How true to D&D should BG be?
Kore
Member Posts: 245
This is something that interests me. Personally I view BG not as a D&D game, but rather a game that uses D&D rules out of convenience. Some of you however are rule police and seem ready to point out an erroneous rule in a heartbeat. I'm interested in how many sit on which side of the fence and how you all feel about it.
This isn't directed at any feature request or anything, I'm just curious.
This isn't directed at any feature request or anything, I'm just curious.
6
Comments
If a game is based on D&D rules, I expect it to follow them. Those rules are a play-tested reference to make things work alright with one another. There may still be occasional inconsistencies or potential exploits: no rules system is perfect. However, the potential for something to go wrong and/or be broken increases if you deliberately deviate from reference without balancing everything else to your houserule(s).
Also, I have an OCD for everything to adhere faithfully to a given standard. It gives me a good feeling.
Despite that, I acknowledge that there may be parts of the rules that are either difficult to implement in a video game or simply don't fit, and thus I'm flexible.
That's why Baldur's Gate is great. It does all the rubbish for you, so YOU can BE your CHARACTER in the ENVIRONMENT of the WORLD. Real life D&D takes too much writing and rolling to let your imagination go wild.
So this is what I think. Baldur's Gate is a great game in ITS OWN RIGHT, WITHOUT D&D. It merely runs on a system based of D&D rules and lore, it should not delve any furthur in than it already does.
I'm no fool when it comes to D&D, I know how it works and it really isn't for me. And it really isn't for Baldur's Gate to any significant level. When I play Baldur's Gate I don't go "I'm in the Forgotten Realms of D&D WoTC TM", I go "I'm in this incredible medieval world of hot babes with large breasts and magical tyrants and deities". I just don't relate D&D and Baldur's Gate together at all. D&D is just the operating system, Baldur's Gate is what gives it life.
I agree wholeheartedly about P&P mods being a significant improvement for Baldur's Gate. aTWEAKS, as well as every P&P component from other mods, is mandatory in my every installation.
@Ward
Even if the game adhered more strictly to D&D rules, the game engine would still be doing all the rubbish for you. It would just be more consistent (and AI would be a lot smarter, if aTWEAKS is any indication; and it is) ;-)
the most important thing for me is consistency and balance of the world in roleplaying terms. if THE GAME states that monks are chaotic and reasonably explains it (convince me what kind of character they are), fine by me. but if the game does not explain something but (indirectly) demands that i refer to some external source then i expect it will take those rules into account.
also, that does not mean i want everything to be uniform and under some kind of pattern of expected behaviour. quite the contrary, i love diversions and "special cases" as long as they are not really out of the blue or completely unexplained.
edit: and also, for better or worse, it is far easier to make demands for change in reference to existing rules as opposed to changes based on player convenience and logic. but rules are not without flaws, beyond suspicion and are not immune to personal preference of players, otherwise we wouldn't be looking at fourth (and still counting) edition of them.
That being said, I agree with what's been mentioned - that being faithful to the parts of the system that you're using is important, especially for a game that is so clearly steeped in the D&D tradition.
Honestly - if we're using THAC0 (of all things!), we ought to be using almost everything else as well, and especially so if it just has to do with making the numbers work. Int and Wis effects in particular would be very easy to implement, which means there's really no reason not to include them.
;-D
I personally dislike monk, sorcerer and barbarian in baldur's gate games cuz it is based on 3rd edition rules and not on 2nd edition rules verson of those classes... whenever they add something that is 3rd edition class the inveterate rules lawyer in me gets mad. i get little bit more hateful (I dislike the class name shadowdancer but not its abilities cuz shadowdancer is a 3rd edition class name) ...
They could fix this by changing the Shadowdancers name to SPY ( and thats a true 2nd edition kit name for Thiefs)
I also want them to be more or less sensible (for a fantasy RPG) - I liked pretty much all the IE games rulesets as well as some other games that used something different (RTK, DA:O, NWN2) altho one standard I do prefer is character levels that fall within the same range/power as D&D levels 1-mid teens - maybe late teens.
BG as a programmed game is by its very nature a static environment. Changes are difficult to make at its core, and take time to implement. To compensate, BG makes certain allowances (e.g. save games) and simplifications.
Not to mention that BG as a video game tries to appeal also to people who have never actually played PnP. "The best of both worlds" is the ideal, though there are naturally casualties on both sides to allow it to work.
If you just carbon-copied PnP onto the BG engine, I think the limitations would soon become a problem. Afaik games like NWN2 (in certain incarnations) address this by actually having proper DMs to manage the game world. It's really the only solution, given the high level of complexity and adaptability that is a nature of PnP games.
Personally, I'm fairly okay with the balance BG has struck so far. Mods offer enough customization to deal with some of the more glaring issues, but at the end of the day it's still a computer game, largely for single players. It's not meant as a PnP substitute.
By the way, is there an actual platform for online PnP? Sounds like something that would be interesting to do...
So while I always prefer 2E as a starting point, I have no problem with a pretty broad range of exceptions and house rules AS LONG AS they are fairly and consistently applied. In most cases, that means writing down rulings and changes as fast as they come up. I even prefer when the exact assortment of "official" optional rules in use are listed somewhere I can see. Years ago, changes were kept to a minimum partly because of the difficulty of keeping track of mountains of notes. But more recently (just in the last 20 years or so) that is not even an excuse. I have seen many DMs keep their own rule books, that are available for inspection by players at any time (either printed or e-book is fine). Some of these are hundreds of pages long; but this still works quite well as long as they follow the same format and layout as the published books themselves.
