https://unpossiblejourneys.com/how-well-is-5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-selling/

If Larian Studios can get even a quarter of the 12 to 15 million folks playing D&D to buy BG 3, they will make a fortune.

No one is curious if BG 3 can tap into the huge D&D 5e market?

for one thing, its pretty hard to judge actual player numbers, secondly, very different target audience.

DnD is getting popular, realy popular, my current group keeps swelling and im about to split my party in two because its getting impossible to manage that many players at the same time
But that appeal comes from the social fun time that it is, not neccesarily from the subject matter or from the specific edition of DnD you are playing.
This success has been elevated by critical role and the general "nerd zeitgeist".

Make no mistake however, normies dont buy CRPGs. They play video games alright, but they tend not to play CRPGs.
Theyll play skyrim, ill give you that, maybe, some of them. Playing Baldurs Gate 3? I dont think so.
I dont think you can tap into that market.

if were lucky, well end up witha Neverwinter nights situation where you get a dedicated niche market, but the time of big modding projects appears to be over, largley due to the rise of indie game developers aswell as the increasing demands to graphical fidelity

Many people I know in the comic café we go play D&D are not really interested in D&D and the Faerun worlds per se. I mean, they like to create Capitan America, furry or that kind of characters. They go there to Roleplay, they are not interested in game mechanics, min-maxing or number-crushing; They pick their characters using the "Rule of cool" (They pick 5e rangers voluntarily, do I really have to say more) so I am not sure if they will buy into a videogame.
he videogames are more combat-centered.

That said BG3 will be a MP game, so that will attract many people. There are plenty of people playing NWN persistent world right now. And plenty of people will get a game with D&D in it. It is not easy to find groups to play: they disband or have different schedules. You can play a videogame when it suits you.

Definitely, pen and paper and video games are two very distinct markets. But D&D ist still the main reason why Swen chose to make a Baldurs Gate sequel. We know that DOS 2 sold more than 2.5 Mio copies with D&D he hopes to gain a bigger potential audience through how big it really remains to be seen.

But I disagree with your statement regarding role-playing in video games. I will always build my characters in CRPGs so that they are interesting whether they are actually good in combat is secondary to me. RPing is very important for a lot of CRPG fans though sadly most RPGs just lack the system to make roleplaying easier so most of it just happens in your imagination by restricting yourself to play in a very specific way. Sadly there really only a handful single-player RPG which fully embrace role-playing like Fallout New Vegas/basically all Obsidian games, Vampires Bloodlines or the Dragon Age games. I just hope that BG3 has lots of choices, skill checks and quest with multiple solutions to make RP interesting.

I'm exactly the same, and even view combat as a tedious sideshow in an RPG. It's a big part of why I love PoE2 so much because I can create a really cool character concept that is quite shabby in combat and still get through the game just fine. I think it's just people who post a lot on game studio forums (like this one for example) and gaming website forums (like the Codex for example) who are into min-maxing and power-gaming, and who falsely believe they represent most gamers out there in the world. I hope Larian knows better.

I must admit I'm slightly perplexed by the fixation with combat in an RPG, but I accept that people play video games for different reasons. Personally I think it would be nice if other elements of the game received more attention and would like more focus on the role-playing bits than we often see; everything being relegated to a supporting role in a combat game isn't really what I'm looking for. I'm not talking about turning something into Sims, just that IMHO there should be more to it than combat or readying oneself for it.

"...I must admit I'm slightly perplexed by the fixation with combat in an RPG..."

years ago my gaming group was not happy with any of the RPG systems so eventually we just ditched them all. We just described our characters to the DM at the beginning and we handled combat the same way we handled everything else, we told the DM what we are trying to do and he figured out what happens re: the world and NPCs. It worked pretty well.

EDIT: That said, CRPGs are a little different (with the exception of games that allow a DM) in that we can only do the pathways programmed in. We don't have the option to really RP so the game focuses on the mechanics.

