Gold Box SSI's Gold Box Series Thread

Null Null · Aug 1, 2015

It was, though. The game's not expecting it, so you can do a lot with your delayed blast fireballs. You might have issues in Death Knights of Krynn with all the skeletal warriors, and the elvish ranger/clerics would die every so often and I had to restart...I'd also caution you to use at least one neutral cleric or you won't get 7th level spells in Death Knights. My strategy was to do all the other things before trying to clear out the High Clerist's Tower so you'd be as strong as possible (and get magic maces) before going after the skel warriors in there.

octavius · Aug 2, 2015

Null Null said:
It was, though. The game's not expecting it, so you can do a lot with your delayed blast fireballs. You might have issues in Death Knights of Krynn with all the skeletal warriors, and the elvish ranger/clerics would die every so often and I had to restart...I'd also caution you to use at least one neutral cleric or you won't get 7th level spells in Death Knights. My strategy was to do all the other things before trying to clear out the High Clerist's Tower so you'd be as strong as possible (and get magic maces) before going after the skel warriors in there.

Using an Enlarged (and Hasted if possible) Kender Cleric/Thief with a magic Hoopak for backstabbing makes it much easier earlier in the game.

Dorateen · Aug 2, 2015

When comparing the Pools series to the Dragonlance games, a key difference is that the content of the former was spread out over four titles. Where as Dark Queen of Krynn, the third of the trilogy, had to make up a lot of levels to reach those high epic tiers, and I think suffered for it compared to Pools of Darkness. In consideration, I think Death Knights of Krynn hit that sweet spot of AD&D adventuring in range of the party's power. I'm also partial to its open world exploration, but I have fond memories of Champions as well. Mapping out Throtyl, the chase for Myrtani and facing off against Sir Lebaum.

octavius · Aug 2, 2015

Dorateen said:
When comparing the Pools series to the Dragonlance games, a key difference is that the content of the former was spread out over four titles. Where as Dark Queen of Krynn, the third of the trilogy, had to make up a lot of levels to reach those high epic tiers, and I think suffered for it compared to Pools of Darkness.

How so?
From a combatfag's POV I thought DQK was just about perfect, while Pools was more uneven, with some areas being too easy (Giant's Steading, Marcus' Towe) and some too hard (Arie and Moander's Dimension).

Dorateen · Aug 2, 2015

I was thinking more in terms of pacing, and drawing out the level content. What the Moonsea saga accomplished in 4 games, Krynn had to squeeze into three. The example that immediately came to mind was the Gnome citadel, and the copious amounts of XP that was dropped on the party, to get them through levels in the 30's and higher.

Although I enjoyed the combat in both games, in fact the contrast in difficulty from Pools of Darkness areas, was not an issue for me. I would say I preferred the variety of enemies and the backdrops for fighting, more than Dark Queen.

octavius · Aug 2, 2015

Dorateen said:
I was thinking more in terms of pacing, and drawing out the level content. What the Moonsea saga accomplished in 4 games, Krynn had to squeeze into three. The example that immediately came to mind was the Gnome citadel, and the copious amounts of XP that was dropped on the party, to get them through levels in the 30's and higher.

Yeah, now that you specify it, that was silly.
Same thing happened in the IE games, too, especially IWD, IIRC.

Null Null · Aug 2, 2015

Dorateen said:
I was thinking more in terms of pacing, and drawing out the level content. What the Moonsea saga accomplished in 4 games, Krynn had to squeeze into three. The example that immediately came to mind was the Gnome citadel, and the copious amounts of XP that was dropped on the party, to get them through levels in the 30's and higher.

Although I enjoyed the combat in both games, in fact the contrast in difficulty from Pools of Darkness areas, was not an issue for me. I would say I preferred the variety of enemies and the backdrops for fighting, more than Dark Queen.

POD vs DQK: POD felt more 'epic' to me, even if you actually do get to meet the Dark Queen in DQK. I think POD did a better job of drawing out the alternate dimensions (you get to go to the drow homeplane and kill their queen, even if they retconned it from Lolth to Kalistes to avoid IP issues, and go roaming around Moander's body) and creating comically over-the-top epic monsters (giant poisonous Shambling Mounds, giant giant spiders with spellcasting abilities and magic resistance, demons by another name). The Abyss in DQK feels too small.

Also POD has more continuity nods to the prior games; DQK feels like they were trying to promote Time of the Dragon (where Taladas is mentioned) and is cut off from the prior two (compare DKK, where the good guy from the last game comes back as a bad guy, and you find a big trash-filled version of the first dungeon from the last game).

Octavius: got so tired of trying to figure out the backstab rules variations from game to game I never used it. Maybe that was my big mistake?

octavius · Aug 2, 2015

Null Null said:
Octavius: got so tired of trying to figure out the backstab rules variations from game to game I never used it. Maybe that was my big mistake?

The rules are actually quite persistent; it's only Pools of Radiance that does it differently.
In PoR you need to attack an ememy twice before hitting it from the opposite direction of the first attack, and it works on any enemy.
In the other games you only need one "set up" attack, but it only works on enemies that occupy one square.
And it can only be done with weapons that single class Thieves can use, and in the case of Hoopaks, Kender Thieves.

