Do I really just suck at these games?

[Death Knight]

I know its a pretty weird question, but never in my whole life have I not been able to figure out how to find the niche in each game. I avoid games i would not be good at such as racing games and first person shooters. Yet every game i have started and completed at spiderweb software, has been played on easy. Ive tried normal and was good in beginning, until after that which i switched to easy. I cant seem to find a game which i am able to beat on normal. Is that really sad and do i suck that much or is jeff just trying to give you a run for your life?

[Trenton.]

Ah Death Knight. I know how you feel. I do all of my spiderweb games on easy. Of course I never tried it on hard or normal. I should do that some time. But even on easy and I use cheats, I get killed alot. In the geneforge series for example. Avernum series werent to hard but geneforge really kicked me where it not should have sometimes.

[Triumph]

These games can pretty challenging before you learn how to play them. There is a definite learning curve in terms of tactics and in knowing how the game mechanics work. If you stick with the games and read the posts by some of veterans here (people like Slarty and Synergy often write extremely useful analyses and collections of information), eventually you'll get the hang of it!

[Randomizer]

It's you. There are enough players that get through on the hardest difficulties that you must be doing something wrong. Although Averum 5 and 6 both have steep difficulty rises in the middle.

 

It's mostly figuring out how to get through areas where there are certain ways to do the fights. Jeff tried to make it one method doesn't fit all.

[Trenton.]

Maybe you just need to get to higher levels. Have you killed enough and got enough level? Check the level of the thing your trying to kill and come back later.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

It's you. There are enough players that get through on the hardest difficulties that you must be doing something wrong.

That's unnecessarily harsh, man.

The games can be challenging, when you play them through at first. If you find yourself dying a lot, buy more Endurance to give you extra hit points, or focus on spending a few points on Dexterity to avoid taking hits. In Avernum especially you have four PCs to use, so have one or two focus on attacking your foes, and then have the others buffing and healing - often, giving each of your characters one point in Priest Spells will mean they are able to heal themselves. In Geneforge, try and play as a class that lets you make lots of monsters to swarm after your foes whilst you heal them and get in a few missile attacks.

[Trenton.]

Originally Posted By: Like Tom Petty Said

That's unnecessarily harsh, man.

Randomizer isn't usually harsh. I would put it that hes honest.

[Aoslare]

Oh, geez.

 

Spiderweb games are significantly harder than most commercial RPG's from the last decade.

 

Other games are more forgiving: you can look for the best abilities, use them (or pump them), and there you go. These games require a little bit more finesse.

 

So, the answer is: no, it's not you. Most gamers today would have the same reaction. However, the games are definitely doable. Once you acquire some more subtlety in your approach to building characters, you will find that the games become very easy on Normal.

[Dantius]

In fairness, Randomizer is right that if you can't beat the games on Normal, you probably do suck at them. Of course, that doesn't make you a bad person somehow, \nor does it mean that said state of affairs can never change. It just usually means that you need to pay a little more attention to tactics and character builds, and then you'll do fine.

[Randomizer]

These games don't make it a cakewalk where you can do anything and the monsters die at the sight of you. Some companies are even worse like Basilisk Games Eschalon series where it's easy to create characters that can't hit a rat.

 

The first Might and Magic game back in the 80s had places where you could enter combat and die in the first round. Bard's Tale as a real time game could kill a starting character while you were looking for the instructions.

[Jerakeen]

Oh, hi Nikki. Is that a record?

[Aoslare]

Basilisk is just poorly balanced and has the worst of both worlds. It's easy to make characters that fail, but it's also easy to make characters that are brokenly good. Their games are still OK, mind you, but manage to be poorly tailored both to weaker players and stronger players at the same time.

 

EDIT: Turtle: Definitely not.

[Valdain the King]

I believe you are probably correct about the games. There is definitely an imbalance on the engines of all the games. Geneforge and Avernum especially. Ive played through numerous other games that were hard in the past-arcanum, fallout, and toee and all of them were turnbased action games where items are king. In spiderweb's games, skills and the right build are king and if you dont know what the skills are (which no one usually will) you will lose enough times till you cannot play the game anymore. The developer expects you to figure out how to make it through the game, to the point where he doesnt even give any advice.

 

Its not you, Im having numerous amount of problems with a4.

[Death Knight]

I think that you might be right, but has it always been so horribly imbalanced, even in exile and original avernums? I mean the geneforge series is so imbalanced that i think jeff should allow all users that bought the originals to get the remake at 50% off.

