Jump to content

Can we really play the whole game with just one character?


Recommended Posts

That being said, I'm not sure how, mathematically, having 3 or 4 maxed-out people instead of 6 maxed-out people at your disposal is somehow relatively not more difficult.

Neither am I. But again, the results can't be denied.

 

Maybe mathematics don't play as big a role when it comes to tactics (which is what should determine whether or not a fight turns out easy or difficult). The old "too many cooks spoil the soup" cliché might be a more apt explanation of things.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not grasping this at all. It's not about the fact that they're more likely to hit than you are. It's about the fact that they get seventeen chances to your 1 chance. They get 17 sets of dice, and you only get one. Even if you have a 90% chance to hit, and they all have 60% chances to hit, you're still ridiculously outnumbered.

 

No matter how cunning you can be with that one character, you could be equally as cunning with that character, AND his party member friend, AND his other party member friend, and so on. In which case, you'd have to refrain from using cunning just to maintain any challenge at all in the exact same fight but with 6 people instead of 1.

 

You're not getting the relativistic nature of this, I don't think. You keep thinking of a single character somehow using a lot of intelligent combat tactics, but a group not doing the same thing, as if they'd somehow be incapable of doing so, or limited by their numbers and oodles of extra abilities and spells and standard attack rolls, etc.

 

 

You're not grasping this either. As stated by others as well as myself that having less party members doesn't make it harder in combat. Everyone in this thread has said having 6 party members is harder than having 4 party members. And it's not just the IE games. And you're still in denial with this fact. And when you're soloing, the dynamics of the game changes as well and it may be easier than harder to overcome encounters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how else to explain this, Hiro. The dynamics of tactics are only expanded upon by the presence of more people. I get that there more factors at play than just mathematical resource-based capability, that might lead to human players statistically having greater difficulty controlling 6 people instead of 3 or 4 to overcome a specific challenge, etc. That does not at all change the fact that, if you get 6 attacks every 3 seconds instead of 1, you have a greater ability to kill the exact same encounter.

 

I am in denial of that "fact," because so far it's just been a "this seems this way," while I know for a fact that mathematics are not dynamic. 6 isn't SOMETIMES greater than 1. It is. And in a generally consistent system (basically, any capabilities 1 character could have could also be had by the other 5 characters you could fill the party with -- nothing is obligating the comparison to be between a party of 6 individuals with hugely differing class choice/ability selection than the solo character, etc.) like this type of ruleset, it means you have far greater capabilities.

 

And, again, I've already acknowledged that, since a solo person will level faster than a party, there are plenty of sets of circumstances in which you'll have a great advantage that will somewhat cancel out the inherent detriment of being X people shy of a full party. That's why I specifically stated that, at level cap, a full party has 6 times the capabilities of a single person.

 

Call that not-better, if you want, but it remains a fact. Especially with no set party makeup. The Adventurer's Hall lets you build whatever combination of 6 people you wish. 6 clones of the same character, if you feel like it, in which case you would literally just have 6 times whatever capabilities the solo character had. Again, at the same levels.

 

I don't really know what else to say about this. Hinder your own thinking by disregarding facts all day long, of you'd like.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lephys, I was also talking about 4 characters in a party instead of 6 which has been brought up and makes the encounters easier. Having 6 characters in your party is harder than 4. And you still want to deny this fact, even though other people are confirming this. Not one person (except for you) has said this isn't true. Maybe because you have no experience with playing Baldurs Gate. And you are in denial of this. Experience trumps theory in this case.

 

Also your theory is wrong because you don't have 6 of the exact type of characters in your party. So straight away you can't apply 6 characters as the same. You have too many variables with your characters to assign them the same constant. Whereas the enemy may be the same (eg. 6 Kobolds), your characters won't be. And 4 characters against 6 of the same kobolds may have different abilities and skills. So those 4 will most likely be different to the 6 member party. Different variables against the same encounter.

 

Hinder your own thinking by disregarding facts all day long, of you'd like.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I see you've mastered the art of "... No YOU!". Congratulations, and godspeed! :)

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I see you've mastered the art of "... No YOU!". Congratulations, and godspeed! :)

 

Quite a few people in this thread have experience and knowledge and know what we're talking about. Perhaps go and play Baldur's Gate and test out what people are saying. I think you'll be surprised that what we're saying will turn out to be true. eg. 4 party members as opposed to 6 party members.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
Link to post
Share on other sites

if you get 6 attacks every 3 seconds instead of 1, you have a greater ability to kill the exact same encounter.

