Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General More isometric gameplay previews?

I do actually mean the combat. Why would I want to spend a huge amount of time baby-sitting a whole party of characters and their summons/pets through combat, rather than mainly role-playing MY character? Clearly, it should be *POSSIBLE* to control all party characters/summons/pets individually if that is what a player wants, but it should not be *MANDATORY*. If the monsters have combat AI, then so can party characters/summons/pets, even if this means you need to have an additional "simple-combat" mode.

I suppose it depends exactly what game Larian are making, and who they want/expect to buy it?

Obviously D:OS2 players who are also TT DnD players are very positive in the forums. What we have seen so far would provide a good experience for them, and they are busy in other threads discussing detailed character builds for optimum tactics, drawing on what is probably ~1000 pages (?) of 5e information.

But what about someone that likes playing single-player RPG video games, but that is not a "DnD nerd". Is everyone expected to go and read and understand hundreds of pages of 5e, just to be able to get through the combat, which may not be why they want to play the game?

If BG3 really is only for the existing Larian/DnD multiplayer hard-core, then there is no need to think about anyone else; but if the audience is intended to be wider, it might be wise to consider some quality-of-life settings that allow the game to satisfy other playstyles.



I didn't remember the D:OS1 formations, so I went back to look, and eventually noticed the decoration at the top of the party chain UI was actually a selection button; I did not notice that while playing. It sounds like D:OS2 also had an ability to distance characters with the grid? ( I didn't get on with the first game, so I passed on the second ). If so that's good.

As I said, I think the chain / party split are good ideas, but not the best implementation. The drag/drop seemed to be unpredictable, and I found it unhelpful that I had to move the mouse from the centre of the screen to fiddle with the portraits on the side, just to select a single character to move. Other posters to the thread have made similar observations; there are better ways to use a mouse for control.

As I had cause to open up D:OS to check on the UI, I'll make a final observation ( below ) about lack of in-game information - with the suggestion that it is improved for BG3, please.

On opening D:OS1 you are presented with ways to start the game, and some configuration options; no README, no FAQ, no Manual. The only place from the start screen that I could find that gave any useful game information was the key-binding options that give an idea of what you can do. In-game, the information was limited to short tutorial tips, which barely told you anything, and load-screen tips, which were never up for long enough to read. Even when I went looking and found the official manual, the information in it seemed sparse ( for example, it explained how to drag/drop portraits in the chain UI, but not that you could use party formations ).

These comments are intended to be constructive, so please take them that way. I would like BG3 to be a game I want to play, and that many others will want to play. It would be a shame if it sold well, but was critically panned for not meeting expectations.

Yes indeed. This is the $1,000,000 question. For whom, exactly, is this game being made? Is it just D:OS2 fans and TT D&D 5e fans? Or is it for any and all single-player RPG videogame fans? If it is the former, then that's not me (and I suspect a total target audience of only about 2 million). If the latter, then yes that's me. So the biggest question of all for me, which has not yet been addressed at all anywhere in any interview, is what @etonbears asks here: what kind of QoL/difficulty settings and customizations will the game have? And especially, what exactly will be included within any "story mode" setting?

AD&D or 3.5 was far more complicated than 5e and many people played NWN games or IWD-BG games without ever open a PNP manual. Rarely they made a game without some tutorial or explanations ingame of lots of the mechanics, and you usually do not have to understand the math involved in the combat to fully enjoy games like POE, BG, ToEE, POE, Shadowrun, etc...

It´s dissapointing the amount of people that consistently refer to others as "nerds" just because they are not scared of manuals of more than two pages and without lots of pictures when confronted with something the´re passioned with. (nothing wrong with seeking games to have fun and for evasion, so they do not want some complicated things, that´s understandable. But it would be nice if they tone down the disdain for people that do not see that as an option, if only a little).

I will make a suggestion for Larian. They should make a "Collector´s edition" with a manual in paper and some goodies; but also they could make the "Contempt edition", with a colouring book with lots of pictures, less than 30 words and maybe a backer code that unlocks a customized UI that hides the MP option and some other options in the final game so some people could have the illusion that the game is customized to them and only to them.

