
>game) by lobbing a hand granade inside and then quickly close the 3 feet
>thick steel door and block it. *SPLAT*.
>I don't call that Munchking either. I call that good roleplaying.
Yes, it's good roleplaying if you say 'throw in grenade, close and
_block_ the door", but in bgate all the char does is close the door -
the mindflayers could still open it _if they were given the option by
the ai_. Thats not to say I don't use the tactic myself, or that the
player shouldn't use it, but at least admit that it is what it is...
>(The dragon: It's not cheating if you use far sight (or whatever you call
>it) to see it first. If the dragon doesn't attack it's his problem, not
>mine. Especially since I have "seen" it (not doing it into the fog of war
>where I know it is)
It's munchkinish 'cos no matter how you slice it,
cloudkilling/fireballing from beyond fog of war is exploiting ai
deficiencies - not because you can determine that an enemy is there,
but because the critters don't try and get away from/get at whatever
is hurting them. In a pnp game the dragon would, logically enough,
move out of the cloud instead of standing there getting injured, and
more then likely figure out which direction it came from so would move
that way. They can also fly, but thats another matter...
bob
>flake <fl...@itcwcom.net> wrote:
<snip>
>- The min-maxer. This is the guy who's figured out
>which stats matter, and which don't, and pumps all his
>points into the ones that do. If your character has
>Strength 18/00, Dexterity 18, Constitution 18, Wisdom
>10, Intelligence 3, and Charisma 3, you might well be
>a min-maxer... (One reason I liked Planescape: Torment -
>all six stats mattered.)
<snip to end>
Thats why I liked the Fallout system - all the stats mattered (there
were 7 stats, 4 needed for combat, 4 for talkers, etc.), and if you
didn't have a high enough int and chr (and maybe perception) then some
(or most) of the conversation topics didn't even show up (as they char
is too dumb to think of them).
Having a low int would also reduce the chars tactics in combat (if the
player is roleplaying properly) - many are the idiot-savants have I
seen, int of about 4 yet they lay all manner of traps, ambushes, and
general sneaky strategies. Yes, in a party situation someone else
could be telling them what to do, but going solo...
Speaker-to-Customers
"Jeremiah" wrote ...
> The analogy doesn't work, since a grenade is a short-duration
> event. If you grenade a room, the creatures inside don't have a chance
> to get out. But cloudkill lasts a long time, and does damage every
> round... and yet the creatures inside just sit there and take damage
> and eventually die.
Yes, but in PnP AD&D you can wedge the door shut. If the occupants of the
room don't rush you instantly, by the time the reach the door it's jammed,
and they have to force it open while inhaling poison gas. Often, they don't
manage it in time.
This option is not available to you in BG, but the AI deficiency produces
the same effect. Picture them frantically shoulder-charging the door, or
tugging at the handle depending on which way it opens, while trying to hold
their breath. A much more logical picture than them just sitting there and
taking it.
There are so many instances of the game engine stuffing the PC for purposes
of the plot, that exploitation of the AI limitations only balances things
out. As long as you would be able to achieve the same effect with an
impartial human DM, through a similar tactic which is not available due to
the designers not implementing it, then it is not being a munchkin.
When the game acts unfairly, reacting to undetectable characters because
there is a dialogue or action scripted, or getting the first attack off
because their dialogue stops the action and freezes your legitimate first
strike, there is no alternative but to munchkin in response.
Even the "send forward the uncharmable guy, everyone else shoot, the Sirenes
will just go for the one guy and ignore the others" tactic is legitimate.
The range of longbows is chopped too much in BG, and in PnP they could shoot
from outside Dire Charm range. The front man would be the only target for
the spell anyway. You're just forcing the game to conform to the rules.
Although I must admit that the Wizard Eye trick against Liches might be a
bit off; they'd never waste their spells on one in PnP.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Caldera OpenLinux User
>> Are you _sure_ they've opened doors? I've never, ever had this
>> happen, and not for lack of opportunity.
> now that you mention it, no, i don't remember them opening doors. they
> have, however, followed me through doors that take me to a new area (saving
> the game first, even). if the engine could handle that, why not have it open
> the doors?
Ask the programmers, not me :-)
>> Come, now. They're smart creatures, in a room with
>> precisely two exits. It doesn't take them a lot of
>> work to figure out where the attack is coming from.
> okay, i'm standing right next to them with improved invisibilty going -- now
> neither door is the correct answer, especially if those doors are closed.
Then they don't need to see you. They can _hear_ you
casting - which is why you can be attacked (at a penalty)
once you cast a spell while under II.
> okay, i realize that we're talking about a limitation in the AI, but there
> are plenty of cases where the AI enhances the monsters, too (like detecting
> invisible or shadow-hidden characters, auto-unconsciousness whenever the
> plot decides it needs me that way, etc).
Sure. The game doesn't play fair, but this doesn't mean
the tactics used against it aren't munchkin too.
> Balor if the dwarf just said "there's a horrible beastie in that room --
> please go kill it for us!?" it would be 20-questions time. what do you
> mean, "horrible beasty"? what does it look like? what did it do when you
> attacked it last? did you try any magic on it? what were the effects? how
> many people did you send against it? any survivors, and if so, can i talk
> to them? etc...
Indeed. The game's limitations cut both ways; this is why I
don't have a problem with some degree of munchkinism in BGII.
Geoffrey Brent
Caldera OpenLinux User
>>a min-maxer... (One reason I liked Planescape: Torment -
>>all six stats mattered.)
> <snip to end>
> Thats why I liked the Fallout system - all the stats mattered (there
<nod> Fallout was a good system, although IMHO stats like
Intelligence and Agility were a lot more useful than Endurance.
Geoffrey Brent
Graeme Dice
All you needed for Fallout 2 was 4 endurance to get the lifegiver perk.
I had 222 hitpoints by the time I finished the Enclave, and was killing
two soldiers in advanced power armour per combat round with critical
hits with a gauss rifle to the eyes, or the pulse rifle. I actually
started using different weapons, as I was getting tired of seeing
people's sides get blown out from head hits.
Graeme Dice
--
Socrates was a famous Greek teacher who went around giving people
advice. They killed him. Socrates died from an overdose of wedlock.
After his death, his career suffered a dramatic decline.
Barbarian X
"bob" <m...@mymail.address> skrev i meddelandet
news:3aa6c90d...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:20:56 +0100, Barbarian X wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jeremiah" <br...@spam.to.dev.null> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:L_ep6.349758$w35.56...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> Yes, it's good roleplaying if you say 'throw in grenade, close and
> _block_ the door", but in bgate all the char does is close the door -
> the mindflayers could still open it _if they were given the option by
> the ai_. Thats not to say I don't use the tactic myself, or that the
> player shouldn't use it, but at least admit that it is what it is...
It's good roleplaying.
Especially since you really can't *roleplay* in the game without using your
imagination to a certain degree.
I compare my actions to what would happen in a PNP game, which means (see Mr
Speakers post) that I block the door. (Even though the sprites of my
characters doesn't show it).
/S
Geoffrey Brent
> > <nod> Fallout was a good system, although IMHO stats like
> > Intelligence and Agility were a lot more useful than Endurance.
>
> All you needed for Fallout 2 was 4 endurance to get the lifegiver perk.
Higher Endurance is useful if you want Kama Sutra Master,
or employment in the movie industry :-) But the way FO2
worked, the main benefit of Endurance (healing rate) turns
out to be almost totally useless.
> I had 222 hitpoints by the time I finished the Enclave, and was killing
> two soldiers in advanced power armour per combat round with critical
> hits with a gauss rifle to the eyes, or the pulse rifle. I actually
> started using different weapons, as I was getting tired of seeing
> people's sides get blown out from head hits.
Love that gauss rifle :-) Bozar with the Sniper perk is
also very effective, but I hate wasting ammo.
Geoffrey Brent
Jeremiah
"Speaker-to-Customers" <oct...@mcb.net> spake thusly:
>
>> The analogy doesn't work, since a grenade is a short-duration
>> event. If you grenade a room, the creatures inside don't have a chance
>> to get out. But cloudkill lasts a long time, and does damage every
>> round... and yet the creatures inside just sit there and take damage
>> and eventually die.
>
> Yes, but in PnP AD&D you can wedge the door shut. If the occupants of the
> room don't rush you instantly, by the time the reach the door it's jammed,
> and they have to force it open while inhaling poison gas.
...or they head for the other door, or walk out of range of the
poison cloud. In cases where they're in a small room with only one door,
you're right, but I can't offhand remember any such cases (perhaps in the
Mind Flayer lair in the Underdark, but *not* in the temple in the sewers).
> When the game acts unfairly, reacting to undetectable characters because
> there is a dialogue or action scripted, or getting the first attack off
> because their dialogue stops the action and freezes your legitimate first
> strike, there is no alternative but to munchkin in response.
Sure, as long as it's in response. But a lot of the tactics
that people in this newsgroup suggest *aren't* in response to the game
munchkining them... they're "I can get away with it, so it's legal".
The "two Rings of Gaxx" trick, the repeatedly stealing from and selling
to the same vendor trick, and the "lay traps around Firkragg" trick come
to mind...