Null Null · Aug 2, 2015

octavius said:
The rules are actually quite persistent; it's only Pools of Radiance that does it differently.
In PoR you need to attack an ememy twice before hitting it from the opposite direction of the first attacks, and it works on any enemy.
In the other games you only need one "set up" attack, but it only works on enemies that occupy one square.
And it can only be done with weapons that single class Thieves can use, and in the case of Hoopaks Kender Thieves.

Thank you very much!

OK, correct me if I'm wrong: there are no blunt single-class thief weapons, so the hoopak allows you to make a backstab attack at full damage against skeletal warriors?

octavius · Aug 3, 2015

Null Null said:
Thank you very much!

OK, correct me if I'm wrong: there are no blunt single-class thief weapons, so the hoopak allows you to make a backstab attack at full damage against skeletal warriors?

Yup, that's the beauty of it.

Grathanich · Aug 4, 2015

Jaesun said:
The Intro of Champions of Krynn as played through my Roland MT-32/LAPC (the Roland CM-500 MODE B). Nothing too fancy, it just uses the default MT-32 instrument sounds. Not too bad. Just still shocked this game actually HAS a Roland MT-32/LAPC option. :D

What is more astounding is, the game even had a C64 version (on floppy of course).

Grathanich · Aug 4, 2015

octavius said:
Just because you can't just spam Delayed Blast Fireballs on them?

Personally I think CoK was the weakest, due to mediocre encounter design.
I loved Death Knights of Krynn. It has the best story IMO (it really captures the atmosphere of the Legend of Huma book), and is more unlinear than the other games.
Dark Queen has the poorest story/background, taking place on an unfamiliar continent, but it has the best level design and the best tactical combat of the three games, and provided a nice steady challenge throughout the whole game.

But all three games are good, and I think overall the Krynn series is better than the Pool series.

Death Knights of Krynn also had ZOMBIE CHICKENS so I think it was even more awesome than you say

GarfunkeL · Aug 5, 2015

Jaesun said:
The Intro of Champions of Krynn as played through my Roland MT-32/LAPC (the Roland CM-500 MODE B). Nothing too fancy, it just uses the default MT-32 instrument sounds. Not too bad. Just still shocked this game actually HAS a Roland MT-32/LAPC option. :D

Holy shit that's amazing!

Baxander · Aug 7, 2015

I went with Pool of Radiance, with Champions of Krynn being a distant second. Never got to try the Buck Rogers games, though I wish I would have. It seemed all of the Gold Box games lost a little of their magic after PoR for me though...PoR always felt less linear to me and seemed to allow a little more freedom.

Excidium II · Aug 7, 2015

Baxander said:
It seemed all of the Gold Box games lost a little of their magic after PoR for me though...PoR always felt less linear to me and seemed to allow a little more freedom.

Yeah I got that impression too, though I haven't played all the GB games. PoR just has a great scenario for a D&D game.

Keldryn · Aug 7, 2015

Baxander said:
I went with Pool of Radiance, with Champions of Krynn being a distant second. Never got to try the Buck Rogers games, though I wish I would have. It seemed all of the Gold Box games lost a little of their magic after PoR for me though...PoR always felt less linear to me and seemed to allow a little more freedom.

I played through Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, and Chimps of Krynn. I've played partway through all of the others, but the series didn't sustain my interest. After I discovered Ultima VI in the summer of 1990, I was never really able to enjoy the GB games the way I had before. Ultima VI ruined a lot of CRPGs for me.

Null Null · Aug 9, 2015

Baxander said:
I went with Pool of Radiance, with Champions of Krynn being a distant second. Never got to try the Buck Rogers games, though I wish I would have. It seemed all of the Gold Box games lost a little of their magic after PoR for me though...PoR always felt less linear to me and seemed to allow a little more freedom.

I'd agree. (Judging from the above poll, most people agree with you as well.) I don't know any other games that did the 'sandbox' thing, or gave you multiple possible resolutions for each map. Then again, I have a problem--my parents bought me Champions of Krynn, and then I loved it so much they bought me the rest of the series, but by the time Treasures came out I had to start cramming for college. So my brief window of game-playing coincided with the release of the GB series. I did play Dragon Wars, and started the Bard's Tale but for some reason never got it to run on my Apple II.

So...if I liked the GB series, what other games would I like? (Is this the right thread for this?)

Dorateen · Aug 9, 2015

Null Null said:
So...if I liked the GB series, what other games would I like?

No question, the Gold Box games are in a class of their own. But if you haven't played these other titles, I would suggest the following as something similar: Temple of Elemental Evil or Knights of the Chalice for its turn-based tactical combat. Realms of Arkania for its perspective split between first person exploration, and then top town battle screens. And there's something to be said for Icewind Dale, despite it's RTwP system, capturing the flavor of low to mid-level AD&D adventuring.

Goblino · Aug 10, 2015

I'm not very knowledgeable about these games, but it you're after the next step up, then Dark Sun might be to your liking. The interface and tool tips in DSun are much easier for my crack addicted 90s kid brain to focus on, and it plays out as a prototype of what could have been a new generation of GB games.