BG2 - Last of legend

Remove all ads!

saros:

Sitting on the can gives me time to reflect on recent events, and what lessons I can learn from them!

 

Quote: I think you're mistaking the number-crunchers curse with what the game is really all about. Nakia understands - it's all about being able to choose a role or archetype for yourself and play it. The combat portion is easy to abuse... but only if you care more about fighting than playing - in which case you would never survive any of the campaigns I'm a part of, because it's easy to overwhelm anyone that's on a power-gamers streak.


I was putting it bluntly to make a point. But I do agree with your response. But don`t you think that class-feats for example is forced on you? Like if you are a druid you get an animal companion, wether you like it or not. Or if you are a ranger your two-weapon fighting or your bow skills improves, even if you don`t want them too. A friend of mine played a ranger on the game we are running now adays. And he has been using a greatsword and nothing else. He got better at using a bow because of this though. And he said that it felt like it wasn`t he that had made a character. It was made by the people who wrote the phb. If you get my meaning.

Quote: Not to mention 20 attacks per round is impossible without having 12 arms, 27 dex and epic feats

This is not impossible. Its fairly easy. You need a high dex score of course. And use spiked chain. Gives you attacks of oppertunity within 5 and 10 feet. Add combat reflexes to your feat list, and great cleave. And get into a situation where there are lots of puny opponents running around. Like storming a pile of goblins in a cave or something. A friend of mine managed 22 attacks, in one round with that tactic. This won`t work unless you activly seek out a situation like that of course. But it wasn`t uncommon for him to make around 15 attacks per round in most fights against multiple opponents. At highlevel of course. Around 15-18 I belive. Anyway. It can be done.


Quote: The "Bard gaining xp for playing music" is not very realistic either. Because later, at lvl-up, he gains weapon proficiencies, spells and HP based on what? Music playing?

I agree with you there, but bards also got XP for learning and casting spells I belive. And for kills.

And I agree with you 100 percent about the Krondor system. It made sense all the way. I would have to say it was the best system I have experienced too. Too bad its not out in a pen and paper version.

 

Hi,

Just my two cents on this for Rawgrim
I think we see here a clear break with D&D enthusiats, and those like yourself who tend to prefer more "realistic" RPGs.

Indeed the AD&D rules make no sense, I mean when you're high levels you can get stabbed 100 times by a low level dude with and not die.
Levels makes no sense, however, if you can ignore the "unreal" part of it, I still think it's fun when transfered into video games.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of AD&D "live", I mean when you play it for real with pencils and dice and such. I've always prefered RPGs such as Stormbringer, Runequest, etc... with the % system, just more realistic: you improve slowly by using your skills (and improve ONLY those skills you use), you never reall gain HP except if you specifically gain CON or whatnot, one well placed sword strike to an unarmored dude usually kills him, etc etc...

This said, although I've always preffered a % system for my "Real" rpg play, I think that it would translate poorly to a computer game.

But I do agree the whole D&D system makes no true sense: it is FUN however I feel in a computer game, and well that's what counts

 

Well spoken Edmond, by all means. I also play dungeons and dragons by the way. And it is fun for me as well. But my point was that its a very bad "roleplaying" system.

As for the % rules: I think Might and magic 6-8 used that system. Rolemaster based, or something similar.Don`t take my word for it though.

 

I agree with the count (i.e. Edmond); one point I'd like to stress however is that Fallout managed to blend levels and % quite nicely. Now improving skills as you use them is something that is really good but such a system can be abused too (besides GTA San Andreas uses such a system but it doesn't qualify as a RPG).

What's in a game? Realism is not the important factor here, IMHO what matters is whether you have fun or not.

As unrealistic and arbitrary as DnD can be, it is fun. Think about the numerous gags in the Order of the Stick comic. Rules can be a source of humour as well.

BG is a good game because it's not too linear and you have a story (it may not be the most original plot but it's not that bad and it has ramifications and side stories that link characters together, just like the Kivan/Tazok revenge plot which unfortunately wasn't implemented).
The problem is that nowadays the whole prophecy stuff has grown stale. It has been used so much in movies (Star Wars, The Matrix, etc.) and in CPRPG (BG, Fallout, Lionheart, Arcanum, Morrowind, Oblivion, KotOR, Fable, Jade Empire, etc.) that it is a big turn off.

