A major gripe

Abecedarian · Post by **Abecedarian** » Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:16 pm

I played BGII about 2/3 of the way, then started BG/TSC so I could stay with one character all the way through and learn the story from the start. Somehow the BG game system--that is, AD&D, which I had never played until I came to BG--has not managed to endear itself to me. One reason is that there are too darn many spells and managing the magic system is very cumbersome, but it was not until tonight that I figured out perhaps my major problem: if your main character dies he cannot be revived and you lose. All other party members can be restored, but not yours. This means that protecting this character is the end-all and be-all of the game. Everything you do centers not around making him a hero or a leader, but covering his behind in combat.

Does anyone else object to this? Why should the central character be the only person in the game who cannot be revived? Why can't the game continue if he dies but other party members go on to win the battle, then use a spell or take him to a temple for revival?

It really does affect, very adversely, the whole way you play the game, I think.

Edwin · Post by **Edwin** » Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:52 am

You're the child of Bhaal. You control the actions of your party members. If you die, there's no sense in resurrecting yourself.
IMO it doesn't affect the gameplay as you said. There are a lot of different party formations that can protect your main character.....choose the one you prefer, depending on your class.
The spellcasting system is one of the great things in BG IMO. Less spells=less fun

Sabretooth · Post by **Sabretooth** » Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:30 am

How could you enter into important story conversations with Irenicus etc, if your main guy is dead?
As far as having to many spells goes, well the more spells the better I say. At first, deciding which spell to use in whatever situation your in can be overwhelming. Eventually you'll know when and how to use most of them anyway, just read these boards for tips. The BG GUI is beautifully designed as well so you can take all the time you need to cast whatever you want.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Apr 09, 2001 2:55 am

Good points.

Imoen is a child of Bhaal - she can die & be ressurected.

But why have a protagonist if (s)he is gonna die and you carry on without them?

Make your PC a mage and stay out of the line of fire. Or make them an unstoppable fighter.

Where's the fun if there's no risk in "losing" the game (even if you can reload)?

witelancer · Post by **witelancer** » Fri Apr 13, 2001 8:06 am

No, i would think that the AD&D rules are excellent for this game. if you ask me, the good part of the game is that there's lots of spells anyways if you got your main character killed how would the rest of them know what to do? it is a good hybrid system!

USE 18CON AT THE START!

Abecedarian · Post by **Abecedarian** » Fri Apr 13, 2001 12:51 pm

"If you got your main character killed, how would the rest of them know what to do?"
Well, I think that the collective wisdom of the rest of your team would enable them to figure out something like, "Gee, we better either use a resurrect spell or get him to a temple." (Maybe Minsc might have trouble with such advanced reasoning, but Boo wouldn't).
My point isn't that anyone would play the game for long without the main character, just that his death should not end the game, seeing that no one else's death does that. Maybe you could be given a time limit to bring yourself back to life.

As for "more spells is better," well, my perspective is that of someone who never played AD&D before, and trying to learn all the spells is almost more trouble than any one game is worth. The Might and Magic series does fine with about 100 spells. And has anyone else noticed that despite its plethora of spells, AD&D does not include such "basics" as water walk, fly, or some form of teleportation? (At least I don't think it does. Maybe I missed something.) We could use fewer spells which almost duplicate each other and more which facilitate movement. IMHO.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Apr 13, 2001 2:15 pm

If you don't like the idea of the protaganist dying a permanent death, try Planescape: Torment. It starts off a bit slow, but picks up speed story-wise. More importantly, the protaganist doesn't die a permanent death, except in a few rare cases, and even has to die several times to advance the plot.

TheHellion · Post by **TheHellion** » Sun Apr 22, 2001 3:22 pm

@Abecedarian: My take on the D&D game is that it's a kind of middle ground between pure roleplaying, and pure strategy gaming. There are elements of both, and I think that's what makes it so popular. You're still focusing on and playing the role of one character, but the combat system isn't just hack n' slash (at least is shouldn't be if your DM has even a nuance of creativity). Spells are what gives the D&D game its flare, and without them, it just isn't D&D anymore.

To answer your question, there are indeed spells such as Water Walk, Levitate, Teleport, and Teleport Without Error; they just aren't included in the game, some for more obvious reasons than others. Water Walk they probably should have included. Perhaps they just didn't want their beautiful and time-consuming bridges to go to waste.

Levitate probably isn't among the available spells due to limitations of the Infinity engine. It's an isometric top-down view, so vertical movement is tough to represent. Teleport and Teleport Without Error are too high-level for BGI, and too impractical for BGII. Why trudge through the Underdark to escape Brynnlaw when you can just Teleport right back to Athkatla?

With regards to the PC dying, I don't see any problem there. The BG series is challenging, but not so difficult that the entire game has to revolve around protecting your protagonist. Children of Bhaal supposedly return to their father when they die. Why Imoen doesn't is a mystery; maybe the designers hadn't figured that part out yet when they made BGI. Who knows?

