Having max stats in everything-that-matters for your class is imo about greed. Even if you are bhaalspawn, that hardly means that you must be perfect. I think it's about not wanting to have any possible flaws. Look at the example characters made which you can choose to play the game with, and see their stats.
Having max stats in everything-that-matters for your class is imo about greed. Even if you are bhaalspawn, that hardly means that you must be perfect. I think it's about not wanting to have any possible flaws.
But why? I mean, I don't disagree entirely. The bit I disagree with is this notion that roleplaying a perfect char is out of the question.
The bit I disagree with is this notion that roleplaying a perfect char is out of the question.
That's definitely possible, and there isn't ultimately nothing wrong choosing that route. I just feel that having some flaws make it more real and interesting. Perfection in everything can be quite boring
I guess I am kind of suggesting to ignore stats, although I think I'm mainly just saying I do. Guilty as charged so to speak. But more than just your stats from the beginning, also the points that go into skills, and also the bonuses that you get from enchanted items. Obviously you want the best sword you can possibly buy. But how do you actually know it is a great sword?
I'll be honest with you...if someone gave me a glowy sword like Bilbo Baggins had, I would be like, "Oooooo shiny!" Too bad it only shined when you were about to get eaten by orcs, but oh well. And even if you did have an enchanted item that had a bonus against a certain alignment/race/etc... how does your character really know that is even a real weapon?
I guess that's why a lot of those kind of enchantments can't be purchased in stores. You usually find them in a dungeon somewhere and someone with impeccable lore says, "Oh! That's Swordiferus! How splendid! It's great for killing ogres!" In which my character would say, "You go and see if it makes a difference in attacking an ogre. I'm leaving because it's dark and smelly in here."
And then it comes down to selling enchanted items since that's kind of the thing with loot right? You find stuff. You sell stuff. You buy stuff.
So now...you're talking to a merchant and you're like, "MY GOOD MAN! FEAST YOUR EYES UPON...SWORDIFERUS! SWORD OF OGRE SLAYING!"
And so the merchant glances at it...and says..."Why yes you're right! My heavens! I will buy two!"
"But...there's only one."
"Oh. Right. Well here you go! A thousand pieces of gold, my good man!"
And then everyone rejoices. High-fives around. Booty claps. Etc.
It's just all very strange to me. Everyone trusts it, even in game, because the stats say so.
This is more a rant than anything actually meaningful. Obviously in games there HAVE to be meta-gaming to some extent. It still seems silly to me though.
The problem with BG's stats is that they're fixed in odd, arbitrary ways, so it's hard to put a ton of thought into them without going super-meta and taking yourself out of the game. I don't fault people for deciding to min/max, or for re-rolling to max a few stats, because that just stems from looking objectively at how the system works (or doesn't work). I mean, I can't get better at kicking down a door after 20 tries? I can't run faster even after months of toning my mage's legs on long treks through the wilderness? I can't become more charismatic after meeting and talking with people from a slew of different cultures and lifestyles? I guess that's why I love GURPS so much. You get to roleplay the progression of a character, whereas even in newer eds. of DnD you just follow a fixed path. So yeah, I don't focus on my stats.
I can't bring myself to roll a crappy character. If the game is too easy I'll just bump up the difficulty. It is precisely because I want to experience the story that make powerful characters. I can't get through Cloakwood with a crappy party!
I also look at the bosses at the end of Throne of Bhaal as well as Sarevok; for the story to make sense to me the greatest Bhaalspawn must be an especially powerful dude. If the game was about being an average joe adventurer then I would take the first roll the game gave me, but it's not; it's about nothing less than the ascension of a god in my character's case.
I do however choose party members based on their personalities and a perceived party culture. I like to keep Xzar and Monty together since they're made for each other; I dropped Kagain because his barks are super lame, even though he would have been a big help to the party;
and someone with impeccable lore says, "Oh! That's Swordiferus! How splendid! It's great for killing ogres!"
