POLL: Roleplaying Combat In BG2?

Remove all ads!

The poll is just there to get some graph to follow about people's preferences. This topic is here for discussion though.

Question is: How do you do combat in BG2? Do you just beat everything with maximum effiency, or do you perhaps roleplay a bit? Here's a list of what I mean.

Do you sometimes let individual characters handle specific enemies because it's their personal challenge? Do you make favorite groupings, such as Minsc being extra-careful no-one would hurt Aerie. Or perhaps when romancing someone, acting a bit over-protective? Or do you sometimes find yourself in a situation where your protagonist goes in a wild Bhaal-power frenzy for vengeance because someone dared put a stun on them, even if your companions acted normally because the fight was never really a threat? Do you imagine any words changed inbetween a combat every now and then?

This was invoked by the topic about Imoen, where I remembered that while I'm not completely hardcore, I do like roleplaying in combat to some extend. For example a mageduel between some powerful enemy mage and Edwin. Or Minsc and a particularly nasty ogre. And I am always protective about Imoen. If there's the smallest risk of her dying, I will instantly rush to her aid at the expense of myself and use as much power as is needed to calm the situation.

How do you do combat? Only in the way the game assumes and requires of you, or perhaps more?

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 44 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Roleplaying Combat In BG2? (44 votes.)

How do you do combat? (Choose 1)
* Maximum efficiency. NPC's are a means to an end, nothing more. Not even in important plot combats. - 27% (12)
* Middleground. Sometimes I imagine some personal feud and act accordingly, sometimes I just kill as well and fast as I can with no regards to the "spirit" involved. - 61% (27)
* Hardcore roleplaying. Mistakes, miscalculations, and forms of success all depend on the personality of the NPC and the situation at hand. - 11% (5)

How good do you consider yourself as a "tactician"? (Choose 1)
* Very good. I've read and studied and tried every / nearly every combination of spells, abilities, enemy weaknesses etc. My goal is to be supreme. - 16% (7)
* Ok. I know the rules well enough and can handle most of the game with no real problems. Some of the worst enemies offer some challenge but they can be overcome with time and determination. - 80% (35)
* Bad. Normal fights are ok, though some are difficult. But many of the plot-specific battles seem impossible to win, I don't bother learning just for a game. - 5% (2)

 

I don't fit the descriptions perfectly. For one, I consider if ANY NPC dies that the battle was failure. I will usually reload and try again. So the idea of protecting weaker members so they don't get killed really doesn't factor in all that much if it means another character gets killed in the process. Either way is a failure IMO.

 

I tend to let individual NPC's go off on their own and handle a given situation. I'm so used to soloing that the thought of using a whole party bores me a bit. So in a roleplaying sense I use the best available to me but I don't pay attention to relationships such as Minsc and his witch.

An example of this is I feel that a solo assassin is much more effective at taking out improved Guarded Compound Slave Lords so I might kill off my whole party and raise later to tackle them with my PC if evil or kick them out if good. Or a mage is better against Trolls (deathspell, sunfire). Just the way I play.

 

I think roleplaying in BG combat is impractical. The NPC AI simply is not suited to it, and the degree of micromanagement required doesn't appeal to me. Now if the game was truly turn based (ie fallout) then I'd really roleplay the combat. Of course in PnP you naturally roleplay combat becuase fo the infinite options in any fight. You can't make a called shot to shoot down a chandelier, or dive from a staircase or the like. So I just try to win the fights as efficiently as possible, since I don't like to excessivly rest, as I feel it's unrealistic.

Edit: I do roleplay for other aspects of the game. I build a party of people I like, regardless of strength, and I always try to choose the most appropriate dialog options. Even if I'm playing a really evil character, I won't choose stupid options where you're just being a jerk, becuase it doesn't fit my conception of a charater that's really just out to gain power. In PnP I like playing chaotic neutral charaters though, VERY fun

 

I just handle combat the best way I can: maximum firepower and maximum bashing about the head with big swords. Though occasionally if it's a fight I've done several times before and know it's not too hard, I send in a single character to handle it on their own.

 

imo if the protagonist was really overprotective of anyone, or in particular Imoen, he/she would send her away as soon as possible in the case of Imoen this would be in chapter 6 after killing Bodhi, but then she's a Bhaalspawn herself so anyone could think of any number of reasons to either keep or send Imoen away after this.

 

Hmm, I'm surprised really how few consider combat anything else than a necessary means to advance in the game. And how many have a such a powergaming attitude.

The "micromanagement" that's needed to add some story to combat is minimal compared to the micromanagement you must do anyway if you aspire to be a good tactician. The perfect timing of spells, attacks, usage of items and special abilities. I've always viewed BG as a "turnbased" game because I practically always play it turn based. After every turn, a new spell / ability / form of attack must be initiated anyway, and then I pause to make corrections. I can't imagine BG2 in realtime the same way NWN works for example.