Combat is the main gameplay loop of an RPG.
Conflict is the main driving force behind storytelling, be it physical or non physical.

Its a fact. If there is no conflict, there is no story.
I think the fixation with non violence beeing declared as more mature ridiculous.

The reason Combat is the focus of RPGs is because it is the only form of conflict that Video games have managed to put into concrete systems.
Discussions basically boil down to dialogue choices or dice rolls.
to create a compelling system for "Verbal encounters", you would require much better AI than video games have right now.

Survival tends to be another very important aspect of many RPGs, tho not CRPGs, becuase surival is, yet again, a form of conflict that creates a compelling gameplay loop.

I personaly dislike how "have tons of dialogue" is somehow the "better alternative" to having lots of combat. I personally find it tiresome. Dialogue is not a gameplay loop, its a diestractin from it.
I had this problem with Shadowrun (the video game), theres just too much dialogue thats inconsequential, i dont wanna miss any of the story, but when its JUSt in the form of huge text boxes, it starts to grate on my nerves.
Likewise i dont think Telltale games are actually video games at all.
If it doesnt have a gameplay loop with proper , non predefined input, then i dont think its viable as a core feature of a game.


About freeform combat in tabletops: not a fan of it.
Why? because its too relative. I enjoy having opitons and knowing where those options lead me.
If i do freeform, im basically "mother may i"ing the entire game, wheres the fun in that? Its all up to the whim of the DM now, thats not how the world works, if i take an action, most of the time, there is a response that i can at least gauge somewhat.
If i hit someone with a sword, its gonna do athing, if i repeat that five times, its gonna do a very simmilar thing each time i do it.
Freeform doesnt work that way unless the DM keeps a logbook, which is very annoying for the DM.

I also like to RP my chars too (I mean, I play Roleplay tabletop games) but I did not find any game based in D&D or PF which is not combat-heavy. Even in the games you said, Fallout new vegas or Dragon age origins there are a lot of fighting involved. There is a lot of very good dialogs, indeed. Plenty of choices (DA games went to the gutter when they started the dialog wheel thing)
In POE2, for instance there are many choices for unique dialogs based in race or background, and plenty of skillchecks so it has tons of replayability. Even in DoS2 there are lots of dialog variations for different characters, sex, race, etc.

But still in those games you are fighting 80% of the time. Period.

The only games based in a tabletop that allows you to RP more are the memoria games, based in TDE, and they are mostly a graphic adventure game. And the incredible Planescape torment and Age of Decadence. I wil also add Tides of numenera, but man... the game has so many flaws. If you use skills you only have to fight 3 or four times in the entire game, tho. Like in VTMB.
And I do not know if you can call that full RP, if you compare it with a D&D tabletop session, even online.

I've never heard of Age of Decadence, what is it about and what system does it use?

Sordank your post reads like this:


Not sure why you care so much how others play their games.

I don't even see this whole role-playing or combat as a conflict. A good CRPG needs good combat, good CRPG combat is when your character plays different from others, choosing your weapon armour and combat style is IMO a vital aspect of roleplaying in CRPGs.

https://www.gog.com/game/the_age_of_decadence

It´s a CRPG indie game of a small company. There are only two games in this setting I know of, this and Dungeon Rats. It is a small game (length like TOEE) but it has lots of backgrounds and factions, and the world changes a lot depending on your choices and skillset. I replayed it a lot.
As a charismatic loremaster or as an assassin you do not even have to fight more than two or three times in the entire game if you have the right skills( you have 23 skills, from impersonation and disguise to persuasion, sneak or alchemy, but it is not Skyrim, your character can only handle a few of them).
There are also factions, like the merchants or the thieves guild, whose missions do not require to have any combat skill to gain their favor.

There is also the Legion, mercenaries and the Gladiators arena that are very combat-oriented. Fights are unfair in this game, tho. I do not mean only difficult, they are unfair. I did not really play much those kill-everything-on-sight paths, to be honest. But as I said, there is no need for fighting much for some backgrounds, factions or builds, unless you really want to.