Unfortunately, I think that Geoffrey's right in that the game
designers promote munchkinism by giving you really hard fights (Demon
Knights, Mind Flayers, five vampires in the Windspear Dungeon) that you
almost have to munchkin to win. It's probably because they know people
will use munchkin tactics, and they'd lose those players if they didn't
give them a challenge.
> Even the "send forward the uncharmable guy, everyone else shoot, the Sirenes
> will just go for the one guy and ignore the others" tactic is legitimate.
> The range of longbows is chopped too much in BG, and in PnP they could shoot
> from outside Dire Charm range. The front man would be the only target for
> the spell anyway. You're just forcing the game to conform to the rules.
I agree. They don't know he's not immune to charm, so they'll
target him. (Though depending upon their intelligence, they probably
wouldn't target him more than twice...)
Derville
Barbarian X <this...@validadress.com> wrote in message
news:8glp6.6859$hi2....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> "Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> skrev i
meddelandet
> news:983cr4$u06$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > To put it bluntly, munchkins look for loopholes in the game and
exploit
> > them ruthlessly, and generally contravene all the general principles
of
> > traditional PnP gaming, to the point of exceeding bad etiquette.
>
> I have never done anything like that in PNP games, tho in CRPG I take
> advantage of AI flaws to compensate for the fact that I cant outhink
the DM
> ;)
If you can't outthink the BG2 AI, then you're in real trouble when it
comes to understanding how women think ;-).
> In a normal PNP game I might enter a monster's lair hanging in the
ceiling
> where it cannot reach me without exposing itself to my friend's melee
/ bow
> attacks, while I drop a molotow coctail on it (if I play as a thief)
for
> example, instead of running straight up to it, or simply (if it's an
> unintelligent / semi intelligent beast) put poisoned food outside
it's
> lair... etc.
>
> /S
There's a difference between creative thinking (which is easier in PnP,
such as casting Sticky Hands and crawling across the ceiling) and just
exploiting poor AI (such as Cloudkills at the edge of the fog of war).
The problem is that until we see NWN and the advent of the human GM in
CRPG's, we're stuck with an AI system which is forced by its very nature
to operate within certain programming limits. The fact that a game
can't cover every eventuality (unless every encounter is so completely
simplified to be "stand here and fight until one of you dies", or
something else similar) means that people will always eventually find
the situation that the AI doesn't cover (e.g. responding to Cloudkills
at the edge of the FoW), and then have the choice of going over to the
Dark Side by abusing that gambit, or ignoring their hard-earned
discovery and going toe to toe with the enemy. It's a Catch 22
situation, as much for the player as for the game designers.
--
P.
(Remove 'your.inhibitions' to reply)
Read the alt.games.baldurs-gate Usage FAQ:
www.demonspawn.net/bg/usage.htm
Speaker-to-Customers
"Jeremiah" wrote in message ...
> "Speaker-to-Customers" spake thusly:
> > Yes, but in PnP AD&D you can wedge the door shut. If the occupants of
the
> > room don't rush you instantly, by the time the reach the door it's
jammed,
> > and they have to force it open while inhaling poison gas.
>
> ...or they head for the other door, or walk out of range of the
> poison cloud. In cases where they're in a small room with only one door,
> you're right, but I can't offhand remember any such cases (perhaps in the
> Mind Flayer lair in the Underdark, but *not* in the temple in the sewers).
If they rush for the door you used, realise you've jammed it on them, and
head for the other door instead, you are at least forcing them to pass
through the poison cloud twice.
(Snip)
> > Even the "send forward the uncharmable guy, everyone else shoot, the
Sirenes
> > will just go for the one guy and ignore the others" tactic is
legitimate.
> > The range of longbows is chopped too much in BG, and in PnP they could
shoot
> > from outside Dire Charm range. The front man would be the only target
for
> > the spell anyway. You're just forcing the game to conform to the rules.
>
> I agree. They don't know he's not immune to charm, so they'll
> target him. (Though depending upon their intelligence, they probably
> wouldn't target him more than twice...)
By the time they target him twice, they've always got Spiders' Bane shoved
down their bras and a dozen arrows in them. Who cares what the game AI
would do then? It's just a question of whether their death animation shows
them being hacked into chunks or not.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
bob
>
>"bob" <m...@mymail.address> skrev i meddelandet
>news:3aa6c90d...@news.paradise.net.nz...
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:20:56 +0100, Barbarian X wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jeremiah" <br...@spam.to.dev.null> skrev i meddelandet
>> >news:L_ep6.349758$w35.56...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>
<snip>
>It's good roleplaying.
>Especially since you really can't *roleplay* in the game without using your
>imagination to a certain degree.
>I compare my actions to what would happen in a PNP game, which means (see Mr
>Speakers post) that I block the door. (Even though the sprites of my
>characters doesn't show it).
Ok, I'll conceed that. But, now I think of of the flayers in the
underdark. Open the door chuck in a cloud kill, mindflayers dimension
gate past the door, slaughter the underprepared party on the other
side as it buffs up :-)
If only the ai was that sophisticated... I wonder if they pulled that
spell 'cos of these 'captured' situations - they would be somewhat
simpler then.
The (only?) two situations the char is captured is Ir and the
mindflayers. Spellhold cells should disable these abilities, but the
mindflayers...
Given the high power of the flayers (which necessitates helping the
Gith), maybe they could just pick up your party member and stick him
back in the cell, or just kil him out right... I miss my dimension
door...
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> > > <nod> Fallout was a good system, although IMHO stats like
> > > Intelligence and Agility were a lot more useful than Endurance.
> >
> > All you needed for Fallout 2 was 4 endurance to get the lifegiver perk.
>
> Higher Endurance is useful if you want Kama Sutra Master,
> or employment in the movie industry :-) But the way FO2
> worked, the main benefit of Endurance (healing rate) turns
> out to be almost totally useless.
Yep. It's also good to get the toughness perk, but you could probably
take a buffout for that.
> > I had 222 hitpoints by the time I finished the Enclave, and was killing
> > two soldiers in advanced power armour per combat round with critical
> > hits with a gauss rifle to the eyes, or the pulse rifle. I actually
> > started using different weapons, as I was getting tired of seeing
> > people's sides get blown out from head hits.
>
> Love that gauss rifle :-) Bozar with the Sniper perk is
> also very effective, but I hate wasting ammo.
I had so much ammo by the end of the game that I was using the gatling
laser against guys in APA just for kicks.
Graeme Dice
--
The Science Graduate asks "How does it work ?"
The Economics Graduate asks "How much does it cost ?"
The Engineering Graduate asks "How can we make it ?"
The Liberal Arts Graduate asks "Do you want fries with that ?"
— Jesse N. Schell.
Rich
Hmmm. Having read all the posts in this thread... Um, I hope you all
don't mind my 2 or 3 cents...
Firstly, it seems to me that most of the idea of munchkinisim comes from
P&P AD&D. And, that for the most part, it's the CRP people vs the P&P
people. And of course, variable ideologies on both sides.
I myself have played both D&D and CRPGs. I say D&D and not AD&D because
I never got into the advanced rules. :) I gave up P&P before that add on
stuff came out. This is back around 1977 IIRC. The reason for that is,
nobody to play it with. Yup, it was just too hard to find people to play
with. (BTW is the old D&D box with the dragon on it and the original
non-xeroxable dungeon templates and the version 1 rules worth
anything?). Please correct me if my memory fails me here. I have the box
in my basement somewhere with a bunch of lead (yeah, deadly lead)
miniatures.
Anyway. It seems to me that the whole dichotomy here is the difference
between the limitations of computer (alleged) AI and the real I which is
a DM.
It also looks to me like a lot of people here are simply nitpicking for
the sake of picking nits. Please don't take that as any kind of flame or
insult. None meant. Nitpicking can be fun. Ghod knows I've done it.
I wouldn't even have THOUGHT that some of what I do was "munchkinisim"
if I hadn't read this thread. Now, suddenly I find myself thinking twice
in certain places in BG2. "What would the people in the NG think if I do
this!"
Bottom line, I play CRPGs to have fun. If it works I don't worry that
it's not correct for AD&D rules. As far as I care, the game is the game.
But I can also see why some hard core AD&D people might have a problem
with the way I play. Cool, I don't do multiplayer so you won't have to
worry about meeting me in a dark alley somewhere. :)
But, if the game is the game, and assuming that you don't cheat in MP...
As long as you have fun and buy the next one, so that the guys that made
it can afford to make another one... What's The Problem? It just seems
like a non-issue to me.
Let the flames begin. :(
Rich
"Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways!"
"But Minsc, I just cloudkilled Firkraag! I saved your life, and you got
the cool sword. And we're gonna make you some cool armor too!."
"You are a burning person of evil! Oh, did you say cool armor too? Turn
away Boo, turn away! ::whispers:: What kind of armor?"
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Htn963
<snip>
>It also looks to me like a lot of people here are simply nitpicking for
>the sake of picking nits. Please don't take that as any kind of flame or
>insult. None meant. Nitpicking can be fun. >Ghod knows I've done it.
