Active Users:546 Time:27/12/2024 12:49:43 PM
My point is no one should be at any level. Joel Send a noteboard - 25/09/2012 01:23:21 AM
It is completely irrational to say one is so experienced and capable virtually NO amount of low level opponents presents a challenge. If Richard the Lionheart or Napoleon went out to fight ten peasants conscripted last week, what do you think would happen? In AD&D the famous generals would slaughter their ten opponents in short order, then be mad because they got practically no loot or experience. In the real world two regional powers would need new heads of state.

So your point is that fighters should be perpetually stuck at first level, only Wizards should grow in power? Isn't that stupidly imbalanced?

No, I am pretty sure neither Napoleon nor Richard would translate into first level AD&D characters. They would translate into characters well over tenth level, so if some lieutenant rode up and rammed a lance through their backs they would just pull it out and beat him to death with it. That should be impossible for ANY character.

Anyway, since 'level' is a completely metagame and arbitrary term, there is no reason to fight grossly underleveled opponents unless the intended result is to show that they pose no challenge. So yes, if your desire is to provide terrible encounters, then D&D will allow you to fulfill your wishes. But it is not a flaw in the system that it allows you to accomplish your desired goal.

There are far better ways to avoid that than making advanced characters so tough they can survive anything short of having a house dropped on them. I mean, really, even with average hit dice rolls and no Con bonus a 10th level fighter has about 55 HP. That means if a 20th level fighter comes up and hits him 10 times with a sword, the 10th level character will probably still be standing: There is simply no way to kill an alert high level character quickly short of some kind of Deathspell.

It is kind of like that scene in Pulp Fiction where a minor character runs in and unloads a revolver at Travolta and Jackson while they just look at him unblinking. Remember that scene? The one so implausibly unrealistic Samuel L. Jackons character concluded it was DIVINE INTERVENTION?! Because if someone comes into a room and fires half a dozen rounds at you from 10', you are dead, even if you are the protagonist. Except in comic books and AD&D.

A good example is your frustration at lacking magical weapons during the first Athkatla vampire fight and not wanting summon Cowled Wizards by using magic. After min/maxing another party through TotSC last year then revisiting SoA, my first thought when reading that was "just kill them, too." Irenicus did, and after replicating all the tomes and loading up with all the best gear, even half a party at 10th level was sufficient for me to do the same when I decided to see if I could—I did not even need a spellcaster. The only reason NOT to was that I did not want my Reputation trashed the next time I went to a shop. In terms of challenge... there ARE no combat challenges for that party, probably why I never bothered to finish the game again. It is not like push button dialogue allows much roleplaying.

I could download Gatekeeper and build a character that deals thousands of damage every hit and has impregnable armor class and saving throws and magic resistance, and that would also make the game pretty easy. Cheating makes things easier, I'm not sure what this is supposed to be a good example of.

It just makes things faster; anyone with the knowledge and desire to min/max and rules lawyer (which AD&D pratically encourages, IMHO,) will get there sooner or later, even if occasional bad rolls and/or decisions force them to through a couple characters first. How many people do you know who have "retired" how many characters simply because it was no longer any fun to play them?

I did not use the export trick or anything else my first time through the BG series, but by the time I reached ToB it was pathetically easy. Ironically, the most challenging part of that game was the start, before the game had handed out artifact-level magic items like candy. Even that was not too difficult, but the most time consuming part of the end was dispelling the Prot from Magic Weapons on the snake-demons (forget what they are called.) By "time consuming" I mean "it took maybe 30 seconds to cast the spell THEN shred them, rather than the 10 I spent on Melissan." And that was when I thought I had to be behind people to Assassinate them, and did not think I could do it to bosses at all.

Honestly, from your description, I think you should give GURPS a shot, though I suggest playing rather than running it for a while if possible, because it takes some time and experience to digest all the combinations of rules. However, it has a darned good and fairly simple core, and mostly eliminates the need to fiat most fluff (the simple core makes it fairly easy to improvise with the few exceptions.) Ultimately it comes down to where you want to invest the work, either in learning a complex systems rules for multitudinous contingencies, or devising your own as needed.

