What kind of roleplayer are you? (SPOILERS for BG newbies)
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.beamdog.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0
The user and all related content has been deleted.
- What kind of roleplayer are you? (SPOILERS for BG newbies)98 votes
- Hardcore Roleplayer27.55%
- Inbetween Hardcore and Medium (Specify please)21.43%
- Medium Roleplayer22.45%
- Inbetween Low and Medium (Specify please)8.16%
- Low Roleplayer8.16%
- Other (Specify please)12.24%
Post edited by [Deleted User] on
3
Comments
I try to work around meta gaming as much as possible, ie I don't make a beeline to Beregost to pinch Algernon's cloak and I don't head for the Gnoll Fortress immediately just to get those gauntlets. If something is referenced in-game, in-dialogue, then it's fair game.
I also don't buff characters with spells or potions before big fights that I know are coming, but the party members don't.
The hardest trouble I have is *not* manipulating rep so that I get some meta benefit, like better shop prices or maintaining a mixed-alignment party.
For the PC, I'll usually come up with some backstory to explain any stats at the far end of the scale (super high DEX or super low CHA, for instance) and why he or she chose a particular weapon profiency.
That's about the extent of it. Bioware games don't really allow open role playing because the story demands are so completely rigid.
You can come up with a role playing rationalization for anything. For instance, if I really want Algernon's cloak early on, I can just have Montaron in my group and have him sneak upstairs alone on the theory that he's a scumbag and would likely do something like that anyway.
But .. It also kinda violates the spirit of my overall goal in not meta gaming at all.
And I almost never imagine who's having sex with whom while my party's resting in the Royal Room at Feldepost's Inn. :P
Also I'm just really not a terribly creative or imaginative guy. I actually kind of struggle to understand how some people can just make believe whatever they feel the game needs; if I did that I don't think I'd be able to shake the feeling that it's just something contrived that I made up. In the last few years I've made a bit of an effort to try and play with at least an idea of what kind of personality and alignment my character will have (usually pretty generic) but even then I usually cave after a little while and fall back on my usual combination of doing whatever gets me the best rewards and/or is the most entertaining and/or whatever I feel like at the moment, usually trending towards a good alignent.
Edit: based on the revised definitions the OP has given for the different options, I probably belong in the "Low Roleplayer" category.
Even though the game lists travel time in BG1 in hours, I always read it as days instead. I think it ridiculous that you can travel from the city to Nashkel in about a day. If the whole map is about a day's travel in any direction, then the Dukes should have no problem sending out their massive army to scour the countryside. They would easily find and kill most of the bandits, the mystery would be solved, and everybody would be home in time for dinner. If, however, it takes days just to reach the FAI, then it makes much more sense that nobody can find the bandits or figure out where they are... there's simply too much wilderness to cover.
I don't metagame at all, and I'm always surprised when I read somebody posting about some exploit they use. It's not that I think of and restrain myself from using such things, it's that I don't think that way at all, and don't even adopt the mindset of "how can I abuse the programming to make me win more". I play for the journey, not the levels and loot. For example, in most games I never loot Algernon because I don't have a good pocketer in my party, and I'm not going to loot every NPC I see (thereby discovering his cloak by accident) without one.
I see people mention going after high xp opponents, just because they know they're high xp. I read people killing Firebead, intentionally spawning guards at Candlekeep for their plate mails, heading directly to the basilisks, and so on. That's both metagaming and illogical. "Hey, I've spent my entire life behind these walls, but now that I'm out, let me go for the most dangerous things possible. Nor will anybody of course mind that I'm killing people in broad daylight."
I never prebuff for battles, and have probably died at Tarnesh's hands more than all other enemies combined.
Death is permanent. No reloads, no going to a temple, nothing. Death of any NPC means you must now get a new one, and death of PC means start over. Though I've played BG1 many times over the years, I haven't played BG2 for quite some time, because I haven't survived that far. Just because the game offers reloads and rez, doesn't mean your 3rd level party can actually afford it (using legitimate rez costs).
I've decided that Gorion is a C/M. He casts CLW on you in the gatehouse, meaning he has levels, but the fight scene with S shows he's not too high level. If you use E6 rules, he's probably a 1/5 C/M... if you don't, then he either filled his C slots with non-combat spells, or he lost his higher level slots when he abandoned his god, which... then... would make him a former C of Bhaal. (dun Dun DUNNN!)