I agree. And nits make lice. Run! here comes Speaker for Customers...
>I wouldn't even have THOUGHT that some of what I do was "munchkinisim"
>if I hadn't read this thread. Now, suddenly I find myself thinking twice
>in certain places in BG2. "What would the people in the NG think if I do
>this!"
I know. Damn those superior bastards for trying to make me feel guilty.
Boys/girls just want to have fun.
>Bottom line, I play CRPGs to have fun. If it works I don't worry that
>it's not correct for AD&D rules. As far as I care, the game is the game.
>But I can also see why some hard core AD&D people might have a problem
>with the way I play. Cool, I don't do multiplayer so you won't have to
>worry about meeting me in a dark alley somewhere. :)
>
>But, if the game is the game, and assuming that you don't cheat in MP...
>As long as you have fun and buy the next one, so that the guys that made
>it can afford to make another one... What's The Problem? It just seems
>like a non-issue to me.
>
>Let the flames begin. :(
I think you'll be disappointed if you're expecting a big brawl, since
what you've said is much more sensible than trollish, but in any case, I'll
stand by thee:) I've never played pnp AD&D and I for one am getting tired of
people using this experience to argue their case in CRPG's.
Barbarian X
Great! You just said what I have been thinking :) (Aka no fire from me! :)
The whole thing, as both PNP and Comp player, is that you use different
splaying styles in different enviroments. If I was playing PNP, I am as far
from a Muchskin (cant spell it right now) as you can get, because it takes
the fun out of the game and it's not possible to, say, reload or anything
like that anyway. On the other hand you have so much more freedom with PNP
games (Entering the room thru the ventilation shaft, maybe while 2 ppl of
the team kicks the door in and opens fire with their machine guns, etc etc
While in BG you are forced to walk the main paths and nothing more.
/S
Derville
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote in message
news:3AA76A0D...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
> Graeme Dice wrote:
> > > <nod> Fallout was a good system, although IMHO stats like
> > > Intelligence and Agility were a lot more useful than Endurance.
> >
> > All you needed for Fallout 2 was 4 endurance to get the lifegiver
perk.
>
> Higher Endurance is useful if you want Kama Sutra Master,
> or employment in the movie industry :-) But the way FO2
> worked, the main benefit of Endurance (healing rate) turns
> out to be almost totally useless.
For all the lovey-dovey perks, you needed a mix of charisma, endurance
and something else - possibly agility ;-). Intelligence was the number
one most important stat, but when you think about it, that's the thing
we use more than anything else in real life (well, most of us anyway) to
determine what to say to people in conversations etc. In that respect,
you could finish FO2 by having great intelligence, and hang the strength
skill (even if you could start with strength of 4 and still finish with
strength of 10).
> > I had 222 hitpoints by the time I finished the Enclave, and was
killing
> > two soldiers in advanced power armour per combat round with critical
> > hits with a gauss rifle to the eyes, or the pulse rifle. I actually
> > started using different weapons, as I was getting tired of seeing
> > people's sides get blown out from head hits.
>
> Love that gauss rifle :-) Bozar with the Sniper perk is
> also very effective, but I hate wasting ammo.
>
> Geoffrey Brent
I thought Bozars only fired burst shots? Gatling miniguns were probably
my favourite, the ones firing plasma shells, that were all but
guaranteed to cut Enclave soldiers in half. I preferred the YK42B pulse
rifle, but for fun I cheated in the Louisiana Slugger and went back to
Vault City to smack First Citizen Lynette about a bit. That's what I
liked about being able to keep exploring after completing FO2 - to heck
with consequences, let's go kick seven bells out of the mafia ;-).
Geoffrey Brent
> > ...or they head for the other door, or walk out of range of the
> > poison cloud. In cases where they're in a small room with only one door,
> > you're right, but I can't offhand remember any such cases (perhaps in the
> > Mind Flayer lair in the Underdark, but *not* in the temple in the sewers).
>
> If they rush for the door you used, realise you've jammed it on them, and
> head for the other door instead, you are at least forcing them to pass
> through the poison cloud twice.
Hmm. What's being suggested here is that the PCs
(1) Open the door to a room full of mind flayers.
(2) Take the time required to cast Cloudkill.
(3) Run forwards (I'm assuming the PCs have some protection
against their own cloud), shut the door and wedge it _after_
the casting is complete. (And MFs are intelligent creatures;
they should be able to figure out that the door's being wedged.)
As far as I can see, this plan requires that the MFs don't start
reacting until after the cloud hits. If _I_ was DMing, the MFs
would react the moment the door was opened; hanging around long
enough to cast the spell, shut the door and wedge it would be an
extremely hazardous proposition.
But there's another flaw in the plan. In all the situations I
can recall where you'd use this tactic, the MFs are clustered
in a room and the PCs are coming in from a corridor. In that
situation, doors almost invariably open inwards, towards the
room, rather than out into the corridor - making it very hard
to jam them from the corridor side. (Wizard Lock would come in
handy here, in a game that included it.)
Geoffrey Brent
Graeme Dice
>
<snip>
>
> I thought Bozars only fired burst shots?
They do, but it's .223 FMJ, so the AC, DR and dmg modifiers are
excellent.
>Gatling miniguns were probably
> my favourite, the ones firing plasma shells, that were all but
> guaranteed to cut Enclave soldiers in half. I preferred the YK42B pulse
> rifle, but for fun I cheated in the Louisiana Slugger and went back to
> Vault City to smack First Citizen Lynette about a bit. That's what I
> liked about being able to keep exploring after completing FO2 - to heck
> with consequences, let's go kick seven bells out of the mafia ;-).
I did that before I finished. Wiped out the Bishop's and the
Salvatore's before I got bored. Should have finished the Mordino's off
as well. I had submachine guns coming out of my ears.
Graeme Dice
--
Q: How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?
Geoffrey Brent
> > Higher Endurance is useful if you want Kama Sutra Master,
> > or employment in the movie industry :-) But the way FO2
> > worked, the main benefit of Endurance (healing rate) turns
> > out to be almost totally useless.
>
> Yep. It's also good to get the toughness perk, but you could probably
> take a buffout for that.
I think you could do that for KSM etc too, but I never liked
to get in the habit of using drugs other than stimpacks. No
good reason, given the lack of lasting consequences in FO2,
just personal bias.
> > Love that gauss rifle :-) Bozar with the Sniper perk is
> > also very effective, but I hate wasting ammo.
>
> I had so much ammo by the end of the game that I was using the gatling
> laser against guys in APA just for kicks.
I usually went with Small Frame, so it was carrying the ammo
around that was the problem. Goris etc. make wonderful porters,
but taking them to the Enclave base causes trouble.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> > Love that gauss rifle :-) Bozar with the Sniper perk is
> > also very effective, but I hate wasting ammo.
> >
> > Geoffrey Brent
>
> I thought Bozars only fired burst shots?
Yes, but that doesn't stop Sniper from making them more
effective - criticals with autofire can be pretty messy.
> Gatling miniguns were probably
> my favourite, the ones firing plasma shells, that were all but
> guaranteed to cut Enclave soldiers in half.
Don't recall that. There was a Gatling laser, a plasma rifle,
and a pulse rifle, but nothing firing 'plasma shells' AFAIK.
I just have a prejudice against automatic weapons, since the
character types I play tend to be the sort who value shot
placement.
> I preferred the YK42B pulse
> rifle, but for fun I cheated in the Louisiana Slugger and went back to
> Vault City to smack First Citizen Lynette about a bit. That's what I
> liked about being able to keep exploring after completing FO2 - to heck
> with consequences, let's go kick seven bells out of the mafia ;-).
You can do that _before_ finishing the game, if you're well
prepared. And I think everybody wanted to 'adjust' Lynette's
attitude (especially with the bug that means VC invariably
destroys Gecko.)
Geoffrey Brent
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>
> I think you could do that for KSM etc too, but I never liked
> to get in the habit of using drugs other than stimpacks. No
> good reason, given the lack of lasting consequences in FO2,
> just personal bias.
Same here. Somehow, I managed to end up addicted to Rad-Away, after
using it only once, and it never went away.
>
> > > Love that gauss rifle :-) Bozar with the Sniper perk is
> > > also very effective, but I hate wasting ammo.
> >
> > I had so much ammo by the end of the game that I was using the gatling
> > laser against guys in APA just for kicks.
>
> I usually went with Small Frame, so it was carrying the ammo
> around that was the problem. Goris etc. make wonderful porters,
> but taking them to the Enclave base causes trouble.
I used finesse and gifted for my first game. I had the car, Marcus,
Skynet, Cassidy, Sulik, and Vic all filled completely full of ammo and
weapons before I hit San Francisco and could dump it for some better
weaponry. I didn't have too much trouble keeping them alive in the
Enclave, I gave Cassidy, Vic and Skynet Gauss rifles, Marcus a pulse
rifle, and sulik a super sledge. Cassidy got the APA, VIc and Sulik had
Hardened Power Armour.
