Is PnP accuracy important?
Jarrakul
Member Posts: 2,029
I know what some of you think about this, but I'm wondering which way the board as a whole is leaning. Is it important for Baldur's Gate to be accurate to 2nd Edition Pen and Paper D&D? Obviously right now the game isn't PnP accurate in a number of ways, and at least some of those ways are bad. I'd like you to Ignore that, if you can. I'm not asking whether you think the current implementation is perfect. I'm asking whether you think the best way to improve the game and fix its current problems is by implementing PnP rules in as strict a fashion as possible.
Now let's see what people think.
Now let's see what people think.
- Is PnP accuracy important?139 votes
- Yes. 2nd Edition D&D rules are perfect for Baldur's Gate and should be followed wherever possible.12.95%
- Somewhat. PnP accuracy is a high priority, but 2nd Edition D&D is not perfect and certain changes must be made.49.64%
- No. Accuracy to 2nd Edition D&D is of little or no importance to the quality of Baldur's Gate.30.22%
- Abstain. I have no dog in this fight, just show me the results.7.19%
0
Comments
Original rules should be used as a good guideline however.
I am not a purist. Just saying that so long as the spirit is observed and the rules set isn't altered, '
good enough' is good enough for me.
That is all.
SCARY_WIZARD, Christmas is ruined because of your incessant "durr multi-class options!" nonsense.
If that is achieved by strictly following the PnP rules or not doesn't matter.
It becomes very clear to me that PnP accuracy is OF THE UTMOST, UTMOST IMPORTANCE!
Could you imagine the carnage if there were no PnP accuracy? We'd have fighting space hamsters, Xzarts controlling Bear minions and lucky rabbit feet that actually are LUCKY! No... We need PnP accuracy to enable my corpse to sleep still at night...
Gnomes are entitled to it after the Hasburg ruling on Gnome rights, that, beings of diminutive stature, being entitled to equal opportunity in the work place. That all workplaces must provide a padded cushion. That giving a fishing rod to a Gnome is seen as offensive, unless they are going to fish. That the enforcement of the wearing of red hats to show Gnomehood is abolished (although Gnomes who wish to show membership to a communist party are still allowed to wear one) and most importantly Gnomes who have there cheeks pinched or forced to moon (the revealing of buttocks) are to be protected against sexual predetation to the full extent of the law... Sad pictures like these must be left in the sordid past...
These rules are fully kept by BG. Long may its blessed liberalism and peacful cohabitation of all creatures large and diminutive in a non insulting way, continue
- One of them would be the accurate utilization of the specialist mages. Not as kits, but as a selectable mage ability which could be implemented in a similar fashion to the ranger's racial enemy ability. That way, the arcane schools wouldn't waste the valuable wizard kit slots.
- Another element of PnP I'd love to see is the implementation of the druidic branches (arctic druids, forest druids, gray druids, mountain druids, ect.). No doubtly the ability to choose a branch would make druid characters so much more interesting to play. Gotta love the ooze controlling ability of the gray druid!
- The introduction of the whole divine sphere system wouldn't hurt either. But luckily this was already covered by the Divine Remix and Faiths of Faerûn Kitpack mods.
Just my opinion, of course. I'm not really trying to prove anything so much as see what people think. But that doesn't mean I'm not opinionated. :P
The vancian magic system, and inconsistent terminology with regard to describing + or - as good or bad are still issues even in it's current implementation. And you'd still have to read spell descriptions and understand the basic terminology, which are current issues with new players anyway.
And if the game were implemented as close to PnP as the infinity engine possibly allows, the overall experience actually wouldn't change that much.
Spell-casters would be the most affected, due to having their License to Game-break-without-restriction revoked, but non-casters wouldn't see any real change from now.
Only people who had played the original would notice the changes, and even then, it would still be fairly minor, since all PnP would do is remove a lot of the overkill currently inherent to several classes, or remove the clear superiority (or gross inferiority, (*cough*ws*cough*)) of certain kits over others in the same class, as well as allowing the vanilla version of each class to remain relevant and useful outside of dual/MCs.