I played KotOR for a while and enjoyed some parts of the game but some quests were just too stale. It felt like it was taken from BG and other oldies...

What does it take to make a great epic story that wouldn't revolve around a prophecy but would allow the main character to choose sides and make a difference?

Linearity is not compatible with free will. Without freedom of choice and the possibility to make decisions that affect the course of the game there is no roleplaying.

IMHO the best CPRG I know are Fallout 1 and (to a certain extent) Vampire the Masquerade. They may have some flaws, at least they give you the illusion of playing a role.

 

Hi Cardharas,

Thanks for catching the count reference

I have not tried Fallout but might take a look at it now.

Yes % based RPGs in video games is perhaps difficult to implement because of the progression logic.
Usually in % based games, you get an experience check when you succesfully use a skill in a certain situation. For example, you succesfully hit a guy with a mace, then you get a check in attacking with the mace. But the beauty (in my mind) of the % based RPGs (at least in Pnp) is that that check dosen't automatically mean you improve. Basically, it gives you a % to improve once the aventure is over, and the higher your skill the least likely you are to improve. All this leads to very slow and balanced character progression.
Also, because your HP basically never change, combat is more about hitting and not getting hit (parries, dodge, etc) than just the capacity of absorbing massive damage because your HP is high. It is why a few succesful blows in these types of games usually end combat, which means that anybody can kill anybody: although superior combat skills will usually prevail (which makes sense), one lucky shot from an underdog could end any fight. The fact one lucky basic arrow from a much weaker opponent can kill even the most powerful character balances gameplay to be less reckless.

My dream has always been such a system would be applied for computer RPGs, but then I wonder how playable it would be. Also, it would be able to cheese by reloading etc... which would defeat most of the % based logic of skill porgression. I just have trouble visioning a game based on such a system truly being playable on computer, which is kind of encouraging since it means PnP is not dead yet

Which is why level D&D based games seem to adapt best to computer RPGs from my experience, because in the end the XP level system just blends in perfectly with computer gaming in my mind.

And to conclude and get back to the topic, BG2 was great because of the fact it just seem to flow so well, it never seemed that overwhelming, and it was FUN. Just a very well conceived and very well balanced game, that allows begginers as well as veterans to enjoy it. TOB missed the spot however, I think mainly cause your CHAR was too overpowered by then, so you didn't get that progression feel any longer.

Finally, to repeat myself, am I the only one that would like to see a game a la BG2 (with improved graphics and all of course), but in a world as detailed as Morrowind for example (I love the Morrowind feel of freedom and liberty to do REALLY what you want ; I HATE its left-click frenzy combat system) ? So basically a game with turn / round based combat, but with no more "zones", since every inch of the game world would be accesible.

[ November 01, 2007, 18:49: Message edited by: Edmond Dantes ]

 

You are definatly not the only one, Count. I would love a game like that too. I haven`t played Morrowind alot though. All the running back and forth made me feel bored. But its on my list of games to play. Same with Fallout. Another gem I haven`t played yet.

 

saros and Rawgrim, Betrayl at Krondor! That was a true legendary game.

Yes, I liked BaK's system better than any I've played.

BG series was fun. Just plain fun. And it had it's hilarious moments. Edwin for instance. Although I thought I was prepared for him his little episode had me My party of Saverok, Edwin, Jan and the dwarf (my brain is failing can't remember his name) was the greatest and more fun than a clan of monkeys.

 

Off-topic:
To the people who haven´t played Fallout: Fallout is definitely recommendable. I learned about it in here. It has some cool features concerning creating and leveling your character up.

First of all, there is no character class. You allocate your primary stats yourself, so you either get a smart, strong, agile, charismatic, fast character, or a mix of the ones mentioned. You decide how many hitpoints, AC, reaction, carryweight and so on your character gets, depending on how you build the primary stats. You then pick 3 secondary skills that your character can boost quicker than other skills at lvl-up. And so on. There is more in the creation process I don´t want to get into. Play the game.