Now, I'm working on a game where I don't have any NPCs, and never fire a
single weapon or throw a single punch. Started by running through the
temple, then talked Cameron out of fighting. Headed to Navarro for the
APA, FOB, and plans, then to NCR to find Vault 13 for the Navcom.
Graeme Dice
--
Every program in development at MIT expands until it can read mail.
bob
Ahh, a voice of reason... And I must say, I have no problem with
munchkinism, as I don't think most (except the most rabid) posters do,
as long as it is recognised as such... My main beef with it is that
people don't see it as such. IMO it cheapens the game (ducks for
cover) to use the same tactics on situations that could be overcome
with a little thought and application. Also some situations could be
solved easily by some classes while others fail miserably, thus giving
another reason to replay, but with munchkin tactics that work all the
time, it doesn't...
And I think they should have included a 'hard man' style of play that
prevents the player from using saves (only accessable on openning and
closeing), or maybe a limited number of saves or such like. Then
munchkin tactics would be justified (and probably necessary :-) .
bob
rifle :-) oh yeah...
Don't like burst weapons, always ended up hitting dogmeat (in
fallout1) or the metel mutt from Navero...
Derville
Rich <so...@not.here> wrote in message
news:3AA86044...@not.here...
>
> Hmmm. Having read all the posts in this thread... Um, I hope you all
> don't mind my 2 or 3 cents...
Flamethrowers at the ready ;-).
> Firstly, it seems to me that most of the idea of munchkinisim comes
from
> P&P AD&D. And, that for the most part, it's the CRP people vs the P&P
> people. And of course, variable ideologies on both sides.
Flamethrower unit, stand down, this guy's talking sense. Yup, in all
seriousness, I agree that PnP is probably the origin on munchkinism, and
to a certain extent I think the concept of people using munchkin tactics
was programmed into CRPG's, which doesn't say much about the PnP
pedigree of most computer games players :-(.
> Anyway. It seems to me that the whole dichotomy here is the difference
> between the limitations of computer (alleged) AI and the real I which
is
> a DM.
Agreed. Regardless of whether the BG AI is amazingly advanced or not,
it will always be licked by a human on the ground that it is static, in
as much as enemy X always responds by casting spell Y and attacking with
sword Z when my team enters the room. So if I cast Protection from X, Y
and Z before the fight, I can't lose. Now whether this is munchkinism
or not is open to debate (personally, I don't like to classify tactical
maneouvres as munchkin or not, as I'd rather keep the M word for the way
people set up their game in terms of character creation and attitude to
roleplaying), but it does show that at present, anyone with a decent
memory and enough patience can exhaust every combination of spells and
weapons against every enemy, to win every fight without losing a single
hitpoint.
> I wouldn't even have THOUGHT that some of what I do was "munchkinisim"
> if I hadn't read this thread. Now, suddenly I find myself thinking
twice
> in certain places in BG2. "What would the people in the NG think if I
do
> this!"
We would flame you. Heck, life gets boring at times, flaming's all the
fun we get sometimes. However, if you start all your posts with "Phil
is really great!", then I for one will defend you tooth and nail ;-).
And I wouldn't generally worry about what the general NG consensus is to
a certain move, except in those posts which say "I killed XXXXXXX" and
then go on to say they just Cloudkilled the enemy from outside the fog
of war. I guess we're trophy hunters in this respect, and nobody gets
any satisfaction out of hearing someone getting such a stupidly easy
kill. We want stories of mind-boggling stupidity in the face of
overwhelming odds, and coming through battles minus one space hamster
but winning a suit of enchanted pantaloons.
> But, if the game is the game, and assuming that you don't cheat in
MP...
> As long as you have fun and buy the next one, so that the guys that
made
> it can afford to make another one... What's The Problem? It just seems
> like a non-issue to me.
People doing this in MP are just asking for trouble, unless (and this is
the key issue) they are playing only in groups where their tactics are
either (a) accepted; or (b) applauded. To mix a guy who believes in
soloing dragons in melee with someone who lobs in Cloudkills from a safe
distance is just asking for fireworks.
> Let the flames begin. :(
>
> Rich
--
Loketar
overwhelming odds, and coming through battles minus one space hamster
but winning a suit of enchanted pantaloons."
Overwhelming stupidity? I guess I'll start posting my exploits. I never
realized they could be that entertaining.
Sean Willett
heheheehahahaha
--
Thanks and have a nice day!!
"Rich" <so...@not.here> wrote in message news:3AA86044...@not.here...
>
>
>
>
>
whoever
I finally did a full install two weeks ago thinking that my
load times would be much faster. What is dumb though
is that things weren't much faster.
Because of the way the game files are it has to read,
extract, and write files to the temp and cache folders
anyway I guess.
Anyway, I found that my 24x CD rom doesn't make
things much slower. I've got a 4.3GB hard drive so
I'd rather have the space for another game..
I didn't feel like re-installing the whole game again
so I just deleted the \CD2 , \CD3, etc folders
and then changed the pointers in the baldur.ini
file to point back to the CDrom drive instead.
Seems to work ok so far.
Question - Do I really need to install the patch for BG2?
I don't want to install it because-
1. I don't want to spare the room for a full install.
2. I'll have to download the patch and 10MB using
a 33.6K modem with a crappy ISP.
(It takes >1 hour and usually craps out before then.)
(I had the patch before but somehow dumped it when
doing housekeeping on my limited space harddrive)
Does anyone else think it's dumb that the patch will
only install over a full install of the game?
(I really hate patches that force you to use automatic
installers-there should always be a way to do it manually.)
Oh well, I already need a new video card and CPU.
Now I'll probably need a DVD and 30+GB drive as
well to play the next generation of games...;-\
$50 a game isn't what kills me...it's the upgrades..:-O
Danae
Limping along with a 4.3GB drive and a K6-233 CPU.
(The K6-233, last of it's generation, produces enough
heat that you can easily turn down your home thermostat
twenty degrees in winter- It also requires you to open
up your computer case and find a huge fan to blow all
the nice heat around the room-unless of course you'd
rather watch the CPU glow in the dark and give you
the nice "BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH" spell effect
from the frustrating WINDEWS role playing game.);-)
whoever
bob wrote in message <3aa9c2ec...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
>On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:47:00 -0500, Rich wrote:
>Ahh, a voice of reason... And I must say, I have no problem with
>munchkinism, as I don't think most (except the most rabid) posters do,
>as long as it is recognised as such... My main beef with it is that
>people don't see it as such. IMO it cheapens the game (ducks for
>cover) to use the same tactics on situations that could be overcome
>with a little thought and application. Also some situations could be
>solved easily by some classes while others fail miserably, thus giving
>another reason to replay, but with munchkin tactics that work all the
>time, it doesn't...
I too think it's ok to do what you want to in your own game.
You have made two good points, about how munchkinism can
change the game and also that many people may not realize
how their tactics are changing the game experience.
I've played lots of D&D and there is nothing more boring
than removing all the risk from the game.
It's about game balance and when you learn enough you
have to make rules for yourself or you risk having a very
boring game.
I think it's good that people point out munchkinism.
You can always disagree with them or sometimes it just
might help you see why your game is becoming boring.
You get attached to your characters and it's tempting
to make them demi-gods....but as experienced
RPG players know...that gets boring really fast..
>And I think they should have included a 'hard man' style of play that
>prevents the player from using saves (only accessable on openning and
>closeing), or maybe a limited number of saves or such like. Then
>munchkin tactics would be justified (and probably necessary :-) .
>
You can do this yourself if you want to...;-)
I hate the idea of not being able to save at all times.
Many game makers have tried to impose limited saves and
have found out that most players hate being limited.
(Vampire:The Masquerade being one game that made a patch
to change the limited save feature due to buyer demands)
Most computers still crash too much to make limited saves
a non-frustrating option.
I still save about every 15 minutes in BG2, and usually have
3 separate saves every session.
At least once a week I get a crash while in the game.
(Which isn't bad considering the old hardware I have)
Things are alot better than years ago with Windows 3.00,
but it's still too easy to install some program and have it
change some file and *crash* you next time Boo squeaks
in your BG2 game. :-0
Danae
Bekki Lyn
what is not to be considered boring in a game. For some people, having to do
a fight over a million times before being able to finally proceed with the
story is boring, so those people might be overjoyed to be able to use
"munchkin tactics" in order to get on with the game to the parts that they
enjoy.
Other people play the games because they want hard fight scenes and find the
story to be the most boring part because they don't want a lot of
"meaningless talking" in the game. Less talk, more fight.
Then both camps come onto groups like this one and try to tell each other
that their gaming style is boring.
For me, I am glad to have the choice between the two. Just because "munchkin
options" are there doesn't mean in any way that we all are obligated to use
them!
--------
Bekki Lyn
http://www.geocities.com/bekki_lyn/index.html
Geoffrey Brent
> I too think it's ok to do what you want to in your own game.
Yup. A lot of people here (including me) come from a p&p
background, where munchkinism _is_ a big problem since it
can ruin the fun for other players. I think this is a big
part of the anti-munchkin reaction.
