Should some encounters be powered up - way, way up?
chimeric
Member Posts: 1,163
In Baldur's Gate and the other IE games, I've noticed that the thrill and the enjoyment were the greatest early on, at low levels. As characters went up in levels, they acquired enjoyable new abilities and it was pleasant to go toe-to-toe with tough monsters or lay low a bunch of enemies with a fireball, but the danger soon started to evaporate and before long, it was gone completely. At some point around, say, level 6-7 if not before, I knew that no encounter could pose a real difficulty. Baldur's Gate kept throwing supposedly tougher and tougher enemies at me - the Cloackwood assassins, Davaeorn, Sarevok's disciplines in the Iron Throne, later Krystin and Slythe - and it was just a question of how many rounds I'll need to bring them down.
Now, in some degree this happens in tabletop AD&D as well, the earliest levels are the most intense because the characters are so weak. But for a Dungeon Master there are enough ways and means farther along the road that don't have to be about throwing tougher and tougher monsters at the players. The computer games are much more straightforward, and the party's power here grows exponentially. Players also very quickly learn to take advantage of the rules. They know the first spell to cast in any fight is Magic Missile at the enemy casters.
Bioware has given a few NPC instant-kill spells. There are also some mods like Sword Coast Stratagems that ameliorate the ease of killing. But they make encounters more challenging when instead, I argue, some should be impossible (or just about). These mods make players work harder, when instead players should not work at all and go somewhere else. The fundamental problem is this: there is no point to adventuring unless difficulty in spots is such that players will want to AVOID combat, even if there is experience, loot, fame and glory as a reward. They must sigh and go take the long road around to fight someone else or try a diplomatic approach.
Instead we can always just kill 'em. It's not that every player plays in Diablo style, but it skews the world picture that we can barge in a little hut or a big castle, whack the owners (bad people, sure) and grab their stuff (heroes' reward). It doesn't matter if we have to work at this. Hits isn't what adventuring is about at all, for any alignment. Adventuring is about exploration of the world and taking action in it, not scouring it for what it contains - experience, items...
In the first Baldur's Gate game there are some places and encounters that should logically be impossible or next to impossible for the party to solve with force. One such is when they meet the Iron Throne leaders in Candlekeep. They are meetings with the Knights of the Shield. These are all high-level and dangerous characters, and they warn the party to stay away. But as things are, I might as well flip a coin on whether I will kill the Iron Throne leaders on this playthrough or won't kill the Iron Throne leaders on this playthrough.
To restore any sense of balance to the world, should these and other characters be made much, much more powerful - not a little so that the party thinks a bit more before attacking, but A LOT so that nine out of ten attempts to use force, nine of ten reloads are going to end in defeat? Then the party might just have to give up on revenge to Rieltar and Co, leave it to the Dukes, to the Flaming Fist, try to come up with a plan... and then they will discover someone has done those people in. We need not difficulty, but virtual impossibility of do-it-yourself brashness in places for a sense of mystery, for plots to work... and, last but not least, to encourage players to go around and talk to people instead - if they want their experience - so that modders feel called to write more sophisticated quests.
If on a map there is a place A that's "no, I don't want to go there" and place B that's "no, I don't want to go there," then where are you going to go? Between A and B, sneaking, or to some place that won't kill you on the spot, like a village with people. They may have an assignment for you with reasonable goals. Then, later, if you really must, you can rearm and try to take on A and B. The world is diverse, with nooks and corners, and it doesn't exist for your sake. This is the sense that's missing in all of the games after the low levels.
What do you think? Would making some encounters WAY tougher encourage flexibility?
Now, in some degree this happens in tabletop AD&D as well, the earliest levels are the most intense because the characters are so weak. But for a Dungeon Master there are enough ways and means farther along the road that don't have to be about throwing tougher and tougher monsters at the players. The computer games are much more straightforward, and the party's power here grows exponentially. Players also very quickly learn to take advantage of the rules. They know the first spell to cast in any fight is Magic Missile at the enemy casters.
Bioware has given a few NPC instant-kill spells. There are also some mods like Sword Coast Stratagems that ameliorate the ease of killing. But they make encounters more challenging when instead, I argue, some should be impossible (or just about). These mods make players work harder, when instead players should not work at all and go somewhere else. The fundamental problem is this: there is no point to adventuring unless difficulty in spots is such that players will want to AVOID combat, even if there is experience, loot, fame and glory as a reward. They must sigh and go take the long road around to fight someone else or try a diplomatic approach.
Instead we can always just kill 'em. It's not that every player plays in Diablo style, but it skews the world picture that we can barge in a little hut or a big castle, whack the owners (bad people, sure) and grab their stuff (heroes' reward). It doesn't matter if we have to work at this. Hits isn't what adventuring is about at all, for any alignment. Adventuring is about exploration of the world and taking action in it, not scouring it for what it contains - experience, items...