The game would also remain challenging for much longer without mods, since there wouldn't be any easy outs as there are now.
Now, that said I actually wouldn't mind some of BG's conveniences remain, but limit them to lower difficulties (changing it so difficulty is selected on game start and can't be changed), with higher difficulties bringing the mechanics closer to PnP. (Easy (basically being the current normal, can move stat-points around during creation, making some spells work differently (raise dead not lowering the target's Con by 1, NPP lasting it's full duration instead of for 1 charge), Normal (Core with all possible PnP rules as close as possible (rolls all stats at once and can't move points around)), Hardcore (Same as Core, but doesn't allow reloading. Only allows Save on exit, and the file is deleted after being resumed)).
It's more limited, more linear, and infinitely quicker, even using similar rulesets. I would say that improving the gameplay experience through more dialogue options, multiple ways to complete quests and ease-of-use & UI improvement is more important than PnP accuracy.
This is not to say that D&D rules are necessarily bad, but they were specifically designed for a tabletop experience and many of these mechanics for a computer game as-implemented are either awkward (e.g. 6-second rule), unsuitable for the game (e.g. random dice rolls only feel good when you roll dice), or are sometimes just bad (e.g. save/die abilities).
On the whole, within the limits of what was achievable in the 1990s, I think original BG did a fairly good job of implementing AD&D - it's not quite the same thing (and it shouldn't be quite the same thing), but it seems to me to have captured the right flavour. Those historical choices define what BG is, so I wouldn't now want the game arbitrarily changed merely to make it more AD&D-compliant - the devs should only make such changes where there's a gameplay-enhancement being introduced, and that's when I'd want the devs to favour AD&D-compliance.
The problem is, BG's interpretation of the rules is just plain bad. They utterly destroyed druid and bards with no compensation, giving mages and fighters all the cards with no penalties and a bunch of extra buffs due to monty haul or grossly overpower items/abilities/spells, eliminating any need for anything else.
Even a hardcore PnP supporter like myself will admit, some things just won't work, but there is absolutely no reason, none, that the mechanics that CAN be implemented properly not be so.
And a lot of stuff that beyond the basics that doesn't seem implementable by raw, can be done via scripting, without having to change the interface extensively, though might require tweaking of a few abilities.
PnP Kensai
Benefits -
-2 AC
+1 hit/damage/speed per 3 levels with chosen weapon type. Melee weapons in ranged mode are not affected. (Affect entries for weapon type effected are blank, their values are set later when the character picks his weapon type)
Kai once per day per level. Your next attack strikes for maximum damage. Ability has no effect unless their chosen weapon is actively equipped.
16+: Mortal Strike once per day. On next attack, if the target has fewer HD then the Kensai, it is instantly slain, no save. Some creatures types or targets with more then 200 hp are immune to this effect. Requires chosen weapon actively equipped or the ability fails.
(Must buy proficiency in at least 1 weapon type at creation)
Penalties -
Cannot wear body armor, shields or helms.
Cannot used ranged weapons without a melee component.
Cannot go beyond proficiency in weapons (styles unaffected), and has 1 less proficiency point at creation.
(unlike the current Kensai, gauntlets and even bracers of armor are allowed)
When starting a new game, if the character doesn't already have the chosen weapon affect (as opposed to just a flag, so it persists between imports), he is given a choice of all weapons he currently has proficiency in. This chosen weapon is boosted to Specialization (**) and all of their class benefits only apply to attacks by this weapon type.) If the character does have chosen weapon affect, a flag is triggered to prevent the game from having to re-scan the character every round.
Randomness is hardly a bad thing when done right. It adds a lot of variety and flavour to an experience. However, when core mechanics of the game are dependent on the binary success of randomness, failing in these cases only adds to frustration. This is especially present in Baldur's Gate where a single bad roll can have a significant chunk of your party stunned (or equivalent) for an amount of time measured in minutes. What's wrong with having a more skill-based game? At least in that way the player can be certain that their failure was due to their strategy being incorrect rather than it just being bad luck.
Most people bought BG:EE for the nostalgia factor, and they want to play BG as they remember it. PnP-faithful BG would be a quite different game alltogether.