The biggest appeal of GURPS for me, apart from realism, is the freedom to use any gameworld without needing a new set of rules. Obviously some stuff is world specific (e.g. channeling in TWoT,) but there are worldbooks for that, which mostly consist of "use this rule to cover this, optionally modified with this tweak to better replicate the specific world." Just googling around for this discussion turned up GURPS versions of:

A Greyhawk campaign, complete with demi-human races,
Generic versions of Frealms demi-humans and
MERP/ICE races for use in a TLotR campaign.

The one I would most like to try is a Prisoner campaign, but I do not know anyone here who uses GURPS, and my Prisoner worldbook is on the wrong side of the ocean. ;) I always enjoyed the series though, and the prospect of a campaign where combat is rare, and invariably supplemental to the in depth mental conflicts and challenges, is very appealing

Your descriptions of GURPS thus far have not made it sound very attractive to me :P. Especially that there is no chance of me bringing up a new system to my group unless I am willing to GM it.

*shrugs* I guess it depends on whether you have any other GMs handy and willing to learn a system that is fairly complex for GMs. Perhaps the biggest trick to GURPS is realizing that, although most systems invoke the "all rules are optional" disclaimer, GURPS really means it: Using every applicable rule each time it is appropriate bogs the game down quickly unless you are VERY familiar with them; often it is easier to just roll a quick Contest of Skills and move on with your life. The combat system is a classic example of that:

1) If you use Basic Combat it is truly basic, little more than moving over to your target and making an attack roll.

2) If you use Advanced Combat you have a lot more versatility in actions and manuevers, but flexibilty and complexity are always proportional.

For players, GURPS is pretty easy, but that is because they do not NEED to know any rules beyond character creation and how their particular dis/ads work. Same reason I never played mages in P&P AD&D: I did not want to have to juggle spell lists and memorization. Ironically, I LOVED playing mages in GURPS, because I built my grimoire from the ground up and virtually all my spells had practical use (plus I did not have to keep track of what I had and had not memorized that day.)

Of course, the downside is that any character who takes obscene amounts of damage will die, however experienced s/he is. And Resurrection is a Mental VH spell with a crapton of prerequisites and a 300 Fatigue casting cost (it is pretty much impossible to cast without a large circle of high level mages, which can link to split the Fatigue cost.)

Like I say, the freedom to say, "rocks fall..." alters the paradigm a bit, but hopefully it seldom comes to that in your campaigns. Beyond a certain point though... once THAC0 reaches 0 and the fighters are pulling 3/1, what do you do to keep it challenging? Throw in spells without saves, off the scale AC/THAC0, level drains behind every corner? Theoretically you can keep it challenging as long as you keep increasing the difficulty, sure, but if the characters keep getting more powerful after a while they are fighting nothing but gods and tarrasques. The core problem, the one that wrecks verisimilitude (and thus fun,) is that they can and will go cuisinart on anything less, and that never goes away, only gets worse.

Well, I never played high-level 2nd Edition, back then we were all quite young and every game we had some new character we wanted to try out so we kept restarting new games at 1st level all the time. Not surprisingly, I'm the only person who went through that era still willing to play Wizards.

In 3rd of 4th Edition, if you want to keep to the same scale, you can do that too, just give your kobolds and goblins warrior and adept levels, maybe a few fighters, rangers and rogues too. A sorcerer priest. A Dragon god that watches over their tribe. Have them inhabit the ruins of an advanced civilisation with all sorts of deadly traps and constructs or bound extraplanar guardians. Or you can move up the scale so that they're now travelling the multiverse and fighting in the Nine Hells and what not. Usually, changing the setting so the players both feel more powerful but aren't overpowering is the best bet. Once they get too powerful for the militia in that tiny village they started out in, there's really no reason to stay. The threats are inconsequential, the rewards are trivial, it's time to move on. So then they can get to a great city where they can earn greater fame and fortune, but also contains trained soldiers, royal knights, orders of priests and paladins, cadres of wizards, etc. Players want to be challenged, so they'll naturally migrate to places that are more challenging, there really very little you need to do to help them.

