Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Different design principles

I really wasn't sure about opening this thread for many reasons. Probably it doesn't really have much to do with BG3. It can sound a little pedantic. I can make many mistakes because, despite being game design a little passion of mine, I'm not that good. In the end I decided to do it anyways, because I keep seeing people referring to BG3 or 5e in general as a dumbing down, as a streamline, as ruining the world coherence, and I think that looking the things from a different perspective would help understand others positions.

Now, what are rules? Rules can mean many things, but the easiest way to see a game rules is to see them as the laws that makes the world work, not differently from our laws of physics. You have a rule for fall damage, you have a rule for how far you can push someone, you have a rule for what characterize a set of people, and if you put all these little rules side by side, you create a self-consistent world where every rule interact with eachother like a perfect swiss watch. This is amazing, this is cool, but this is not the only thing a rule can do, or be.

There are rules that don't exists for the world itself, but for the players alone. You can insert yourself in this world however you want, but if your only goal is to build a tavern and be a beerkeeper without ever engaging with the story the master is trying to offer you, maybe there is an issue. A rule comes to my mind, from Dungeon World: "Whenever you completely fail a check, you gain 1 experience point". Seems silly, but to me this is an amazing and elegant rule like fews. It's a short sentence that have nothing to do with the world, but leads the player into playing the game. Not only that, it leads into playing the game the way it has been designed to be played. The game is not telling you "You are an adventurer", but the rule is there to make you move, to try, to fail and grow. It makes you an adventurer. And what about min-maxers? Well, they will be cool, always succeeding, and will never gain extra experience losing progress and the whole party will end up on even ground in a way or another. Just for context, if I remember correctly, in Dungeon world you level up with 5 + your level experience points, so 1 is really noticeable.

But if we accept that a rule is not only a law of physics, but it can also be designed with the intention of changing the way we play the game, what else can we do? What if we want to create a rule that helps us telling a story rather than govering a world? Like a good John Woo movie. The characters are shooting like there is no tomorrow, literal showers of bullets flying from a single 15 clip mag, and suddendly, when it's the most important moment, the character have no ammos anymore. Sure, we can count ammos and if they are over in the most important moment it creates a interesting situation... or we can cheat. What if the ammos are virtually infinite and are over only when the story says so? What if our rule says that only when you fail completely a check you discover that your quiver is empty and, in the heat of the battle, you lost count of your arrows? Yeah, I know, the world is collapsing, it doesn't make sense anymore maybe, but the storytelling is growing. But the arrows has not been removed because "nowdays players can't even count arrows, they are so dumb", but because they are not needed for the storytelling. (Yeah, this is another rule of dungeon world)

We can go further, the master is not an arbiter anymore, is a storyteller. His job is not to move pawns but to create emotions and to make every check counts. Failing is not "you failed" anymore. Sure, a good master were always been able to do so without rules enforcing his role, as a good player doesn't need to be made into an adventurer, but not every master is a good master, not everyone really understands the powers they have in their hands and how to use them, or that they can change the very world on their whim. A ranger is studying the traces of a creature, the party knows they are after an hydra, but he fails, hard. The master can use the rule "Give a bad news" and inform them that they were ill informed, they weren't after an hydra because those traces are of a Fire Hydra! A fire hydra never even existed in the whole world, and surely it didn't exists before that check, but a rule lead the master to turn the most common check into a huge point that will change the players experience.

What does this all have to do with D&D and BG3?
I'm not really sure about this, but to me D&D hasn't and isn't dumbing down his rules, but it's just going into a different direction, taking away some rules that don't help the narration, to make the latter shine more. The world means less and the story means more. It's not about balance or coherence, but just the emotions you can create in said moments. And this is not bad, but just different. It's something you can have a preference towards or not. Maybe I'm just wrong and under Jeremy Crawford direction the game will be back to be a hard and grindy dungeon crawler where numbers are the only truth, and I'm sure it will be amazing anyways, just not something I will be personally interested into playing because I prefer systems that double down in the storytelling and puts the rest to the side.

