Unwinnable Encounters?

[TrashMan]

In video games... I don't mind there being cutscenes and exposition to one of our main villains.

 

In DnD as GM though, I would be VERY careful introducing overpowered characters that the party can't fight.

 

It's essentially like introducing a big red button saying: "Don't push." They really can't help themselves but to do it. I'm not saying that's always the case, but certainly don't have too many unbeatable characters appearing continously because then the player will get bored and feel like "It's never the time to attack!" They will get bored and attack just because they haven't had enough opportunites to express themselves.

 

I'm of the oppinion that the world need to have a few of those bottuns.

The palyer should NEVER be the top dog and overpwoer everything.

There need to be things to keep his ego in check and remind hinm that it's a big world, and he's just one guy in it.

[Wench]

I really don't like intentional unwinnable battles. Go in expecting to win, only to have everyone die usually with me the last person left alive and it's really tempting then to reload an earlier save game, prepare better, get slaughered again. Might repeat that pattern a few times, finally getting totally fed up and letting myself get 'killed' only to realize that I was supposed to die. I get annoyed then for wasting time.

 

If such an encounter is desired by the devs would be nice if the player is forewarned that the fight is unwinnable and that you will die/be captured. Having the player being able to surrender before the fight would probably be good too. Maybe have the fight unwinnable but if the player does lots of damage to the attacking force it has other consequences later. I'd probably find it amusing to that if the fight was technically winnable, for there to be a Deus ex machina in the attacking forces favour to finally defeat you even if its tongue in cheek (think pissed of DM).

[Sacred_Path]

I'm all for encounters that your party has no realistic chance to win. One thing I fondly remember is killing the battlemages and their guards in Realms of Arkania 2, it was supposed to be impossible but you could do it with lots of potions and poisons. They were supposed to take a certain object of yours but if you managed to kill them you'd eventually end up with two of them.

 

A bad example is killing the dragon on the starting island in MM7, it was tedious to do but possible and made it possible to gain artifacs that you shouldn't have at that point in the game. No uber loot for nigh-impossible encounters, it only makes it mandatory for experienced players to save-scum their way through.

[Hassat Hunter]

It's essentially like introducing a big red button saying: "Don't push." They really can't help themselves but to do it. I'm not saying that's always the case, but certainly don't have too many unbeatable characters appearing continously because then the player will get bored and feel like "It's never the time to attack!" They will get bored and attack just because they haven't had enough opportunites to express themselves.

There will be enough battles... it's a CRPG. So I am sure why you would think anyone would think 'I can never attack *sob*'... you can... but you can't MINDLESSLY attack everyone, as that ends up getting you killed.

 

The way it's meant to be.

If you can't beat it, return later and try again. Or not if it's like a God or something...

[Amentep]

The only unwinnable "battle" I never had any problem with, was in Torment, if you pissed off the Lady of Pain. Even gods keep away from her realm.

 

The nice thing about LoP is that the setting pretty much tells you not to mess with her. That's a far cry from being railroaded into a fight where the party is defeated as a story point and then two hours later whip their opponent in a re-match handily.

 

As long as there is plenty of notice, I don't mind creature far beyond our ken to be around. There to add color and flavor and also remind us that as awesome as we may become, there's always something awesomer.

[exodiark]

Don't! Please! No! Stop!

 

I'd rather have keyboard-wrenching difficult battles.

Unwinnable encounters are frustrating, especially if your opponent is smug and you can positively defeat them, but can't just because this is unwinnable.

[Atreides]

It would need to make sense within the plausible/logical rules of the game, and not be cheese.

 

Aside on the "impossible" dragon:

I remember a story where Groo wanders to a village that's been sacrificing women and food to the resident dragon in its cave for generations. Despite the obvious perilous signs, Groo heads in dual-wielding his katanas, only to find that the "dragon" was an old man living in luxury, being served by the women. Of course, Groo does what Groo does best and brings the whole mountain down anyway.

[Shadenuat]

If you stat it they'll kill it. So don't stat it:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpEimi2JLws

 

There is quite a gap between Lothar and TNO too, actually, originally Lothar is 25 level necromancy-oriented priest who is "too wise to die and fortold his own death", it just was't very well presented in the game.

 

I don't like it when player becomes a demigod in Fantasy, it's okay for realism-oriented games where you can shoot anyone with a gun, but Fantasy is a mythological-oriented type of setting, and when you are able to kill the myth, you lose respect for it, and so, for the setting.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Shadenuat

[TrashMan]

The problem with tellign palyers to not mess wiht someone is that you have to be very literal, because of palyer mentality. They will just see it as challenge.

the more dangerous the opponent, the more they want to fight it. Cthulu? Why not, they risk nothing since it's a game.