That is only true if you reduce combat down to being nothing more that a simple, one dimensional thing where 6 people fire shots in unison at 1 enemy or whatever.

 

But again, in the IE games combat usually ended up being far more complex. A 6 member party also means you have 6 liabilities. Because if the enemy casts as spell like Confusion, or mass charm, and it manages to succeed against half of your party, then you're screwed, Because then you've got a situation where 3 party members are working with the enemy to kill off the 3 party members that you still control. Where as, if your party only consists of 3 characters, and that confusion or charm spell gets 1 or 2 of them....you have less headaches on the battle field to deal with.

 

Same goes with Healing. Enemy casts a giant fireball spell. And then another. With a full party, You'll have 6 very health-drained party members by the time that fight is over. That's 6 party members that need to get healed up. Question: does your cleric have that many spells? Well, if we're dealing with a low level campaign like BG1, chances are he won't. But if a 3 person party is in that same situation, your cleric probably WILL have enough healing spells to bring everyone back up to 100%.

Edited by Stun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'll do that. It still makes no sense, though. I wish you'd at least acknowledge that I'm not being ridiculous for pointing out that there should be no logical basis for that being true, if it somehow is.

 

At the very least, if you can beat something with 4 level-X people, you can beat the same thing with 6 level-X people, using the exact same 4 people and just using the other 2 as diversions/cannon fodder. Again, exact same scenario + advantage. It's the same fight with 2 HP sponges. Is that not intuitively true? If nothing else changes, then you've got the exact same capabilities plus 2 people's worth. Again, if statistically, people just control 4 people in combat better than they do 6, that's a whole different story. I'm talking about sheer capability, here.

 

And, call me weird, but I don't readily accept things without any explanation whatsoever. So, even if it IS true (6 person party makes the game harder than a 4 person party), I don't understand why you're just expecting me to stop trying to figure out why that is, or instantly abandon the reasoning that suggests the opposite, in favor of absolutely no reasoning at all.

 

Also, wasn't it already confirmed that there was a bit of scaling/adjustment going on in BGII? If that's the case, then if any of that is affected by the presence of those extra 2 people, that would be a significant explanation. I'm saying if here, and asking a question. Not attacking you or telling people who are experienced at BGII that they're idiots or that I know more than they do.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least, if you can beat something with 4 level-X people, you can beat the same thing with 6 level-X people, using the exact same 4 people and just using the other 2 as diversions/cannon fodder.

Yes. in fact, I often find myself doing precisely that when I have a 6 person party, since it's usually pretty early on when you discover that a battle-field clusterf*ck doesn't make fights easier. There is very much an element of diminishing returns/dead weight once you have that many people involved.

 

And in a game where XP rewards are shared, you realize really quick that if you really need meat-shields/cannon fodder, summons will do the trick far more efficiently, since UNLIKE party members, it doesn't matter if they die, and you don't have to share XP with them.

 

there was a bit of scaling/adjustment going on in BGII? If that's the case, then if any of that is affected by the presence of those extra 2 people, that would be a significant explanation. I'm saying if here, and asking a question. Not attacking you or telling people who are experienced at BGII that they're idiots or that I know more than they do.

Nothing in Bg2 scales to party numbers, only party level. But as since a smaller party levels up more quickly, then you will eventually be facing tougher encounters if you're adventuring with a smaller party, yes.

 

But that kinda puts a wrinkle in the comparison/measurement, since we're no longer dealing with the same encounters.

Edited by Stun
Link to post
Share on other sites

But again, in the IE games combat usually ended up being far more complex. A 6 member party also means you have 6 liabilities. Because if the enemy casts as spell like Confusion, or mass charm, and it manages to succeed against half of your party, then you're screwed, Because then you've got a situation where 3 party members are working with the enemy to kill off the 3 party members that you still control. Where as, if your party only consists of 3 characters, and that confusion or charm spell gets 1 or 2 of them....you have less headaches on the battle field to deal with.