So they would only see the options they like in the game and not the ones that other people like (even tho the existence of those options would not impede 90% of the options they like) and they would have a more enjoyable experience.

After reading some of the posts, I think they have a huge virgin market to exploit in there.

Personally, I've found RTwP combat to require far more babysitting with groups, sometimes to the point of not even being able to control my main character in combat, as I needed to control the archer/mage to keep them from wasting resources or making poor targeting decisions.



Generally, the information on game systems and mechanics is provided through in-game tutorials and tooltips (the tutorial messages are also logged in a section of the journal).

>babysitting
cause its a party RPG?
Its not neverwinter nights 1.
Sure AI is a thing in RTWP games, but do you trust that with the game? Especaily when it comes to casters, unless you wanna go full programming and write endless lists of what your NPCs are supposed to do, and in that case you might aswell micro em.

You can and should turn off the party AI in an RTwP CRPG. The AI is not smart enough to make sound tactical decisions during most combat situations.

I am actually surprised that this is even an issue.

Yeah, I would never trust an AI to control my party members. This is especially true for a game based around D&D where casters have limited spell slots.

- about rules:
I am happy that BG1+2 came with a huge manual. To be honest, DnD 2E can be quite unintuitive. It took a bit to understand the concept of thaco ( to hit armor class zero ). Your hit value, armor class and saves should be as low as possible while most other stats should be as high as possible. Stats do nothing over a wide range and have only an effect when they are very high or low. So a ring of protection+2 actually lowers your AC by 2 which is good. You could not equip some magic items at the same time while other items worked together (you could not equip a magic armor and a ring/cloak/amulet of protection at the same time, but you could use the sewer cloak or the ring of gaxx together with them which also improved AC among other things. Sorry, I still do not understand the logic behind this.) For me it was often confusing when I read "spell x lets the target use a saving throw versus magic -2" if this is good or bad.

DnD 3E/pathfinder is the most complex system I know. Even after tons of reading and playing several games I do not understand everything. For example for every effect you have to remember what type of effect it is to find out if it stacks with another effect. Lots of abilities require several conditions in order to work. There are tons of classes, races and feats. In a computer game the computer does the calculating but it is beyond my understanding how players can keep track of all this stuff in PnP, when your char has 5 different buffs, the enemy causes 2 debuffs and you have 10 passive fears and class abilities, all of this with different types of effects and durations.
Example from pathfinder kingmaker: A lv8 aldori defender fighter gets +2 shield AC and +2 dodge AC when making a full attack while having a duelling sword equipped and nothing in your off hand and fighting defensively.
On the pro side, it became more intuitive in so far that higher numbers are always better.

DnD 5E seems to be much easier to understand than the stuff above. In order to prepare for BG3 I read the players handbook and I had no problems to understand most stuff. Of course other books added many classes, races and feats and there will definitely be several players who will need some time to understand it, but the basic rules seem to be relatively simple compared to previous editions.

I can understand that some fans of older editions are unhappy. They spend tons of time to master a super complex system until they finally manage to cheese the hell out of it and create godlike chars and suddenly the devs create a more simple system.

I hope BG3 comes together with a manual similar to BG1+2, which was great and helped a lot to understand things. The players handbook is nice, but even I as a complete noob to 5E can see many differences between the PnP rules and the computer game and there are surely many differences I did not see.
I had this problem in P:K. The game explains stuff not very good in game. I did lots of online reading for the PnP rules and then I had to guess what is different in the computer game. I found several examples, but no halfway complete list of differences between PnP and computer game.
Any (computer) game with very complex rules, including every game based on a PnP system, should come together with some kind of in game manual that explains those rules.

PS, in the obsidian forums I said:
"Lets invent a rule: Every sufficiently complex RPG will have legal combinations to break the game. If this is impossible either its not an RPG or its not complex enough.

By break I mean you become almost immortal against most enemies. Deadfire is a complex RPG by this definition. I just finished Mass effect again and it is not. Its easy in general, just shoot stuff and watch for cover. Just to be sure: Just because a game is not a very complex RPG does not mean it is a bad game and not every complex RPG is good."