I believe that Firebead and Tethtoril have it in for you, and resent your presence at the keep all these years. Gorion (and perhaps Elminster) managed to persuade Ulraunt to let you stay, but T and F weren't happy about it at all, knowing what you are. The Identify scroll mission is VERY suspect. Both of them are powerful mages and there is no need for one to "examine" an ID scroll. Either it is actually a coded message you are delivering, probably orders from T to F to leave the keep and go to one of their chapter houses in Beregost to better keep tabs on you, OR, since it is you personally delivering the scroll, it may have been trapped with something that enchants you when you take it, maybe a tracer spell to make it easier to track you. Hmmm, maybe that's how S found you the instant you left the keep, because of T? Maybe that's how S knew when you were leaving, because of T? Maybe T is how low level thieves were able to enter a maximum security library, or how K enters later in Ch. 6? (dun Dun DUNNN!)
The flesh golems at Thalantyr's house aren't bodyguards, they're sex toys. That's why they aren't next to him, y'know, like bodyguards would be.
I've changed the classes for most of the NPCs to fit more with my own views. Dynaheir for example is a druid, it's the only reason she would still be alive. There's nobody to ransom her to, and if the gnolls wanted her as food (there's a lot of mouths to feed), they would have grabbed Minsc too, not just her. There's absolutely no reason to capture a human, drag her for days back to your keep, and then chain her in a pit where you have to keep feeding her. I suppose one could argue they took her as a sex slave, but that seems a stretch, given how ugly she is, all furless and tiny. IF however she can heal, something perhaps none of them can do, THAT would justify kidnapping her AND keeping her alive. A stronghold of gnolls would have great need of a healer, and would help them conquer more area around their base. There's more as to why I've made her a druid, and that's just one of the NPCs I've changed.
The Claw of Kazgorath is not a ring. It functions like the Hand of Vecna... you need to lose a hand to claim its "benefits".
I think of the Bhaalspawn as something like Highlander. When you kill another BS, their power and essence all go directly to you. When a BS is killed by some other means, their essence goes into a generic pool controlled by Bhaal's high priest. In the end, there can be only one.
There's prolly more stuff I do that I can't think of atm.
Another thing I did in my last playthrough was let people die permanently. It always seemed unlikely that a PC would carry someone's body for miles to get them ressed at a temple, when traipsing through monster/bandit infested wilderness. As a result, my party changed frequently over the course of the game, and was somewhat sub-optimal towards the end, but that added variety and challenge.
I also never had to roleplay any of my characters being the opposite gender... But it would be fun
edit: ok, now that I read the posts, I admit doing some metagaming... mostly with item stats. But most of the time I just figure out while trying. And I only prebuff my party if they know that there's a tough battle coming up (specific buffs only when they know what they are facing exactly), or if I just can't tackle a hard fight otherwise (but in these cases I play it in my head as if they didn't...
I actually do pretend that the battle between Gorion and Sarevok is an epic battle, that the Solar is lying about my mother to make me do what she wants me (as I mentioned in another thread, I actually feel she's lying to shape your perception of yourself and make you either become a good deity or an evil mortal) I was never bothered by the High Hedge - Beregost thing. I can play with Xzar and Monty, Dynaheir and Khalid because I like their different personalities. I don't think I managed to complete a playthrough with Edwin because he's considered the 'better mage'... not even on an evil playthrough. (He's far too arrogant to fit in with my PC's personalities so he never stays with me even though he has the bonus spells.)
@Brude Even on my first playthrough I was buffed with long and medium lasting buffs all the time and had the debuffs memorised on my mages. The... let's say...paranoid personality quirk transferred to all the other PCs I played. I guess I couldn't imagine playing a PC who isn't at least a bit paranoid. After being ambushed by a maniac who murders their guardian, after being ambushed and trapped by a demented mage who tortures them... it makes sense. I noticed that even when I was just walking through Athkatla I always had (at higher level) Chaotic Commands on at least one character who could Dispel from other characters.
I will say that I don't see playing an opposite gender as proof of being a hardcore roleplayer.