That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. The potential for each party member to become an antagonist, for all practical purposes. However, in the realm of potential, you still have the potential for those 2 additional people to remain in full control of themselves (and therefore add their capabilities to your offensive efforts in a given encounter). So, I'm not really sure how to say those 2 people are inherently detrimental OR inherently beneficial. They're kind of in flux.

 

Same goes with Healing. Enemy casts a giant fireball spell. And then another. With a full party, You'll have 6 very health-drained party members by the time that fight is over. That's 6 party members that need to get healed up. Question: does your cleric have that many spells? Well, if we're dealing with a low level campaign like BG1, chances are he won't. But if a 3 person party is in that same situation, your cleric probably WILL have enough healing spells to bring everyone back up to 100%.

See, this one, I'm not so sure of. I understand what you're getting at, but, as I told Hiro, you could feasibly just pretend those extra 2 people don't even exist and not worry about healing them, and still they could serve as targets and/or extra attacks/damage in your favor, at least until they're dead. If you stuck to just healing 3 or 4 people, and just let the last 2 die, versus just fighting with the smaller party to begin with, then, no matter how you look at it, you've come out on top. Unless the enemy has spells that do MORE damage because of the increased number of targets or something, (or, as above, where the cpabilities of those people can be turned against you, etc.), they're serving as nothing but a supplement to your party. Again, so long as we're talking same-level people, and just different numbers of them. I'm not about to argue that 4 level-7 characters can't make things easier than 6 level-6 characters, etc.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is very much an element of diminishing returns/dead weight once you have that many people involved.

The returns may be diminishing, but they are still in the positive, nonetheless.

 

And in a game where XP rewards are shared, you realize really quick that if you really need meat-shields/cannon fodder, summons will do the trick far more efficiently, since UNLIKE party members, it doesn't matter if they die.

And what happens when those extra 2 people use summons? Now you've got two casters worth of extra summons, AND, if need be, two characters to be cannon fodder, that you did not have before.

 

You seem to now be arguing that 2 extra people doesn't necessarily make things any easier. That's definitely true, but all that I'm contesting here is that it makes no sense that the sheer fact that there are additional people lessens your capability to take down the very same encounter. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

 

So far, the most reasonable piece of evidence presented was the "spells like Confusion that make your own party members a detriment to you" example. Which, as I mentioned, is a bit like saying "critical hits aren't helpful, because the enemy can score them on you," while ignoring that they simultaneously have the same potential to be scored against your enemies.

 

I have absolutely no doubt that specific combinations of 6 characters are circumstantially detrimental as compared to specific combinations of fewer characters. However, 2 more hypothetical party members who could become confused and attack you is also, as I pointed out, 2 more party members who could cast confusion themselves, or counterspell, or summon things, or serve as cannon fodder, or just fire off two huge AoE spells before they die, etc.

 

One possibility of a situation of chance does not inherently supercede any other possibility until specific circumstances dictate that it does.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'll do that. It still makes no sense, though. I wish you'd at least acknowledge that I'm not being ridiculous for pointing out that there should be no logical basis for that being true, if it somehow is.

 

At the very least, if you can beat something with 4 level-X people, you can beat the same thing with 6 level-X people, using the exact same 4 people and just using the other 2 as diversions/cannon fodder. Again, exact same scenario + advantage. It's the same fight with 2 HP sponges. Is that not intuitively true? If nothing else changes, then you've got the exact same capabilities plus 2 people's worth. Again, if statistically, people just control 4 people in combat better than they do 6, that's a whole different story. I'm talking about sheer capability, here.

 

Stun just gave one example with a logical reason why it is. And it makes perfect sense. And the fallacy is trying to assign constants to variables. You don't have the same 6 characters as you do in a 4 member party. Just because you have 2 more characters doesn't mean it will be easier.

 

 

And, call me weird, but I don't readily accept things without any explanation whatsoever. So, even if it IS true (6 person party makes the game harder than a 4 person party), I don't understand why you're just expecting me to stop trying to figure out why that is, or instantly abandon the reasoning that suggests the opposite, in favor of absolutely no reasoning at all.

 

Also, wasn't it already confirmed that there was a bit of scaling/adjustment going on in BGII? If that's the case, then if any of that is affected by the presence of those extra 2 people, that would be a significant explanation. I'm saying if here, and asking a question. Not attacking you or telling people who are experienced at BGII that they're idiots or that I know more than they do.