(I do not mean to compare this game with PS in storytelling, characters, etc, because like most games, does not hold a candle, I only make a comparison in the fact that you spent a lot of game time outside combat too)

ED: There is a guy that claims that you can make a pacifist run, not fighting nor killing anyone and get one of the endings of the game, and I think it´s true, but you miss a bunch of quests and game content in the process.

Has anyone made that claim? Since they are not directly related, whether a violent or non-violent action is mature or not depends entirely on the situation.


And therefore nothing else should ever be attempted?


Even with predetermined options and responses, good writing can create enjoyable games, and there are entire genres of games that are largely dialogue (even if you don't personally consider them real games).

I dont think other things shouldnt be attempted. However i think the "Dialogue" tree way of going about it is a dead end.

There wll be games that master this kind of interaction, but they will not arise from the likes of telltale games, they will arise from the likes of Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld and simmilar games.
There are other gameplay loops that work, such as the ever popular survival sandbox.

Also i disregard the idea that im no fun allowed. I just like to have a challenge, dialogue choices arent realy that. If they are "challenging", then they usually are so in the "adventure game logic" kind of way, where you have to guess what the developer intended, rather than judge the options laid out to you.

Im a firm believer that a game with good gameplay can be a good game without great writing, but a game with great writing cannot succeed on the merits of its writing alonge.
I know ill piss of a lot of Planescape Torment fans here, but if you wanna write a book, write a book. A game requires interactivity that goes beyond that of fighting fantasy books.
Combat plays to the strenghts of the computer RPG, it doesnt have predetermined options, the dice rolls all happen under the hood, there is variance there and unexpected situations can arise. The much hailed "Emergent gameplay" is what happens here.

Its no tthat there isnt non combat emergent gameplay. But ive yet to see many RPGs take cues from SIMS, Minecraft and Factorio.


At the end of the day, its a matter of taste, but my answer is a valid answer to the quesiton why RPGs focus on combat. Because combat is a gameplay loop that can be varied and that can create unique situations based on your playthrough, without the developer thinking of literaly any possible combinaiton.

Yet I have zero interest in any of those games, but I don't claim that they aren't games or that anyone who enjoys them us objectively wrong. I have played a lot of VNs, are their games? I don't care, the question isn't relevant for their enjoyment.

Interesting thanks

There have been hints that BG 3 is not completely combat centric as one might think. Larian has mentioned there is not much combat at first.

And I agree about Multi-player options attracting folks, not just that, but ones linked to Stadia's new capabilities.

Age of Decadence is the most hardcore RPG I have ever played I died in the tutorial and refunded...

My all time favorite game is Life is Strange. It doesn't have combat. Not player-involved combat, anyway.

Hehe. Nice image, @Hawke! It's why I just auto-ignore certain posters.

For those of you, like me, who are big into the outside of combat roleplay-heavy elements of RPGs, you should check out Disco Elysium, releasing next week. It's an indie game that is receiving lots of praise in review after review.

Yep, there are a lot of parts where brains are needed. They will sustain the plot to keep it moving forward to its conclusion. This plot may eat upon your brain and puzzle you.

Same experiences with me. In all my D&D TT games back in the day every DM I played with and myself as well when I DM'd, we always used house rules to get around what we considered to be tedious and unrealistic combat. But more importantly, in virtually every game, combat was very decidedly secondary to the non-combat parts of the game. We'd even go several weeks worth of playing without a single combat encounter, with intrigue and political machinations and puzzles and the like being what the game was all about. As such it was your choice of all the non-combat skills and abilities and feats as well as your non-combat equipment and consumables that really mattered. We even enforced characters' "knowledge" skills, known languages, and ability to read and write.

These are the things I hope BG3 will have a whole heck of a lot of, and if so then even if I don't like their combat system as I expect I won't, well, no big deal.

