Game News Baldur's Gate 3 now available on Early Access

[Glop_dweller]

Sorry man, but this is true in any possibile reality. You can theoretically roleplay an entire army, but it is not how AD&D (or any other P&P system, for that matter) works: if you are not the DM, in AD&D 1 player = 1 character; in BG 1 player = 1 to 6 characters. Totally different game experiences.

People do it.

I cannot fathom why that is even an issue. In D&D table-top, what prevents running two (or more) PCs at a time?

And still, BG is a game intended to be played as a single-player party-based RPG, which - in tabletop terms - is two times an oxymoron.

Most D&Dcomputer games do allow for multiple characters. The D&D Redbox shipped with a single player solo game—which would work fine if the player rolled two PCs, and had them explore it together.

I've treated the dialogues in a different point. For lack of better definitions "non-combat interactions are actions that in tabletop RPGs are the norm but in a CPRGs are so rare that many CPRG veterans with zero experience at the table don't even know they exist" :D.
I'm talking about stuff like casting a levitation spell in order to cross a magma pool, poisoning the food of a enemy, burning a stable with a torch in order to attract the guards attention, etc... The infinite pool of actions that you can perform in AD&D but you can't in BG...

I'd mention that you can perform those actions in other games (a few in Arx Fatalis), You can cast levitation in Menzoberranzan; poison food in a few games I know of, hell in Arx you can get the bard drunk—and he plays out of tune. I don't see the point here; especially if you just reply, "But not in Baldur's Gate". Some of these actions are irrelevant when the game does not choose to support them. Lack of any option is meaningless, because it all equates to the DM saying, "No".

Not remotely close to what happens at the table. In a P&P RPG I'm allowed to say literally everything I want. In BG I don't have even 1/1,000,000 of the options necessary to do that.

And again, what's the point? At table you can say to the barkeep, "You should invest your gold in the troll mines" (like the PC can do in Arx) , or "I saw a Harley Davidson low-rider stashed in your stables!". It doesn't matter though, not if the DM says, "Cut it out, and stick with the story".

Fallout let's you say anything you like to the NPCs, they might even answer you if they feel like it. Some of the things they say are only in those asked for responses. Is it a better roleplaying game for that?

Hypothetically —because it's not profitable yet— any RPG could be setup to use local and Internet AI services like Siri, Alexa, Cortana to provide plausible responses to arbitrary statements; certainly modified versions that are game-aware. Look up Les Manly, Search for the King (on GOG), it's got a decent parser, and plenty of in-game actions that are only possible by declaring them. Such could be done with a modern RPG well enough. But lack of this should not hinder, or make the player feel unreasonably confined... so long as the game has a path suited to their character [usually stealth/force/wisdom based].

Yes, the round framework is still there (well known fact) but the turn order is not, no matter how you tell the story. In a turn based system you can't move while other characters are performing an action nor you can choose what to do or where to go during another character turn (readied actions aside). Having a round structure doesn't make BG a turn based game.

Overwatch, or other names for it. In Pool of Radiance (and its many followups), the PCs can attack during another's turn, if given the opportunity. This happens in all three Neverwinter Nights games.

I still don't see the importance you hold for this.

If would have been like substituting the tactical thinking of the player to the tactical thinking of the party leader, then. What a horrible thing to do :D...

Games have done it; even a few good ones. The Disciples series lets you bypass combat entirely if you choose; it auto-solves. I remember one game that actually plays an abstract cutscene of generic combat in silhouette if you skip the manual fight. It shouldn't be a problem if the characters are developed well, and to their tasks.

Personally I would like it if the character who leads had a stat-based profile that affected the odds of winning an auto-combat. Just imagine —wait... we don't have to imagine. Baldur's Gate provides PC combat AI, and lets the player sit back and watch the melee.

 

[baud]

In Zelda you explore

What kind of exploration there is Zelda? From those I've played, it's just use the object required to clear the current obstacle and that's it

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume that a Legend of Zelda game is just a linear sequence of dungeons. How do you solve these dungeons? You go around, avoid being killed by environmental hazards and monsters, find hidden stuff, solve environmental puzzles with the tools at your disposal, figure out the dungeon layout and use this knowledge to solve the whole labyrinth (additionally you also find non mandatory goodies hidden here and there). Except for the "solve environmental puzzles" part this is pure exploration. But a Zelda game has also an overworld, which a) is densely packed with secrets b) can be explored in a non linear fashion c) usually needs to be understood as well in order to beat the game (given that it harbors some kind of overarching quest). Again, pure exploration...

And this model applies only to the "classic" Zeldas. The pre-classic (The Legend of Zelda I and II) and the post classic (A Link Between Worlds and Breath of the Wilds) are immensely more open and exploration focused...

For references (my favorite videogame channel on YouTube):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmOVS-qLG6o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7sm-0nGV34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmIgjAM0uh0

I agree that the exploration in dungeons is great, I should have said that I just didn't find the overworld exploration very compelling in the Zelda I've played, mostly because there's only one available path, gated by obstacle that you beat with the objects from the dungeons, with some side-paths (more or less hidden) with some additional treasures. Though I only played LoZ on portable consoles (the game boy ones and Minish Cap), so maybe exploration is better in the console titles?