In the first Baldur's Gate game there are some places and encounters that should logically be impossible or next to impossible for the party to solve with force. One such is when they meet the Iron Throne leaders in Candlekeep. They are meetings with the Knights of the Shield. These are all high-level and dangerous characters, and they warn the party to stay away. But as things are, I might as well flip a coin on whether I will kill the Iron Throne leaders on this playthrough or won't kill the Iron Throne leaders on this playthrough.
To restore any sense of balance to the world, should these and other characters be made much, much more powerful - not a little so that the party thinks a bit more before attacking, but A LOT so that nine out of ten attempts to use force, nine of ten reloads are going to end in defeat? Then the party might just have to give up on revenge to Rieltar and Co, leave it to the Dukes, to the Flaming Fist, try to come up with a plan... and then they will discover someone has done those people in. We need not difficulty, but virtual impossibility of do-it-yourself brashness in places for a sense of mystery, for plots to work... and, last but not least, to encourage players to go around and talk to people instead - if they want their experience - so that modders feel called to write more sophisticated quests.
If on a map there is a place A that's "no, I don't want to go there" and place B that's "no, I don't want to go there," then where are you going to go? Between A and B, sneaking, or to some place that won't kill you on the spot, like a village with people. They may have an assignment for you with reasonable goals. Then, later, if you really must, you can rearm and try to take on A and B. The world is diverse, with nooks and corners, and it doesn't exist for your sake. This is the sense that's missing in all of the games after the low levels.
What do you think? Would making some encounters WAY tougher encourage flexibility?
Post edited by chimeric on
1
Comments
Besides, one thing I have learned about video games & especially this series : Developers but an obstacle in the path of gamers that is meant to be "nearly" impossible to beat will just mean people determined to figure out a way and then in a short time it will be common knowledge.
My point is: early on, the world is interesting because a lot of things are out of your reach. So there should always be things out of our reach. It's not about "challenge," it's about focus on what you can do as one of the actors instead of an all-powerful Bhaalspawn. If players knew they couldn't or very nearly couldn't fight their way through some spots, then modders could give them different options. Then, even though we know what's going to happen in the main plot, there would still be newness from taking a different road. Thievery. Diplomacy. Subtle magic. But first you've got to put a big roadblock on the old road.
And as for difficulty and how to achieve it, what would you think about an item that gave the creature +3 to the stats, +4 to saving throws and AC, a bonus to speed, damage and an extra attack? Equip that on everyone's in Rieltar's party, and it'll be a whole lot harder to kill them. Still easy? Boost the bonuses.
I have had to avoid fights, I have had my butt kicked over and over until I figure out it's time to leave and come back later, much later.
Just playing the Aec Latec part, the cult is massacreing me, the mages have swords, wands, potions ect., there are invisible assasins (I swear, just where do they get this many invisibility potions?), and plated guards who hit like a truck, it's been a bloody nightmare. And people wandering around so no blanket AOE spells can be used without a lot of care.
But some of the difficulty is my fault, playing with 3 man party and no cleric (no true sight).
At some point, it does come down to the player if they want to keep the challenge going and players have various ways they can do this. It's not all about how the game is designed.
I understand what you are suggesting, but let's say you avoid a very difficult fight by using diplomacy.
Well then what happens?
What "activity" does the player then get to do, what "gameplay" is there?
You mention the Rieltar Party, usually I don't kill them, have a few lines of dialog and walk away. And that's the end of anything I have to do as a player.
So lets say you complicate the "walking away", how is that going to work?
Being instructed to go around talking to other people, fetch/carry quests, what?
Gameplay wise I would have thought fighting was more satisfying and then, what replay value will there be?
Fights can take a nasty turn because of dice rolls, can diplomacy?
What I have been seriously considering, is the creation of a mod that moved encounters to different locations randomised with every new game. Like the Item Randomiser, but so that you couldn't use the cheesy tactics you always you, or even find yourself at a disadvantage (which fairly rarely happens).
Basically, you become Superman / James Bond.
This can, of course, somewhat be mitigated by stronger and stronger enemies. However, the game have to cater to weaker characters. For instance, a low con single class mage, albeit in a team of six, should be able to beat the game - which makes encounters dull for a high str high blackguard. So the vanilla setting can certainly be percieved to be to easy, especially if the player have a lot of know-how about the game.
Have you installed SCS? And if that doesnt do it for you, have you tried to beat the game without companions? If that still does not do it for you, well, deliberately pick a shitty class.
Tougher tactic battles are actually better left to modders.
As for actual impossibility to force narrative choices: the IE engine is at its core a combat engine, and the risk comes from combat (and Wild surges, but that's neither here nor there.) So if there's an impossibility that forces you to talk to certain people to resolve it, guess what? You get a sense of mystery one time before it's a simple "oh, talk to this person and then this person in order to solve the quest, no risk involved." If there's a choice to make a hard fight easier, sure, like being able to bribe Baron Ployer's pet wizards away, but that's simply a choice: fighting the 3 wizards is doable as well.
