I play with a party of characters that I like because I like them as people/characters, not because of their stats. There are only a handful of NPCs I actually like, so unless I want to bring someone along for banter or extra inventory space, I only use 2-3 NPCs at a time. Since I only use NPCs that I like as characters, this means that I often times don't have certain classes in my party. My parties are usually very lopsided in favor of clerics, since all three of my favorite NPCs happen to be clerics.
That said, I really don't like low level spells, so in my first playthrough with a character I play with the express knowledge that everything I am doing is so that I can enjoy the next playthrough because then I will have advanced enough spells that the game will actually be fun. It is the subsequent playthroughs that I enjoy the most because then I can use the fun spells. The first playthrough is usually more of a chore that I have to do since its a prerequisite to becoming powerful enough to enjoy the game. Stats also become increasingly meaningless as time goes on due to tomes and increases in abilities due to leveling. Any character can become powerful, given enough time, and I don't want to spend my time traveling with someone I don't like.
I usually would play the game the normal way...and then with games like Fallout and Neverwinter Nights (among others) I would edit the main character so I could get all the options for charisma and intelligence and certain skill choices you could make if your points were high enough. I wanted the whole story and to kind of sit back and examine all the potential choices.
I think your comment is good because it reminds me of someone asking about the purpose of Boo...whether or not he just takes up a place in Minsc's quick item slot or if there is some greater point. A lot of the NPCs we would be better off with. But sometimes we just like the few random things they say. They just add some color to the game. Keeps it from feeling like Diablo. Haha.
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.
Personally I find the title hilarious. The conversation is interesting, but the title must draw more than just my view surely
I usually would play the game the normal way...and then with games like Fallout and Neverwinter Nights (among others) I would edit the main character so I could get all the options for charisma and intelligence and certain skill choices you could make if your points were high enough. I wanted the whole story and to kind of sit back and examine all the potential choices.
Try playing Fallout 2 with an intelligence as low as 3 or lower sometime. You'd be surprised how much -more- and in some cases -better- dialogue you'll get. Both are situational, but worth a look. And if you have only 1 or 2, the game gets incredibly easy (and hilarious) once you reach San Francisco.
On the other side, when you know how fallout works, you'll mainly create people with high intelligence so that you can benefit of many advantages (more proficiencies, dialog options, ...).
Agility & Intelligence seems therefore the way to go...
Yeah I have never really been a super serious person. Seriously. That one Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines RPG was hilarious when you were a Malkavian. Talking to inanimate objects was for the win. I should load up Fallout with a really low intelligence. I always heard about the dialog options for low int, but never actually played them. So now I'm gonna check it out!
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.
Philosophy vs. attitude. Cool story bro.
Correct. A philosophy is a set of views and practices about a particular topic, whilst an attitude is a stance towards a particular thing. The view that creating an intentionally suboptimal character is "roleplaying" in a way that any other character isn't is not a design philosophy, and it would be inappropriate to term it as one.
This does not follow that I am suggesting an inherent superiority of my own design philosophy over any other design philsophy, merely that I do not share the attitude I have stated.
I would just call them preferences. To me it really sounded like your preference is the superior philosophy, while other people's preference is just an attitude.
I'm somewhere in middle, and like to play with all kinds of characters. I'm really surprised how many different views and playstyles there are. If game developers would take one thing from here, it's that giving many choices to the player is very good thing indeed.
Ah, understood. Rest assured I am apathetic towards others' design philosophies, I was merely attempting to be linguistically accurate.
I hold to the idea of people playing games in the manner most enjoyable for themselves, because that's what games are for; I find the notion of people telling other people they're having fun in the wrong manner in a single player game rather distasteful.
Comments
That said, I really don't like low level spells, so in my first playthrough with a character I play with the express knowledge that everything I am doing is so that I can enjoy the next playthrough because then I will have advanced enough spells that the game will actually be fun. It is the subsequent playthroughs that I enjoy the most because then I can use the fun spells. The first playthrough is usually more of a chore that I have to do since its a prerequisite to becoming powerful enough to enjoy the game. Stats also become increasingly meaningless as time goes on due to tomes and increases in abilities due to leveling. Any character can become powerful, given enough time, and I don't want to spend my time traveling with someone I don't like.
@ARKdeEREH
I think your comment is good because it reminds me of someone asking about the purpose of Boo...whether or not he just takes up a place in Minsc's quick item slot or if there is some greater point. A lot of the NPCs we would be better off with. But sometimes we just like the few random things they say. They just add some color to the game. Keeps it from feeling like Diablo. Haha.
Agility & Intelligence seems therefore the way to go...
Yeah I have never really been a super serious person. Seriously. That one Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines RPG was hilarious when you were a Malkavian. Talking to inanimate objects was for the win. I should load up Fallout with a really low intelligence. I always heard about the dialog options for low int, but never actually played them. So now I'm gonna check it out!
This does not follow that I am suggesting an inherent superiority of my own design philosophy over any other design philsophy, merely that I do not share the attitude I have stated.
I would just call them preferences. To me it really sounded like your preference is the superior philosophy, while other people's preference is just an attitude.
I'm somewhere in middle, and like to play with all kinds of characters. I'm really surprised how many different views and playstyles there are. If game developers would take one thing from here, it's that giving many choices to the player is very good thing indeed.
I hold to the idea of people playing games in the manner most enjoyable for themselves, because that's what games are for; I find the notion of people telling other people they're having fun in the wrong manner in a single player game rather distasteful.