I'm a sorcerer. I cast Identify. Lets for example say I cast it on the +2 icy longsword I gave Khalid the other day. I am able to ascertain that it is a moderately powerful enchanted pointy sword thing, the moderately powerful enchant being of a cold and sharp nature. Khalid starts stuttering something about the spesifics of it being a longsword and explaining the differences at which point I interrupt him and go "Hey, you use this kind of sword, you should use this one!"
A Bard probably would know that it's Bob's Icy Sword of Slashing (I don't actually remember the weapon's real name off the top of my head, sorry about that :P) on account of him having heard the tragic tale of how Bob got eaten by the hobgoblin who had his sword now and while he would not know the spesifics of just how icy sharp the sword would be, his exaggerated tale would also be able to say how it was indeed a somewhat powerful icy slash thingie.
In either case it's obvious that said sword is neat and since it's not cursed, it's an upgrade from that random longsword we looted off a bandit.
But can't anyone kind of tell that it has those properties? I mean wouldn't it rather cold...and if you attack someone with it couldn't you sort of see the type of icy damage it did? I never understood why a sword is only a sword (and has no superior function) until its properties have been determined. I mean if you have a sword of darkness that emanates strange wisps of darkness that strangle enemies as you're plunging your sword into them...you probably don't need to use much more than your eyes to see that it is pretty uh...interesting. lol
I also look at the bosses at the end of Throne of Bhaal as well as Sarevok; for the story to make sense to me the greatest Bhaalspawn must be an especially powerful dude. If the game was about being an average joe adventurer then I would take the first roll the game gave me, but it's not; it's about nothing less than the ascension of a god in my character's case.
I disagree. I think Sarevok was supposed to be considerably stronger and more powerful than you. He is the greatest, he's the one "destined" to fill his father's shoes. Which I think is why the good-aligned playthrough became the canon in the second game. You're forced to band together with a bunch of other nobodies to stop him from ascending as the new god of badness. What made the game so great for me was how brooding the atmosphere is. You're Sarevok's prey. The only reason you end up defeating him is due to his careless attitude, thinking you're as inept as your brothers and sisters (and they're pretty fucking inept, amirite?). Which of course begs the question: Did Sarevok gain his power and intellect from being a Bhaalspawn? If so, why can't CHARNAME construct a coherent sentence or lift half her weight?
I never understood why a sword is only a sword (and has no superior function) until its properties have been determined.
Mechanics maguffin to prevent laziness/exploits probably. Otherwise you'd have players quicksaving, casting identify to check what the item does and then reloading. Or not spending gold to identify it in the case of people who don't lug someone with Identify around.
Yeah, we wouldn't want the Indentification business to run try. Hah! So that's what private investigators due in Faerun. Forget leggy dames smoking cigarettes and trying to seduce you into helping them solve their husband's murder. Nope. Just tons of bobbles, books, and weapons that need identified. Stacks upon stacks. Sort of like that warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark or the beginning of Crystal Skull.
This thread turned into: "Wow guys I hate people who min-max because they are clearly like 40 and live in their mom's basement because they have illusion of grandeur and they live vicariously through a single player RPG."
No, actually, some people just prefer to number crunch even if the game is single player and/or does not require it. It's call different way of having fun. Deal with it. Play in whatever way you want and don't try to impose it on others.
@AuraofMana You missed the purpose of the original post. The purpose is just a discussion about not caring so much about the numbers. There are a vast multitude of threads that do care and so that's fine have fun there.
No one is really putting anyone's style of playing down. And this thread is very civil. I'm not sure where you're getting the need to put in attitude like, "Deal with it. Play in whatever way you want and don't try to impose it on others." If I was going to tell others how to play I would go in the number threads and be like, "Numbers are silly." Instead we're all here learning who looks beyond statistics and probability.
Maybe this is a discussion that is as old as time though. Or at least D&D. I think for most of us...we're just enjoying a good tale. And I don't think anyone lives vicariously through a single player RPG at all. At least I hope not. Being the son of a god would be kind of annoying. What with people trying to kill me all the time and all. Huh.