The secondary skill system is cool, similar to the skillpoints at lvl-up for characters in IWDII, however, you have to allocate points to pretty much everything. You want a "priest" type? Doctor and first aid skill. Sniper? Small weapons skill. Ranger type character? Outdoorsman. Techsmart character or scientist? Science and Repair. Thief? Sneak, Lockpick, Steal. Diplomat? Speech. And so on and so on. You can design your character much to your own liking. What you choose as skills determines what class your character becomes, so to speak. You can get more secondary skills to allocate by maxing your Intelligence in the creation process. Did I mention that you also gain Feats at regular intervals when you lvl-up?

It has bugs like other games, but all in all, it is a cool game, and the best thing is you are able to make enemies die in the most horrible ways. Critical headshot? Head explodes along with 50% of the upper torso, followed by the body keeling over like a treetrunk. Not like in BG, where chunks fly and that´s is.

This is probably the page to go to, if you need bugfixes, information etc., if you choose to play the game. I´ll bet that if you like games like BG, you´ll like Fallout.

 

HP is not taking a million hits dead on and dieing, it's more like a system of determining how well you can take a hit - IE: rolling with a punch.

As far as feats go for the game and class features being forced on you - it's just not true. In the core book, yes you're limited in your choices, but if you look into the other books, you get so many more options for core classes (at least 20-30 options for non-prestiege plenty of which are like bards and almost completely combat ineffective). Adaptations and Rule changes for these classes exist as well, that remove the druids animal companion or even it's wild shape, or a rangers spells for other abilities. (btw the idea of a ranger is that of a woodlands defender, which would be rather pointless if it couldn't defend anything, ie: need for bow/weapon skills). [As adendum, it is possible to ask the DM to let you change out abilities . Nothing in the game is set in stone in such a way that the DM can't modify a rule/class/skill/feat/etc.].

That's why classes like rogue and bard exist that are primarily skill based classes based on the assumption you're going to play the skill game and the combat game (although sometimes stabbing stuff is rather enjoyable).

When looking at things like levels as some people pointed out, you can't see it as a literal in-game understanding of "Oh I just happen to learn how to use this for no reason". The idea is that while you're going from level 4-5 wizard you're studying and practicing spell casting on your off-time so that when you've gained enough XP to level and you've gone to rest you have enough confidence and ability to now cast fireballs. It's just a literal implementation of an abstract idea.

Of course the idea behind these comments is that the RPG persists outside of one element it's composed of and rather encompasses all of them. While you can play an RPG without ever having combat as an option, who wants to do that? Besides rogues I mean...

Oh and the cheesiness of the spiked chain combat reflexes... It takes some real number-crunching and power/meta-gaming to pull that kind of stuff off - ie: if you go to some D&D boards they propose class builds of level 20 that can do 20k (yes, 20,000) damage in 1 turn, that's not something you actually see in a D&D campaign though, I garuantee it .

 

Oh well, last of a legend... I didn't knew anything about RPG's back then when my friend showed me a new game he has just bought, BG. Nearly ten years ago. It wasn't love at first sight, but somehow athmosphere of the game got me hooked. I didn't knew the rules and didn't even wanted to. I just wanted to play.

There is some quality in this game that no other game has, for me at last, I've never played through any other rpg's than BG's and IWD's, I've tried NWN, PoR, ToEE, Fallout, Oblivion but... I just got bored. I don't give f**k about rules, 2ed or 3ed, if game is good enough I'll play it through.

Maybe I'm IE junkie, I don't know but there isn't going to be any game as good as BG's for me. Never.

 

You might like Betrayal at Krondor. If you can stand some rather poorish graphics. Its from 92 I think, and its still on my top 5 rpg list. Along with the baldur`s gate games.

 

The BG games ar those at witch I return after each new dessapoiment : NWN 1/2 , Oblivion , Ghotic 3 (1,2 wore actualy plesant) etc.
There is always a nice felling when you hear : "Oh, the child of Bhall has awaken" ... For me it is like gooing back home ... to my old room ... you know the feeling ...
I to don't think a game like those will ever be made ... but now i discover : The Witcher ... nice .. relly nice .. this is the only game (beaside BG) that make me wanna call in sick and stay home to play like in the good old time
Cheers

 

Don't get cute kiddo. What does the fact that "RPG" stands for "Role-Playing Game" have to do with anything I said?