Somebody using munchkin tactics on BGII isn't hurting
anybody else, so IMHO they're welcome to play the game
whichever way they enjoy most. That said, I'd be wary
about p&p roleplaying with someone who'd started out on
BGII, lest they carry a munchkin attitude over into a
p&p game where it _is_ a problem.
> Most computers still crash too much to make limited saves
> a non-frustrating option.
> I still save about every 15 minutes in BG2, and usually have
> 3 separate saves every session.
> At least once a week I get a crash while in the game.
> (Which isn't bad considering the old hardware I have)
I still have a regular crash on sleeping, so saving is
essential for me.
Geoffrey Brent
Derville
Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3AA9C4BF...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> <snip>
> Now, I'm working on a game where I don't have any NPCs, and never fire
a
> single weapon or throw a single punch. Started by running through the
> temple, then talked Cameron out of fighting. Headed to Navarro for
the
> APA, FOB, and plans, then to NCR to find Vault 13 for the Navcom.
>
> Graeme Dice
I've wanted to try this method too. Do you go direct from Arroyo to
Navarro, and if so how do you manage it? I get press-ganged by Enclave
troopers every time I go within 15 map suqares of that place, and they
have a nasty habit of giving me a good kicking, because I don't have
good enough stats to either leg it, or hide from them. It is allegedly
possible to finish the game without lifting a finger in anger (although
you'd have to go back at the end and kill a few people, just for being
so darn snooty), just very difficult to resist the fun element present
in wandering around Reno and blowing the daylights out of all the
criminals there ;-).
Derville
> Derville wrote:
>
> > > Love that gauss rifle :-) Bozar with the Sniper perk is
> > > also very effective, but I hate wasting ammo.
> > >
>
> Yes, but that doesn't stop Sniper from making them more
> effective - criticals with autofire can be pretty messy.
I'm a finesse man myself (well, when I'm not using baseball bats ;-)),
so I went for the pulse rifle and the Sniper perk. An Action Boy meant
that I could get in two shots per round, and a Luck score of 7 or 8
meant that holy hell was released on a regular basis ;).
> > Gatling miniguns were probably
> > my favourite, the ones firing plasma shells, that were all but
> > guaranteed to cut Enclave soldiers in half.
>
> Don't recall that. There was a Gatling laser, a plasma rifle,
> and a pulse rifle, but nothing firing 'plasma shells' AFAIK.
> I just have a prejudice against automatic weapons, since the
> character types I play tend to be the sort who value shot
> placement.
Hmmm, probably was the Galting laser. I don't recall what it was
called, but it was a big multi-barrelled thing that went through Enclave
troopers like foot and mouth through the three little pigs ;-). I only
did that once, for the hell of it, and it took ages to get this weapon
(only found it when I reached the Enclave, I was using Vindicator or
Avenger miniguns before that), which is why I'd rather stick with Small
Guns and just use a gauss rifle.
> > I preferred the YK42B pulse
> > rifle, but for fun I cheated in the Louisiana Slugger and went back
to
> > Vault City to smack First Citizen Lynette about a bit. That's what
I
> > liked about being able to keep exploring after completing FO2 - to
heck
> > with consequences, let's go kick seven bells out of the mafia ;-).
>
> You can do that _before_ finishing the game, if you're well
> prepared. And I think everybody wanted to 'adjust' Lynette's
> attitude (especially with the bug that means VC invariably
> destroys Gecko.)
>
> Geoffrey Brent
Wasn't that bug fixed with the patch? Shows my memory, I had to patch
the game and can't remember how Gecko worked out. I must have liked
that place, though, because they were the only people I didn't slaughter
on my victory tour of southwest USA. Now, if we could have a Fallout 3
covering the rest of the USA, that would be fun. All those lovely
cities to blow up, the chance to enter the now vacated White House.
Ahhh, the possibilities...
--
P. (eagerly awaiting Arcanum, which is meant to have a lot of the
Fallout team working on it. That, and dwarves with rocket launchers
;-))
Derville
> Derville wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > I thought Bozars only fired burst shots?
>
> They do, but it's .223 FMJ, so the AC, DR and dmg modifiers are
> excellent.
True, .223 is a good round to keep handy. That's why I liked my scoped
hunting rifle early on in the game. Still, I never put too many points
into Big Guns normally, because you're waiting ages to find them (unless
I go to NCR early on and nick them), so I stick with Small Guns and go
for sniper rifles, hunting rifles, or the Pancor Jackhammer, if I don't
let Cassidy use that.
> >Gatling miniguns were probably
> > my favourite, the ones firing plasma shells, that were all but
> > guaranteed to cut Enclave soldiers in half. I preferred the YK42B
pulse
> > rifle, but for fun I cheated in the Louisiana Slugger and went back
to
> > Vault City to smack First Citizen Lynette about a bit. That's what
I
> > liked about being able to keep exploring after completing FO2 - to
heck
> > with consequences, let's go kick seven bells out of the mafia ;-).
>
> I did that before I finished. Wiped out the Bishop's and the
> Salvatore's before I got bored. Should have finished the Mordino's
off
> as well. I had submachine guns coming out of my ears.
>
> Graeme Dice
I lost Marcus to the Mordinos, since the stoopid mutie couldn't wear
armour and got caught between two guys firing 10mm sub-machine guns
point blank at him. Heck, the first time I went to New Reno, I thought
I'd impress people by taking down a mafia family - just my luck to whack
the Wright family (a little misunderstanding over a drive-by which got
out of control) before I got the quest to go to the Sierra Army Depot
:-(.
Loketar
gaining the experience and the occasional good item. However, I don't want
to constantly have to fight in battle after battle. I don't want to have to
fight toe to toe with the dragon, trying time and time again because I keep
losing. Apparently I'm not that good at the battles, and I don't enjoy them
a lot of the time. I enjoy the role playing and there are times I just want
to get on with the game. I do however hate hacks and cheats and refuse to
use them no matter how bad things are going. So if I have to use a cheesy
tactic, so be it. After all, it was MY money that bought the game, not any
D&D purists.
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AA9C4BF...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > <snip>
> > Now, I'm working on a game where I don't have any NPCs, and never fire
> a
> > single weapon or throw a single punch. Started by running through the
> > temple, then talked Cameron out of fighting. Headed to Navarro for
> the
> > APA, FOB, and plans, then to NCR to find Vault 13 for the Navcom.
> >
> > Graeme Dice
>
> I've wanted to try this method too. Do you go direct from Arroyo to
> Navarro, and if so how do you manage it? I get press-ganged by Enclave
> troopers every time I go within 15 map suqares of that place, and they
> have a nasty habit of giving me a good kicking, because I don't have
> good enough stats to either leg it, or hide from them.
I saved my game every few map squares, and just kept trying. Eventually
you make it there. You do have to go to San Fran first, to find out
where Navarro is however.
> It is allegedly
> possible to finish the game without lifting a finger in anger (although
> you'd have to go back at the end and kill a few people, just for being
> so darn snooty), just very difficult to resist the fun element present
> in wandering around Reno and blowing the daylights out of all the
> criminals there ;-).
>
> --
> P.
> (Remove 'your.inhibitions' to reply)
> Read the alt.games.baldurs-gate Usage FAQ:
> www.demonspawn.net/bg/usage.htm
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the
balls to live in the real world." — Mary Shafer, NASA Ames
Dryden.
Geoffrey Brent
> > They do, but it's .223 FMJ, so the AC, DR and dmg modifiers are
> > excellent.
>
> True, .223 is a good round to keep handy. That's why I liked my scoped
> hunting rifle early on in the game.
I prefer unscoped, actually - the scope drastically worsens
close-in performance, which is where a lot of battles tend to
end up. It's handy to have a long-range weapon around for
specialist apps (like taking out gun turrets), but the sniper
rifle is better for that.
I was a bit annoyed by the game's ammo inconsistencies, though.
IRL, .223 and 5.56mm ammunition are the same thing, or as close
as makes no difference - the .223 FMJ and 5.56mm AP should be
effectively the same load, with the same stats. 7.62mm ammunition
is bigger and heavier, and _should_ hit harder than 5.56/.223
ammo (and is probably a better calibre for a sniper rifle, too)
but for some reason the game designers heavily favoured .223.
That was a shame, because it nerfed things like the FN Fal.
> I lost Marcus to the Mordinos, since the stoopid mutie couldn't wear
> armour and got caught between two guys firing 10mm sub-machine guns
> point blank at him.
Goris is even worse; his entire battle strategy seems to be
"I'll get between these two guys with miniguns who don't like
one another, and render them harmless by soaking up all their
bullets." Good porter, and good against many opponents, but
lousy against automatic weapons.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> > Don't recall that. There was a Gatling laser, a plasma rifle,
> > and a pulse rifle, but nothing firing 'plasma shells' AFAIK.
> > I just have a prejudice against automatic weapons, since the
> > character types I play tend to be the sort who value shot
> > placement.
>
> Hmmm, probably was the Galting laser. I don't recall what it was
> called, but it was a big multi-barrelled thing that went through Enclave
> troopers like foot and mouth through the three little pigs ;-). I only
> did that once, for the hell of it, and it took ages to get this weapon
> (only found it when I reached the Enclave, I was using Vindicator or
> Avenger miniguns before that), which is why I'd rather stick with Small
> Guns and just use a gauss rifle.