I'll absolutely try to get a good set of stats for myself prior to the start of the game. Nothing exceptional, and I'm fine just shuffling points around as needed.
Partywise all I really care about is having the team that makes most sense personalitywise for my hero. As long as my group has all the basics covered, I'm fine. I don't need them to be the best in the game from a number crunching point of view. If anything its more fun trying to take along a companion that seems to be oddly/poorly designed, and figuring out a way to rethink my preconceptions to make them useful.
On my current run I'm trying that with Safana. I've never taken her before due to Imoen (and usually being a thief class myself) But the pirate background makes her a good fit for my Swashbuckler so I'm giving her a shot. Never realized she had an innate Charm Person ability before so that sounds fun, (from an RP perspective). Even though Imoen is clearly the superior character, and could cast charms too if I wanted.
To each his own. The wife and I can never role play stupid characters, always have to have an intelligence of 12 no matter the class, prefer 15 if we can get it. Call it a personality quirk. I like to go against stereotype as it were. Smart giants, clumsy halfings, ugly elves, charismatic yet weak dwarfs...you get the picture. Picking stats is part of that process. My current uber half orc for example, while hulk smashing is still smart enough to don the sherlock cap and piece together pieces, like this Elminster fellow following me around. As an absent minded philosopher in real life, one of the great evils in my opinion is marginalization. We internally bias unconsciously to pre-generated societal norms of modeled behaviors by default. In my experience however, it is those that break through that noise, those chains that become exceptional. This process goes unrealized by a great many however. Hulking giants must be heavy handed brutes after all. Can't be forest gazing hamster toting poets now can they? Or can they? My long winded absent minded point is that regarding stats we seem too often to marginalize toward those core character qualities, choosing to let the stats define the character instead of a character defining the stats.
Personally, for my own characters I hold to the optimised roleplay philosophy - the mechanics exist to be harnessed and mastered as necessary to create the character you want to play. The Character Concept is of utmost importance, and I will not hesitate to optimise the heck out of an underpowered class/concept to make it work or use an "overpowered" class if it suits my concept better.
Likewise, if my character is going to fill a role, they're going to do so to the best of their ability, and if I'm going to roleplay a certain character you can bet they'll need to have the goodies to back that up. Unlikely heroes are all well and good, but I've no interest in playing an Anti-Sue incompetent at their job for the sole purpose of "roleplaying", an attitude I have most definitely encountered before.
Once my character concept is satisfied, I'm then free to be as sub-optimal as I like, confident that my initial foundation is sturdy enough to handle me doing all sorts of things that are self-destructively character appropriate or make for a better story, including the ability to party with pretty much anyone, regardless of their degree of optimisation.
I can honestly say that my ability to create optimal characters has never interfered with my enjoyment, or creation of, a story.
some classes simply call for great stats, agreed. what's a paladin if his abilities are not heroic at all? what's a barbarian if his strength is not legendary? what's a bard with just an above average charisma? how can a monk not have awesome dexterity (unless he's, say, very old)?
however, a fighter somehow doesn't call for outstanding attributes because it's a common class, a lot of people are fighters, be they adventurers or mercenaries or soldiers. same for mage, a clumsy and halfwit magic user is definitely a theme in fantasy literature. a foolish rogue lucking out of every dangerous situation just because he's a rogue is also easy to visualize for me.
I've always played through BG min-maxing, both my character and party composition.
This time, I said NO! I've been role-playing all my choices, stayed with the initial stat roll, and my party composition is just based on what would make sense. I feel Khalid, Jaheira, Imoen is a given for CHARNAME to take initially. Definitely keep Imoen throughout the trilogy. Then, the other 2 spots are occupied back and forth depending on who CHARNAME encounters and if helping them makes sense. So far I've rotated between Minsc, Dynaheir, Xan, Dorn, Rasaad and Neera.