There was probably a very good reason the writers chose to make him a man and I feel that I'd be saying "I can write the story better than you can" if I make such a change. For me, changing the gender of a pre-defined character borders on self-insertion. Being a woman and forcing my male character to act the way a woman does would seem like I was trying too hard to immerse myself in the story as myself instead of roleplaying that character. I hope this makes sense.
It just doesn't make sense. Nobody is unable to use thier imagination to fill in the gaps of a computer game.
This just seems like an excuse for people to act superior about how others choose to play the game.
One could argue I'm inserting myself and not playing the character the devs created, but the fact is devs will NEVER create a character for me, never allow me to play a pure gay game, or a gay lead. It's an unfortunate reality of being gay so for me anyways, I have to alter all the games I play in my head, because I know the bias of my society will never provide me the entertainment I so desperately crave. In my mind, there are tons of people in games, movies, stories etc. who should be gay, but have been made straight to pander to a straight audience. As such, I have no problem fixing that and switching them back. It's silly IMHO to stay true to devs intentions when those intentions will never respect you. In this event what we have is clear:
*) Nobles who think they have the right to hunt where they please
*) Druids who oppose killing animals for fun
Being gay, my personality generally favors the underdog... those struggling against "the power." I'm also quite partial to druids. As such, I strongly lean towards the druids, and usually kill Aldeth on the spot. Not only does he arrogantly think he and his buddies have the right to kill creatures in somebody else's area (how outraged would he be if he had a private hunting ground and people came and told him what he could do in HIS area), but he's so arrogant that he's even willing to stick around to see them get theirs. Further, we know that the druid has tried talking to him before, several times, and it's only now, when all dialogue has been exhausted that Seniyad has to show up in force to end this issue once and for all.
I see Aldeth as a cocky, arrogant, pampered bastard and poor Seniyad regretfully having to answer violence with violence. On occasion I've played PC as more of a city person, and thus unable to see what Seniyad's problem is with a bit of hunting, but for the most part I side with the druids. On the occasions I've sided with Aldeth and he rewards me after, I've always felt dirty inside.
As a parting thought, we might infer that the druids don't even have a problem with hunting just for sport in and of itself. They apparently didn't have a problem with the nobles building a cabin here, which would presumably include hunting, and not just hunting for need, like food and furs. Further, once the hunting became too much, they didn't burn it down while the nobles were away. Rather, I get the impression that Aldeth and co. don't just hunt, they hunt EXCESSIVELY, and it's their over the top, non-stop "massacre" of forest folk that has pushed Seniyad to the breaking point.
To me there are multiple indicators that Aldeth is the bad guy here, yet the devs themselves seem to view druids as tree-hugging hippie Greenpeace losers who deserve to die. Ah well.
If I don't take jaheira or minsc in my BG1 party, in BG2 I simply ctlr+y them , assuming they were "anonymous prisioners who were tortured and killed".
I do roleplay my character's alignment , along with its freedom and limitations, but playing the opposite sex is a little harder - my females usually end up a little manly =D
"It's silly IMHO to stay true to devs intentions when those intentions will never respect you."
@Lord_Gay I understand your opinion but I will respectfully disagree on the topic of a developer's intentions. I don't think that not covering your interests is done from a lack of respect. If that were the case then what am I to think of all the early PnP roleplay games where the only class for a woman was high-class prostitute, where women couldn't have the same attributes as men, level the same, etc.
I will say that they made those games for a different market segment and move on. You shouldn't feel personally offended. Even in BG2 the only male romantic interest is an arrogant prig with misogynistic outbursts. I just installed mods and that was that. :P
The thing is, for me, ALL games are made for a different market segment. It's not as if there are a million OTHER games full of gay content for me to choose from. Rather than playing all games as a young hetero white christian male, which most devs seem to be and what the presumed player is and what the designed PC is, I just redefine the characters and their interactions to other things in my head. It's the best I'm ever gonna get.
Bathroom usage? Jump to 11:40.
That has somehow fell in front of a computer, that is running BG.
That is why I play a hairless elf... who shaves his head to feel more hairless... Oh! The liberation of hairlessness!!!!
The only reason I have Minsc in my party is because he is BALD!
Yeah, REAL hardcore roleplaying for me...
You hairy imbeciles don't know what roleplaying is...
Oh well back to the real world, the hairy wife and those yaks...