 

Because even if we explain it to you, your first reaction is to dismiss it and then counter why it shouldn't be so without having any experience with the game. Despite the fact that what is being said is true. And there wasn't level scaling according to the number of party members.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the fallacy is trying to assign constants to variables.

Exactly. Which is why I'm observing that 6 people grants a mathematically greater potential than 4 people does (or especially than 1 person does, which is what this all started about... solo-ing versus the potential of a full party). I don't know how to convey this, especially when you're blaming me for trying to apply constants instead of recognizing the flux of variables.

 

When someone points out a constant, like "those other 2 people could become confused and be a detriment[/i] how is that not applying a constant to a variable? And how is my pointing out that they could also remain a benefit somehow not emphasizing the nature of the variable?

 

Please explain to me how you're arriving at your accusations/conclusions, rather than simply stating them.

 

Because even if we explain it to you, your first reaction is to dismiss it and then counter why it shouldn't be so without having any experience with the game. Despite the fact that what is being said is true. And there wasn't level scaling according to the number of party members.

Pointing out a crack in something isn't dismissing it. Maybe you should try explaining yourself before simply assuming I won't actually acknowledge your explanation, then justifying its absence with that notion. I've explained everything I've brought up. If anything, I get fussed at for explaining too much. And you come back with "Nope, that's just not true! The end!"

 

I tell you every single time why I believe something is incorrect or flawed, even to the point of repeating entire explanations. How does that leave me pre-emptively dismissing people's arguments, and you (who finds it pointless to explain things to me?) doing the opposite?

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are right about one thing, Lephys: you should play BG, especially BG2. It's always better to argue over concrete information than abstract scenarios based on guesses, and it's not like they're bad games you should dread playing. They are, in fact, pretty damn spiffy, despite any quibbles I may or may not have aired about them on this forum. There's a reason why many people on this forum get snippy about potential changes to the formula.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The returns may be diminishing, but they are still in the positive, nonetheless.

It is a small positive that gets buried under all the negatives associated with a larger party, such as

 

1) slower leveling

2) stricter Loot sharing

3) heavier micro-management

4) The battlefield clusterf*ck/path finding mess

 

Keep in mind that (for me at least), when I say a game is easier with a smaller party, I'm not just talking about combat difficulty. I'm talking about everything. In the IE games, even walking down dungeon corridors is easier with a smaller party.

 

 

You seem to now be arguing that 2 extra people doesn't necessarily make things any easier. That's definitely true, but all that I'm contesting here is that it makes no sense that the sheer fact that there are additional people lessens your capability to take down the very same encounter. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

Lephys, I have already agreed with you that it doesn't make a lick of sense at all. All logic dictates that an army of 6 can do more, and do more quicker, than a party of 4. But I'm just going by experience. Somewhere within all these mechanics we're discussing, a bunch of immeasurable intangibles get created and the logic fails to translate into the application. Edited by Stun
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly. Which is why I'm observing that 6 people grants a mathematically greater potential than 4 people does (or especially than 1 person does, which is what this all started about... solo-ing versus the potential of a full party). I don't know how to convey this, especially when you're blaming me for trying to apply constants instead of recognizing the flux of variables.

 

When someone points out a constant, like "those other 2 people could become confused and be a detriment[/i] how is that not applying a constant to a variable? And how is my pointing out that they could also remain a benefit somehow not emphasizing the nature of the variable?

 

Please explain to me how you're arriving at your accusations/conclusions, rather than simply stating them.

 

 

 

The fact is you're not observing. Because you haven't played the game. Second, you're creating a hypothetical (6 member party) and then discounting all the negatives associated with extra party members as opposed to the positives. All you're doing is looking at the positives. I have 2 extra people, therefore it should be easier. No, not always. In fact, the opposite is true in a lot of cases because we know the positives and negatives with having played the game. And Stun's healing example is a perfect example of this. You can have 4 party members back to full health quicker as opposed to 6, and those other 2 can be more of a liability than being an asset.

 

And Stun isn't applying a constant to those other two. They are variables. Because they didn't save against the mass confusion while the others did. Why did the other party members save and those two didn't? Was it because the other 4 had better saves? All six are variable and are all different. They are not the same. While the enemy is the same regardless of party size.