Just reload.

Even a retard cna win any battle like that with enough tries.

 

Which is why I said that IronMan is the only true way to play. It forces you to actually pay atention. It actually puts back the fear of death.

[mcmanusaur]

I like this idea- too many times, arrogant players just charge right into the most difficult dungeon at low levels (and some inferior RPGs have even accommodated this by leveling the dungeons), but I think the impossibility of winning these battles most exist within the game's combat model (so not just a cutscene leading to a party wipe), which means technically it would end up statistically being more like a scenario with .00001% chance of success.

[anubite]

I like the idea.

 

But I cannot name a game which has ever executed this well.

 

As a "tutorial fight" or something - that's fine, but out of the blue, to encounter an enemy you cannot defeat, who will always beat you - it's confusing. It breaks the 4th wall at times. You eventually go, "Oh! I'm supposed to lose this." And then you do.

 

There isn't anything more to it and the point of the idea is totally lost. Yes, helplessness and overturning the player's sense of power is great - but having an unwinnable encounter fails to bring out the desired impact in almost any game.

Edited November 7, 2012 by anubite

[SinoSamba]

It could be used as a hook for the expansion. Not beatable *yet* is fine by me if we have enough clues to run away from it.

[jezz555]

I wouldn't mind encounters that were meant to be un-winnable, were the odds are totally stacked against you(don't overuse them though). But I think it should still be possible to win, incredibly unlikely? sure. Might result in you becoming a wanted man and being killed later by town guards? sure. Just don't make them impossible.

[Labadal]

I wouldn't mind battles that are incredibly hard but still winnable. I can live with one or two impossible fights if it's story related, but not in any other situation.

 

There could be strong peaceful creatures that you can attack, these ones will be impossible to defeat, and they'll kill you, but the choice was yours. You attacked them without getting provoked.

[jivex5k]

I'd like to see monsters and such that freaking destroy you if you come across them too early, but I'd like to be able to beat them after gaining experience (in game and as a player).

I'd also love some ancient monster of immense power that is beatable, but only by incredible means. (Special sword or items dedicated to that particular monster).

Or, a truly unbeatable character that is in for dialogue, won't attack you, but you can attack and immediately get steamrolled for your stupidity.

But don't make one that attacks you and you can't beat eventually.

 

BASICALLY:

I want to be forced to run at some points, and feel fear and dread of certain monsters.

I also want to be able to overcome them eventually.

Edited November 7, 2012 by jivex5k

[Starglider]

Enemies that you can't normally beat are fine, but I don't see the harm in making it just possible for the hard-core mini-maxers to defeat the impossible encounter with hours and hours of research, failed attempts and grinding. It gives them lots of fun so why not? Encounters that must be unwinnable for story reasons probably shouldn't even have the option to start combat, or if you do it's instant cutscene death as in Lothar / PST.

[Tsuga C]

As of today, Nov. 7, 2012, 44% Nay and 56% Yea. Well, it'd definitely be a source of talk on the forums should such an unwinnable encounter be included in P:E and I'd like to see something command permanent respect from the players.

 

Bring it on, Obsidian, and let the gnashing of teeth and shattering of fragile egos begin!

[Amentep]

I haven't voted because I'm not crazy about the poll options; I'm not against unwinnable encounters, but don't want to quantify it beyond supporting the idea provided the lore of the game supports it (whatever "it" is).

[Karkarov]

Provided that there are some clues or tales, would you mind having one or more encounters in the game that are either things that must be endured or avoided as no matter how clever, strong, magically potent, and/or stealthy your party might be, you don't have a snowball's chance in the Phlegethon of overcoming it in the game?

Only if it is there for story purposes, or if they actually do make a sequel and the unstoppable enemy of game one gets some comeuppance in the sequel. A totally random encounter that is never forced that is 100% lock death serves no real purpose in a non table top RPG, especially if the opponent is a one off you never see again. I try it once, get myself killed, laugh and reload.

 

EDIT: If all you want is some bad ass the players can get rolled by go the Lady of Pain Eleminster route. Have it be some NPC they deal with that they simply have no chance against that will never bother them unless the player gets stupid. That at least has a little more "laughs" to it.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Karkarov

[Azure79]

I like the idea of having impossible fights, but I think they should stick with plausible cutscenes for those. Like in BG1 when you're a level 1 character and you meet Sarevok and company, the game doesn't let you control your character since you probably don't have a chance of winning anyway. Same in BG2 in the promenade, Irenicus would pretty much destroy if you had control of your character at that point in time and decided to attack.