[Niemand]

Originally Posted By: Valdain the King

if you dont know what the skills are (which no one usually will) you will lose enough times till you cannot play the game anymore.

This seems unlikely; I began playing A2 with no knowledge going in about the gameplay in terms of character skills and abilities. It was a little confusing at first, but between the game manual and the in-game tooltips I got the hang of it fairly rapidly. I wasn't frustrated; I was having so much fun that I was desperate to purchase the full game when I ran out of demo.

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

I mean the geneforge series is so imbalanced that i think jeff should allow all users that bought the originals to get the remake at 50% off.

This makes no sense. If the games were that bad, no one would bother to complete the demos and them go on to pay for them.

[Death Knight]

Originally Posted By: Niemand

Originally Posted By: Valdain the King

if you dont know what the skills are (which no one usually will) you will lose enough times till you cannot play the game anymore.

This seems unlikely; I began playing A2 with no knowledge going in about the gameplay in terms of character skills and abilities. It was a little confusing at first, but between the game manual and the in-game tooltips I got the hang of it fairly rapidly. I wasn't frustrated; I was having so much fun that I was desperate to purchase the full game when I ran out of demo.

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

I mean the geneforge series is so imbalanced that i think jeff should allow all users that bought the originals to get the remake at 50% off.

This makes no sense. If the games were that bad, no one would bother to complete the demos and them go on to pay for them.

Its not that they are bad, but they still need to be tweaked. You have to understand that the imbalance between characters is immense. In geneforge 1 and 2, you are almost forced to play certain characters as the other characters dont perform nearly as good as the others. In g2, the guardian is the king almost to the point where playing an agent was pointless. In g1, there are no protective skills to help against getting hit all the time. You essentially have to hope that you dont get hit for 140 damage, otherwise you reload numerous times. There are alot more people than you'd think that find jeff's quirkyness crazy.

[Valdain the King]

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

Originally Posted By: Niemand

Originally Posted By: Valdain the King

if you dont know what the skills are (which no one usually will) you will lose enough times till you cannot play the game anymore.

This seems unlikely; I began playing A2 with no knowledge going in about the gameplay in terms of character skills and abilities. It was a little confusing at first, but between the game manual and the in-game tooltips I got the hang of it fairly rapidly. I wasn't frustrated; I was having so much fun that I was desperate to purchase the full game when I ran out of demo.

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

I mean the geneforge series is so imbalanced that i think jeff should allow all users that bought the originals to get the remake at 50% off.

This makes no sense. If the games were that bad, no one would bother to complete the demos and them go on to pay for them.

Its not that they are bad, but they still need to be tweaked. You have to understand that the imbalance between characters is immense. In geneforge 1 and 2, you are almost forced to play certain characters as the other characters dont perform nearly as good as the others. In g2, the guardian is the king almost to the point where playing an agent was pointless. In g1, there are no protective skills to help against getting hit all the time. You essentially have to hope that you dont get hit for 140 damage, otherwise you reload numerous times. There are alot more people than you'd think that find jeff's quirkyness crazy.

The geneforge series is very impractical, but you know what is funny-the original avernums are the easiest games out there. Take the first avernum, you can solo with 2 characters, then take any of the second trilogy games, try the same thing-you are screwed. Jeff hopefully gets this straightened out soon.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

In fairness, Randomizer is right that if you can't beat the games on Normal, you probably do suck at them.

Sometimes how you say something is a lot more important than what you actually say. That's all I'll say on that.

As for the games, I am in no way a min/maxer. I rarely, if ever play above Normal, and I'm fairly poor at planning out character builds and the like. But I've made it through every SW game I've started (apart from A5, and that was due to plot reasons and the constant combat). If you're dying a lot, make more healers. Get more health points via endurance. Use potions. PRACTICE. Play around with the demos, until you're building characters that have no trouble at all. Congratulations - carry on building characters like that and you'll more likely than not make it through the game!

And sure. The games may be unbalanced, in that a G2 Guardian with Parry pumped up the wazoo is king, but when I've played that game I've never played as a Guardian (in fact, this is true of all the GF games), and I've managed through just fine. Yes, even as a squishy Shaper. Some skills and some classes may be superior, but I can personally attest to beating the game with other classes, even if it did take a reload or 5. Just keep at it.