 

[Zeriel]

What a weird timeline. The original D:OS is more in line with the peak D&D combat experience that was ToEE, while the actual BG3 is a joke.

At least we have Pathfinder, but I still find it pathetic that there are people here who defend this kind of bait and switch tactic, how is this any different from Bethesda's Fallout?

 

[Glop_dweller]

It's not any different.


_______________

Your companions are supposed to represent the other player characters which is the argument against full party control.

BG 1 & 2 do have that; the class based companion AI. If the player chooses, the party will fight like a bunch of blindfolded cats, but it's better if they fight under a coordinated group effort; [with a team leader].

I remember mercs in the Gold-Box games—wasting invisibility spells, and the dust of invisibility for just charging heedless toward the enemy; IIRC the AI controlled party does the same in Baldur's Gate.

When I first played Fallout (coming from BG1), the NPC party members were a bit jarring, but not unfamiliar; the goldbox games had similar NPC party members. What bothered me was that the Brotherhood assault force was not controllable—a paramilitary squad that didn't take orders. I could accept that all of the regular companions were loose canons, but the squad should have been under player control IMO.

*It was also quite the disappointment that they abandoned the PC at the front gate.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Sorry man, but this is true in any possibile reality. You can theoretically roleplay an entire army, but it is not how AD&D (or any other P&P system, for that matter) works: if you are not the DM, in AD&D 1 player = 1 character; in BG 1 player = 1 to 6 characters. Totally different game experiences.

People do it.

I cannot fathom why that is even an issue. In D&D table-top, what prevents running two (or more) PCs at a time?

The rules, for instance. You can role how many characters you want, but if you are not a DM you are supposed to roleplay only one character at a time.

And still, BG is a game intended to be played as a single-player party-based RPG, which - in tabletop terms - is two times an oxymoron.

Most D&Dcomputer games do allow for multiple characters. The D&D Redbox shipped with a single player solo game—which would work fine if the player rolled two PCs, and had them explore it together.

And - agian - this is not how a tabletop session works.

I've treated the dialogues in a different point. For lack of better definitions "non-combat interactions are actions that in tabletop RPGs are the norm but in a CPRGs are so rare that many CPRG veterans with zero experience at the table don't even know they exist" :D.
I'm talking about stuff like casting a levitation spell in order to cross a magma pool, poisoning the food of a enemy, burning a stable with a torch in order to attract the guards attention, etc... The infinite pool of actions that you can perform in AD&D but you can't in BG...

I'd mention that you can perform those actions in other games (a few in Arx Fatalis), You can cast levitation in Menzoberranzan; poison food in a few games I know of, hell in Arx you can get the bard drunk—and he plays out of tune. I don't see the point here; especially if you just reply, "But not in Baldur's Gate". Some of these actions are irrelevant when the game does not choose to support them. Lack of any option is meaningless, because it all equates to the DM saying, "No".

a) We are not talking anymore about Arx Fatalis (which, being an immersive sim is far more developed in this area than BG), nor about occasional scripted interactions.
b) The DM is not allowed say "no" to anything. A capable DM never do that. He can find all the sadistic ways he want to prevent players for doing stupid things, but...
c) at any given moment only the rules, the common sense and the player imagination dictate what a D&D character can or cannot do. In videogames you have a 4th limitation: The vocabulary of actions coded by the developers. In the specific case of BG this vocabulary is almost non existent outside of combat, which, believe it or not, is a far greater betrayal of the spirt of AD&D than anything you consider inappropriate for a CRPG.

Not remotely close to what happens at the table. In a P&P RPG I'm allowed to say literally everything I want. In BG I don't have even 1/1,000,000 of the options necessary to do that.

And again, what's the point? At table you can say to the barkeep, "You should invest your gold in the troll mines" (like the PC can do in Arx) , or "I saw a Harley Davidson low-rider stashed in your stables!". It doesn't matter though, not if the DM says, "Cut it out, and stick with the story".

Fallout let's you say anything you like to the NPCs, they might even answer you if they feel like it. Some of the things they say are only in those asked for responses. Is it a better roleplaying game for that?

Hypothetically —because it's not profitable yet— any RPG could be setup to use local and Internet AI services like Siri, Alexa, Cortana to provide plausible responses to arbitrary statements; certainly modified versions that are game-aware. Look up Les Manly, Search for the King (on GOG), it's got a decent parser, and plenty of in-game actions that are only possible by declaring them. Such could be done with a modern RPG well enough. But lack of this should not hinder, or make the player feel unreasonably confined... so long as the game has a path suited to their character [usually stealth/force/wisdom based].

a) For the "no" part see above.
b) Aside for that, if you really believe that having an handful of options per dialogue node is a faithful adaptation of a freeform conversation, you have quite a dry imagination, man.
c) I've enjoyed my time with AI dungeon (https://play.aidungeon.io/main/home) but - again - we are talking about I.E. games (plus Fallout apparently) here.

Yes, the round framework is still there (well known fact) but the turn order is not, no matter how you tell the story. In a turn based system you can't move while other characters are performing an action nor you can choose what to do or where to go during another character turn (readied actions aside). Having a round structure doesn't make BG a turn based game.