What does your irrelevant conclusion that "very few RPGs have the same combat system" have to do with anything we are discussing here?

ROTFLMAO!! You could not have been more wrong here if you calimed that Asteroids was a turn-based dating simulator!

RTS = "REAL TIME Strategy". RTS games notoriously LACK tactics. RPGs, from the earliest(D&D) have always been tactical simulations. "Tactics" does NOT necessarily refer to COMBAT by the way kid.(Though 99.999% of RPGs DO feature or are rooted in tactical combat). ANY game in which you play a statistically quantified representation of a character and pit HIS attributes/skills/abilities(re: his CHARACTER) against a series of adversarial/opposed forces is a tactical simulation.

Sure they can. What is your point? What does this have to do with what is being discussed here?

False and that straw man you are beating the stuffing out of is not mine. I don't have any dog named "Prettied up" in this fight. Nice try though...

ALL rpgs are tactical simulators and nothing more,a t their core. That the genre of gaming is conducive to things like storytelling/amateur drama/acting and such is irrelevant.

I am no fan of ANY edition of D&D in general but are you claiming that 3rd Ed. characters(and ONLY them) can be tweaked to make "20 attacks per round"?! I think you should read the third edition rules first.

Also this is no more unrealistic than casting spells, hit points(especially AD&D's take!), saving throws(especially AD&D's version), etc. Are you seriously contesting the idea of a heroic FANTASY character making multiple attacks in 6 seconds while ignoring the idea that, not only can certain arbitrarily chosen vocations allow one to violate all physical laws in absurd ways by incantation and gesture, but also that they are limited to individual memorizations of spells per day which mysteriously disappear from memory when recited?!

That is like someone coming to the microphone at a poetry reading and saying "Sorry...I was going to do some Frost or Milton but a lady on the bus asked me to recite a William Carlos Williams poem and that shot my 6th level poems for the day so I can only give you two readings of Shel Silverstein for now..."

False.

You are wrong here or you have the two editions mixed up.

There are still flaws to be sure(most of which are carried over from AD&D) and these are largely being dealt with in the upcoming 4th edition but your characterizations are bizarre to say the least. I am wondering where you are getting your information about 3e/3.5e?

AD&D/OD&D had some game-breaking design flaws just with the hit points alone. In AD&D HP are defined as an absurd combination of 'luck, physical toughness, veteran wile, and evasive maneuver capability'. This begs the question: What does "Cure Light Wounds" spell DO? Does it replenish your "luck" that went missing when someone swung a saber at you and connected? If so can a cleric cast "Cure Light Wounds" at a gambling table to influence your ability to win at cards?

It is nonsense and I could spend 6 pages pointing out even sillier flaws for what it is worth. 3Rd edition at least attempted to bring D&D into the late 20th century by fixing a lot of this mess.

 

There is no "official definition" for ANY word. Words shift meaning with context and usage, speaker and audience. But in the context of GAMING, "roleplaying game" has a pretty specific meaning that only varies subjectively from person to person by cosmetic preferences.

The "RolePlaying Game = Playing a role" thing is a bit like saying "Politics = "many small bloodsucking insects" because it comes from the Greek 'poly', meaning "many" and "ticks" meaning small, bloodsucking arachnids".

Makes for a good joke but is a poor way to try and understand terms for what they really are.

And therein lies the rub. By YOUR definition, DOOM, Super Mario Bros., Asteroids and Pinball are all "roleplaying games" and the term has no meaning at all.

Yeah, that will be interesting. I think it is a ways off though.

an aside - CRPGs which have used a system where you only improve skills by using them(besides Betrayal At Krondor which was already mentioned):

Nahlakh - 1994 shareware CRPG. Very oldshcool(Ultima 4/5 era graphics) with one of the more advanced combat systems seen in crpgs. Using your two-handed sword in combat was the only way to raise two-handed sword skill. Casting magic spells was the only way to raise magic skill. Etc.