 

And without having played the game, it's going to be hard to find out or know what those negatives are. And when we point out the negatives, you dismiss and counter with your own arguments.

 

 

 

Pointing out a crack in something isn't dismissing it. Maybe you should try explaining yourself before simply assuming I won't actually acknowledge your explanation, then justifying its absence with that notion. I've explained everything I've brought up. If anything, I get fussed at for explaining too much. And you come back with "Nope, that's just not true! The end!"

 

I tell you every single time why I believe something is incorrect or flawed, even to the point of repeating entire explanations. How does that leave me pre-emptively dismissing people's arguments, and you (who finds it pointless to explain things to me?) doing the opposite?

 

 

You're not pointing out anything. You're arguing against our position. We point out what happens in a game. You counter by saying stuff like: "The returns may be diminishing, but they are still in the positive, nonetheless"

 

Your belief seems to be as long as it's positive, then it's better. No it's not because you're discounting all the variables, all the different spells that can affect your party. Your party members being all different. You're discounting that party members can be liabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BG might not be the best test for this - since the extra party members are of differing standard companions - anyone tried this with IWD?

In BG2 I tend to max out my party of 6 (I like companions, even though I used to rpg with a 'standard' 4) but an evil playthrough had just my PC and the 3 evil companions (Edwin,Viconia,Korgan) - all of whom are the best there is at what they do ;) - definintely found that easier but then I wasn't reaching the TOB level cap with any of my parties so my fewer-member party was always higher level.

 

So back to the game being "nigh impossible" for a solo - it should definitely be a lot harder at the end (level cap reached) (other than in terms of resources) but I repeat that it shouldn't be specifically designed out of the game as that would be a waste of dev resources.  Just design a game to be challenging to the party and if people can think of ways to solo it, great for them.  (Hopefully those ways won't include silly exploits that the devs should have caught in development (like standing on an island and shooting the boss who can't swim)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With IWD1, I only ever went with 1 or 6. When it came to 6 it was due to making themed parties. eg. Smurfs. Elemental Mages, Party of Rogues (Single, Multi-Classed Thieves and Bards), etc. Too numerous to mention. I even had a Star Wars party. The Elemental Mages were fun. I named them Fire, Earth, Water, Electricity, Ether, etc and they could only use spells that had Fire, Water (Ice), etc. There were some exceptions but I tried to make it consistent with its own internal world logic. eg. Animate Dead (Skeletons) came from the Earth. It was a pretty fun and challenging party.

 

Back to the 4 member party. When I first finished IWD2 and at the end boss, I didn't need 6 party members. In fact, one of my spell casters died right at the very start of the fight. And another died soon after. I eventually finished the fight with 4 characters and I noticed it was easier to only have to deal with 4 party members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...themed parties. eg. Smurfs. ...

I have a sudden urge to try this 8)

Star Wars

Ah - 'Solo' playthrough, gotcha ;)

Actually, that'd be fun for the character creation potion alone 8)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smurfs was a great party. They were Gnomes that I changed their skin colour to blue. And changed their hair/clothes to their appropriate colours. I had Hefty, Greedy, Vanity, Brainy, Smurfette and Papa Smurf. Funny seeing their pictures in the game and on their portraits, seeing these blue smurfs walking around.

 

With BG1, a two member party is very easy. I recently did a Fighter and Imoen (Mage/Thief). And it was easy to power level her Mage levels when I dualed her and she was close to my level in no time.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are right about one thing, Lephys: you should play BG, especially BG2. It's always better to argue over concrete information than abstract scenarios based on guesses, and it's not like they're bad games you should dread playing. They are, in fact, pretty damn spiffy, despite any quibbles I may or may not have aired about them on this forum. There's a reason why many people on this forum get snippy about potential changes to the formula.

 

Seconded. BG2 is a great game. If P:E can manage half the quest and world diversity and character development options, it's going to be a worthy successor. If it manages to improve on it in some concrete ways, it's going to be a classic.

Edited by PrimeJunta

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirded on BGII.

 

Somewhat off topic, I still find it somewhat bizarre that Lephys, as one of the most vocal people on a forum for an IE-successor, has not played Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, or Planescape: Torment.

