upsides/downsides of no-reload games
Lemernis
Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
I play two different styles using the no-reload premise:
One is strict no-reload wherein there is no reloading except for a crash or clear glitch; so when the PC dies and that's it. This is what I use for a free-wheeling meta-gaming/powergaming approach in tactical challenges; and in such games I'm mainly just seeing how far I can get before the PC invariably dies to something or other. I do really enjoy the tension to this style of play. But the obvious downside is having to start over a lot. There's so many ways to die (even without SCS and/or other tactical mods installed).
The other approach I use is so-called 'minimal' reload, which I adopt for my roleplay-intensive journaled games such as the "Let the Fates Decide" game I have going. For this type of game I have made way too much of an investment in journaling and story development to start over if the PC gets killed. But having to live with all the other outcomes definitely increases the tension. For these games I don't meta-game or powergame at all.
So anyway, I have recently been playing strict no-reload using the Candlekeep characters I dreamed up for MP mode. And I'm finding it sort of interesting to note that on the one hand, while I do love the tension of strict no-reload (even including the fun factor of frequently rolling up a new PC party; I use a randomization method for it), on the other hand there is something a bit disconcerting about the dynamics of strict no-reload.
Thus... and this is the main observation I'm throwing out for discussion...
In order to not have to start over incessantly with a strict no-reload approach, you have resort to some pretty extraordinary safety measures to minimize the risks to the PC. "Protect the quarterback" is rule number one to longevity in strict no-reload. And I just can't enjoy playing that way! At least when the PC is a meleer.
The tactical powergaming approach really needs the tension of the strict no reload rule--at least for my taste. Playing games like that as minimal reload wouldn't give enough tension for me.
What are your thoughts about this? Do you share the sentiment? Have you found a way to reconcile this?
I should probably reemphasize that I'm kind of hooked on using randomization for determining PC and party for tactical challenges, so I never quite know what I'll be running with in terms of class skills for the party.
Any other observation you all have regarding upsides and downsides (as you see them) to no-reload approaches?
One is strict no-reload wherein there is no reloading except for a crash or clear glitch; so when the PC dies and that's it. This is what I use for a free-wheeling meta-gaming/powergaming approach in tactical challenges; and in such games I'm mainly just seeing how far I can get before the PC invariably dies to something or other. I do really enjoy the tension to this style of play. But the obvious downside is having to start over a lot. There's so many ways to die (even without SCS and/or other tactical mods installed).
The other approach I use is so-called 'minimal' reload, which I adopt for my roleplay-intensive journaled games such as the "Let the Fates Decide" game I have going. For this type of game I have made way too much of an investment in journaling and story development to start over if the PC gets killed. But having to live with all the other outcomes definitely increases the tension. For these games I don't meta-game or powergame at all.
So anyway, I have recently been playing strict no-reload using the Candlekeep characters I dreamed up for MP mode. And I'm finding it sort of interesting to note that on the one hand, while I do love the tension of strict no-reload (even including the fun factor of frequently rolling up a new PC party; I use a randomization method for it), on the other hand there is something a bit disconcerting about the dynamics of strict no-reload.
Thus... and this is the main observation I'm throwing out for discussion...
In order to not have to start over incessantly with a strict no-reload approach, you have resort to some pretty extraordinary safety measures to minimize the risks to the PC. "Protect the quarterback" is rule number one to longevity in strict no-reload. And I just can't enjoy playing that way! At least when the PC is a meleer.
The tactical powergaming approach really needs the tension of the strict no reload rule--at least for my taste. Playing games like that as minimal reload wouldn't give enough tension for me.
What are your thoughts about this? Do you share the sentiment? Have you found a way to reconcile this?
I should probably reemphasize that I'm kind of hooked on using randomization for determining PC and party for tactical challenges, so I never quite know what I'll be running with in terms of class skills for the party.
Any other observation you all have regarding upsides and downsides (as you see them) to no-reload approaches?
4
Comments
The satisfaction was immense.
I have yet to beat BG2 (and now BG2EE) no-reload even once. (Currently, my F/M is going strong, playing very cautiously, made level 10/11, soon to approach Byrnlaw & Irenicus.)
The thrill & satisfaction for a no-reload run is really incomparable to anything else.
Just wondered what others' experiences and thoughts are about that.
Basically, if you want to play a Cleric, Druid, Mage, or Thief, just get 7 or 9 levels of Berserker first. It's well worth it.
Playing no reload is cool but losing a beloved pc to an unlucky saving throw and such sucks. And if I feel like I will have more fun by reloading and trying again I do. If I was kinda bored with the pc and the party at the moment I go 'good riddance' and start anew.
Minimal reload is not tension-free, permanently losing an npc is very easy in bg2. All those disintegrate, flesh to stone spells flying around and with the massive damage output from some enemies, (especially dragons) make it all very possible for an npc to die permanently. And when it happens it is very tragic, especially if you are romancing/doing the npc's quest. But it also forces you to take a new npc instead (perhaps some one who never tried before!) and roll with it so it enhances game play somewhat too.
Now I almost always play a no-reload game. I've beaten the game (without ToB) several times in the past playing with reloads, I know deeply about many things the game throws at me and I want to test my ability to overcome them. I like the feeling that I can't repeat anything. That I have to live with all the consequences. That there's no way back.
It's just an unmatched feeling when you defeat SCS Sarevok with a solo druid using the only chance you've had. When you defeat him not thanks to luck or random events but thanks to solid vast planning when you bought and recharged wands, bought darts of different kind and chose the particular spells and the order of using them.
To me, playing a no-reload BG game is like playing chess.