- about controlling only the main char:

In theFallout games and Arcanum you controlled only your char and your party members did whatever they want. The original Fallouts and Arcanum were turn based. (Arcanum was almost unplayable in real time combat for me). OK, I admit that the party members often acted very stupid. In F3 a companion jumped down a cliff to chase after an enemy. He disappeared in the distance and I never saw him again. Since then I played F3 and New Vegas only solo, I did not play later Fallouts.

I absolutely want to control ALL of my party members in BG3. But there are turn based games where you can control only your main char and I am not totally against the OPTION to play this way as long as you also have the option to control all chars.

But there are RPGs and there are RPGs. BG1&2 are party based RPGs. Fallout and Arcanum are not.

Also combat in traditional Tim Cain design has a different role to play then in BGs. In Fallout1&2 and Arcanum combat is one of the ways of engaging with the world, not a core feature. You can have a character who is good in fight, one who is charismatic - then companions can do the beating for you. Combat in Fallout1&2 and Arcanum is pretty awful by itself, but it's not a main gameplay loop - I played through Fallout2 without participating in combat myself. Later fallouts are entirely different beast, mixing in action RPG gameplay style.

DnD, on the other hand, originated in wargames. DnD cRPG were always heavily focused on combat, and while occasionally skippable it is one of the main gameplay loops - in BG1&2 the most robust gameplay loop by far, and it's design revolves around party interactions.

I made this point on another forum, and think it is very relevant here. I think a big part of why we all have such huge differences in our combat system preferences has to do with our differences in combat gameplay styles. I think this is what @etonbears was trying to get at, and he was not trying to put down anyone. Certainly that's not my intent here either.

I think whether we like the spellcasting side of combat or the melee side of combat is what makes a huge difference. If one strongly prefers the spellcasting side, then yes, micromanaging (i.e. babysitting) a spellcaster-heavy party can be very demanding, especially in RT/RTwP systems. And by contrast, spellcasting becomes so much easier and more efficient with turns. On the other hand, if one prefers melee combat, then micromanaging a melee-heavy party is not that difficult, and is quite easy and FUN in a RTwP system.

For me, I have always MUCH preferred the melee side over the spellcasting side. My most favorite class to play in D&D is the fighter class, multiclassed with some other complimentary class such as rogue or ranger or barbarian (but NOT a spellcasting class). The same for my party companions, where I typically avoid taking along companions who are strictly spellcasters. I don't mind having some spellcasting ability in my party, especially for healing, but only as a secondary class of a multiclassed character. So every "spellcaster" in my party will primarily be using a ranged missile weapon, and only resort to casting spells very occasionally.

These differences in our combat gameplay style preferences, I think, go a great way in explaining our differences in our combat system preferences.

IMHO it´s not exactly that. Nobody wants to put himself through 200 pages of rules if you can do the same with 20 pages and there are lots of game systems that have some overcomplicated rules (Anima comes to mind).

The thing is not that the ruleset becomes more simple, the crux of the matter is that when you simplify rules you have to cut somewhere. Most of the time it´s superfluous content but sometimes it involves losing some key features.


Using D&D as an example: You reach 5e and suddenly the sorcerers are the only casters in the world that could modify their spells with metamagic (i.e casting a spell as a bonus action, empower, give it longer reach, or casting it silently), you have to choose between improve your stats or a feat, you cannot learn new skills, languages or tools after level one (besides a few subclasses), druids do not have animal companions anymore and and your option in combat for pure warriors (besides some subclasses) is Auto-attack most of the time in a "Yo, dawg, I heard you like attacking, so I will put an attacking option for when you are attacking with your attacks while using your attack to attack with your attacking abilities" way.
I understand people that are used to have more build and combat mechanics options in previous editions are a little disenchanted with some things of D&D5e (A fantastic edition in most aspects).