I'd expected at least one response by now from someone with a nice story on some particular encounter they played in a most uncommon fashion.

I mean really. The fight you have with Sarevok in the end of SoA, do you only solo that when you have no party with you anyway, or don't you feel that even when there are friends with you, it's a matter of a personal feud and combat of strength? I always fight that battle alone and let others stay further away.

The reason I don't use reload all the time anyway is because there's much more feeling in a combat where you go through all the way. Of course this doesn't apply to every lucky shot made by some common enemy, but generally I like the option of using resurrection in the end of battle far more than just reloading. And for that reason, I've all the more cause to worry when someone's about to die. Just as I put aside all conserving of special abilities and magic when Imoen is in danger, I also use her strongest of magics when the protagonist is in danger. Unless it's a question of a losing battle on the other hand, other NPC's don't get the same treatment.

Examples of some playstyles I use with different characters:

Edwin: Uses highly destructive magic purely for offensive power. The only protective magics he has is for himself. Is specifically psychotic in challenging enemy mages and refusing to consider the party's need as a whole when placed in such a situation.

Minsc & Korgan: The first ones to dash headlong into the middle of enemy hordes and not waiting in line for combat. Often take risky chases after trapped areas, even if Minsc is protective about Aerie.

Valygar: Has a tendency of choosing mages over other opponents when given the opportunity. Otherwise a very intelligent fighter as a member of the team.

Protagonist: In the case of a more powergaming type character, highly prone into doing 1/3:rds or 1/2 of the combat by himself while the rest of the party is handling the rest. Always handles personal matters personally, unless extremely underpowered. Prone to using overly much power relative to what is needed in his desire to prove his godly heritage.

Other more general examples include things such as "realistic combat". Meaning, while the most effective thing to do against above mediocre enemies is to make every NPC attack the same target at once, and quickly diminish the enemy numbers, the more realistic approach is that everyone really needs to focus on the enemy next to them. As there are no side-attacks or back-attacks in 2:nd edition BG2, there's no real need for this. Still, the combat becomes far more challenging and interesting when Minsc has his own enemy to deal with, while Sarevok takes on another, Valygar a third one, Edwin handles some mage off afar, and Protagonist concentrating on a group of enemies somewhere else with Imoen. Then of course there are events such as Minsc needing to recover, when the Protagonist runs into aid so Minsc steps aside and snags a few potions, and then goes and help some other member while the Protagonist is handling Minsc's former enemies.

I say again, normal casual combat is hardly such a big deal. But every battle with some sort of nice plot or surprise element becomes so much better when you make a little bit more of it than it was originally supposed to be.

Edit: One further example would be the last character type that I made. One I will make again with a smaller party. A summoner. Sorcerer, with all spells focusing on summoning monsters and otherwordly beings, as well as controlling and expelling them. Nothing more. As a mage she was certainly very simple and useless in the traditional sense. But it was a load of fun to summon a huge horde of wolves, ogres, elementals and demons to do all the fighting. Of course the limit of 5 summoned monsters at a time made a problem, but they were quickly consumed by the enemy so it wasn't really a problem. A highly amusing character though, and carried a lot of feeling with it too. Bhaal powers get a new meaning afterall when instead of being of any traditional class, the protagonist only had a gift of summoning beings from the realm of Bhaal.

[ February 26, 2004, 21:15: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

My roleplaying justification is the whoever has the highest Intelligence (and Wisdom) is giving advice to whoever has the highest Charisma. The one with highest Charisma in turn barks out orders.

Note that there is one roleplaying aspect built into the game: If Aerie becomes Minsc's "witch", he goes berserk if she dies (it's Dynaheir's fault and Minsc's failure all over again).

Besides, I just don't see it as powergaming. If a bunch of yahoos with various abilities and skills band together to go cutting a swath through Amn, then they should probably have devised a few strategies for overcoming common situations (A bunch of shadows! Anomen, you turn undead, and Nalia, you fling a Fireball. Jaheira, stand back - those things might weaken you.)

 

Hmmm, I know what you mean with the 'Sarevok in Hell' fight, but it is nearly never possible for me to send in charname on his own. I try to, but my weaker thief types always get slaughtered if they're not aided by the party so...

On other notes I'm not sure if I really do roleplay combat a lot. Sure I try to keep lill' sis and love-interest out of harms way, safely chucking spells somewhere behind my broad shoulders, but I think that's about it.