Abecedarian · Post by **Abecedarian** » Sun Apr 22, 2001 7:37 pm

Yes, I agree with your perceptive post. The more I play (just started Chapter 4--but I played BG II about 3/4 of the way through before this) the more I see that BG is indeed not mainly a RPG. It is X-COM set in a medieval world. Well, I enjoyed X-COM lots so I'll just concentrate on that aspect of it, I guess. BG is in many ways very good indeed once you get used to little oddities like shops which never re-stock their goods, arriving on new maps exhausted because the game designers foolishly don't include resting time in travel time, the inability to find out anything about prospective party members except by kicking out old ones first, and a top-down perspective which allows me to see all sorts of thigs my characters can't (rooftops, treetops) but doesn't allow my characters to see more than 25 feet ahead of them (as is true in lots of other games, of course). The trees are gorgeous, though...too bad one can never see horizons, mountains, sunsets...

I realize these gripes are out of place on this board and so I won't post any more on this topic, lest I get an Aganazzar's Scorcher launched at me. But for the record, the best RPG I know of was, and is.......Daggerfall.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Apr 23, 2001 12:01 am

Originally posted by Abecedarian:
<STRONG><snip> But for the record, the best RPG I know of was, and is.......Daggerfall.</STRONG>

Agreed

Well some of the things you" gripe" about, like not knowing a possible NPC's stats before letting them into your party is well justified IMHO.
If you could see the stats/abilities of NPC before letting them into your party, you would/should be able to the same with enemies.

Lewstherin1080 · Post by **Lewstherin1080** » Mon Apr 30, 2001 5:35 pm

Is it just me, or was there an AD&D spell that did just that? I don't think it's in BG

Yoshua · Post by **Yoshua** » Tue May 08, 2001 2:56 pm

AD&D never appealed to me much as a PnP RPG. It's simplistic and rigid. However while I find those to be faults with a PnP game, for a computer game those are advantages (computers are good number crunchers, but lack the imagination needed to drive an open ended system).
The reason there seem to be so many overlapping spells is pretty simple. One is just variety. But more importantly it's so specialist mages aren't denied certain types of spells. Can't use magic missile ? (enchanters) then learn chill touch or burning hands. And if you think BG 1/2 has alot of spells, then let me tell you, it's only a small subset of the number of actual spells available in the PnP game.
I don't know what type of teleportation you mean. Outside of one quest I know of, there's no spell to move between major areas. But you can teleport around on screen with the dimension door spell (which I understand isn't available in BG2).
My pet peeve with AD&D (as it's implemented into the BG series) at the moment has to do with progression of melee skills. A fighter levelling up gets better offensively, but his defense is soley dictated by the equipment he is wearing. I know monks and kensai get better AC as they level up, but that is because they cannot wear armor. It's actually more of a disadvantage than an advantage (a level 1 warrior could wear plate mail +3 and get a substantial boost to AC, monks and kensai are stuck having to gain levels). But back to my point, I've felt that it's one thing that got overlooked when making the various classes. I don't know how they handle it in 3rd edition rules though, my experience has been 1st and 2nd edition AD&D.

Yoshua

Bigmaceater · Post by **Bigmaceater** » Wed May 09, 2001 11:11 am

Save game, save game, then save it some more.
Then come back and try different methods
to move forward. Save game save game
save game. Save game.

velvetfreak · Post by **velvetfreak** » Thu May 10, 2001 12:29 am

Hello from another Daggerfall die-hard. I didn't get into BG until after ToSC was released, but finally gave in after getting over Redguard, mixed reviews for Battlespire, and no release date for Morrowind in sight. I got BG to fill the void, and I must say that not only am I hooked, but I'm honestly looking forward to NWN a lot more than Morrowind (although I'll probably get both).

My disappointment in TES3 was compounded by the fact that Daggerfall's graphics were dated, even for their time (96). Redguard was definitely a step in the right direction, but I can't help but wonder if Bethesda will repeat their mistake with a game that has had essentially a 5 year development cycle.

Other than that, there was a lot to like about Daggerfall. Great plot twists, well-balanced system, immersive interface... I remember kicking out at a bush I was walking past at night on the way to the shops, and reaching for an imaginary sword... my partner was there, and never lets me forget the incident

she also remembers the squealing rats, the screeching skeletons, and the creaking dungeon doors...

Although the NPC interaction was a bit flat. I think I started to feel a bit "lonely". It's nice having a party, as you do in BG.

Abecedarian · Post by **Abecedarian** » Sun May 13, 2001 1:55 pm

Daggerfall is incomplete and has many drawbacks. I think its biggest asset is its randomness. The first-person perspective is better for an RPG. The fact that you can climb, and jump obstacles, is also very good. BG (like most RPG's) is carved in stone. If you play it once, you usually know what will happen next if you play it again. I played BG/TOSC once, and that is enough; and my currrent BG2 will also be the last time. Then, back to DF.

I am afraid that Morrowind is going to be far less random than DF, but I hope not.

velvetfreak · Post by **velvetfreak** » Mon May 14, 2001 10:59 pm

Oh that's the other thing I forgot about Daggerfall. When you mentioned 'incomplete' I suddenly remembered all the crashes you would get. Even with patch 2.13, God help you if you didn't have that installed. But even that aside, I wish I could go back to it, but I can't abide the cheesy graphics. I await NWN with bated breath...

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sun Jun 03, 2001 5:50 am

Spoilerish

With reference to the dying thing the NPC is a Bhall-spawn and when he dies he dies as Sarevok's quest is complete. He can then ascend. With reference to Imoen her powers are not awakened yet so she cannot tell or use them yet.

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Nippy ]