In the TT it´s not that a big deal because you could just ask your DM and RP what you want to do.
You may ask if you can taunt your enemies to attack you instead of your squishy party member, shout a battlecry to intimidate your enemies, try to destroy their shield with a heavy blow, shoot the cyclops´s eye to blind it, using a feint to distract them from your real attack with your off-hand weapon, disarm them or kick a table to take cover behind it, etc.
But in a videogame your "DM" only speaks binary, so that option is out of the table. So a more simplified ruleset translates into less fun things you can do in combat.

In that regard Paizo´s "Pathfinder" is a great game ruleset to translate into a videogame, because you already have a lot of combat maneouvers, arcane feats and lots of features you can use in and out of combat in the manual as core rules, so you have to put that in the videogame instead of relaying in your DM to allow players to do cool things in combat.


Using a videogame example, if you take a look at the Fallout franchise it evolved from a isometric rpg to a shooter rpg of sorts, but the games retain some of the features in fo3 and FNV. FO4 got rid of the skills&feats in character creation, using a simplified system where you just pick a perk that improves your character or you need to find a bobblehead in the world to use some ability instead of levelling up to choose it. And that´s ok because you do not need to know your exact "%hit" in a RT shooter or stuff like that.
But at the same time when they got rid of the "skills" they took away the uses of the skills when you interact with the world in Fo3 or FNV with characters or to solve some quests without using your guns. I liked using your medicine to cure wounded soldiers, explosive to disarm mines, speech or barter to use in conversations, or science to know about tech stuff...
In FO4 you seem to be trained to do almost everything (besides hack computers and unlock locks), use and repair any weapon you find including plasma weapons or flamethrowers, use power armor or heavy machineguns;.. No matter if your female character is a former lawyer because you just go and click on it and it´s done which is a thing I do not particularly care about in a RPG.

older systems arent even that complex, just bloated most of the time, and by older system i mean 3.5 because thats what most people that talk about "older systems" refer to.
Anyone else pretty much grumbles along in the OSR circles anyway

5e is of course bad. But thats not because its less "complex", cause it realy isnt all that much less complex.
its just badly designed, because its a half baked mess between nostalgia appeal and trying to make thigns accessible, in the end creating a product that appeals to the lowest common denominator while simultaniously also beeing just as horribly balanced as older editions.

Oh boy, I love edition wars. 5th edition is the best edition since 2nd. I'll never understand people who put balance above fun. (looking at you J.E. Sawyer) 2nd was stupidly unbalanced. And it's the best ruleset ever. One of the things I like about DOS2 is that doesn't worship at the altar of balance. Pyroclastic eruption is insanely powerful and it's the only way I was able to complete a tactician solo against that demon doctor (whose name I can't spell).

I think the issue of complexity comes down to how engaged / immersed in the world you are. If you really like the setting -- like the Forgotten Realms -- complexity is good, you want to have every option. If you aren't really into the setting -- and I wasn't really into Rivelon -- then simpler is better.

Of the editions I played, I would rank them:

5
2
3
4

And 5 wins be a long gulf. I find the ruleset to both robust and elegantly designed. Intuitive and more than deep enough to create fun characters and encounters.

Sorry _Vic_ if the "DnD nerd" term triggered you in some way. For anything I am personally interested in, I consider myself something of a super-nerd or super-geek, have often been called such, but have never considered it to be negative or insulting ( more a badge of honour ). Your experience may be different, of course.

Just for the record, from about 1970 until about 1995 I was playing TT wargames with little metal figures ( napoleonic , ancient, ww2 and Tolkein ), map-and-counter wargames ( including the ultra-nerdy and still incomplete Europa Series WW2 games ), and fantasy/sci-fi RP games, such as Runequest, Traveller, Space Opera, and of course D&D. I've still got hundreds of games, source books and loads of miniatures, but I have not really cared to use them since computers became capable of interesting games, which is now my preference.

Yes, there are more complex game systems than 5e, and approached the right way, they can be successfully translated into video games that can reasonably be learned by people unfamiliar with the game system. So, my concern is about whether this is true of BG3.

There is a lot of forum chatter stressing the importance of "tactical combat", having the right build, and the need for effective party combinations in combat. That may be what you are looking for, but I'm more interested in the story, the world and non-combat activities. So, my question is a simple one; is BG3 also for a wider RP audience or solely for combat fans.