Also, I'm playing with BG core-rules, including rolling for HP on level up. So far, my Level 4 fighter CHARNAME has 14 HP; that's right, 1 or 2 HP gained per roll, no CON bonus. Neera has 16 HP, having maxed out all her HP rolls...
Anyways, it has been much more fun/rewarding playing this way. I've had to change my fighter from a front-line sword and board into a "dart master" for fun.
Personally, for my own characters I hold to the optimised roleplay philosophy...
... but I've no interest in playing an Anti-Sue incompetent at their job for the sole purpose of "roleplaying", an attitude I have most definitely encountered before.
I do roll a fair amount of time to get decent stats for my character, but my party makeup depends on, well, how long they live. Occasionally, I'll raise dead a NPC if I particularly like them, but usually I'll just replace them.
When Zxar died, I replaced him with Khagain. When Imoen left me because my rep got too low, I replaced her with Rassaad. When Rassaad died on the random encounter map I left Jaheira on, she was convenient, so I just took her back. And when Khagain left, I went and got Branwyn.
That's how I roleplay my CN character xD I really don't have a clue which NPCs would be considered the "most powerful".
Interestingly I've recently found that I prefer having Xzar in my party to Edwin, even though the latter gets more spells, as Xzar is just more entertaining...
Some of my favorites to hang out with are Imoen, Alora, Xan, Quayle, and Garrick. Is there something wrong with that?
Well Quayle is kind of a douche.
And Xan is a bit depressing. I just want to pat him on the head and move on. Garrick is my new favorite in the party, he is the opposite of Xan: so optimistic: "Life is glorious!"
Also, who is to say you can't have good stats AND enjoy the story/roleplay? I 'powergame' frequently, but only because I am not great at CRPG's and seem to get fairly unlucky with rolls, so I try and make it possible for me to actually get through the story without dying/reloading too much. The story of BG1 and BG2 (not a huge fan of the ToB story) is fantastic, and I love to play through it again and again, but having really high stats doesn't make it any less enjoyable for me.
Imho if you are rerolling for more than 1 minute, you might as well use an editor to give yourself the stats you want rather than waste your time. I get that it feels more legit that way. But really it is meaningless and you are just cheating yourself. If you are too obsessed about the illusion of feeling powerful in a video game, your real life personality will suffer from it.
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm taking it too far, but it's true nonetheless.
I don't think my real life personality is suffering because I powergame, sorry.
There's a concept out there called the "Stormwind Fallacy" - i.e. the erroneous assumption that a min/maxed character must be devoid of personality. For whatever reason, some people have an enormous axe to grind with min/maxing or powergaming, even though it's a perfectly legitimate playstyle since games are about overcoming challenges.
Story, like graphics or music, is just a supporting element for the gameplay. If I just want a story, I'll read a book.
I like how there has been a varied response to this. I didn't think this thread would end up getting the kind of replies that it did, or the amount of views.
I don't know about there being an enormous axe to grind with min/maxing or powergaming. I mean some people have an enormous axe to grind about anything. But people have different opinions...as for the power gaming part...I think it will destroy the balance of multiplayer entertainment. Especially if it exploits limitations in the system. In single player, it's your story and you can do whatever you want. It's your entertainment. When its the entertainment of a group though...well less so.
I think a lot of newer games are becoming more like movies. There certainly is enough cinematics in them. Games like Pacman and Mario Brothers could claim that story, graphics, and music were supporting elements to the gameplay, but I'm not so sure anymore.
We're starting to blur the entertainment medium. I think in a few years that comment won't stick.
Comments
I'll be honest with you...if someone gave me a glowy sword like Bilbo Baggins had, I would be like, "Oooooo shiny!" Too bad it only shined when you were about to get eaten by orcs, but oh well. And even if you did have an enchanted item that had a bonus against a certain alignment/race/etc... how does your character really know that is even a real weapon?
I guess that's why a lot of those kind of enchantments can't be purchased in stores. You usually find them in a dungeon somewhere and someone with impeccable lore says, "Oh! That's Swordiferus! How splendid! It's great for killing ogres!" In which my character would say, "You go and see if it makes a difference in attacking an ogre. I'm leaving because it's dark and smelly in here."