I thinks that Larian is doing this, creating rules that lead the players into playing, removing rules that don't help nor the story nor the engagement, or working out things verticalized on the kind of story they want to tell. Maybe they miss-step somewhare, but not everything we don't like is "dumbing down" or bad. I hope I haven't said too much wrong things and please don't destroy me. <3

Every new edition theres a subset of the population who will claim "these rules are the worst thing ever and the game is doomed"

If you told someone back in 3rd/4th ed you'd have players defending 5 e you'd get some strange looks.

The rulesets are just that, rulesets, changeable frameworks used to try and build an adventure around.

As time goes on the editions become less restrictive and more open to new players, thats because the game is getting better.

The image of a buch of nerds covered in pencil marks arguing over a book in a basement was a reality for a good chunk of the games life. Wtoc moved for more mainstream appeal, because why wouldent they?

Wow, that is a really insightful and interesting read, well done. I haven't followed the D&D playtests so I can't really comment, but I think your words here are worth considering when it comes to commenting on 5e and BG3.

Well put, Sansang. I can get behind the idea of DnD becoming more of a story-driven PnP game through those changes. But what will be the next step? Do we even need the world elements to be that detailed with this approach? Do we really need Fae'run, Mechanus, Limbo and other planes to be pre-defined entities in the world? If its all about storytelling, then rules of physics and some general principles will suffice and story should not be restricted by the premade world elements. Will it even be a DnD game at that point? Definitely something to think about.

Other than that, focusing more on your initial post, the only flaw I can immediately mark is that there is a differences between a PnP and digital games. The story-driven approach can work wonders for a PnP DnD but can find much less success as a PC game, which are mostly dominated by violence and action.

5e is my third favorite dnd system.

As for rules. Rules should not be changed willy nilly. Rules matter. Why? Dnd is a game. While story, writing, characters and all that matter; ultimately dnd is a gane and all games need Rules. And, the story should not trump the rules except in very specific very unique situations. Without the rules mattering why play a game. Just read a book or watch a film. The best rules lend themselves to story, choices, and characters. A great story leans into and takes advantage if the rules it doesnt ignore them.

I actually have to disagree with you here. Yes, a lot of games are about action, but there are many successful Adventures and the likes. Sure, the golden age of Adventures, especially point&click ones, is long over, but there are still some quite successful ones out there.
And considering the success of, for example, Sims, I think you underestimate the potential for peaceful games. As do many people.

Well put, OP, and I completely agree with you about rules and mechanics and how we players as well as game designers should approach them.

Where I would disagree with you is the extent to which Larian has done this right in BG3. I am not at all convinced that the systems Larian has built into BG3 further storytelling and roleplaying, at least in meaningful and deep ways. I agree with fans of BG3 who claim Larian has created a game with lots and lots of interractive systems in it. Totally agree. But where I differ from the fans is that I believe the vast majority of those systems are shallow and superficial and don't provide (to me) a meaningful and satisfying experience in using them. There's a lot of fizzle and pop and novelty, but once one goes past that there's nothing much underneath. Just my personal take.

Ok, I totally see your position, but what if the game is precisely created with the intention of being modified?

Take Skyrim, it thrives into MODifications, doesn't? But these mods are not there by chance, a decision has been taken when the game were in development, when the rules were being written. It's not something that you can do randomly, you need your rules to be indipdent from one another, to be modular and self-sustaining. If you take a system where the rules are all interconnected you can easily see how hard it would be to add, modify or remove one rule would be without damaging the others. So we can create systems where the rules themselves are designed and created in a way to be modified or ignored. Obviously this doesn't make the system better or worse, just with different goals.

About 5e, I personally believe that it has been designed with the precise intentions of being a different game on each and every table. One of the most discussed topics about 5e is "what houserule do you use?", and other than that we can see how many subsystem the OpenGL generated, each one of them modifying here and there 5e base system bringing it in a new setting, adding rules and removing them. My favourite part of the PHB is where it explains the melee attacks and just throws there, in half a page, pushing and grappling, then in a little note it adds "Yeah, these are just templates, when your characters wants to interacts with someone do pretty much the same thing, opposed rolls and go for it.", and to me this is the whole 5e design goals. I love it.