Overwatch, or other names for it. In Pool of Radiance (and its many followups), the PCs can attack during another's turn, if given the opportunity. This happens in all three Neverwinter Nights games.

I still don't see the importance you hold for this.

I named the readied actions myself. They are meant to break the turn order at the cost of not taking action during your turn. Point is, is BG there is no turn order at all. If you don't believe me, try this little experiment: start a campaign in BG 2 with the "pause after every action" option flagged, then start a campaign with Pool of Radiance, Knights of the Chalice or ToEE (pick your favorite one), play for a couple of hours each game, come back here and tell me how similar they are .

If would have been like substituting the tactical thinking of the player to the tactical thinking of the party leader, then. What a horrible thing to do :D...

Games have done it; even a few good ones. The Disciples series lets you bypass combat entirely if you choose; it auto-solves. I remember one game that actually plays an abstract cutscene of generic combat in silhouette if you skip the manual fight. It shouldn't be a problem if the characters are developed well, and to their tasks.

Personally I would like it if the character who leads had a stat-based profile that affected the odds of winning an auto-combat. Just imagine —wait... we don't have to imagine. Baldur's Gate provides PC combat AI, and lets the player sit back and watch the melee.

And what a thrilling experience this is!! After all, we all play our combat focused RPGs for the joy of letting the A.I. handle the battle :D.

Look, it's quite transparent that you have no experience with tabletop RPGs and your idea of what an RPG should be comes entirely from videogame adaptations. Now, shocking as it may sound, these adaptations are not faithful at all. They fundamentally change the mechanics and the spirit of the systems they take inspiration from. But no one gives a fuck as long as these alterations make for good videogames. Hence, the reasons you like or don't like BG have nothing to do with its (almost non existent) faithfulness to AD&D.

 

[Risewild]

The rules, for instance. You can role how many characters you want, but if you are not a DM you are supposed to roleplay only one character at a time.

This is not true, the rules say a player can have several characters.

They recommend that the DM limits a player to one character at the start of the campaign, but later to allow the player to have multiple characters:

 

[Dr Schultz]

The rules, for instance. You can role how many characters you want, but if you are not a DM you are supposed to roleplay only one character at a time.

This is not true, the rules say a player can have several characters.

They recommend that the DM limits a player to one character at the start of the campaign, but later to allow the player to have multiple characters:

And this doesn't contradict my statement: "You can role how many characters you want, but if you are not a DM you are supposed to roleplay only one character at a time". Which is to say, you are allowed to alternate various characters during a campaign if you really want. But you don't play as an hive-mind for the whole party. The hive-mind role is for the Master alone.

 

[Dr Schultz]

In Zelda you explore

What kind of exploration there is Zelda? From those I've played, it's just use the object required to clear the current obstacle and that's it

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume that a Legend of Zelda game is just a linear sequence of dungeons. How do you solve these dungeons? You go around, avoid being killed by environmental hazards and monsters, find hidden stuff, solve environmental puzzles with the tools at your disposal, figure out the dungeon layout and use this knowledge to solve the whole labyrinth (additionally you also find non mandatory goodies hidden here and there). Except for the "solve environmental puzzles" part this is pure exploration. But a Zelda game has also an overworld, which a) is densely packed with secrets b) can be explored in a non linear fashion c) usually needs to be understood as well in order to beat the game (given that it harbors some kind of overarching quest). Again, pure exploration...

And this model applies only to the "classic" Zeldas. The pre-classic (The Legend of Zelda I and II) and the post classic (A Link Between Worlds and Breath of the Wilds) are immensely more open and exploration focused...

For references (my favorite videogame channel on YouTube):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmOVS-qLG6o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7sm-0nGV34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmIgjAM0uh0

I agree that the exploration in dungeons is great, I should have said that I just didn't find the overworld exploration very compelling in the Zelda I've played, mostly because there's only one available path, gated by obstacle that you beat with the objects from the dungeons, with some side-paths (more or less hidden) with some additional treasures. Though I only played LoZ on portable consoles (the game boy ones and Minish Cap), so maybe exploration is better in the console titles?

I wouldn't say linear, I'd say limited by your available tools like in a metroidvania game.
Aside for that, the most obvious differences in a 3d Zelda are the dimensions of the overworld and - of course - the role of the verticality.
Breath of the Wild, though, deserves a complete different description: It's a gigantic open-world sandbox that can be freely explored from the get go (the third video in my previous post is about it).

 

[Glop_dweller]

The rules, for instance.

Provide the page number.

a) We are not talking anymore about Arx Fatalis (which, being an immersive sim is far more developed in this area than BG), nor about occasional scripted interactions.
b) The DM is not allowed say "no" to anything. A capable DM never do that. He can find all the sadistic ways he want to prevent players for doing stupid things, but...
c) at any given moment only the rules, the common sense and the player imagination dictate what a D&D character can or cannot do.

A- That's nice, but what's your point?