Scaling is less an issue (up to a point...) than practical invulnerability to anything and everything NOT scaled. Same reason none of my BG fighters ever took that High Level Ability that autokills anything <12th level: By the time they were high enough to get HLAs, they autokilled everything <12th level unaided. In the real world, Patton could beat Rommel in North Africa, conquer Sicily and lead the Allies to victory at the Battle of the Bulge only to snap his neck falling off the seat in a minor car accident and be killed weeks after the war ended. Again, impossible in AD&D, because epic level characters are invulnerable to anything but other epic level characters.

*nods* That is much of the boon and bane of BG for AD&D 2nd ed. vets: You already know many of the tricks the game relies on ignorance of to provide challenges. I am not really sure why the fight on the way into the Cloakwood mines gave me trouble, because it should not REQUIRE poison arrows for the mages (though they do make it far easier.) Maybe I was just not high enough yet to hit the mages regularly, because on my first run I was focused on finishing the game ASAP rather than exploring every nook and cranny (which tends to boost XP.) Those explosive arrows though... I have been known to have the whole party fire them at things that REALLY made me mad. :P

I generally open with fireballs. Until Shadows of Amn, Wizards don't have Spheres of Invulnerability all the time, and with their laughable hit points, they're generally gone from the beginning of combat :P.

Yeah, I WOULD do that, except my parties are always so heavily stealth oriented fireballs have limited use. Even when I just sneak in a F/T and a straight class Thief it is bad enough, and by the time I get to SoA (or Tutu) I have a Stalker into the bargain, so I have to choose between three backstabs or nuking half my party along with the bad guys. I cannot do both, because Hide in Shadows/Move Silently rolls automatically fail in the presence of an enemy, so unless I can drop the fireball then race into position to backstab a moving target before exposure I must forego the fireball.