The downside is, of course, a bitter and a sad feeling when you lose your beloved character, especially after you - and this character - complited difficult tasks and defeated dangerous enemies. I know how it feels when you lose a character who has beaten BG1 to a pack of usual bandits in BG2... Just one look at @Blackraven 's journals is enough to understand that it's hard to lose a character in a no-reload game, it's hard to accept it. But you do, you accept it and go on. With another character, another story and another hope for ultimate success.
If you dont know when to rage etc then it can be frustrating. The game isnt the best noreload game because of this but once you get the hang of it its easy. But if learning isnt fun, then dont do it. This is for entertainment
Upsides:
-no more restarting manias
-fun way to play
-game turns out to be much more strategic
Downsides:
-it's frustrating to get your character killed
The caster is able to rewind recent events in order to try again and attempt a more favorable outcome. Due to the extreme strain associated with the casting of this spell, the caster suffers a permanent CON penalty of A points. If the caster has no more than 3 CON, the spell may not be cast.
A = 1, 2, 3, ... depending on the level of challenge you want This incorporates multiple points:
- a tangible penalty for failing and having to reload
- limited reloads due to ability drain
- melee characters will probably have a couple more attempts than non-melees due to higher CON
Sounds like it could work.
However, I have often imagined reloading as a divination spell, which is a bit easier to justify storywise for low level mages or clerics, but can turn into a corny "only dreamed the last season of Dallas" sort of thing if one isn't careful.
Basically, I imagine that my diviner character is sent visions, dreams, or premonitions either by casting for them, or from a god, warning of an impending disaster, or that an enemy is planning a nasty surprise. Or, one can see it as magically running simulations before an expected battle, where the "reload" is actually an "end simulation" on the magical vision.
It sort of works, but it's corny as heck. You'd lose an audience pretty fast if you did that sort of thing too much in a story. The closest I've seen to having it work well is in the case of the character Phoebe from "Charmed".
****************************************
As far as my take on no-reload games, I like to see how far I can get without having to do it, but I'm not about to let some arbitrary self-imposed rule or rules about reloading ruin my fun. If I'm invested in my characters, I'll keep playing them until I don't want to any more.
It seems to me that you would need to specifically *not* care about your character in order for a pure no-reload to be fun. It would be like putting quarters in an arcade machine - if your toon dies, you put in another quarter and start over at the beginning, and keep doing it until you run out of quarters, you run out of time, or you're ready to quit. You care about how far you get and what levels you can beat, but you don't care about your avatar or any stories associated with it.
There's an appeal to that kind of arcade or Nintendo playstyle, when one is in the mood for it, but games that are designed to be played that way don't require so much time investment on your part to move through all the levels. In BG, by the time you make it to the end, you have likely invested an enormous amount of time. Too much time to restrict reloading when needed, for me.
Why waste time creating a backstory and a personality, and investing yourself creatively in a character, if you are planning to abandon that character as soon as you "run out of lives"?
Cleric is strong in early/mid BG1, but struggles later game unless liberally using stinky cheese, and I doubt they'll beat Karoug solo.
Which brings up another aspect I like, having a character that doesnt do every quest/find every gold piece. Its a nifty change of pace if you're a completionist.
Where's the risk?
You don't have to be masochistic with your reloads, and you don't need to restart at all... You could simply donate alot of money to the temple each time you use powerword:reload. Donate 2000gp to the temple each time you're forced to reload, or donate all your gold if you're feeling generous. Atleast now you get punished for reloading(losing)
You can also use the console to remove gold if there's no temple nearby.
Playing evil and don't want high rep? Each time Charname dies you must kill and remove a party member(hello Garrick). Think of it as stealing their life essence.
I like the idea of losing gold each time, because I don't understand why you can't resurrect the main character.
That said play any way that makes the game entertaining for you.
I have owned BG:EE for nearly two years and have yet to touch the BG2EE part. I would like to actually see the new content sometime.
Also, some classes like bards or monks have very little means to attack or defend at mages at low levels. A level 1 bard can easily fall to SCS tarnish because he simply can't hide or cast spells yet, thus requiring metagaming to actually beat the encounter (i like a roleplaying run through).
Thus, im now playing minimal reloads, journalling my reloads as i go.
A pretty good example of what I'm on about for the trade-off between extra-cautiousness and the tension of strict no-reload occurred today, actually. I'm running a custom party of six that is designed to increase the challenge by through modest ability scores, offbeat classes/weapons profs, and randomization to determine the PC and party. The party was returning from the Nashkel mines after completing the quest there. I knew Nimbul was waiting for me outside the Nashkel inn. And I have a Bounty Hunter in the party that I knew could probably nearly take him out with his special snare plus a regular trap. But he needed to rest to do that. So because it is no-reload what did I do? I had the party sleep on the outskirts of the Nashkel Fair grounds. And went back and I laid the snares for him, and they worked. But it was because of the risk-avoidance inherent in strict no-relaod that I did what was cheesy and metagamey in that case.
I mean, that is just one player's approach. I'm only speaking for myself. And I still prefer the tension of strict no-reload to minimal reload for this type of challenge. But anyway, I have to accept that either I'm going to start over a lot from PC deaths relatively early on, or I'm going to resort to a lot of cheese to make it very far. Not complaining, really, just making the observation as it relates to how I play.
To me, finally figuring out how to beat a tough battle with a terribly unoptimized party after failing at it 50 times is what gives me satisfaction. I'd never want to do a no-reload playthrough of any game as luck-based as Bg is.
Playing through an entire chapter again because you died near the end should give you a lot of tension as you work towards that point again.
Best choice is to pick a character with good saving throws. Have one kind of immunity. Once your saving throws are high it should be safe to go into melee.