B- Of course they are; they are the Dungeon Master. DMs are not subservient to the players. They can cheat the rolls if need be; make changes to characters mid game, invent stuff on the fly, as needed, or choose not to. They can declare that the entire party got food poisoning, succumbed to diseased loot, or got lost in a swamp—if needs be to maintain their narrative; free-form if they wish, prefer, or if they are not inconvenienced by it, but they are by no means not allowed.

C- Sounds like a weak DM.

In the specific case of BG this vocabulary is almost non existent outside of combat...

Prove this non-existence with examples. Because whatever you mean by this is not coming across.

b) Aside for that, if you really believe that having an handful of options per dialogue node is a faithful adaptation of a freeform conversation, you have quite a dry imagination, man.

It's usually enough; depends on the writer. A well written few options that are pertinent and that make sense are preferable to the freedom to say anything—even allowing for an exceptional AI that could handle [in character] anything the player says to it. The intention is merely to have at least one (or more) statements that fall in line with the possible character types.

If you don't believe me, try this little experiment: start a campaign in BG 2 with the "pause after every action" option flagged.

There is no 'pause after every action flag'; the player would have to do that manually. It would be better if you would very precisely state what it is that BG has lost for not using conventional turn based gameplay.

And what a thrilling experience this is!! After all, we all play our combat focused RPGs for the joy of letting the A.I. handle the battle :D.

Yes, it can be. Typically an auto-solve is intended for trash fights, when the party greatly overpowers the opponents, but they certainly work to resolve combat unimpaired by the player... to see how they truly handle themselves.

Look, it's quite transparent that you have no experience with tabletop RPGs.

...and your idea of what an RPG should be comes entirely from videogame adaptations.

...Because you cannot fathom it, and you gainsay any replies? No. This feels like the Brawndo argument.

No, it is apparent that you like to discard what you won't understand, and to disparage what contradicts your own opinion... and you assume much—with no basis but prior assumptions. For instance, you think that I have no experience because my observations don't match what you take for granted as fact; so —obviously— I must not know any better, having —surely— never played any PnP games.

BoguS

 

[Risewild]

And this doesn't contradict my statement: "You can role how many characters you want, but if you are not a DM you are supposed to roleplay only one character at a time". Which is to say, you are allowed to alternate various characters during a campaign if you really want. But you don't play as an hive-mind for the whole party. The hive-mind role is for the Master alone.

Read that again, it doesn't mention at all you can only have one character at a time. It doesn't mention you're only supposed to roleplay one character either. You are deliberately changing the meaning of the rules to fit into your argument.

It explicitly says:
"Each participant in the campaign created by the referee must create one or more game personas"
And:
"The Dungeon Master is advised to limit player characters to one per participant at commencement of the campaign, though as play progresses, additional player characters may be added in a judicious manner."

The DM is advised, means that the DM is not forced to limit the players to one character is. That is not open to interpretation.
It also doesn't mention that a player only controls or roleplay one character at a time at all, in fact, it starts with "each participant in the campaign (...) must create one or more". So it even says that players can create more than one player character at the start of the campaign.

The rules are like that in case there's only 2 or 3 players (one of them has to be DM), for example. Because a party of one or 2 characters wouldn't go far in most official campaigns.

Anyway, just because you invent weird meanings for the rules, doesn't make them have those meanings.

Rules Source Again

 

[Dr Schultz]

And this doesn't contradict my statement: "You can role how many characters you want, but if you are not a DM you are supposed to roleplay only one character at a time". Which is to say, you are allowed to alternate various characters during a campaign if you really want. But you don't play as an hive-mind for the whole party. The hive-mind role is for the Master alone.

Read that again, it doesn't mention at all you can only have one character at a time. It doesn't mention you're only supposed to roleplay one character either. You are deliberately changing the meaning of the rules to fit into your argument.

It explicitly says:
"Each participant in the campaign created by the referee must create one or more game personas"
And:
"The Dungeon Master is advised to limit player characters to one per participant at commencement of the campaign, though as play progresses, additional player characters may be added in a judicious manner."

The DM is advised, means that the DM is not forced to limit the players to one character is. That is not open to interpretation.
It also doesn't mention that a player only controls or roleplay one character at a time at all, in fact, it starts with "each participant in the campaign (...) must create one or more". So it even says that players can create more than one player character at the start of the campaign.

The rules are like that in case there's only 2 or 3 players (one of them has to be DM), for example. Because a party of one character wouldn't go far in most official campaigns.

Anyway, just because you invent weird meanings for the rules, doesn't make them have those meanings.

Rules Source Again

Form the AD&D player handbook, the "Real Basics" paragraph:
" This is the heart of role-playing. The player adopts the role of A CHARACTER and then guides THAT CHARACTER through an adventure. The player makes decisions, interacts with other characters and players, and, essentially, "pretends" to be his CHARACTER during the course of the game. That doesn't mean that the player must jump up and down, dash around, and act like his character. It means that whenever the character is called on to do something or make a decision, the player pretends that he is in that situation and chooses an appropriate course of action. Physically, the players and referee (the DM) should be seated comfortably around a table with the referee at the head. Players need plenty of room for papers, pencils, dice, rule books, drinks, and snacks. The referee needs extra space for his maps, dice, rule books, and assorted notes. "

Allowing players to create multiple characters is something you do for narrative purposes. Not an alternative (and quite frankly weird) game mode in which players control a party of characters at the same time.