The effect is much the same: The mages die in the opening rounds, while the mainline fighters are either killed along with them or critically injured. The main difference is that a specced archer can put so many poison arrows into a mage that he WILL fail his save, and after that I really do not care how long it takes him to die, because he cannot cast.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Baldurs Gate Enhanced Edition: Edit 2 with added video & launch delay - 07/09/2012 09:48:16 PM 2714 Views
!!!!! - 07/09/2012 10:49:47 PM 1356 Views
are they created kindly or cruelly? - 08/09/2012 05:34:36 PM 1315 Views
Lol! Realistically, if exaggerated to heroic levels. - 09/09/2012 07:56:32 PM 1335 Views
I played the hell out of BG2, but only played BG1 once - 08/09/2012 06:07:15 AM 1458 Views
BGI is a lot more fun because a lot more challenging, IMHO. - 08/09/2012 02:33:17 PM 1329 Views
*revelation* - 08/09/2012 05:45:28 PM 1286 Views
fireballs are so epic in BG1 - 08/09/2012 05:41:34 PM 1327 Views
I disagree about it being the only good third level spell;lighting bolt and haste are also excellent - 08/09/2012 06:26:08 PM 1435 Views
Yeah, I loved Lightning Bolt. - 08/09/2012 06:44:59 PM 1260 Views
it was such a liability - 08/09/2012 07:11:36 PM 1312 Views
Bouncing is what makes lightning bolts great, because you get to hit people more than once. - 08/09/2012 08:59:10 PM 1248 Views
There's an unfortunate Wizard in the Firewine Bridge Ruins... - 09/09/2012 12:58:18 AM 1345 Views
Oops. - 09/09/2012 01:43:23 AM 1341 Views
that's why BG1 was so awesome. exploration=rewards - 09/09/2012 09:09:22 AM 1309 Views
Yeah, got to keep one of each on hand. - 08/09/2012 08:57:31 PM 1218 Views
Multi-player was actually pretty simple if you just used it to create your whole party. - 08/09/2012 02:19:35 PM 1304 Views
well yeah, because there was no connection to figure out - 08/09/2012 06:59:49 PM 1412 Views
Right; I was never a big multiplayer fan anyway, but customized parties were nice - 08/09/2012 08:53:45 PM 1419 Views
Where's the fun in having a customized party and losing all the character interaction, though? - 09/09/2012 04:03:10 PM 1399 Views
I dislike most of the BG NPCs anyway, so I do not much feel the lack. - 09/09/2012 04:45:12 PM 1504 Views
Re: I dislike most of the BG NPCs anyway, so I do not much feel the lack. - 10/09/2012 01:23:44 PM 1345 Views
Agreed. - 11/09/2012 07:01:07 PM 1376 Views
Suggestion since you're not using the NPCs anyway... - 15/09/2012 11:34:28 PM 1413 Views
That is a good thought; I never played IWD. - 16/09/2012 03:31:01 AM 1306 Views
Where did you think I just got it? - 16/09/2012 04:39:43 PM 1254 Views
How would I know you just got a game released in the late nineties? - 17/09/2012 06:57:19 PM 1248 Views
Re: How would I know you just got a game released in the late nineties? - 17/09/2012 11:08:09 PM 1425 Views
I still like GURPS' character points best. - 17/09/2012 11:40:12 PM 1297 Views
Heh, I'm not surprised. - 18/09/2012 01:47:55 AM 1291 Views
If you want to avoid hyperspecialization, avoid classes. - 18/09/2012 07:36:43 AM 1510 Views
I've never played GURPS, so I don't know how its system works. - 18/09/2012 03:32:21 PM 1383 Views
I recommend it, but it is a bear to run. - 19/09/2012 03:37:19 AM 1734 Views
Re: I recommend it, but it is a bear to run. - 19/09/2012 08:35:24 AM 1342 Views
It is the difference between "what if...?" and "whatever...." - 19/09/2012 10:58:31 PM 1387 Views
Re: It is the difference between "what if...?" and "whatever...." - 20/09/2012 12:31:10 AM 1308 Views
AD&D cannot avoid one-sided encounters without restricting epic characters to epic encounters. - 24/09/2012 05:53:39 AM 1613 Views
Re: AD&D cannot avoid one-sided encounters without restricting epic characters to epic encounters. - 24/09/2012 07:03:39 AM 1296 Views
Things are a little different if you are the GM, yes. - 24/09/2012 08:33:23 AM 1543 Views
Re: Things are a little different if you are the GM, yes. - 24/09/2012 07:24:51 PM 1426 Views
My point is no one should be at any level. - 25/09/2012 01:23:21 AM 1535 Views
