"Philosophical" questions, What is a cheesy method? Bug or feature? Options

[Vuki]

I created this topic to discuss the "philosophical" aspect of the game. We can discuss here questions like:

- is a modification really needed or not?
- is something cheesy or cheeting or just a clever trick?
- game balance
- is an actual gap a bug or a feature?
- and so on ...

This topic will be maybe a bit too theoretical but I do not think it is a problem. We need such a place - as the discussions from the last 2-3 weeks prove it.

This post has been edited by Vuki: Aug 11 2008, 08:34 PM

[Vuki]

First of all I would like to point out that I like this game (I mean IA) very much. It gives new and exciting experience to me and I really enjoy playing it. The reason of the criticism here is there to make it even better - at least better to me. I am sure that a lot of people see the issues that I raise in this post in a different way: either they think these are not important or that I am not right. It is not a problem: this topic is here to discuss such questions and to convince each other.

I read Sikret pdf about cheesy and cheat methods and I was really happy to realize that I did not use these technics in my IA game. So, when I dispute some of them here the reason is not that I am not able to play the game without them. I used sometimes borderline solutions but I think they are ok even in the eyes of Sikret (like I withdraw my characters from the Dracolich when he was busy and casting a spell to get a couple of segments to cast healing magic on my characters). BTW, my opinion is that this pdf is well-written and almost all rules are acceptable and valid. In this post I will cover those 3 points that are questionable.

I think BG2 is a role play game that has a tactical aspect because the fights are complicated enough to make it a tactical challenge. But the main priority is on the RPG in the vanilla game. Clearly Sikret intention was to make stronger the tactical side of the game. That is ok but in my opinion when he set up the rules he sometimes forgot the RPG side. Let's go through in this points!

1. Casting hostile spells from distance (offscreen):
IMHO there are two cases here: first when enemy does not react to your spell(s) - then it is simple cheesy (it should not be used in this case), the other case when enemies react to your spells. I will discuss only the second case. In most fantasy books the Hero, the Leader of Good use this tactics: he/she jump to the orcs from behind, he/she attack the enemies from distance by arrows, ... It is even described in the Dungeon Master Guide and it is called surprise. This is part of every role play game (including of course AD&D). So, from RPG point of view it is absolutely ok, there is no reason against it in my opinion. I think you all played Warcraft or Starcraft or similar RTS. In for example Starcraft (but it is true for other games as well) there is the fog of war effect (similar to BG2) and it is possible to use the "offscreen" tactics against enemies (and they use it against you as well). So, it is used in tactical games. Other interesting thing in this tactics that it can be done in a bit different way. Your thief hides in shadow and go close to the enemy and your mage cast the spell (fg. emotion) to that area from disctance. In this case you see the enemy however your mage does not see it. It can be done also by a Farsight spell and there are other solutions as well. But I think it should be handledin the same way then the general case.

I have read the argument that you should not use it because the enemies also do not use it. But it is not true: in some cases they use very similar tactics. For example the second drow ambush (when they dispel your pretection at the beginning of the battle) is a very good example: they affect you and you have no chance to avoid it (and also this is the reason why somebody use the offscreen tactics). This tactics could make some battles (but only a small portion of the battles) easier but that is not a reason to not use it. When your mage use Ruby Ray or when your tank character persuade the enemies to attack him instead of other weakers characters then it makes some battle also easier but no one calls it cheesy. Of course if somebody use this tactics without knowing the information that the enemies are there then it is cheesy. For example it is cheesy to use it in the first drow ambush because when you enter the onscreen area they notice you (even if you are invisible), so you are not able to spy them (however with a farsight spell it still can be useable, I have never tried it that way).

2. Abusing the area structure:
Honestly speaking I have absolut no idea why it is cheesy. You can see a huge amount of examples in the fantasy literature, it is used in every wars in RL, it is implemented in most fantasy RPG games, it is used in RTS games as well. There are some questionable points in the first point (offscreen tactics) but not here. Yes, it makes some battle easier but again it is not a reason to abandon a tactics. I think every tactical school cover this issue in the most basic course. It is a very basic knowledge and every good tactician know it. Even the bad ones know it.

3. Stealing critical and quest-related items from enemies before they turn hostile:
It depends on the situation in my opinion. For example it is really ok if someone steal the key from the Beastmaster in the Copper Coronet after he gets the info from Hendak. I have never done it but it is a nice solution. Then together with the rescued gladiators you can easily kill him or (even better) capture him - it is not possible in BG2 however but would be a nice solution in a normal fantasy paper-based game. Yes, the game does not allow it for you in several cases but in some - logical cases - it is a valid solution from an RPG viewpoint. You can gain XP without killing the enemies but first of all the XP for the quest is there to solve it and not because you killed everybody and secondly in the game there are cases when you get the XP without killing the enemies. For example the skinner quest can be solved legally in a way that you do not kill the assassins and ghouls in the basement and you still gets the whole XP.

It is strange that a simple cheat is not mentioned in the pdf:

4. Prebuffing before a not known battle:
It is simple cheating. I do it because the game force me to do but it is still cheating. When you (I mean your characters) do not know about a battle and still casts a lot of short-living prebuffing spells then you use an information that only you are aware and not the characters. Of course if somebody is prebuffing before every new area and then continously renew the spells then it is not cheating. But honestly speaking no one does it that way. I know that prebuffing gives possibilities to the players but it is not acceptable from role playing point of view. If we are strict in other cases then we should be strict here. The possible solution would be to remve every short-living protection from the characters before almost every battles and only allow prebuffing when the characters have a chance to be aware of the battle. Of course in most of these cases the enemies should not be prebuffed (except when they are aware of the battles). I have met only two such a battles up to now (second drow ambush and dracolich) and I think there should be much more. That would give the battles a new depth: defense or offense, protect the characters with some spells or concentrate on killing the enemies. That would be a really interesting tactical challenge!

I ask everybody who wants to discuss these issues that please write arguments and not just revelations and statements! Thanks!