 

[Konjad]

 

[Dr Schultz]

The rules, for instance.

Provide the page number.

AD&D player handbook, the "Real Basics" paragraph... For a direct quotation see my previous post.

A- That's nice, but what's your point?

I don't know. What was the point of describing how Arx Fatalis works while talking about I.E. games?

B- Of course they are; they are the Dungeon Master. DMs are not subservient to the players. They can cheat the rolls if need be; make changes to characters mid game, invent stuff on the fly, as needed, or choose not to. They can declare that the entire party got food poisoning, succumbed to diseased loot, or got lost in a swamp—if needs be to maintain their narrative; free-form if they wish, prefer, or if they are not inconvenienced by it, but they are by no means not allowed.

Which means exactly what I said. The DM can't prevent players for doing anything unless he finds on the fly an in-game explanation.

C- Sounds like a weak DM.

Sounds like a real DM. Maybe one day you'll meet one :D.

In the specific case of BG this vocabulary is almost non existent outside of combat...

Prove this non-existence with examples. Because whatever you mean by this is not coming across.

In the player handbook there is a paragraph that lists all the "Nonweapon Proficiencies" of AD&D: these range from agriculture to tracking, encompassing actions like swimming, riding, tightrope walking, etc... It's a vast collection of human actions and activities that you character can theoretically perform, but in BG cannot. In the spells appendix there is also a SHITLOAD of spells with non-violent applications, spells that, again, were completely removed from BG.
Hope this finally makes you understand what non-combat interaction are.

b) Aside for that, if you really believe that having an handful of options per dialogue node is a faithful adaptation of a freeform conversation, you have quite a dry imagination, man.

It's usually enough; depends on the writer. A well written few options that are pertinent and that make sense are preferable to the freedom to say anything—even allowing for an exceptional AI that could handle [in character] anything the player says to it. The intention is merely to have at least one (or more) statements that fall in line with the possible character types.

It's not remotely enough. Again, unless you have a quite dry imagination.

If you don't believe me, try this little experiment: start a campaign in BG 2 with the "pause after every action" option flagged.

There is no 'pause after every action flag'; the player would have to do that manually. It would be better if you would very precisely state what it is that BG has lost for not using conventional turn based gameplay.

Already told you: the turn order, which, flexible as it may be thanks to the readied actions, is still very present in a TB game and totally absent in BG.

And what a thrilling experience this is!! After all, we all play our combat focused RPGs for the joy of letting the A.I. handle the battle :D.

Yes, it can be. Typically an auto-solve is intended for trash fights, when the party greatly overpowers the opponents, but they certainly work to resolve combat unimpaired by the player... to see how they truly handle themselves.

Look, it's quite transparent that you have no experience with tabletop RPGs.

...and your idea of what an RPG should be comes entirely from videogame adaptations.

...Because you cannot fathom it, and you gainsay any replies? No. This feels like the Brawndo argument.

No, it is apparent that you like to discard what you won't understand, and to disparage what contradicts your own opinion... and you assume much—with no basis but prior assumptions. For instance, you think that I have no experience because my observations don't match what you take for granted as fact; so —obviously— I must not know any better, having —surely— never played any PnP games.

BoguS

Man, I had to explain you what non-combat interactions are, for Christ sake :D! It doesn't take all that investigative prowess to understand that you have zero experience with tabletop RPGs. It's not a shame, but - please - stop pretending...

 

[Roguey]

Schultz is the worst kind of ignorant person who claims to be knowledgeable.

Henchmen follow the orders of their hirer in play. If an order exposes a henchman to unusual risk, then a loyalty check (see below) must be made to see if they obey. What is an unusual risk? Something that is not part of their regular duties. A fighter henchman can expect to walk in the front rank and fight monsters. However, asking a henchman to stay behind to protect the party, charge forward (alone) into a horde of goblins, or test a potion are all examples of unusual situations.

Loyalty of Henchmen
When a henchman receives an order to do something risky or drops to half their hit points in combat, then a Loyalty check should be made on 2d6. If the roll is equal to or under their Loyalty Score, as determined above, then they follow the command or keep fighting. If the roll is higher than the Loyalty Score, then the henchman refuses the order or flees from combat.

Whether or not the henchman abandons service altogether is the DM’s decision. In some cases, such is appropriate. In others, they will continue to serve.

The DM may adjust the Loyalty Score of a henchman up or down based on their treatment. If the henchman receives magic items and bonus shares of treasure, improve their Loyalty score by one or two points. Conversely, if they keep getting asked to do risky things or if their pay is low, then the Loyalty Score may be adjusted downwards – to whatever level seems appropriate!

Gygax running Tomb of Horrors:

“Rob Kuntz, in his game persona as a 13th-level (evil) lord [Robilar] went through the entire tomb in four hours actual time. He took 14 orcs and a couple of the low-level flunkies with him. He lost all the party, but his character personally looted the lich’s tomb and escaped with the goodies.”

 

[Dr Schultz]

Schultz is the worst kind of ignorant person who claims to be knowledgeable.