Jagged Alliance 2 - 1999/200(?) strategy/RPG. Had much better character interaction/banter than even BG/BG2(lots more dialog and very well written for the most part) and a combat system and experience system much in line with nahlakh above(much better isometric graphics though). Had to be training/practicing or otherwise actually SHOOTING your guns to raise those skills or lugging around encumbering loads to raise Strength etc.

I know there are a few more that I am forgetting...

 

If you go for pnp, I always thought Runequest was much better than D&D / ADnD.

There is no such thing as "realism" in RPGs or CRPGs. What is required is a large amount of willing suspension of disbelief.

 

That's how it ties in - read all my posts please .

You're take on the RPG genre is that they're tactical simulators and it's wrong. "Tactical simulation"... combat in other words... is nothing more than an ELEMENT of the game. But at the core an RPG is a game, as described above, that allows you to take on a different persona.

RPG (as defined by wiki):

I bet I can go look for 100 definitions and probably 2 will have combat as a core element of an RPG listed (and they'll probably list diablo and dungeon siege as RPG's). By that definition Oblivion/Morrowind are also 100x better RPG's than NWN/NWN2. Ignore the combat system and focus on the role-play opportunities.

Also I'm not sure where you got the idea that role-play comes from greek. I'm pretty sure it comes from the english word:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
role-play /ˈroʊlˌpleɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rohl-pley] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), esp. in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

which... is formed by role and play. Which when put together mean that anyway... + game = game that you play to assume the role of something else.

As far as the FPS genre goes, there are definately elements of an RPG in there, but they're main focus in the 1 vs. many combat aspect, not the actual role you're playing. As they are progressing the story is becomming more and more important though. This is why I'm pointing out that NWN and NWN2 aren't RPG's, because they're clearly more focused on Combat over RP as opposed to how a tradition cRPG is. Oblivion is somewhat of a hybrid, but you can avoid combat the entire game, so it's definately not an FPS, but rather a FPcRPG.

Also as for the description of the spell system, not sure where you heard/read that the spells leave memory. Of course there is that whole thing where a wizard has too many spells to just plain memorize out of his spellbook (at least at the beginning), but the fact of it is, the spell doesn't leave your memory, you just lose the ability to cast it after a while. This is the result of loss of prepared elements - spell components, clerity of mind, not forgetting the words to recite. If that's all it was then they'd be able to read off their book an infinate # of incantations.

All I'm trying to point out here of course is that you've been sorta-flaming people for their opinions on the matter without any actual facts behind your flames . The use of wikipedia, dictionary.com and the Players Handbook (v3.0 and 3.5) are good resources you can look at for free to get the facts on the topics being discussed.

In summation:

RPG is not a tactical simulator as defined by 3 sources (wiki's is the definition listed above, but it's agreed upon by dictionary.com and the PHB)

RTS is a tactical simulator (pretty much by definition of the title alone - but also by the facts of the intended gameplay).

FPS are not RPG's because while they maintian RPG elements they focus on combat over role playing.

 

About "tactics" have you heard of TSR
and Chainmail?

I don't mean to flame but resorting to wikipedia's definition you should check some of its entries...

Do you really think that there is much roleplay in CRPGs? You can make up for it by using your own imagination (like Nakia posted) but in the end a CPRG doesn't offer enough freedom to qualify as a true RPing game. All in all CPRGs are tactical simulations with a few RPG elements thrown in.

 

Actually, he never claimed that "role-play" came from Greek.

 

Ahh you're right, I missread it. And yea, wiki isn't 100%, but it is still a very good source for good information.

Of course the fact is that RPG did in fact come from the understanding of playing a role because it's a literal title to what the game is like. I'm also pretty sure that FPS (First Person Shooter) refers to a game where you run around in First Person and Shoot things/people/etc.

Also

I think there's tons. Not as much as in a tabletop RPG to be sure. But I think the fact is and point of my posts, is that I agree with the original poster. Since BG2 the only good RPG's we've really seen have been very limited and only recently with the elder scrolls series have we been able to enjoy a game that has a lot to explore as a role-player. I mean... I've been in far more constrictive and worse campaigns (Rifts or D&D) on table-top than a game like Oblivion, but I've always had more choice in my decisions that I do in games like NWN and NWN2 though. Especially NWN2 which forced companions on me for the whole first chapter of the game.