Re: My point is no one should be at any level. - 25/09/2012 03:41:42 AM 1549 Views
I know no more about AD&D 3rd Ed. than I retain from skimming the book a few times in a store. - 25/09/2012 05:16:49 AM 1345 Views
Re: I know no more about AD&D 3rd Ed. than I retain from skimming the book a few times in a store. - 25/09/2012 06:05:39 PM 1462 Views
Re: [Insert relevant subject line here.] - 26/09/2012 08:12:05 AM 1484 Views
Re: [Insert relevant subject line here.] - 26/09/2012 05:48:34 PM 1342 Views
Re: [Insert relevant subject line here.] - 27/09/2012 10:26:16 AM 1960 Views
Re: [Insert relevant subject line here.] - 27/09/2012 05:23:13 PM 1278 Views
I can't speak for IWD I, but II is okay on the story front so far. - 18/09/2012 06:36:16 PM 1250 Views
Nah, IWD I barely had any story at all. - 18/09/2012 08:16:49 PM 1176 Views
agreed - 19/09/2012 09:42:28 AM 1466 Views
I've still only played about 4 hours of BG1 - 08/09/2012 03:59:49 PM 1350 Views
If you have not yet, you should look into the Weidu mods. - 08/09/2012 06:12:20 PM 1237 Views
But what's the point in playing the game if you don't use the NPCs? - 08/09/2012 06:47:38 PM 1255 Views
agreed the NPCs are half the fun - 08/09/2012 07:02:22 PM 1285 Views
Not having a bunch of potentially useful but AI ruined incompetents constantly fumbling. - 08/09/2012 08:55:53 PM 1380 Views
Yeah, but optimising the whole group sounds ridiculously easy. - 09/09/2012 01:03:51 AM 1243 Views
Well, there are always mods for that. - 09/09/2012 01:37:42 AM 1196 Views
For talking to pretty much anyone, really. - 09/09/2012 03:20:29 AM 1300 Views
True. - 09/09/2012 03:46:24 AM 1303 Views
Well, I usually don't have thieves in my party. - 09/09/2012 04:56:21 AM 1250 Views
there wasn't a good enough thief option in bg2/ToB - 09/09/2012 09:15:21 AM 1187 Views
I noticed that also; another argument for creating a party via MP even if you move it back to SP. - 09/09/2012 11:45:12 PM 1302 Views
storyline man! - 10/09/2012 01:43:51 PM 1260 Views
I make my OWN storyline. - 10/09/2012 06:35:43 PM 1333 Views
Just how many thieves do you even need? - 10/09/2012 06:22:58 PM 1286 Views
The stealth skills come in very handy though. - 09/09/2012 04:11:40 PM 1279 Views
Any suggested parties for beginners? *NM* - 10/09/2012 01:13:38 AM 704 Views
I plan to do custom characters for the other 6 slots - 10/09/2012 01:42:41 AM 1237 Views
There are no "other" six slots - there are six slots, period. - 10/09/2012 06:24:33 PM 1232 Views
well, absolute standard would be: - 10/09/2012 01:35:15 PM 1327 Views
My own recommendation would be: - 10/09/2012 07:36:04 PM 1262 Views
I am completely stoked about it. - 10/09/2012 07:07:09 PM 1326 Views
TotSC made BGI a LOT more fun. - 10/09/2012 07:46:03 PM 1207 Views
all the kits/races/dual wielding etc will be available in bgee - 11/09/2012 09:02:35 AM 1231 Views
Ah; nice. - 11/09/2012 06:57:14 PM 1356 Views
i'm not sure they were even state of the art at the time - 12/09/2012 09:26:05 AM 1245 Views
Remember, BGI was released only about two years after Doom. - 13/09/2012 12:05:11 AM 1307 Views
If by "two" you mean "five," then yes. DOOM was released in 1993. - 13/09/2012 03:22:58 PM 1274 Views
Ah, 1998. The golden year. Ocarina of Time. Starcraft. Half-Life. *NM* - 13/09/2012 04:16:21 PM 720 Views
Can't believe I forgot about HALF-LIFE. *NM* - 13/09/2012 09:06:55 PM 714 Views
That just reminds me of how sad it is that StarCraft died this year . *NM* - 13/09/2012 11:55:28 PM 699 Views
I don't mind the graphics in it - 12/09/2012 04:38:47 PM 1305 Views
Re: I don't mind the graphics in it - 13/09/2012 01:55:24 AM 1218 Views
I'm going to ask this here rather than start a new topic as its somewhat related. - 10/09/2012 07:42:32 PM 1264 Views
I remember Wisdom being important - 14/09/2012 04:28:23 AM 1184 Views
And it now has been delayed till Nov *NM* - 15/09/2012 03:52:41 AM 696 Views
On another note, shame on all of you for not telling me Jon Irenicus is Ra's Al Ghul - 15/09/2012 04:19:21 AM 1291 Views
Among many many others. - 17/09/2012 06:45:33 PM 1260 Views

Reply to Message