Henchmen follow the orders of their hirer in play. If an order exposes a henchman to unusual risk, then a loyalty check (see below) must be made to see if they obey. What is an unusual risk? Something that is not part of their regular duties. A fighter henchman can expect to walk in the front rank and fight monsters. However, asking a henchman to stay behind to protect the party, charge forward (alone) into a horde of goblins, or test a potion are all examples of unusual situations.

Loyalty of Henchmen
When a henchman receives an order to do something risky or drops to half their hit points in combat, then a Loyalty check should be made on 2d6. If the roll is equal to or under their Loyalty Score, as determined above, then they follow the command or keep fighting. If the roll is higher than the Loyalty Score, then the henchman refuses the order or flees from combat.

Whether or not the henchman abandons service altogether is the DM’s decision. In some cases, such is appropriate. In others, they will continue to serve.

The DM may adjust the Loyalty Score of a henchman up or down based on their treatment. If the henchman receives magic items and bonus shares of treasure, improve their Loyalty score by one or two points. Conversely, if they keep getting asked to do risky things or if their pay is low, then the Loyalty Score may be adjusted downwards – to whatever level seems appropriate!

Gygax running Tomb of Horrors:

“Rob Kuntz, in his game persona as a 13th-level (evil) lord [Robilar] went through the entire tomb in four hours actual time. He took 14 orcs and a couple of the low-level flunkies with him. He lost all the party, but his character personally looted the lich’s tomb and escaped with the goodies.”

Ahahaha. And what on earth this has to do with controlling/role-playing more than one character at the same time?
In AD&D, ONCE YOU REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL, you can have followers. This is exactly the same as role-playing more than one character at same time, isn't it? After all, I continuely make loyalty checks with myself in order to see if I'm willing to take risks I want to take

Again, Roguey, what was the worse kind of ignorant person? Because I'm under the impression I've just met one

 

[Roguey]

Ahahaha. And what on earth this has to do with controlling/role-playing more than one character at the same time?
In AD&D, ONCE YOU REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL, you can have followers.

And that level could be one. The Village of Hommlet had henchmen for hire. Charisma modifies how many any one character can have https://advanced-dungeons-dragons-2nd-edition.fandom.com/wiki/Charisma

This is exactly the same as role-playing more than one character at same time, isn't it? After all, I continuely make loyalty checks with myself in order to see if I'm willing to take risks I want to take

Garbage mechanic. If Gygax was really rolling 14 times for loyalty checks every time, he was crazy.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Ahahaha. And what on earth this has to do with controlling/role-playing more than one character at the same time?
In AD&D, ONCE YOU REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL, you can have followers.

And that level could be one. The Village of Hommlet had henchmen for hire. Charisma modifies how many any one character can have https://advanced-dungeons-dragons-2nd-edition.fandom.com/wiki/Charisma

This is exactly the same as role-playing more than one character at same time, isn't it? After all, I continuely make loyalty checks with myself in order to see if I'm willing to take risks I want to take

Garbage mechanic. If Gygax was really rolling 14 times for loyalty checks every time, he was crazy.

A) Nope. It's around 8th-9th. I can't check right know but I seem to remember it's 9th. The limit to the maximum amount of henchmen is intended for the moment you can start having them.
B) henchmen as a concept don't work in the tabletop environment. I've never met a single DM/player who uses them. Just in case a player is not available and you need a raplacement to keep the campaign on track. Check in the dedicated forums if you don't trust me.

 

[Roguey]

A) Nope. It's around 8th-9th. I can't check right know but I seem to remember it's 9th. The limit to the maximum amount of henchmen is intended for the moment you can start having them.

Those are followers, not henchmen. From the DMG

HENCHMEN

Henchmen, whether male or female, are greatly desired by the discern- ing players, for they usually spell the difference between failure and success in the long term view. They are useful in individual adventures as a safety measure against the machinations of rival player characters, provide strength to the character and his or her stronghold, and lastly serve as a means of adventuring when the player character is unable to. Because they are so useful, and because they are typically so devoted, there are charisma limitations as to how many henchmen a PC is able to attract. Knowing this, the real question for the Dungeon Master is who will be attracted? where will they be found? when will they come? and what will the cost be? These questions are answered in detail hereafter.

Level Of Prospective New Henchmen:

As a general rule, only characters of 1st level of experience will be attracted to service with.a player character. (If the NPC has already gained a level or more of experience on his or her own, why would the aegis of a PC be sought?!) If the player character attempting to find an NPC henchman is over 6th level, there is a 10% chance that the character found will be 2nd level, and seeking service because of the renown of the PC; if the player character is over 11 th level, there is a 25% chance that NPC will be 3rd level, 25% chance for 2nd level, and 50% for 1st level.

B) henchmen as a concept don't work in the tabletop environment. I've never met a single DM/player who uses them. Just in case a player is not available and you need a raplacement to keep playing. Check in the dedicated forums if you don't trust me.

I just shared an anecdote where Gygax's players used henchmen in their campaigns.

 

[Dr Schultz]

A) Nope. It's around 8th-9th. I can't check right know but I seem to remember it's 9th. The limit to the maximum amount of henchmen is intended for the moment you can start having them.