And then it comes down to selling enchanted items since that's kind of the thing with loot right? You find stuff. You sell stuff. You buy stuff.
So now...you're talking to a merchant and you're like, "MY GOOD MAN! FEAST YOUR EYES UPON...SWORDIFERUS! SWORD OF OGRE SLAYING!"
And so the merchant glances at it...and says..."Why yes you're right! My heavens! I will buy two!"
"But...there's only one."
"Oh. Right. Well here you go! A thousand pieces of gold, my good man!"
And then everyone rejoices. High-fives around. Booty claps. Etc.
It's just all very strange to me. Everyone trusts it, even in game, because the stats say so.
This is more a rant than anything actually meaningful. Obviously in games there HAVE to be meta-gaming to some extent. It still seems silly to me though.
I WONT focus on my stats.
I can't bring myself to roll a crappy character. If the game is too easy I'll just bump up the difficulty. It is precisely because I want to experience the story that make powerful characters. I can't get through Cloakwood with a crappy party!
I also look at the bosses at the end of Throne of Bhaal as well as Sarevok; for the story to make sense to me the greatest Bhaalspawn must be an especially powerful dude. If the game was about being an average joe adventurer then I would take the first roll the game gave me, but it's not; it's about nothing less than the ascension of a god in my character's case.
I do however choose party members based on their personalities and a perceived party culture. I like to keep Xzar and Monty together since they're made for each other; I dropped Kagain because his barks are super lame, even though he would have been a big help to the party;
A Bard probably would know that it's Bob's Icy Sword of Slashing (I don't actually remember the weapon's real name off the top of my head, sorry about that :P) on account of him having heard the tragic tale of how Bob got eaten by the hobgoblin who had his sword now and while he would not know the spesifics of just how icy sharp the sword would be, his exaggerated tale would also be able to say how it was indeed a somewhat powerful icy slash thingie.
In either case it's obvious that said sword is neat and since it's not cursed, it's an upgrade from that random longsword we looted off a bandit.
No, actually, some people just prefer to number crunch even if the game is single player and/or does not require it. It's call different way of having fun. Deal with it. Play in whatever way you want and don't try to impose it on others.
No one is really putting anyone's style of playing down. And this thread is very civil. I'm not sure where you're getting the need to put in attitude like, "Deal with it. Play in whatever way you want and don't try to impose it on others." If I was going to tell others how to play I would go in the number threads and be like, "Numbers are silly." Instead we're all here learning who looks beyond statistics and probability.
Maybe this is a discussion that is as old as time though. Or at least D&D. I think for most of us...we're just enjoying a good tale. And I don't think anyone lives vicariously through a single player RPG at all. At least I hope not. Being the son of a god would be kind of annoying. What with people trying to kill me all the time and all. Huh.
Partywise all I really care about is having the team that makes most sense personalitywise for my hero. As long as my group has all the basics covered, I'm fine. I don't need them to be the best in the game from a number crunching point of view. If anything its more fun trying to take along a companion that seems to be oddly/poorly designed, and figuring out a way to rethink my preconceptions to make them useful.
On my current run I'm trying that with Safana. I've never taken her before due to Imoen (and usually being a thief class myself) But the pirate background makes her a good fit for my Swashbuckler so I'm giving her a shot. Never realized she had an innate Charm Person ability before so that sounds fun, (from an RP perspective). Even though Imoen is clearly the superior character, and could cast charms too if I wanted.
I like to go against stereotype as it were. Smart giants, clumsy halfings, ugly elves, charismatic yet weak dwarfs...you get the picture. Picking stats is part of that process. My current uber half orc for example, while hulk smashing is still smart enough to don the sherlock cap and piece together pieces, like this Elminster fellow following me around. As an absent minded philosopher in real life, one of the great evils in my opinion is marginalization. We internally bias unconsciously to pre-generated societal norms of modeled behaviors by default. In my experience however, it is those that break through that noise, those chains that become exceptional. This process goes unrealized by a great many however. Hulking giants must be heavy handed brutes after all. Can't be forest gazing hamster toting poets now can they? Or can they? My long winded absent minded point is that regarding stats we seem too often to marginalize toward those core character qualities, choosing to let the stats define the character instead of a character defining the stats.