'My' Edwin playing style is similar to yours as well (after all, he is one hell of a caster) but I won't back down from him casting protection from fear on the party. I just pretend he got bullied into it by charname and Korgan

[ February 28, 2004, 10:55: Message edited by: Lacessit ]

 

I let the person with the highest charisma lead - usually me, with a ring of Human Influence sometimes. I usually play a fighter-mage, or fighter-druid, so I don't have a problem with forcing Edwin to cast "Resist Fear" or similar. I do roleplay a lot, and let Sarevok chop up a lot of enemies as much as possible, for example

Against Sarevok in hell, I ALWAYS send in CHARNAME alone. It's so much more meaningful!

I consider myself a pretty good tactician, so whatever I do in combat usually turns out pretty efficient anyway

 

I do roleplay somewhat. For enemies of specific NPCs, I usually let the NPC take the lead or go one-on-one, with the rest just there for the occasional healing and "moral support".

I'm very protective of my romances, such that I tend to rush to her if she is in danger. But I'm even more protective of Imoen. A single hit is usually enough to get my PC to her side.

For the standard battles, it's just usual tactics and strategy. Send in fighters to tank and carve them up at close range, let the casters pelt them with bullets, and if there are too many enemies or a specific enemy needs addressing, use spells.

 

I find I end up rolepplaying more in the major battles. The minor ones I just let people go in hack/slash, whatever works. On occasion I'll have my buff fighter chick rush the aide of her beloved Kelsey, or soemthing like that. When facing off with Bodhi and my vampirized love I usually had the PC kill their lover. Against Irenicus with my mage I turned slayers for the last bit and have everyone stand back so I could kill him (okay Timestop followed by Slayer, it's hard not to kill him) On the other hand when I'm playing with a thief or bard or soemthin similar if I do that sort of thing too much I'll get them killed.

 

Many a time I've roleplayed the fights. Edwin gets the most 1v1 battles against other mages however in the mean time I have him cast invisibility on Korgan to walk behind the mage and split his skull from behind. Charname ALWAYS faces Sarevok in 1v1 and vs Jon in hell my main character always goes for Jon while the party deals with his lackys.

As a male I never allow my love interest to be in front of me unless it's Jaheria who always walks next to the PC. Minsc is always between Aerie, Nalia and Imoen's (I figured Minsc and Imoen have a special bond since they have no party banters) nearest enemy.

Viconia only engages in melee if the enemy is concentrating on another character.

Valygar goes straight for the mages.

These are some of the roleplaying rules I abide by. I dislike powergaming such a story oriented game. These 'rules' apply more enjoyable challanges to the game and make the game play more like a novel.

 

I roleplay my battles to an extent.
I usually send scouts or invisible characters to look at prospective battlegrounds first and making up a strategy before charging in, for example. I always try to come up with a plan before fighting.

But the reason I "powergame" is because I try to see a reason and use for all characters, abilities, skills, spells and items.
But just because I powergame doesn't mean I cheat - I can be very cheesy, yes, but I'd never cheat on impulse.

As to Foradasthar's questions, the answer to all is yes - except when I'm feeling lazy.

 

How is one on one battles realistic roleplaying just out of curiosity?

If you were in position like CHARNAME against Sarevok in hell what would you most likley have on your mind above anything else? would you worry about honor and personal vendeta or whatever? or would you worry about living and getting the hell (no pun intended) out that place? for good partys especially they wouldent ever let someone face anything alone even if it's one on one unless they were ordered not to or were a party of Paladins or some other honerable nonsense.

 

Usually strongwilled people prefer to finish personal business personally. Hard to come up with examples, but the case of Sarevok is pretty obvious. He slaughtered Charname's father, and caused a hell of a lot of misery in their life, as well as personally stalked them throughout BG1. In many ways you can say Sarevok represents what didn't only destroy Charnames life completely as it used be known, but also shadows the other side of them, the taint of Bhaal.

Obviously it's not intended that you go in like a fool to get yourself killed against Sarevok. But for someone with enough might to take him on, it's not only a matter of pride, it's a matter of personal justice and debts repayed.

Put it this way. Someone kills your family. You find this someone and you have some aid with you. Would you not feel it was your obligation in being the one to finish this? Or would you just stand back in line and let your comrades handle it even if they hadn't lost anything next to what you did? Yes, it's not smart to get yourself killed as well. But I think it's fair to say that from a roleplaying point of view you and your characters WILL have moments when their logical strategic mind is not at their best. Instead, they are driven by powerful emotions.

 

^^
And this works for either good or evil. A good person will be seeking personal justice whereas an evil person will be in the 1v1 scene for pride eg. "I'm going to show that bastard that NOBODY messes with me. I don't need help to take you down Sarevok, you big black pansy, AND I'M GOING TO PROVE IT!"

Smart? No, but emotions can drive people to do things they normally would never be able to do.