Those are followers, not henchmen. From the DMG

HENCHMEN

Henchmen, whether male or female, are greatly desired by the discern- ing players, for they usually spell the difference between failure and success in the long term view. They are useful in individual adventures as a safety measure against the machinations of rival player characters, provide strength to the character and his or her stronghold, and lastly serve as a means of adventuring when the player character is unable to. Because they are so useful, and because they are typically so devoted, there are charisma limitations as to how many henchmen a PC is able to attract. Knowing this, the real question for the Dungeon Master is who will be attracted? where will they be found? when will they come? and what will the cost be? These questions are answered in detail hereafter.

Level Of Prospective New Henchmen:

As a general rule, only characters of 1st level of experience will be attracted to service with.a player character. (If the NPC has already gained a level or more of experience on his or her own, why would the aegis of a PC be sought?!) If the player character attempting to find an NPC henchman is over 6th level, there is a 10% chance that the character found will be 2nd level, and seeking service because of the renown of the PC; if the player character is over 11 th level, there is a 25% chance that NPC will be 3rd level, 25% chance for 2nd level, and 50% for 1st level.

B) henchmen as a concept don't work in the tabletop environment. I've never met a single DM/player who uses them. Just in case a player is not available and you need a raplacement to keep playing. Check in the dedicated forums if you don't trust me.

I just shared an anecdote where Gygax's players used henchmen in their campaigns.

Even for the henchmen you can never get them at 1st.

"A henchman is always of lower level than the PC. Should he ever equal or surpass the
PC's level, the henchman leaves forever; it is time for him to try his luck in the real
world. In some ways, the player character is the mentor and the henchman his student.
When the student has learned as much as the teacher, it is time for him to go out on his own".

In 3rd ed you need the leadership feat to have an henchman (6th level I guess), then in 4th ed henchmen disappeared for the rulebook. Not sure what happened in the 5th but I doubt they came back. So go haed and check how popular they are.

Additionally, level restriction aside, you don't have complete control over hirelings, henchmen and followers. You don't roleplay them. You (your character) give them orders hopping that they agree to do what you ask them. They are nothing like BG companions if you brought them up for this reason

 

[Roguey]

Additionally, level restriction aside, you don't have complete control over hirelings, henchmen and followers. You don't roleplay them. You (your character) give them orders hopping that they agree to do what you ask them. They are nothing like BG companions if you brought them up for this reason

You don't roleplay BG companions either; they can leave for various reasons.

 

[Glop_dweller]

Form the AD&D player handbook, the "Real Basics" paragraph:
" This is the heart of role-playing. The player adopts the role of A CHARACTER and then guides THAT CHARACTER through an adventure.

...And it's to be taken in the same vein as, "The parent adopts the responsibility of A CHILD, and then guides THAT CHILD through to adulthood". It does not forbid them adoption of two (or more).

I don't know. What was the point of describing how Arx Fatalis works while talking about I.E. games?

You brought up Arx yourself; used it as an example of a single character RPG.

Which means exactly what I said. The DM can't prevent players for doing anything unless he finds on the fly an in-game explanation.

And that explaination can be, "Because I said so!", and a cRPG can do the same.

Sounds like a real DM. Maybe one day you'll meet one :D.

A real pushover DM; it's never fun with a weak (or a push-over) DM. Once I was not alone in walking out of a session where the party was said to be walking down the lane, and spotted a strange cave; 'Do you want to go in?'. We all humored him; that it is... until after the 5th consecutive room with a hostile zombie and kobold in it. The players all stood up and left.

But in this case, I mean that kind or DM who seeks only to placate and cater to the players. One who does not wield absolute control over the narrative, and who can be bent and twisted like a willow branch, by abusive or entitled players.

In the player handbook there is a paragraph that lists all the "Nonweapon Proficiencies" of AD&D: these range from agriculture to tracking, encompassing actions like swimming, riding, tightrope walking, etc... It's a vast collection of human actions and activities that you character can theoretically perform, but in BG cannot.

They are not needed; outside the scope of the game—in the same way as a 'cybernetic diagnostician' skill is typically out of scope in Faerun. *Not because there isn't the skill of agriculture in Faerun, but because solutions involving it might be outside the scope of a given game. Your point scoffs that the scope is so limited, my point appreciates that the scope is so limited.

Aside: Dungeon design for 2d/3d computer games (as opposed top PnP) is a funny thing—and it's difficult concept to impart to the would be dungeon designers, that hiding a secret door should be obvious. It is counter intuitive, but the door (or trigger switch) should be visible when looked at, rather than perfectly concealed; only found when pressed.

The reason for this is that in a dungeon of many hundred walls, there must be a limitation of scope, or the accomplishment of finding it is attributed to random chance—and it's tedious as hell to methodically prod every wall in the complex.

Limitations that reduce the potential locations of the door are needed, and can come as visible if looked for buttons (but easy to miss if not), or to have PC's spot them, and alert the player to their presence nearby. It's needed because it's overwhelming without it.

This applies to PnP games as well; smaller confines are generally better, and more tightly conceived. To allow ANY & ALL tangents is to dilute the experience, and narrative credibility.... and leave the player with no central focus on how to proceed.