If I compare this to Pathfinder 1e I have 5 full pages explaining me every kind of option you have with your manouvers you don't really have space do add or remove, the system is meticolously designed around those manouvers. It's not bad, it's cool, but you can see how they are going in different directions. In some thread I've read someone suggesting that from BG3 the ability to throw enemies should be removed, but I see this option absolutely in line with 5e design. It's a different application of the template we saw above. In the same way we saw how the system and the rules can lead the dm and the players into doing things, in the same way a system can lead players and dm to improvise and modify its own rules.


Ok, this is interesting, but I'm gonna provoke you. Has the setting ever mattered in the DnD system? I honestly know only 3.x and 5e, so I can't talk about the others editions, but I feel like the answer is not. D&D is already a setting agnostic system, a system that can pretty much work wherever you place it. Some settings have their own rules that goes on top of D&D itself, but the base system remains there. As always, this is not bad, quite the opposite, it's something needed if you want a system that works both in eberron and raveloft as much as faerun, but I think it can answer your question.
If I take, for example, Symbaroum, I have a system where every time a spellcaster use spells they gets tainted and corrupted because of the implication of its own setting, and everything is tied to this corruption, and tainted monsters corrupt you when they hit you, and traveling in the tainted reign gives you currution and so on and on. I can't take Symbaroum system into faerun because suddendly the system would stop working, but I can take the D&D system into Symbaroum and, well, I would have some characters with strong antibodies but it would work nonetheless.


Yeah, I totally agree with the idea that pnp and videogames, can accomplish and implement different rules. I go as far as saying that implementing a pnp into a videogame is as bad as translating a book to a movie. Sometimes you get masterpieces, but 80% of the time it's subpar at best (actually I think that translating movies have way more sense than translating pnp rules). But I wanted to take the whole discussion on a more abstract level, because I feel like not everyone have a wider knowledge about this kind of world and they are too fast diminishing anything that goes in a different direction.

In other words, they are dumbing it down for a "wider" audience. Doesnt mean d&D players like me have to like it.

Despite this however, the characters, story, content, permutations etc etc etc. means this game will be game of the decade for me, despite my two major gripes with the game (Racial ability score bonus removed, and lack Paladin deity choice).

Guys, can we stop it with the talk of “dumbing down”? It’s a really loaded way of saying “simplifying” or “making more accessible for newcomers” that mean the same thing without the implied insult to people who think that might be desirable. Of course, it’s absolutely fine not to want that, or to think it comes at too high a cost, or could be done differently, and to think it alienates people who prefer complexity or building expertise. But using a less judgemental expression at least suggests you’re open to constructive discussion!

Well imo it is what they are doing, hence the phrasing.. However I meant no insult to anyone. Using "simplyfying it" or "making it accessible" would imply It isnt already accessible or simple, which it really is. Or should I say was, for 3 years I might add.

That being said, warning heard, I will try to use more gentle language in future .

Interesting read, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this and you've expressed your view very convincingly. It's always fun to discuss these things, here's a few points I'd like to respond to:

That's what I would call the "optimistic" outlook. The other way to look at this is that 5e players feel the constant need to homebrew new mechanics, rules and content because RAW 5e simply doesn't provide them when it should. You have to play game-designer in order to arbitrate even the simplest scenarios like a player wanting to buy a spell scroll (should it cost 500gp or 5000gp?) or craft an adamantine sword. Praising DnD5e for being open to modifications would be the same as judging Skyrim by how it feels to play after you've modded it to perfection - it means accepting lazy and shoddy design because you can fix it yourself. But here's the thing - I don't believe DnD is that open to homebrewing in the first place. Here's why.

The guidelines for building creatures, features or items in 5e are typically lackluster or straight-up nonexistent. This means that whenever I homebrew, I must rely strictly on my own intuitive understanding of the system and its tenuous balance. Whenever I introduced homebrew into my game I felt like I was doing so on a wing and a prayer, never being sure that it's fair, that it's balanced, that it won't break something or ruin somebody's experience 10 sessions down the line. I used to think this is normal, that it's the only way things can be and that I have only my own ineptitude as a gm to blame. Then I tried a system with properly designed rules.