(Triumph: there have been "I'm back" threads posted before the user actually posted a "I'm leaving" thread, so no. And I outlasted our very own Slarty (according to Tyranicus). )

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Valdain the King

Take the first avernum, you can solo with 2 characters...

Soloing with two characters would be a truly incredible feat on any difficulty.

Edit: I'm not sure why you're addressing me, Nikki. It's nice to see you ( ), but I made no special comment on your reappearance...?

[nikki.]

Oh duh, I meant Turtle. Sorry, it's late and I'm tired.

[Valdain the King]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Originally Posted By: Valdain the King

Take the first avernum, you can solo with 2 characters...

Soloing with two characters would be a truly incredible feat on any difficulty.

Edit: I'm not sure why you're addressing me, Nikki. It's nice to see you ( ), but I made no special comment on your reappearance...?

Thats the thing though, Im not soloing avernum 1 with 2 chars, Im soloing a4 with 2. It should be the same way, but its not. A1 with 2 magic/fighting or ranged chars for me is easy. However, a4 with 1 finesse melee/traps char and 1 brute slith/priest fighter, is quite a challenge. The old system was either easier to exploit for me, or the new one is imbalanced-I take the latter.

[Aoslare]

The sort of "unbalanced" that describes SW games, also describes pretty much every commercial RPG in the last decade. It's less obvious for games which are easier, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

Some people find games with complex mechanics to be interesting. Other people find them to be troublesome. That's very, very different from having balance issues.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Valdain the King

Thats the thing though, Im not soloing avernum 1 with 2 chars, Im soloing a4 with 2. It should be the same way, but its not. A1 with 2 magic/fighting or ranged chars for me is easy. However, a4 with 1 finesse melee/traps char and 1 brute slith/priest fighter, is quite a challenge. The old system was either easier to exploit for me, or the new one is imbalanced-I take the latter.

Also, that's not imbalance you're describing. You're basically saying that A1 was easier and more forgiving, and A4 is harder. If it was imbalance, you'd be saying "soloing A4 with a fighter is easy, whilst soloing A4 with a mage/priest is hard".

Just because the two games are in the same series doesn't mean tactics in one should work in the other. Take Zelda; in TLoZ, you could quite easily just spam sword attacks to beat most foes - especially with full life. In OoT, that's not really the case: the game is more challenging and complex. And yet nobody is crying out that OoT is unbalanced.

[Valdain the King]

Originally Posted By: Like Tom Petty Said.

Originally Posted By: Valdain the King

Thats the thing though, Im not soloing avernum 1 with 2 chars, Im soloing a4 with 2. It should be the same way, but its not. A1 with 2 magic/fighting or ranged chars for me is easy. However, a4 with 1 finesse melee/traps char and 1 brute slith/priest fighter, is quite a challenge. The old system was either easier to exploit for me, or the new one is imbalanced-I take the latter.

Also, that's not imbalance you're describing. You're basically saying that A1 was easier and more forgiving, and A4 is harder. If it was imbalance, you'd be saying "soloing A4 with a fighter is easy, whilst soloing A4 with a mage/priest is hard".

Just because the two games are in the same series doesn't mean tactics in one should work in the other. Take Zelda; in TLoZ, you could quite easily just spam sword attacks to beat most foes - especially with full life. In OoT, that's not really the case: the game is more challenging and complex. And yet nobody is crying out that OoT is unbalanced.

I guess that makes sense. Then i guess that might mean that the original avernums might be easier for me. I still dont think that would mean that im good at them. I simply think that the engine is more favorable to me, whereas the newer engine's dont work for me. Hopefully i get it someday.

[Death Knight]

Either way, forget all this negativity. I just hope that i can eventually get through any game from spiderweb on normal. That might sound sad, but ill keep hoping.

[Aoslare]

What Jeff really ought to do is change the default setting to "Casual" and change all the names of the difficulty settings. Even after the name change from "Easy" to "Casual" it is hard to get people who have trouble to turn the difficulty down. Change the default setting to "Casual", change "Normal" to "Veteran" which doesn't insult Casual players by implying they are sub-normal, but also doesn't sound very threatening.

[A less presumptuous name.]

My two (or more) cents:

 

Game balance is always the hardest part for any developer - even the big guns at Blizzard have yet to make games like Diablo II balanced. They've nuked a bunch of formerly feasible builds and left only a few that can really show power in high-difficulty settings. Spiderweb is much smaller, so they can't think of every detail, nor can they test each build for viability. And our beloved beta testers are the best min/max -ers on the forums.