The sweet spot, I think, is where fights are overcomeable but still innately dangerous. SCS does a pretty darn good job of this: I've lost games to Davaeorn and his horde of minions, I've lost to Slythe's horrificly powerful backstabs, I've lost at the Ducal palace, I've probably lost to being cocky against Ghasts before. Somehow, probably because I actually use all my unrenewable resources, I can't recall the last time I died to Sarevok himself.
Game play needs to be open and balanced even if some encounters are tough.
I don't think that vanilla could do that will without investing too much resources on it.
One item from another series of games made about the same time as BG that comes to mind here is explosives from Fallout and Fallout 2. In addition to being necessary for a couple of quests, they could be timed and then planted on someone to blow him to bits without alarming the entire town. Why am I mentioning this? Because it's an example of a different approach. But who would care to look for a different approach if you could just stroll through Vault City or the Enclave, toting a gun? That's damn difficult, if not impossible, and it would leave a depopulated world you'd have nothing left to do in.
In the BG series, unfortunately, violence is almost always an answer. Some people have thought it's an easy answer, hence mods like SCS that make players work harder for their kills. But that's not the point for me. For me that's pointless. I've played these games up and down (some parts more than others), and it was decades ago. I have better things to do than outsmart an improved AI, reload or not reload, build tactics and jerk around. I want fantasy - imagination - magic. But power-gaming that's become habitual squashes any ideas along those lines.
Example: I'm making a couple of spells for swapping alignment, a better Know Alignment and maybe a more proper Detect Evil for paladins so they actually detect real supernatural evil instead of any little guy who happens to be in the bottom range of the moral choices. That way they could go around and look for evil influences. If this became a mechanic, then modders could make quests and situations to introduce those evil influences. And alignment detection and changes would be valuable if, for example, there were more alignment-specific items and spells (or dialogues).
But is anyone going to bother with that? Nah. Because you can always just slay your way through, get more kills, get more loot... I wonder if that's what people would do in real life if they could just annihilate everyone? Is that people's idea of fun? Not mine, I'd be bored out of my skull.
It's frustrating and hard, but you can. Maybe not at low level granted, but then that's kind of the point.
I know this because for years I didn't even think to look up forums ect. and just muddled through. Didn't know about spell immunity abjuration, wasn't even aware why certain weapons didn't hurt, (just thought the game was cheating), lol.
The only thing I knew was that he killed the party pretty much with wail of the banshee, so until that was done kept everybody well away, and then he would imprison NPC/summons and so you had to have a few freedom scrolls handy.
So it was an expensive, long fight that I kind of dreaded but a great sense of achievement if you managed.
I still need to post a more in-depth analysis of the fight--and to be fair, I don't know how best to tackle it in normal mode, without LoB. But Improved Ust Natha would be exactly what @chimeric is looking for: an encounter that is best avoided because it is as difficult as it realistically should be.
As for style, we don't want awful writing, of course, but it can just be straightforward - for the BG series, at least. Get to the point, put some humor in, don't make it very onerous... try to make it informative, though. When I write NPC interjections, I always try to put in new information about them. I make it up, of course, and so the characters round out. In one dialogue of mine a halfling NPC recognizes Montaron from Darkhold, for example. Shar-Teel recollects how she's hanged for an hour under a bridge on her fingers and toes while the Flaming Fist looked for her. And so on. People need to learn something, always, not hear once again that Kagain is greedy, Edwin is arrogant and so on. He may be arrogant but why? Maybe he has a reason to be so snooty. Maybe he's spent hard years practicing under the Zulkirs and now won't put up with incompetence. Maybe Baeloth is not just a sadist but actually an artist. But this sort of thing needs to be invented - for romances, too. We need to put stuff in the game that was never there in the first place or freaking quit playing the record...
So - new, to the point and light, and that'll be satisfying like a good meal with some fun side dishes. You eat it and move on. I used to much prefer high cuisine in Torment's days, with tops and sauces, but now that the second one has come out, it's clear that it was never that high to begin with. Elaborate cooking is just the chef's cream over one's ego. Well... What's realistic? Is it unrealistic that a party of six seasoned characters who've gone through so many dungeons and are excellently equipped should be able to take down, say, archmage Shandalar? A roll of 20 always succeeds, as we know. So I think we need to go beyond realism here - the party should not be able to fight through many situations, even when by the rules, in principle, should be able to. This is as artificial as Tethtoril's instant-kill lightning, but it makes power gamers less like Power Rangers. Makes them ask "what else can we do here?" Power without freedom is like a sugar rush - it goes to your head and screws with it.