You can pick up a Gatling laser in combat with wandering
Enclave troopers near the Navarro base, or with remnants
of the Master's army to the south; the San Francisco shops
sometimes have them too (pickpocket's paradise, those...)
> > You can do that _before_ finishing the game, if you're well
> > prepared. And I think everybody wanted to 'adjust' Lynette's
> > attitude (especially with the bug that means VC invariably
> > destroys Gecko.)
>
> Wasn't that bug fixed with the patch?
No; I installed the patch before I started playing.
> Shows my memory, I had to patch
> the game and can't remember how Gecko worked out. I must have liked
> that place, though, because they were the only people I didn't slaughter
> on my victory tour of southwest USA. Now, if we could have a Fallout 3
> covering the rest of the USA, that would be fun. All those lovely
> cities to blow up, the chance to enter the now vacated White House.
> Ahhh, the possibilities...
Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel will cover some of that
ground, IIRC. As the name suggests, it's a shootie rather than
a talkie :-)
> P. (eagerly awaiting Arcanum, which is meant to have a lot of the
> Fallout team working on it. That, and dwarves with rocket launchers
Yeah, I'm eager to see how Arcanum comes out.
Geoffrey Brent
Barbarian X
"Geoffrey Brent" <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:3AAB4979...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
> whoever wrote:
>
> > I too think it's ok to do what you want to in your own game.
>
> Yup. A lot of people here (including me) come from a p&p
> background, where munchkinism _is_ a big problem since it
> can ruin the fun for other players. I think this is a big
> part of the anti-munchkin reaction.
Tell me about it :(
When Me and me mates played Pnp RPGS (God I miss it so) all of us was DMing
now and then (or rather GMing, since we didnt play AD&D), which meant
everybody knew the rules by heart. Now that normally didn't cause any
trouble, but in some situations a close friend of mine was making himself
impossible to play with since he wouldnt accept the DM's ruling, spending an
hour arguing about rules etc etc.
(That was one of the reasons we stopped playing).
The fun part, of course (well one of the fun parts) is to outthink the DM,
not to fight him.
If he claims the metal staircase is gonna fall if we walk on it, and we have
jetpaks, let's use them and then use the railing on the stairs to keep us in
position while "walking" (by hoovering and pulling ourself forward along the
railing)... ;)
/S
Barbarian X
"bob" <m...@mymail.address> skrev i meddelandet
news:3aa9c2ec...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:47:00 -0500, Rich wrote:
> Ahh, a voice of reason... And I must say, I have no problem with
> munchkinism, as I don't think most (except the most rabid) posters do,
> as long as it is recognised as such... My main beef with it is that
> people don't see it as such. IMO it cheapens the game (ducks for
> cover) to use the same tactics on situations that could be overcome
> with a little thought and application.
You can claim that over and over again and my definition of a Munchkin won't
change.
I still not see myself as such; even though I admit that alot of the things
I do in BG I would never do in PNP games. (Besides it is impossible in the
PNP game since we don't know what's behind that door...)
I will continue to use chaotic commands against mindflayers. Because I don't
like spending five weeks waiting for a clean fight to work before I can move
on to theright room...
/S
Graeme Dice
If you are in a mindflayer city, you use chaotic commands. If you are
in Red Dragon's lair, you memorize protection from fire spells. You
concentrate your forces, and cause as much damage as possible as quickly
as possible. I don't see how applying proper tactics to a battle can be
considered "munchkin".
Graeme Dice
--
"As you exit the plane, please make sure to gather all of your
belongings. Anything left behind will be distributed evenly among
the flight attendants. Please do not leave children or spouses."
Marcus S. Turner
> ...As far as I can see, this plan requires that the MFs
don't start
> reacting until after the cloud hits. If _I_ was DMing, the
MFs
> would react the moment the door was opened; hanging around
long
> enough to cast the spell, shut the door and wedge it would
be an
> extremely hazardous proposition.
>
> But there's another flaw in the plan. In all the
situations I
> can recall where you'd use this tactic, the MFs are
clustered
> in a room and the PCs are coming in from a corridor. In
that
> situation, doors almost invariably open inwards, towards
the
> room, rather than out into the corridor - making it very
hard
> to jam them from the corridor side. (Wizard Lock would
come in
> handy here, in a game that included it.)
Conversely, it would be difficult to open the door inwards.
You got half a dozen mind flayers crowding the door, trying
to open the door inwards - Going to be difficult.
Derville
Loketar <lok...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38sq6.15268$H5.31...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
Only if they're mind-bogglingly stupid - overwhelmingly stupid posts
should be sent to alt.games.baldurs-gate.overwhelmingly-stupid.stories
(coming soon to a server near you!) :-).
The point I was making was that there's little to be gained in saying "I
killed Firkraag by firing Cloudkills from outside the fog of war". It's
a rather lame tactic, to put it bluntly, and deprives people of the
satisfaction of actually pitting their wits against a very challenging
enemy in a man to man (well, drake to 6 men armed to the teeth) battle.
Heck, see my post on whacking this guy for a case of mind boggling
stupidity ("duh, what's this pwetty little ring doing here?", as I asked
myself after the fight). But anyhow, that's just my 2d on how to enjoy
BG2. Evidently some folks think differently to me.
--
Phil
Speaker-to-Customers
"Bekki Lyn" wrote ...
(Snip)
> Then both camps come onto groups like this one and try to tell each other
> that their gaming style is boring.
Really, we're not talking to each other. We're hoping that the game
designers, or designers of the future, are reading the group, and are hoping
to influence them into designing games of the style we like.
> For me, I am glad to have the choice between the two. Just because
"munchkin
> options" are there doesn't mean in any way that we all are obligated to
use
> them!
I like having the choice, too. I just dread the thought of "less talk, more
fight" being the only option in future games, whereas I wouldn't mind "more
talk, less fight". Combat being more logical, with better enemy AI, but not
more fights.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
bob
>
>"bob" <m...@mymail.address> skrev i meddelandet
>news:3aa9c2ec...@news.paradise.net.nz...
<snip snip>
Well, we are all allowed to live in denial at some points in our lives
(j/k).
I still use the open-door-cloudkill munchkinism against mindflayers
unless I can prevent them all 5 of them from rushing me on-mass, and
yes I admit it is a munchkin tactic. In an ideal world, we could open
a door when the char is hidden in shadows (the way I usually do it) so
the char can peek around the corner, see there are flayers,
communicate this to the rest of the party then have chaotic commands
etc. cast on them. There, see, a nice rationalisation :-)
Anyhow, lets agree to disagree (I can feel my short attention span
kicking in here...).
Geoffrey Brent
>> room, rather than out into the corridor - making it very
> hard
>> to jam them from the corridor side. (Wizard Lock would
> come in
>> handy here, in a game that included it.)
> Conversely, it would be difficult to open the door inwards.
> You got half a dozen mind flayers crowding the door, trying
> to open the door inwards - Going to be difficult.
They're a *telepathic* race, with higher Intelligence
than all but the smartest human. I have trouble believing
that they can't cooperate enough to make room for the one
who's opening the door.
Speaking of which, their telepathy should make it even
more difficult to try this trick a second time. Even if
it works on the first batch of MFs, the second batch
should be forewarned.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> If you are in a mindflayer city, you use chaotic commands. If you are
> in Red Dragon's lair, you memorize protection from fire spells. You
> concentrate your forces, and cause as much damage as possible as quickly
> as possible. I don't see how applying proper tactics to a battle can be
> considered "munchkin".
Using a spell intended to protect your mind from attack,
when your character knows there are mind flayers around
(which you do, in BGII): not munchkinism.
Using a fire-protection spell, when your character knows
there's a fire-breathing dragon around: not munchkinism.
Using Wizard Eye, to protect you against a targeted soul-
drain attack from a supposedly intelligent spellcaster:
munchkin. Because it makes no *sense*. The only reason it
works is because the computer is stupid. If munchkin is
what people enjoy, good luck to 'em, but that doesn't mean
it's not a munchkin tactic.
Using Protection From Fear before you walk up that corridor
because you, the player, know there's a mage up there who
will cast Symbol: Fear - even though the _character_
shouldn't know: munchkin.
It's not munchkinism to use a tactic that a real person in
a real situation would think of. Anybody with access to a
fire-protection spell would be thinking about casting it
before annoying a dragon. OTOH, "I'll summon my Wizard Eye
so this all-powerful undead monster will concentrate his
lethal powers on it and completely ignore the fighters who
are hacking him to death" is munchkinism - nobody would try
this IRL.
Geoffrey Brent
Bekki Lyn
mindflayers or beholders after a group of player characters unless the DM
was just maliciously trying to kill them off.
Barbarian X
"Geoffrey Brent" <bl...@table.blackguild.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:omfk89...@table.blackguild.com...
> It's not munchkinism to use a tactic that a real person in
> a real situation would think of. Anybody with access to a
> fire-protection spell would be thinking about casting it
> before annoying a dragon. OTOH, "I'll summon my Wizard Eye
> so this all-powerful undead monster will concentrate his
> lethal powers on it and completely ignore the fighters who
> are hacking him to death" is munchkinism - nobody would try
> this IRL.