 

I played G1 ages ago, and I still haven't beaten it without an editor. I was hopelessly lost on it. When I found G2, I did the same thing, and I'm not sure I ever got a full ending on that game either. I don't know if I ever got more than a few zones into the Taker lands. My point is that these games can take years of getting used to. I am glad that I stuck with it, as my playthroughs now, though infrequent, are rewarding.

 

(and as a side note, when you're replying to the post immediately above yours, you don't need to quote the whole post. It makes the page unnecessarily long.)

[Randomizer]

The games have changed in different ways than just the game engines between the first and second Avernum trilogies. Spells act differently and what you can do with them is different from being almost invulnerable in the first Avernum and summoning hordes of creatures to assist you to only being able to have 2 summoned creatures in Avernum 5.

 

Jeff has changed how the games are played. The are more boss fights where there is one really good way to get through the combat than in the earlier games that allowed for buff and kill. Plus the demos are easier to make you want to buy the game before the difficulty jumps. It's no longer you can kill it when you first encounter it to come back later when you are powerful.

[Roentgenium]

I think the main reason a 2-party man is possible in the first 3 avernum games is because the experience gained is split among the party. So when you have 2 characters, they gain experience faster than a party of 4 characters would. From Avernum 4 onward, each character basically gained their experience individually, so a 4-man party would grow as quickly as a 1-man party. This change meant a 1-man party would get significantly fewer skill points, and since they have to be a jack of all trades to do well, this made them nearly impossible to play.

 

As for the geneforge series, if you want an easier time, use the "broken build" - the one that makes the game incredibly easy, if played right. In Geneforge 2, this was the parry-focused guardian; in Geneforge 3, this was the vlish shaper; Geneforge 4 had the mental magic-focused servile; Geneforge 5 has the battle creation-focused lifecrafter/shaper. I don't think geneforge 1 had one, though.

[Rowen]

I found this blog by JV to be interesting. It might play into why the games can be such a challenge at times.

[Aoslare]

Mental magic servile was not the best build in G4. I say that having been one of its chief advocates. It was good, but the lifecrafter and infiltrator had equally good options.

 

In G1 it was just the disposable creations shaper -- creation stat mechanics were different and highly abusable there.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

The first Might and Magic game back in the 80s had places where you could enter combat and die in the first round. Bard's Tale as a real time game could kill a starting character while you were looking for the instructions.

heck, it's not just the first one: in any of the first 5 M&M games there were places where you could go at low levels and get wiped out before any of your characters even had a chance to take a turn (like pretty much any place that had dragons in it)

[Death Knight]

On the topic of geneforge, i find that the game starts out fairly easy, then goes to moderate, then turns to freakishly hard. What makes things difficult is that geneforge unlike other games such as avernum, is much harder in that the choices you make skill wise impact you more if you are a guardian/agent. They impact more because you are the only character usually. This happens in avernum sometimes if a character in your group slows you down. I made a thief type character in a4 and he slowed down my other fighters as he couldnt hit anything.

 

The only game i can compare it to is eschalon book 1 and 2. In that game you really want to improve the skills that do the killing first, then focus on other skills later. I always usually get caught in the jack of all trades mindset. Thats what kills me.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

I always usually get caught in the jack of all trades mindset. Thats what kills me.

Well, it sounds like you know where you're going wrong, which is great. Just try to avoid doing that and you'll be fine! (In Avernum, especially, I find having one pure fighter, a pure mage and a pure priest (pure as in only bumping skills that directly affect those roles) works out pretty well. Once you've reached the point where you start having skill points to spread around, then you can start diversifying.)

[Harehunter]

The jack of all trades mindset is indeed fatal in Avernum, but I find that single ability pcs has its disadvantages as well. Whenever I tried that I found that it left me vulnerable to being 'pruned' to death. What works best for me is to have a team where each pc has his primary focus for development, but each carries a small to medium amount of training in a secondary skill. That way I am not dependent on only one pc for a particular ability.

 

So far I have not attempted a solo or twosome. Just haven't had the time, or ambition.

 

As to the complexity of the SW games I've played, it can be a bit intimidating at first. That is why Jeff provided pre-made pcs to be selected at startup. But once you've played through the demo section, you should have developed enough of a feel for the game to understand how all those traits work. You don't have to do a complete min/max analysis to build a viable party.