In the spells appendix there is also a SHITLOAD of spells with non-violent applications, spells that, again, were completely removed from BG.

But of course; see the above.

Hope this finally makes you understand what non-combat interaction are.

Sadly it does; as you mean it.

 

[Darkforge]

Auto pause options do not alleviate the inherent issues RTWP has in the D&D turn-based system. FFS this is 101 stuff....
That said, after playing a number of hours of this kindergarten D&D they may have well just made it RTWP and be done with it.

The beauty about CRPG's was you could have the mechanical depth without having to worry about the rolls and the math of a tabletop setting. May as well have just made this shit party-based diablo.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Form the AD&D player handbook, the "Real Basics" paragraph:
" This is the heart of role-playing. The player adopts the role of A CHARACTER and then guides THAT CHARACTER through an adventure.

...And it's to be taken in the same vein as, "The parent adopts the responsibility of A CHILD, and then guides THAT CHILD through to adulthood". It does not forbid them adoption of two (or more).

I don't know. What was the point of describing how Arx Fatalis works while talking about I.E. games?

You brought up Arx yourself; used it as an example of a single character RPG.

Which means exactly what I said. The DM can't prevent players for doing anything unless he finds on the fly an in-game explanation.

And that explaination can be, "Because I said so!", and a cRPG can do the same.

Sounds like a real DM. Maybe one day you'll meet one :D.

A real pushover DM; it's never fun with a weak (or a push-over) DM. Once I was not alone in walking out of a session where the party was said to be walking down the lane, and spotted a strange cave; 'Do you want to go in?'. We all humored him; that it is... until after the 5th consecutive room with a hostile zombie and kobold in it. The players all stood up and left.

But in this case, I mean that kind or DM who seeks only to placate and cater to the players. One who does not wield absolute control over the narrative, and who can be bent and twisted like a willow branch, by abusive or entitled players.

In the player handbook there is a paragraph that lists all the "Nonweapon Proficiencies" of AD&D: these range from agriculture to tracking, encompassing actions like swimming, riding, tightrope walking, etc... It's a vast collection of human actions and activities that you character can theoretically perform, but in BG cannot.

They are not needed; outside the scope of the game—in the same way as a 'cybernetic diagnostician' skill is typically out of scope in Faerun. *Not because there isn't the skill of agriculture in Faerun, but because solutions involving it might be outside the scope of a given game. Your point scoffs that the scope is so limited, my point appreciates that the scope is so limited.

Aside: Dungeon design for 2d/3d computer games (as opposed top PnP) is a funny thing—and it's difficult concept to impart to the would be dungeon designers, that hiding a secret door should be obvious. It is counter intuitive, but the door (or trigger switch) should be visible when looked at, rather than perfectly concealed; only found when pressed.

The reason for this is that in a dungeon of many hundred walls, there must be a limitation of scope, or the accomplishment of finding it is attributed to random chance—and it's tedious as hell to methodically prod every wall in the complex.

Limitations that reduce the potential locations of the door are needed, and can come as visible if looked for buttons (but easy to miss if not), or to have PC's spot them, and alert the player to their presence nearby. It's needed because it's overwhelming without it.

This applies to PnP games as well; smaller confines are generally better, and more tightly conceived. To allow ANY & ALL tangents is to dilute the experience, and narrative credibility.... and leave the player with no central focus on how to proceed.

In the spells appendix there is also a SHITLOAD of spells with non-violent applications, spells that, again, were completely removed from BG.

But of course; see the above.

Hope this finally makes you understand what non-combat interaction are.

Sadly it does; as you mean it.

Look man, this discussion got old. If you REALLY wanna fool yourself with the illusion that the I.E. games are a good approximation of what happens at the table during a D&D session, suit yourself. You are in good company here...

 

[Dr Schultz]

Additionally, level restriction aside, you don't have complete control over hirelings, henchmen and followers. You don't roleplay them. You (your character) give them orders hopping that they agree to do what you ask them. They are nothing like BG companions if you brought them up for this reason

You don't roleplay BG companions either; they can leave for various reasons.

True, but as long as they don't leave the party, you have the same degree of control over them than over your main character. IF there is a difference, I'd say it's quite subtle...

 

[Roguey]

True, but as long as they don't leave the party, you have the same degree of control over them than over your main character. IF there is a difference, I'd say it's quite subtle...

Tim Cain tried various different approaches in three different games (Fallout, Arcanum, ToEE) and they were all terrible. And the question of one-character versus full-party was answered right at the beginning:

In the competition between the two 800-pound gorillas of the industry, Wizardry won the first round with both the critics and the public. Compared to Ultima I, Wizardry I garnered more attention and more superlative reviews, and engendered a more dedicated cult of players — and outsold its rival by at least a two to one margin.

 

[Mortmal]

Only on the Codex can you see people complaining that something became less of a convoluted clusterfuck.

On this I wholeheartedly agree

They are complaining about a system they dont know, never played, implemented in a game they cant afford then compare it to older systems they dont really know either and never play, vaguely and poorly implemented in older games . And the site stafff is not any better , roguey calling 5e decline too . I cant possibly imagine them playing in a real tabletop group actually using any of those systems, or god forbid it DMing .