Drakensang or NWN2

Ovenall said:

Just want to add that the original Drakensang isn't just slow… slow can be OK. It got really repetitive, which is worse than slow. And even worse when slow is layered on top of repetitive.

Click to expand...

Lol! You take bitching to a fine art. Drama queen award winner of the day!

But I agree with that principle in general. Repetitive boring gameplay is a deal killer for me. Which explains why I haven't tried minecraft or any simulations... But to each his own.

Thrasher said:

But I agree with that principle in general. Repetitive boring gameplay is a deal killer for me. Which explains why I haven't tried minecraft or any simulations… But to each his own.

Click to expand...

While mining out a 100x100x4 meter room can be repetitve in minecraft, that's not what you typically do. There's no end to the variety of what you can do or the situations you can find yourself in.

That's one helluva tangent.. Drakensang to minecraft

I'd say the original Drakensang would have been fine if it would have ended with the battle where…
Instead, the game got really long in the tooth when it continued on with the Dwarven ruins and then that imp-like world and then yet another area for the grand finale.

It just became too much towards the end, especially when it became obvious that the tougher opponents of the late game were the same critters as the ones in the earlier stages of the game, only reskinned and with stat boosts. I could partially forgive them for that fault due to their low budget but only partially because they overdid it. It got way too repetitive near the end.

In their quest to make the game more epic, all they achieved was to make it a more epic borefest. The first Drakensang is a classic case of a game where less would have been so much more…

I partially agree with you. Yes, this fight would have been a good case of "closing the book". They could have added the later part like Philleasson's Secret.

For those who are not familiar with the Grolms (they are unplayable in current Aventuria, but can be played during the Dark Times), this dwarven part was kind of a revelation.

The Grolms are still not explored much in contemporary Aventuria - there is just only very, very few background information on them available, as far as I know.

Concerning RoT, what should I be aiming at in terms of skill level for my Geode rituals/spells?

Edit: Nevermind, think I found the answer in this comprehensive, yet still mindblowingly overly complex summary of the TDE ruleset.

Answer is… as close to 20 as possible?

Around 10-14 or so is okay, I think.

There is a list for the pen & paper TDE system :

This is about talents, not spells :

"Talents in Aventuria :

Journeyman - 7
Senior Journeyman - 10
Master - 15
18 - a person known (in its own profession) even outside the borders of the own province
Over 21 - Person is known as an expert even outside of the own profession (in TDE 3rd edition 21 was being a living legend)

Weapons : Use of the main weapon :

Guardsman & Bandit - 7
experienced Weibel (the "Weibel" is a military grade exclusive for Aventuria) - 10
Veteran, specially selected solitary fighter or the army, budyguard - 15 or more
Academy Trainer & "Swordmaster" - 18
legendary heroes - 21 or more

Unfortunately I can't say anything about magic, since the rule books are expensive for me I don't have the magic related one.

Drithius said:

yet still mindblowingly overly complex summary

Click to expand...

This is one of the greatest disadvantages of the TDE rules set : It is so much complex. But the fans (those that remained after the shift from 3rd - 4th edition, at least) praise it for tinkering. They just don't want it any other way. Und unfortunately those are the vocal majority (?) in the official forum, it seems to me …

For years now I demand a much more simplified rules set for beginners, but no-one does something for it. There *does* exist an *extremely* simplified version, but even the TDE Wiki doesn't list it. Instead, it lists a less complex rules set for beginners that fans created - and seemingly no-one uses it, at least no-one writes in the official forums that he or she is using it.
In fact, I often get the impression that beginners and those who want easier rules are not really wanted by the fans in the official forums.
There are even fans in the forums which are argueing with statistics and stochastics why several dice checks are not "fair" …

The only thing they all are able to agree upon is to make the rules much, much, much more modular - so that beginners could play with a rather more simplified version of the rules, and more experienced players can use more complicated rules for tinkering.

Third edition was much more easy, imho, but my memory might have become blurred over time as well.

Moriendor said:

Instead, the game got really long in the tooth when it continued on with the Dwarven ruins and then that imp-like world and then yet another area for the grand finale.

Click to expand...

I take your point, but I tend to disagree - mostly because I felt that the journey up the mountain leading up to the game's conclusion was an enjoyable part of the game for me. Some of the fights there were quite challenging and seemed to require more careful management of resources than those previous. I also played the game over a long period of time (took me about two months to beat I think) and so these short sessions probably helped to keep the game fresh for me.

The main virtue that the first game has over The River of Time though is the more flexible variations possible for party configuration. It's something I loved in the first game despite the fact that some of these extra characters weren't available until the later chapters. I've loved that freedom of choice since Baldur's Gate.
Whilst I'm willing to concede that the second game is superior in almost every other way, this is a key element where I'd give the nod to the first game.