 

That being said, I do understand the satisfaction of teasing out the details of the game mechanics. Thanks to Slarty and others for having done the detailed work to discover them, and for sharing them with us all here. I just like to experiment with different combinations to see how they work (or don't). My detailed analysis of the games went into cartography. Finding all the hidden places, solving all the problems, that sort of thing.

[Aoslare]

And just so we're clear, since we are giving advice to new players here, everyone else disagrees with Harehunter. Focusing on a single ability -- melee combat, bows, priest spells or mage spells -- is the way to go, ESPECIALLY for new players.

[Harehunter]

Just so we're clear.

 

Which is why Jeff has a set of pre-made character types to choose from.

[Micawber]

Hmmm. Even in Exile, I never used the prefab characters. Frrrrrr for example was completely useless, mainly because his skills were all over the place. Much better to retrain and concentrate on doing a few things well, than doing a lot of things to a mediocre standard.

[Aoslare]

Some of the pre-made characters are fine on Normal difficulty. Some of them are just bad.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Micawber

Hmmm. Even in Exile, I never used the prefab characters. Frrrrrr for example was completely useless, mainly because his skills were all over the place. Much better to retrain and concentrate on doing a few things well, than doing a lot of things to a mediocre standard.

Frrrrr was also the best for customization, since he had something like 85 skill points when you changed his stats (at least in E3). Compare that to the measly 60 for starting from scratch.

[Dintiradan]

I also focused on 'pure' characters for the Avernum games (though I haven't played A5 nor A6). One archer, one pole user, one priest, one mage (in some games I did a sword user instead of an archer). Even without trait selection, you can go pretty far by just having a tightly focused skill set. Once you get to higher levels, make sure you're splitting your points effectively to get the most bang for your buck. So priests are splitting their points between Intelligence, Priest, and Magery skills. Side note for early Avernum 1 Mark II beta testers: make sure Jeff declassifies the secret skills, if they still are in the game.

 

Tactics can have nearly as much an impact on the game as your build can. For instance, you should rarely charge into combat unless you're able to move and hit in the same round. Otherwise, move your characters to just out of charging range of the melee enemies (in the early Avernum games, move-wait-attack is a common practice). Getting that extra hit in can make a big difference. When I played the Avadon demo, I found that knowing the maximum bow range (12 squares, if I recall correctly) made a big difference. Against a tough enemy, perform a fighting retreat with ranged weapons. Once the enemies have caught up with you, they'll have dropped a fair bit in health, and your melee fighters can close in. Request to Jeff for Avadon 2: have some way of indicating what the maximum range for bows/spells is on-screen (red circle, greyed out squares, etc.), so we don't have to count things out all the time.

[Trenton.]

I ussualy used a slith pole bearer as a tank and a swordsman as the power house hitter, but the swordsman would also be archer. I gave the swords man some desent health too. Infact he had more than my tank, more defence too. I bassicaly use my first character as my swords man an I trained him in most things umtill he became the ultimate being. (I used to kill everything back then) So you can have all of your people be an archer, thats what I did, they each have over ten in there regular skills (Swords man, edged weapons, slith, strenght and pole weapons, mage, Mage abbilities, and even my priest was a pretty good archer)

[Harehunter]

I agree that the pre-made pcs had flaws in their stat builds especially in the Exile series. What I was referring to was the character classes you could choose from in the Avernum series.

[Aoslare]

That's also what I was talking about, at least. Those "character classes" are just a selection of pre-made characters. Some of which are sort of okay, and some of which are horribly bad.

[Harehunter]

I think the point of those defined character types is for the newcomers to have a sampling of what kinds of things you can do with the game, to encourage them to experiment with various builds and let them decide how best to play the game according to their own way of thinking through the challenges of the game.

 

I reject the idea that there is one and only one way to solve a problem, or to successfully play through the games here. I have to deal with that concept daily as I work to modify programs written by other people. More often than not the solution or coding style is quite different than my own. Each programmer thinks differently, but in the end the program still does what it is supposed to do. On occasion I have to gut and completely rewrite a program in order to be able to work with it, but most times I don't have the luxury of time to do that, so I am forced to work with what I have, working through and understanding the logic of the person who came before me. I also learn new techniques from this experience, some of which I absorb into my own style.

[Aoslare]

There is usually more than one way to solve a problem. However, there may be multiple good solutions as well as multiple other ways of approaching the problem that are significantly worse. Saying "there's more than one way to solve a problem" does not magically make poor skill allotments useful.