Likewise, if my character is going to fill a role, they're going to do so to the best of their ability, and if I'm going to roleplay a certain character you can bet they'll need to have the goodies to back that up. Unlikely heroes are all well and good, but I've no interest in playing an Anti-Sue incompetent at their job for the sole purpose of "roleplaying", an attitude I have most definitely encountered before.
Once my character concept is satisfied, I'm then free to be as sub-optimal as I like, confident that my initial foundation is sturdy enough to handle me doing all sorts of things that are self-destructively character appropriate or make for a better story, including the ability to party with pretty much anyone, regardless of their degree of optimisation.
I can honestly say that my ability to create optimal characters has never interfered with my enjoyment, or creation of, a story.
what's a barbarian if his strength is not legendary?
what's a bard with just an above average charisma?
how can a monk not have awesome dexterity (unless he's, say, very old)?
however, a fighter somehow doesn't call for outstanding attributes because it's a common class, a lot of people are fighters, be they adventurers or mercenaries or soldiers.
same for mage, a clumsy and halfwit magic user is definitely a theme in fantasy literature.
a foolish rogue lucking out of every dangerous situation just because he's a rogue is also easy to visualize for me.
This time, I said NO! I've been role-playing all my choices, stayed with the initial stat roll, and my party composition is just based on what would make sense. I feel Khalid, Jaheira, Imoen is a given for CHARNAME to take initially. Definitely keep Imoen throughout the trilogy. Then, the other 2 spots are occupied back and forth depending on who CHARNAME encounters and if helping them makes sense. So far I've rotated between Minsc, Dynaheir, Xan, Dorn, Rasaad and Neera.
Also, I'm playing with BG core-rules, including rolling for HP on level up. So far, my Level 4 fighter CHARNAME has 14 HP; that's right, 1 or 2 HP gained per roll, no CON bonus. Neera has 16 HP, having maxed out all her HP rolls...
Anyways, it has been much more fun/rewarding playing this way. I've had to change my fighter from a front-line sword and board into a "dart master" for fun.
Very nice!
When Zxar died, I replaced him with Khagain. When Imoen left me because my rep got too low, I replaced her with Rassaad. When Rassaad died on the random encounter map I left Jaheira on, she was convenient, so I just took her back. And when Khagain left, I went and got Branwyn.
That's how I roleplay my CN character xD I really don't have a clue which NPCs would be considered the "most powerful".
Also, who is to say you can't have good stats AND enjoy the story/roleplay? I 'powergame' frequently, but only because I am not great at CRPG's and seem to get fairly unlucky with rolls, so I try and make it possible for me to actually get through the story without dying/reloading too much. The story of BG1 and BG2 (not a huge fan of the ToB story) is fantastic, and I love to play through it again and again, but having really high stats doesn't make it any less enjoyable for me.
Story, like graphics or music, is just a supporting element for the gameplay. If I just want a story, I'll read a book.
I still remember the first time I had Edwin and Alora in a party together and they actually GOT ALONG.
I don't know about there being an enormous axe to grind with min/maxing or powergaming. I mean some people have an enormous axe to grind about anything. But people have different opinions...as for the power gaming part...I think it will destroy the balance of multiplayer entertainment. Especially if it exploits limitations in the system. In single player, it's your story and you can do whatever you want. It's your entertainment. When its the entertainment of a group though...well less so.
I think a lot of newer games are becoming more like movies. There certainly is enough cinematics in them. Games like Pacman and Mario Brothers could claim that story, graphics, and music were supporting elements to the gameplay, but I'm not so sure anymore.
We're starting to blur the entertainment medium. I think in a few years that comment won't stick.