>
> Geoffrey Brent
I agree to this. I have actually never used the Wizard's eye spell at all.
(Always thought it pointless).
Using the detect evil radar works better... ;)
Besides, after your first contact with the 'flayers (in severs, providing
you go there before underdark), you should recognize the enemies at hand
mainly because of their ugly wallpaper and round rooms...
As for dragons, if I remember correctly (never played AD&D, remember) in
most books you can tell by smell that there is a dragon close, they don't
stink, but they smell... like a volcano or something.
(Too much fire to hide I guess).
The times you really get into deep sh*t in the game is the first time you
encounter monsters.
Remember even a character with int 10 (which is normal human intelligence)
would remember to, say, cast this-and-that defensive spells the *second*
time they stand in a crypt and starts to lift the lid on the biiiig coffin.
Afterall it *might* be another lich in there.
When you are young and stupid (well your character anyway) you really
shouldnt be able to decide what spells to use at a given situation, but
later in the game you do know it's a good idea to memorize melf's meteors
before entering a cave that smells like there are trolls in there. REmember,
trolls smells... BADLY.
It's all a question I guess of how much you roleplay the PC. If he is
*really* roleplayed he would be entitled to some *minor* "Munchkin" stuff
later on because he really should remember how trolls smell, for example, or
knowing what a dragon sounds like when breathing...
/S
Barbarian X
"Bekki Lyn" <nos...@spam.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:PHkr6.82912$__6.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> In a "real life" game, a DM probably wouldn't send legions upon legions of
> mindflayers or beholders after a group of player characters unless the DM
> was just maliciously trying to kill them off.
yes that's another thing I have been thinking about.
In "real life" a DM's goal is to make the game fun for everyone.
A DM who's goal is to kill all PC's ASAP would not have many players.
The computer, on the other hand, has that as it's only "goal".
/S
Ripper
Exactly! which is why you'd think "when I get through this door, there
will be a bunch of mind sucking ghouls waiting for me" you wouldn't
just march in because its the sporting thing to do? (Would you?)
You're back to WW 1 mentality there!
" Up and over the top lads, mind you walk into the German machine
guns, not run, Bayonetts attached"
No, you'd be more likely to ready your best area effect weapon, open
the door, lob it in, close the door, and go in and mop up the remains
when the weapon has done it's intended damage!
Back to the old cheesy debate!
Geoffrey Brent
> I agree to this. I have actually never used the Wizard's eye spell at all.
> (Always thought it pointless).
> Using the detect evil radar works better... ;)
For most things, but Wizard Eye works wonders against
Kangaxx.
> Besides, after your first contact with the 'flayers (in severs, providing
> you go there before underdark), you should recognize the enemies at hand
> mainly because of their ugly wallpaper and round rooms...
Even before that - in the sewers, you're warned before you
enter that there's a powerful psychic presence, so using
Chaotic Commands is reasonable enough. And in every other
MF encounter that I can think of, you know in advance that
you'll be fighting mind flayers.
> As for dragons, if I remember correctly (never played AD&D, remember) in
> most books you can tell by smell that there is a dragon close, they don't
> stink, but they smell... like a volcano or something.
Mind you, dragons also have keen senses and can pick up
approaching adventurers. But in every dragon encounter in
BGII you get advance warning anyway: Firkraag is dumb enough
to say "I screwed you over, hur hur hur, now run along",
giving you time to prepare, and in all the other cases you're
told to expect a dragon.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> In a "real life" game, a DM probably wouldn't send legions upon legions of
> mindflayers or beholders after a group of player characters unless the DM
> was just maliciously trying to kill them off.
Sure. I am not _blaming_ people for using munchkin tactics
to get through BGII, because the level of opposition they
meet makes it just about inevitable. As a DM there's no way
I'd run BGII as a p&p adventure without bumping up the PCs
at least three levels each or toning down the monsters
accordingly. I have to use munchkin tactics to get through
some of BGII's encounters - Kangaxx, for instance - but I
fully acknowledge that they're munchkin tactics. There's
no shame in that when the game gives you no real option.
Geoffrey Brent
Jeremiah
Geoffrey Brent <bl...@table.blackguild.com> spake thusly:
> I have to use munchkin tactics to get through
> some of BGII's encounters - Kangaxx, for instance - but I
> fully acknowledge that they're munchkin tactics.
The non-munchkin way to beat Kangaxx is to turn into the Slayer.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do... as he turns into
the Demi-Lich, he says "Now you will feel the power of my true self"
(or some such blustery bullshit), to which my main character replied
"...and now you'll feel mine", turned into the Slayer and whipped his ass.
I think the only encounter where you really *need* munchkin
tactics is the mindflayer temple in the sewers...
Derville
> Derville wrote:
> > > They do, but it's .223 FMJ, so the AC, DR and dmg modifiers are
> > > excellent.
> >
> > True, .223 is a good round to keep handy. That's why I liked my
scoped
> > hunting rifle early on in the game.
>
> I prefer unscoped, actually - the scope drastically worsens
> close-in performance, which is where a lot of battles tend to
> end up. It's handy to have a long-range weapon around for
> specialist apps (like taking out gun turrets), but the sniper
> rifle is better for that.
I used scoped, because anyone that got close to me faced Cassidy firing
a Jackhammer in burst mode ;-). Took down those wanamingoes early on,
with me crippling their legs and Cassidy charging after them for the
kill. Plus, Sulik is a maniac when he gets a H&K G11E.
> I was a bit annoyed by the game's ammo inconsistencies, though.
> IRL, .223 and 5.56mm ammunition are the same thing, or as close
> as makes no difference - the .223 FMJ and 5.56mm AP should be
> effectively the same load, with the same stats. 7.62mm ammunition
> is bigger and heavier, and _should_ hit harder than 5.56/.223
> ammo (and is probably a better calibre for a sniper rifle, too)
> but for some reason the game designers heavily favoured .223.
> That was a shame, because it nerfed things like the FN Fal.
IIRC, 7.62 only really applied to a small number of weapons (M60, which
I never used, and either the FAL or the assault rifle), so I tended to
stick with the hunting rifle. What can I say though, once I got the LE
Red Ryder BB gun, my life was complete ;-). Not being an expert on
this, I'd agree that 7.62 should be a better bet for a sniper rifle
(although I think a few real life sniper rifles use 5.56, or their own
esoteric ammo brands), but bear in mind that a lot of the 5mm and 7.62mm
ammo you find is AP ammo, which is all but useless. That's why I like
to grab a gauss rifle or the G11E, to get some more potent ammo. After
the 2mmEC and the 4.7mm Caseless, I'd say .22 is the best small gun ammo
out there.
BTW, the FAL was already nerfed before the ammo. I paid Skeeter for the
night sight, and it still sucked :-(. In the end I went for an expanded
magazine assault rifle, and played chopsticks with the trigger when in
enclosed spaces ;-).
> > I lost Marcus to the Mordinos, since the stoopid mutie couldn't wear
> > armour and got caught between two guys firing 10mm sub-machine guns
> > point blank at him.
>
> Goris is even worse; his entire battle strategy seems to be
> "I'll get between these two guys with miniguns who don't like
> one another, and render them harmless by soaking up all their
> bullets." Good porter, and good against many opponents, but
> lousy against automatic weapons.
>
> Geoffrey Brent
Never trust a man with claws, that's my philosophy. That said, Dogmeat
is a definite keeper in my party (I last completed it with Sulik,
Cassidy and Dogmeat, having dropped Vic for my canine buddy). Next time
I have to try Myron, baby, Myron!
--
Phil
Derville
Sounds a bit slow going, but thanks anyway, I'll try this sometime.
IIRC, it's the Brotherhood who tell you where to find Navarro. Now what
I should do is go to the Den first, make a few hundred thousand on the
tables, and then wander to Frisco and load up on heavy weaponry while
I'm there. Hehe, I've got to try this trick myself sometime.
--
Phil
Derville
> Derville wrote:
>
> You can pick up a Gatling laser in combat with wandering
> Enclave troopers near the Navarro base, or with remnants
> of the Master's army to the south; the San Francisco shops
> sometimes have them too (pickpocket's paradise, those...)
Pickpocketing? Go to NCR, use healing powder on guards outside the
weapons shop, steal Bozars. Need I say more?
> > Shows my memory, I had to patch
> > the game and can't remember how Gecko worked out. I must have liked
> > that place, though, because they were the only people I didn't
slaughter
> > on my victory tour of southwest USA. Now, if we could have a
Fallout 3
> > covering the rest of the USA, that would be fun. All those lovely
> > cities to blow up, the chance to enter the now vacated White House.
> > Ahhh, the possibilities...
>
> Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel will cover some of that
> ground, IIRC. As the name suggests, it's a shootie rather than
> a talkie :-)
And needs at least a PII-233 to play, so that's me out :-(. Although it
looks true to the graphical style of the original, I can't help thinking
it's just a turn based (or phased combat) Cannon Fodder for the 21st
century. And call me a traditionalist, but I agree with Jon Hare - war
has never been so much fun.