[Harehunter]

No it doesn't. On the other hand, there have been many people who have succeeded in these games using many different combinations of skill point allotments, and have had an enjoyable experience with it. Then they get to enjoy the game again by playing with a different set of skills. And again, and again.

[Celtic Minstrel]

I don't see anything wrong with needing to play the game on easy. I'll probably never play it on anything other than easy myself.

 

Originally Posted By: Valdain the King

you can solo with 2 characters,

It's impossible to solo with 2 characters, because soloing by definition means that you're using one character.

[Necris Omega]

I tend to play the games on Normal. Easy is too trivial, and anything higher is just too tedious.

 

In the end, if a game isn't fun, a game isn't fun, and that'll always be variable from person to person. If I am not amused, if I am not entertained, than something is wrong. Personally, I'm willing to take whatever steps necessary to ensure a game is fun, be it knocking down the difficulty for fights the designer should have stopped designing half way through, to accessing the game console and entering /killeverythingeverrightnownoiamnotasking to clear an area if something glitches and I get sent backwards a few fights.

 

 

It does lend itself to a strange conundrum though - the jack-of-all-trades vs. savant issue. Games are so often balanced towards the savant, while offering so many options for "buffet" style building, it's really a cutting dichotomy. I want to explore everything, but if I do that, I won't be able to succeed. I really ran into this in Avadon.

 

Thankfully there was a respec. option so as to have the best of both worlds... to an extent.

[Harehunter]

I think Jeff says it best.

Quote:

1.0 Introduction

 

Welcome to Exile: Escape From The Pit, the hint book.

 

As you are no doubt already aware, Exile: Escape From The Pit (Exile, for short) is a very in-depth, detail game in which many different quests and adventures lead you to many different outcomes. The world is vast and ominous. Finding your way through the game and to its conclusion (yes, there is a conclusion) can be difficult, if not darn near impossible. Thus, this hint book.

 

...

 

It’s your choice. Odds are, if you have a question, it’s answered in these pages. Whatever you do, don’t be ashamed of looking in this book. Exile is a product designed for fun. If you’re stuck somewhere, and the game is no longer fun, you not only can, you should get an answer. Fun is the only important objective. This book is here to increase it. So go forth, and conquer Exile! If you’re stuck, this book will be waiting for you.

 

I don't think that trying to build all PCs to have all skills is practical or desirable. Specialization is important in order to build a viable party; near the end of the game each skill set is needed at a high level and the only way to achieve the strength of a needed skill is to specialize. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with each PC being trained in a secondary skill.

Melee / bows is one example. Or you can choose Melee / priest if you don't like bows; either way it is dual tasking. Pole / tool use is a combination skill of some use; again, in some cases you absolutely need to have more than one single skill set.

Mage and Priest skills top out at a level far below the skills needed for other specialties, and the supporting skills (Int, Spellcraft, etc.) have their limits too. Which gives you more spell points to use, more Int or cross training in the other magical specialty? Does training your mage in bows make more sense to you than training priest levels? That is your decision to make. I just like the mage/priest combo better than mage/bows or mage/thrown. Likewise for my priest. Training in missile weapons does not increase your spell points, and since I use a lot of spells, that is important to me.

Who likes to play with a team of all sliths? Or all Nephilim? These options add another twist to the game making it replayable. How about the concept introduced in the Blades of Exile scenario Tatterdemalion? Try to play through with only one of the three disciplines, fighter, priest, or mage. Is any one of the Exile/Avernum games even winnable like that? There are many variables to play with, and while most combinations will be poor to utterable failures, many will be viable. Stretch your ingenuity by trying to make a 'less than optimal' combination survive the adventure.

I will grant that there is a very limited set of options that will allow a player to make it through to the end game with ease while playing torment, but I strongly believe that it is not a set of one and only one. Or you can enjoy the game just as much trying some other combination. In E/A 3 you get different dialog with the NPCs if you have/don't have a nephil or slith in your party. (Actually, I wish Jeff had continued that trend in the second Avernum trilogy.)

In conclusion, the goal is to have fun with the game. If that means trying to calculate all the interactions of the various skills in order to thoroughly understand the game engine, then enjoy! Having to reverse engineer programs by analyzing hex dumps of their files, I thoroughly understand the pleasure of gaining that kind of insight. But when I play RPGs, I like to kick back and just play through it. I do like to try to find all the hidden passages and special artifacts, but usually that is the limit of my exploration.