That's not an unreasonable position, but IMNSHO the combat in PS:T was rather lacklustre, so without the story/writing the game would have been entirely forgettable. While I've seen the 'book' criticism before, I don't think I've ever seen anyone recommend the game for the combat (not that it comes up very frequently any more in general gaming discussions).

I still see it come up fairly often with some gamer friends who I'd view as the pretty "hardcore" variety (by which I mean not self-styled) and they still consider it one of the all-time classic RPGs because of its story. The only time combat is mentioned is to point out it's not that great, as you say...

Im fairly sure Divinity Original Sin was recommended almost entierly because of its combat

That's certainly not why I recommended it: the reason why "I am not a fan of TB" wasn't a huge big deal is because combat is only a part of the game.

Looking at recent games I have played: Greedfall: yes, plenty of combat and preparing for it, and I'm rubbish at it; but it's a game that also has lots of atmosphere, story, intrigue and lore, which are more interesting to me. Shadwen: which being a stealth game is specifically about avoiding combat. A Plague Tale, also stealth but with heavy focus on story and adventure too. Some combat but it plays a fairly minor part. What Remains of Edith Finch: pure storytelling adventure, no combat.

At least two of them are games that will leave a lasting impression on me; possibly all, time will tell. None of that was down to combat. And none of the reason that Original Sin (and Divinity II before it) are a couple of my personal "four star" games is due to combat. It's down to what else they had to offer.

You need a good mixture of both combat (action) and story for an RPG. You might as well play Frogger if there is no story and Read a book if there is no Combat (action in the game). Hopefully, Larian will deliver a GREAT game that has the perfect combination of both story and combat (action).

Not necessarily. Undertale, To the moon and the aforementioned PST, Age of decadence,Tides of Numenera, etc are perfectly categorized as RPG, more than many. And could have almost zero combat if you like it that way.

That said, It would be a pity if they do not make use of the fun combat in D&D5e if they make a game in the SW setting, but it would be interesting if also make use of other mechanics like the skills, the factions, the RP-oriented missions and more things that you can enjoy outside combat.

Yes I agree. BG3 is going to have a lot of combat for sure. But this argument that if a game has lots of reading you may as well read a book etc. is a straw-man argument. A video game is interactive. A book is not. That is a fundamental and huge difference.

to the moon is the oscar bait of video games.
Age of Decadence is a very different kind of RPG that scratches a very different itch.
Correct me if im wrong but istn age of decadence that kind of RPG that kills you on hard social dice rolls?


and its not a straw man argument. There are interactive books, they tend not to be high literature, but neither are video games.

Disco elysium came this week too. Looks like an amazing RPG game. It is dialogue-based and they promised that you can solve most quests with no combat involved.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/632470/Disco_Elysium/

its got a cool artstyle i give it that. but ive learned to stay away from RPGs that boast about beeing able to solve things without combat.
Nine times out of then, these games have an "lets have less actual content" button if youve got the apropriate stats.

Youre kind of missing my point here. Im not saying that the games that do dialogue choice based gameplay dont do it enaugh, im saying dialogue choice based gameplay isnt actually what non combat RPGs should be based on.

Yeah I mentioned it myself in one of my earlier posts in this thread. It's a true RPG in a sea of action/combat games pretending to be RPGs.

I've been playing this for a couple hours. I'm liking how hilarious it is. The amount of humor is almost stupid and it's pretty well done too. So far, anyway.

Please keep posting observations from your play-through. I especially want to know how their personality system actually works out in the game. I really love their game mechanics. My only source of hesitation on getting the game is that I tend to only like games that use a medieval setting rather than a contemporary setting. But maybe, hopefully, this game will be different for me.

Man, the game is hilarious. Your character is absolutely insane.

Creative and savoir fair are not super-useful but they are very fun options in every dialogue. 'Everyone thinks you're fucking insane and you probably are' from what I know"
My character just convinced the lock of a container to open itself because I took that advice from my tie. Clever tie.
Then I reached a game over sitting in a very uncomfortable chair because of a heart attack.
Also, I am a master of "The expression" now.
I love the game so far.