 

While I'm here, shared experience broke IWD by making things significantly easier with four than six. I was not aware that BG was similar (it would certainly be less obviously similar due to the exp variation) but can believe that fairly readily.

 

If a skilled and/or strategic player can complete a party-based game with one character, that's great. But if you have six character slots it should, in my opinion, become progressively more difficult with each slot you don't fill.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a character be higher level is pretty important in dnd, especially for mages whose power increases exponentially. It also gives you more tactical options I think, despite the smaller total number of abilities in the party, because some just appear at certain levels and don't have similarly useful analogues up until then.

 

I think the party member power/size ratio will be more in line with expectations in PE though, due to more limited high-end stuff (e.g. 1/encounter instead of 3/day) resting. You might actually want a larger resource pool instead of a higher quality one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirded on BGII.

 

Somewhat off topic, I still find it somewhat bizarre that Lephys, as one of the most vocal people on a forum for an IE-successor, has not played Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, or Planescape: Torment.

 

While I'm here, shared experience broke IWD by making things significantly easier with four than six. I was not aware that BG was similar (it would certainly be less obviously similar due to the exp variation) but can believe that fairly readily.

 

If a skilled and/or strategic player can complete a party-based game with one character, that's great. But if you have six character slots it should, in my opinion, become progressively more difficult with each slot you don't fill.

 

Well, his avatar is the late-to-the-party hippo, so I suppose it's understandable.

 

Still, get on it Lephys! If you haven't played these, (1) you really have no clue what P:E is about, and (2) you are in for some seriously awesome gaming experiences... if you manage to get over the steep initial learning curve. All of 'em are pretty punishing if you've never played one before. At least I died... a lot... until I figured them out. They're much tougher to get into than the NWN's IMO, although also more rewarding (except MotB, which is IMO the only worthy IE game successor in that series.)

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read every post in this thread but I'd like to add my 2 cents anyway. BG2 is kinda exemplary in 2 ways, a good and a bad one. Of course it can be soloed, I've done it lots of times with many different characters. But the experience varies a lot, depending on the character you're playing and  your level.

 

Generally, at low levels and when playing a non-arcane character, soloing the game is hard. It requires intense metagame knowledge and a lot of careful tactics and patience. You'll need to know where every trap is and what effect it has. You need to know every encounter and where enemies will spawn and so on. Dealing with mages often means running away, hiding and waiting till their spells run out. Dealing with poweful meele enemies often means kiting them and whittling them down with sling bullets or something. Setting traps where you know enemies will spawn or turn hostile to effectively skip a lot of otherwise very difficult encounters. Stuff like that. What this means is that most people wouldn't want to do it. It's not, generally speaking, fun. Most people wouldn't even think of it. I didn't ever think of it until long after I became very experienced in the game.

 

For an experienced player it can become fun though, but you're not really playing the game anymore, you're playing with the game, if that makes sense. You're not involved in the story, there generally aren't any pitched, intense battles that you win by a thread. The game becomes about testing your superior knowledge, finding new and creative ways to get around challenges in ways the creators of the game never intended. This can be a lot of fun, as long as the game really is set up in such a way that it's only players who have already played the game many times in the intended way, players who otherwise probably wouldn't play the game anymore anyway, who can do it. I hope it's going to be possible. Probably it's very hard to make it impossible anyway in a complex game like this because the developers con never think of everything.

 

The second way of soloing the game that was also in BG2, is broken and I hope we won't be seeing it anymore. The way experience sharing worked in BG2, combined with the ridiculous power curve of arcane magic users meant that after quite a short time in the beginning of the game, sorcerers, mages and mage-multi/duals just became so powerful that it actually felt that it was easier to solo the game with them than to use a party. Planetars coud replace fighters and clerics easily and spells like project image, time stop, improved alacrity, chain contingency and several more, at times when the enemies didn't have anything to stand up to it (which, if you use them right is pretty much all the way to the end of TOB), combined with the right items meant that you could just stomp through the game, laugh at everything thrown at you and never feel challenged at all.

 

Anyway, from what I've read about Josh Sawyer's design ideas I'm confident that this kind of brokenness is out. That's a good thing, I think, even if a small part of me will miss the times when I figured out for the first time what kind of crazyness was actually possible when playing my high level sorcerer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...