In Pf2e the ruleset provides a rock-solid foundation for you in common situations and edge-case scenarios alike. The math behind the game becomes clear and intuitive as you familiarize yourself with it and is supported by tons of guidelines and helpful tables. Making new homebrew content thus becomes a joyful, no-stress creative process with little to no guesswork. Thanks to the sheer breadth of available options I need to spend less time homebrewing new rules to accommodate the specific roleplay ideas the players come up with. And when I need to homebrew something after all, thanks to the rigidity of the rules and - I want to stress this part - FUNCTIONAL GUIDELINES, I spend significantly less time biting my nails over balance. All of that makes for a LOT of saved time which I can instead use for the things that actually matter - being creative, preparing the story, content or props. Ironically, I feel like a more solid ruleset gives me more freedom to make the game suit the needs of my group, not less.

Absolute blasphemy but jokes aside, DnD is NOT a setting-agnostic system at all, it's just that the settings you named (except Symbaroum, which I'm unfamiliar with) are all DnD settings. You can't take the classes, races and mechanics of DnD and put them into Dragon Age, Game of Thrones or even Lord of the Rings without significant compromise. A tabaxi has no place in Middle Earth, the differences between wizards, sorcerers or clerics make no sense in Dragon Age and the whole thing would make no sense in Westeros. The classes in particular have tons of lore behind them and that lore doesn't mesh with just any setting, not even within the high fantasy bracket.

The only way one could consider DnD a setting-agnostic system is by not considering classes, races and items a part of the system and only seeing them as a kind of 'content'. The core mechanics (e.g. roll a d20 with this and that kind of bonus to see if you succeed) could work for any setting, but surely that's not all the system is.

When Bioware made BG1, I remember some ppl from PnP criticized the game because of the RTWP.
Since I had so much fun and was a complete newbie to DnD, I did not agree then, but today I understand what they meant.
But it was also true that the game sold millions because of the right choices by Bioware to appeal to wider audiences and one might say that Larian is doing just the same.

However, I think there is a big difference between Bioware and Larian on the way they treat the source material.

Bioware, despite all the changes they brought, they respected the RAW as much as possible. They changed only things that were necessary for video games, or things that were too difficult to implement...

Larian however, I can't say the same thing. it feels like they are more like the writers for Witcher series on Netflix than Bioware, to my eyes, they are disrespecting the source material and change and impose their own ideas instead of trying to stay true with the source materials. In my opinion, the current DnD 5e rules are fine and balanced and fun, and all modifications brought by Larian are either unnecessary or even harmful to game balance mechanism.

This is sad. I am only hoping that mods will be able to "fix" all this. I wish BG3 becomes perfect, not just very good.

In fairness to bio, the IE was real time only because they weren't originally making a dnd game. They were making a rts until interplay begged them to turn it into dnd because wotc was upset about the crappy dnd games interplay was making.

My biggest issue with bg is no non weapon proficiencies or secondary skills which made non dbd players assume 2e had none which is wrong and insulting.

This. I and my friends homebrewed 5e so much because the rules were lacking, terrible, and or nearly-contradictory in so many places. E.g.,
I would call WotC's design philosophy a lack of design, rather than a "design with precise intentions." They didn't necessarily design a system with a lot of customizability and flexibility. They more so designed a system with a lot of holes that need to be patched.

And then gaslighted people into thinking the holes are there to allow the DM more control and "making the game his own"

Its scary that this worked, but a genious marketing strategy.

There's also the fact that you can only concentrate on one spell no matter what and almost all the good non damaging/offensive spells are concentration based. I usually change it to based on spellcasting stat or level.
I also would ignore the stupid 3 max for qeapon and armoir artificial limit but I never get high enough level to worry about it.

I like 5e. It's a solid system, but it's far from perfect.

Just like larian's pseudo version of 5e. It's not perfect, but it'll be playable.

It's too bad you dont more options with hp. It should be roll, average, max, or minimum for hp options.

Lol “it’s not perfect” and “it’s playable” are hardly the same things.

No game is perfect. All games are playable.

If you can think of a perfect (ugh, Portal?) or unplayable game let me know.

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines ... without unofficial patch?

I was going to say, try playing late 90s, early 2000s, non-AAA games on Windows 10/11 without any patches. You'll start to get a list of games that are unplayable.