 

If the devs let you have control of the party after a fight begins, then that should be the cue that the fight, while it could be impossibly hard, is still beatable with the right strategy. If it cues to cut scene, then I know it's not a fight meant to be won.

[DeathQuaker]

No, not in a video game. Every game I've ever played that had an "unwinnable fight" was where you were actually doing just fine in the fight, and then a cutscene robs you of your victory, completely ignoring your ability to think fast or your character's ability to fight, and just making you lose because the plot demands it. I don't like being robbed of player agency just for the sake of a cool cutscene. If I'm not supposed to kill it yet, then don't let me fight it. Let me see it kill something else from afar to see how badass it is or whatever, but if I get to fight it, then I get at least a chance to win.

 

(I am fine with a scenario where you can win or lose a difficult fight, and the plot continues either way from there.)

[Tauron]

Very hard to win, yes. Coming back later at harder lvls, yes (like Firkraag). Unwinnable serves no other purpose than irritate player and has nothing to do with humility ingame. If uwinnable means I encounter scripted confrontation and my party makes it barly alive, than okej. But having an encounter that is impossible to win, with every scenario ending in death serves no puropse to a player if it is not linked storywise. Humility in game,plz....it is really hard to play power hungry mage and have humility. Unless player is fighting a character that turns out to be a "GOD" and HE/SHE let US alive to show us some point or something than okej. Becouse it is scripted in a sense. But playing game and unable to win it, serves no purpose. Humility, go play BG series and be unable to defeat antagonist, see how much it will teach you humility.

[Hassat Hunter]

Let's see, playing Deathspank just now... it has enemies you simply cannot harm and have to run from until much later when you find a special weapon. And that's a casual action RPG.

 

Then there is the Alaska sequence in Freelancer. And the Alien docks. And the New York minefield. And the attack on the Order Planet. All unwinnable, all great fights.

 

So if a casual action RPG and a space sim can pull it off, why the heck can't a proper RPG like Project: Eternity do so?

[TrashMan]

Very hard to win, yes. Coming back later at harder lvls, yes (like Firkraag). Unwinnable serves no other purpose than irritate player and has nothing to do with humility ingame. If uwinnable means I encounter scripted confrontation and my party makes it barly alive, than okej. But having an encounter that is impossible to win, with every scenario ending in death serves no puropse to a player if it is not linked storywise. Humility in game,plz....it is really hard to play power hungry mage and have humility. Unless player is fighting a character that turns out to be a "GOD" and HE/SHE let US alive to show us some point or something than okej. Becouse it is scripted in a sense. But playing game and unable to win it, serves no purpose. Humility, go play BG series and be unable to defeat antagonist, see how much it will teach you humility.

 

Unwinnable is only irritating to people who are obsessive about killing everything.

If you don't care about killing everything and are prefectly fine with avoiding than encoutner, then there is no problem.

 

Unwinnalbe battles where you run away? Yes pls. Games have had this pletny of times. Ever tried Amnesia?

If you can win every battle, what is the point of ever retreating?

 

 

And no, not being able to defeat the antagonist in BG makes no sense, since you cannot complete the game. Unless the game ends with your death.

[beerflavour]

My general approach to CRPGs is that players should have at least more than one way of facing an encounter. The most boring thing (at least for me) is if the player has only one option: namely fight what he/she encounters.

 

An "unbeatable encounter" in the sense that the player cannot beat it by combat means isn't that much of an issue. A player should expect several warnings of the imminent danger (e.g. by speaking with NPCs, by seeing the remains of some intrepid adventurers, etc.). Even if the player ignores such signs of warning there should be a chance to retreat.

 

If there should be some "unbeatable encounters" then some alternative way (e.g. stealth, cunning, diplomacy, etc.) could be an option. Maybe the party or some NPCs are supposed to be a decoy while some other goal is fulfilled (e.g. steal the monster's hoard, steal some important quest item, the invincible opponent is only a guardian for another opponent, buy some time for allied NPCs to flee, lure the invincible opponent along a certain path where it will cause havoc and chaos which will benefit the party on some other quest, etc.).

 

There should be a reason (lorewise) for such an opponent to exist in the game. If you look at older CRPGs (e.g. BG & BG2) then you'll notice that some important NPCs were made invincible to avoid people killing them and be unable to continue with the story. One way or another you'll have invincible NPCs.

 

The main reason why I like such an idea is to remind players that they cannot wander around the game world and kill everything for the loot.