Actually, I love seeing the effort and creativity that goes into such carefully crafted settings and rules. As long as changes are well thought through and never "secret" it works well.
Computer games have a unique niche in AD&D. On the one hand, they can crunch numbers faster and easier than human DMs. Which theoretically allows for implementation of a lot of the rules minutia that normally gets over looked in PNP (like weapon bonuses against armor type. I've never known a human DM who used those rules... well at least not in a game that was any fun!). And I would love to see BG modified in ways to take even more advantage of this. Like all the minor modifiers associated the six character attributes, I can see no good reason for not doing this. The computer (at least a modern computer) can do this easily and efficiently, so it should.
We've seen some improvements over time, like going from the simplest possible weapon proficiency system in the original BG, to a more involved and non-standard version employed in BG2 that we use now.
But they obviously have a lot of limitations too. Scope and flexibility are issues (anyone want to guess how Aerie lost her wings? I'm betting it started with not wanting to add an actual winged character into the game!).
Over the course of BG development we've seen increasing liberties taken with those core rules. And I have mixed feelings about that. I think many new classes were added unnecessarily; like Barbarian was a KIT in 2E supplemental books (actually two kits, one for Fighters and a Barbarian Priest for well, Clerics), yet they chose to make it a class. Sorcerer was more of 3E idea that was shoe-horned into 2E, I don't actually see the point, unless you get rid of Mage. And generally speaking, I think all of the more recent kits are too involved and not in keeping with the original spirit of such things.
But it is all optional material; that is, I don't HAVE to play a Wyvern-kin Unholy Lightning Eyed Trappist Monk if I don't want to. So really, no harm, no foul.
But I have played many of the original kits, and a barbarian, and a sorcerer. And it can be fun, so I don't really object. As I said up top, as long as rules are fair and consistent I'm not really worried about it.
I think the ideal starting point is to be as faithful to the core rules as money and technology allow. Then modify as needed for a particular setting and story. And POST ALL CHANGES. Never leave players guessing about what/which rules are in play. There should always be an effort made to keep the manuals up to date.
As others have said, it is a CRPG and as such there are a lot of things that simply couldn't be done. I personally used to run a Gnome Illusionist/Thief who had endless fun playing around with the illusions in his spell list, but I acknowledge that this would not be possible in a game like BG. Quite simply the computer couldn't be programmed for all of the variables that an inventive mind might want to play around with in the margins.
There is also a line wherein if the game is too complex or restrictive, it isn't fun anymore. Quite simply, there has to be a break even point between the endless (and I used to remember lugging around 20 lbs or more of rule books back in the day) rules and simply creating a structure that works.
I have to say that, for actual turn based gaming, I always found that ToEE did a much better job of doing that type of thing than BG did. I still think that BG is a much more fun game and I have personally spent probably 20X as many hours in BG world than in ToEE, but I really like the turn based combat of ToEE much better. So again, I ask "What is close" and what is "Possible"? and where do the developers draw the line.
A few weeks back there was a guy who claimed to be a real purist in the rules. He claimed that he had modded the game to be as close to PnP as possible. quite frankly, some of the changes he made, I wouldn't ever use or want. Am I a typical player? Maybe, maybe not. But I will say that if the game wasn't as accessible to the general public as it is, we wouldn't now be seeing a revival. And if it were much MORE accessible to the public, it wouldn't be the game that we all love. Just saying be careful what you ask for and how you define it.
I DARE someone to make that as a mod. I DARE THEM!
I do know that the originial 'Advanced' did limit classes for non-human races to a certain levels (ex. Halfling fighters were limited to 5th-6th?). These were largely implemented because most characters never got above 10th or so and they wanted to promote a Human-centric world. Later editions embraced a more balanced and equal approach.
I also know that there were ability 'Shifts' for gender differences (minus to STR/plus to Dex etc...). They didn't make a whole lot of sense, but then this was the 70s.
You can find them all in the original AD&D players handbook (which I don't have handy or I would be more specific).
But BG was implemented on 2nd edition, so most of that went away before then.
Which leads to the poster above who is clearly confusing 1E and 2E. The early Gold Box games used 1E, the switch to 2E occurred during the run of those games, I don't remember exactly when. BG is 2E. Among the changes in 2E is NO DIFFERENCE from gender at all. Males and females of all the playable races have exactly the same potential for scores. Drow are the only partial exception I can think of, but the females are significantly stronger (apparently THAT is still allowed...), and Drow weren't allowed as a PC race until a later supplement (Menzoberanzen maybe? Its been a long time!)
Also, as Spyder mentioned, the level limits in 1E were very low. Half-Elves could only go to 5th level in Cleric; Halflings were limited to 6th in Fighter. 2E raised these limits quite a bit. That same Half-Elf could now get 14th level cleric and the Halfling Fighter could reach 9th.
And in PNP these weren't a huge problem. I played a 1E half-elven fighter-cleric for years before the limit became a problem. We just never expected to shoot up levels fast like CRPG players do. (of course we didn't fight so many battles either!)
But I would have to admit, even with the raised limits on levels that 2E brought, MOST DMs I knew had some sort of exceptions. Like high scores could raise the limits. Or the level limit just slowing progression (like halving experience or something after the cap was reached). And guess what, the books actually recommend some of these options. 2E is a VERY flexible rule set.