--
Phil
James Macarthur
recommended install and never had any problems. Also, if you download large
files, get some download manager to help. They automatically resume from a
broken connection of any kind as long as the supplying site supports it.
And most do. My personal favorite is download accelerator plus, but GoZilla
is good too and GetRight is pretty decent as well.
James
"whoever" <well...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:98f2ch$p1s$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Hi,
>
> I finally did a full install two weeks ago thinking that my
> load times would be much faster. What is dumb though
> is that things weren't much faster.
>
> Because of the way the game files are it has to read,
> extract, and write files to the temp and cache folders
> anyway I guess.
>
> Anyway, I found that my 24x CD rom doesn't make
> things much slower. I've got a 4.3GB hard drive so
> I'd rather have the space for another game..
>
> I didn't feel like re-installing the whole game again
> so I just deleted the \CD2 , \CD3, etc folders
> and then changed the pointers in the baldur.ini
> file to point back to the CDrom drive instead.
> Seems to work ok so far.
>
> Question - Do I really need to install the patch for BG2?
>
> I don't want to install it because-
> 1. I don't want to spare the room for a full install.
> 2. I'll have to download the patch and 10MB using
> a 33.6K modem with a crappy ISP.
> (It takes >1 hour and usually craps out before then.)
>
> (I had the patch before but somehow dumped it when
> doing housekeeping on my limited space harddrive)
>
> Does anyone else think it's dumb that the patch will
> only install over a full install of the game?
> (I really hate patches that force you to use automatic
> installers-there should always be a way to do it manually.)
>
> Oh well, I already need a new video card and CPU.
> Now I'll probably need a DVD and 30+GB drive as
> well to play the next generation of games...;-\
>
> $50 a game isn't what kills me...it's the upgrades..:-O
>
> Danae
>
> Limping along with a 4.3GB drive and a K6-233 CPU.
> (The K6-233, last of it's generation, produces enough
> heat that you can easily turn down your home thermostat
> twenty degrees in winter- It also requires you to open
> up your computer case and find a huge fan to blow all
> the nice heat around the room-unless of course you'd
> rather watch the CPU glow in the dark and give you
> the nice "BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH" spell effect
> from the frustrating WINDEWS role playing game.);-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Geoffrey Brent
> Sounds a bit slow going, but thanks anyway, I'll try this sometime.
> IIRC, it's the Brotherhood who tell you where to find Navarro. Now what
> I should do is go to the Den first, make a few hundred thousand on the
> tables, and then wander to Frisco and load up on heavy weaponry while
> I'm there. Hehe, I've got to try this trick myself sometime.
No need to go to the Den. You can pickpocket money from
the SF shopkeepers. You should be able to get about
eight thousand from them this way. Then buy eight
thousand worth of equipment/guns, steal your money back,
and buy more stuff... repeat until you have all you want.
Munchkin's paradise :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
>> close-in performance, which is where a lot of battles tend to
>> end up. It's handy to have a long-range weapon around for
>> specialist apps (like taking out gun turrets), but the sniper
>> rifle is better for that.
> I used scoped, because anyone that got close to me faced Cassidy firing
> a Jackhammer in burst mode ;-). Took down those wanamingoes early on,
> with me crippling their legs and Cassidy charging after them for the
> kill. Plus, Sulik is a maniac when he gets a H&K G11E.
'Maniac' is the word. I did my level best to keep Sulik
away from automatic weapons, after the fifth time he blew
away a fellow party member with a burst in the back :-)
> IIRC, 7.62 only really applied to a small number of weapons (M60, which
> I never used, and either the FAL or the assault rifle), so I tended to
> stick with the hunting rifle. What can I say though, once I got the LE
> Red Ryder BB gun, my life was complete ;-). Not being an expert on
> this, I'd agree that 7.62 should be a better bet for a sniper rifle
> (although I think a few real life sniper rifles use 5.56, or their own
> esoteric ammo brands),
5.56mm/.223 and 7.62mm are the standard rifle calibers -
for some reason Europeans tend to favour 7.62mm, US favours
5.56mm. The advantage of the 5.56mm is it's lighter, per
round, and the weapons that fire it are correspondingly
lighter too; OTOH it doesn't hit as hard, and has less long-
range accuracy.
With a sniper rifle, it's usually the first shot that matters,
so a round that travels further and hits harder is the way to
go; snipers aren't usually doing a great deal of running
around before they take the shot, so weight isn't such an
issue. I believe there are _some_ 5.56mm sniper weapons, for
one reason or another, but even in the USA most sniper weapons
(both police and military) are 7.62mm.
> but bear in mind that a lot of the 5mm and 7.62mm
> ammo you find is AP ammo, which is all but useless. That's why I like
IIRC there's only one type of 7.62mm ammo in FO2.
> Never trust a man with claws, that's my philosophy. That said, Dogmeat
> is a definite keeper in my party (I last completed it with Sulik,
> Cassidy and Dogmeat, having dropped Vic for my canine buddy). Next time
> I have to try Myron, baby, Myron!
I've been tempted to try FO2 with an all-dog party.
Dogmeat, Robodog, Cyberdog, and Pariah Dog - should
be fun :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> The non-munchkin way to beat Kangaxx is to turn into the Slayer.
> I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do... as he turns into
> the Demi-Lich, he says "Now you will feel the power of my true self"
> (or some such blustery bullshit), to which my main character replied
> "...and now you'll feel mine", turned into the Slayer and whipped his ass.
This is better than most, but it's still exploiting
the AI's stupidity. When Kangaxx's howl attack fails
to take the Slayer out he should be doing one of three
things:
(1) Picking off the more vulnerable party members.
(2) Using some other form of attack on the Slayer.
(3) Making his escape.
Sitting there trying Imprisonment over and over on
a character who's immune to it, while taking heavy
damage, doesn't seem like the strategy of a highly
intelligent undead mage.
Geoffrey Brent
Jeremiah
>> The non-munchkin way to beat Kangaxx is to turn into the Slayer.
>> I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do... as he turns into
>> the Demi-Lich, he says "Now you will feel the power of my true self"
>> (or some such blustery bullshit), to which my main character replied
>> "...and now you'll feel mine", turned into the Slayer and whipped his ass.
>
> This is better than most, but it's still exploiting
> the AI's stupidity. When Kangaxx's howl attack fails
> to take the Slayer out he should be doing one of three
> things:
>
> (1) Picking off the more vulnerable party members.
Which wouldn't do him any good, since they may not even be
harming him...
> (2) Using some other form of attack on the Slayer.
Someone else posted that as a demi-lich, the only things he
can do are imprison and demi-lich howl... if that's true, then there's
nothing else he *can* do.
> (3) Making his escape.
Agreed... there are only a few enemies in the game that actually
realize when they're going to get killed and take off... of course,
if you're careful about it, you can trap him and not let him get away...
Graeme Dice
<snip>
>
> This is better than most, but it's still exploiting
> the AI's stupidity. When Kangaxx's howl attack fails
> to take the Slayer out he should be doing one of three
> things:
>
> (1) Picking off the more vulnerable party members.
> (2) Using some other form of attack on the Slayer.
> (3) Making his escape.
>
The only other form of attack he has is his death wail, and that would
also not likely work.
Graeme Dice
--
Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
A: Yes
Q: And what were you doing at that time?
Graeme Dice
>
<snip>
> > (2) Using some other form of attack on the Slayer.
>
> Someone else posted that as a demi-lich, the only things he
> can do are imprison and demi-lich howl... if that's true, then there's
> nothing else he *can* do.
Well, and the dust from his decayed body can rise up and attack as a
ghostly thing which is rather weak, or he can change his altitude.
Graeme Dice
--
Q: Was it you or your younger brother who was killed in the war?
Dianne McKinzie
> > > I lost Marcus to the Mordinos, since the stoopid mutie couldn't wear
> > > armour and got caught between two guys firing 10mm sub-machine guns
> > > point blank at him.
> >
Because Marcus couldn't wear armor, I simply asked him to wait for my party
while we took out all the crime families but the Wrights in New Reno.
Cassidy just rocked my world with that Pancar. Anyone try giving him a
Bozar?
Phil, how did you keep Sulik from killing everyone in your party? It seemed
to me that when ever I asked Sulik to stand somewhere in combat that he
would do the exact opposite of what I asked. If I asked him to stay close
to me, he ran way ahead. And while I loved Marcus, I finally dumped him
because I had to keep reloading after he'd wipe out half of my party with
"friendly fire."
Geoffrey Brent
> > This is better than most, but it's still exploiting
> > the AI's stupidity. When Kangaxx's howl attack fails
> > to take the Slayer out he should be doing one of three
> > things:
> >
> > (1) Picking off the more vulnerable party members.
> > (2) Using some other form of attack on the Slayer.
> > (3) Making his escape.
> >
>
> The only other form of attack he has is his death wail, and that would
> also not likely work.
In that case, take out as many other party members as
he can before making his escape. But Kangaxx's capabilities
in the game are so one-dimensional it hurts.
Geoffrey Brent