I don't have any wish to take anything away from the game as shown that many people like. But, just as I don't want to have to have super reflexes to play and enjoy a "twitch" game, I also don't wish to need to become super-competent at everything 5e to avoid constantly dying in BG3. If anything, it is you who seem to be objecting to me wanting to enjoy the game, not the other way around.

Pretty sure it´s you the one that draw a line between "DnD nerds" and "the others" and "People that like RP" and "Combat nerds" and i´m sure there are plenty of people that could be both. Me included.
If you just want to enjoy the story and nothing else, you just have to lower the difficulty so the complexity of the system do not thwart your gameplay experience and you can play whatever character you want without worrying about anything else. But let the others enjoy the full D&D3e experience with all the features possible.
Almost all games have that in 2020: Easy mode? Story mode?, etc.
I do not really understand what exactly is your complaint. Seems to me you´re just creating illusionary barriers for people that simply like different things, trying to focus the discussion about the game into things you like, while diminishing the opinions of other people using derisive terms at the same time.
Too many threads about builds, rules and tactical combat in the forum for your taste? Well, Don´t read them. Simple.


Since when a robust character creation and gameplay mechanics has to do with how a good story is made? Different departments, different people, mate.

One does not take away from the other, they´re unrelated. You could have a good story and character creation; but crappy graphics and weird combat mechanics, like "Arcanum", and games with incredible character creation and good combat but a terrible story like "Grandia 3"; and games that have great story and character creation/combat mechanics but the controls are weird like VTM: Bloodlines. Luckily there´s modders to fix that, may the great Spaghetti protect them all.

You´re worried about the quality of the story, rp options, exploration, etc? Cool, join the club.
But they can work in a good story AND into a good implementation of the D&D ruleset because that´s unrelated, and if the story of BG3 is not up to the standards you have in the end; that would not be because the consultant of Wotc and one of the designers were doing extra calculations for battlemaster maneouvers or abjurator´s barrier. You can safely blame the writing department.

And before you draw the "budget card", BG3 already have the ruleset made by WoTC, they do not have to do that from scratch like in other games (PoE, tyranny, etc), so they only have to implement them.

I don’t see this distinction between people liking combat or story. While I’m sure everyone has their preference, these aren’t mutually exclusive categories and most RPG fans I’ve ever met care about both. These aren’t two distinct fandoms.

It’s too early to comment on the story, but from what I’ve seen in the game demos, RP looks fabulous. Lots of distinct options and outcomes.

I wasn't arguing for "the other system", that train's already left the station ( and we are not supposed to mention it ). I agree that "the other system" requires even more babysitting if you want to have complete and accurate control of your party in combat encounters with optimal efficiency, and superior results. But that's the point, I don't care about about that; I care about getting through encounters rapidly, because I don't find the actual mechanical combat particularly interesting in any game.

BG3 already has AI that understands combat for all the enemy entites, and it already has per-character configurable AI for reactions ( which is, in itself, going to give you non-optimal outcomes ) for party members, so it does not seem a stretch to allow players the OPTION to put any party character under AI control, preferably using configurable preferences as with the existing BG3 reaction system ( or something like DA:O which allowed you to specify party member combat preferences ).

In fact, the effect is no different than playing BG3 in multiplayer, where you control only one character, and can request other players to do things, but can't guarantee their behaviour.



Yes, I know, but the tutorial information is sparse/incomplete if you come to the game "cold". I'm sure that anyone involved in kickstarter/early access for a game is heavily invested and doesn't need much information once the game releases.

Some games are much better at pointing you to information sources than others ( whether Manuals, mini-sites, wikis, FAQs, whatever ), and some games have more complete and accurate in-game information. I was simply pointing out that D:OS was not particularly well-documented, in my opinion as someone coming to the game without any prior knowledge. No worse than most games, to be honest.

Well, AI in TB should be an order of magnitude more sensible than in "the other system" because it knows where everyone is when selecting an action, so it can avoid fireballing your party, for example. Not suggesting YOU should use party-character AI, just that it would be a nice addition for those that don't care to micro party characters in RPGs.