Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General New interviews

Here is a new interview that has some interesting new info.

Baldur's Gate III Interview at E3 2019: We chat with Larian CEO Swen Vincke about Baldur's Gate and partnership with Wizards of the Coast
by Bryan Vitale, 01 July, 2019
RPGsite

the only thing new was advantage and inspiration? but good read nonetheless.

not a lot of news here.
the bit about advantage basically tells us nothing as long as we dont know how the game is actually going to play.
Inspiraiton i guess you could see a bit like Edge in shadowrun, only you can only have one of them.

basically you can, on any roll, drastically increase your chance for success. In DnD its up for the DM to hand out inspiraiton, i suppose in BG3 youll get it as a reward for.... good question what constitutes "good rolepalying" in a video game

Two statements make me shiver:
"Our idea is that you can change things, even lore, as long as you show and don't tell why it might be changing"

Swen Vincke: Well...we're going to show the combat rather than talk about it. The decision has been made and we're obviously in production, but we want to show the entirety of the game including what it looks like and what it plays like all in one go.



But also good things:

"We're evolving from Original Sin II. We're basing ourselves with a bigger focus on the party. You need to gather your party, right? At the relationship level, we probably could have done more in Original Sin II, and relationship between players and the actual party was a very big focus in Baldur's Gate".

Inspiration in D&D 5e could be like the fate points in the old Arcanum game: you win points when you complete some major labours in a particular (usually challenging) way. You can use your inspiration to enhance your checks: Like earn critical advantages in skill checks or hit/critcal chances or luck in gambling, etc

https://dnd5e.info/beyond-1st-level/inspiration/

There is also this point.






Advantage and Disadvantage, along with Inspiration is central to the rules of D&D 5E. They are integrated into the various class abilities (Barbarian Rage) and (Bard's giving Inspiration to others)

My opinion is that it will be Turn-Based because of the various D&D 5E rules don't translate well to RTwP. You have a Move Action, Regular Action, and a Bonus action on your turn. The reaction only occurs after the action of another. I don't see this working as Realtime with out the computer controlling the choices for you. If you want the computer to control your character why even play? (it would be like watching someone else play on twitch.)

Some games with RTwP applied mechanics similar to reaction, like the rogues´riposte feat in PoE, the blocks in DAI , the counterspell stance in NWN or the "attacks of oportunity"

Thats only if the reaction is automatic (such as attack of opportunity even tho in the TT version, you can actually choose to make one or not, as you only get one per turn and maybe dont wanna waste it)

That beeing said, reactions in 5E are vastly toned down from 4e (where they include things like shooting someone on their turn to decrease their chance of hitting an ally or literaly giving an ally an off-turn move to reposition themselves which obviously makes no sense in RTWP)

i personally dont think the action economy of move and standard actions "dont work" in RTWP, but movement works in a very different way.
Inspiration would be an odd thing in RTWP, but it would work since it only affects the next roll you make, rather than beeing a reroll mechanic (Such as edge in shadowrun).

Halflings have a racial ability that allow them to reroll or make the DM reroll. Also the Feat Luck has the option to cause rerolls as well as loads of the monster that are in the book (Legendary actions). It will be interesting to see how they do combat.

More interviews:


https://metro.co.uk/...-rpgs-10094263/



GC: Oh okay. Well, I was just going to say I never understood exactly how you adapt the rules of a tabletop game to a video game. I’d imagine that puts an awful lot of emphasis on virtual dice rolls.
SV: So we take the player handbook and we convert it into video game rules. We look at what worked, what didn’t work… and the stuff that didn’t work, we adapt it. One big thing that we had to fill in is the role of the game master of course, cause the computer game itself has to be the game master.



GC: There’s always a sort of rule of thumb for me, for a good RPG, and it’s whether you can resolve a conflict – a major story set piece, not necessarily fighting with grunts – outside of combat. SV: Yes! GC: Again, it’s resolving things in a much more interesting way than just throwing a dice. You can fight someone or you can talk to them, bribe them, use magic or whatever. SV: So you have… there’s a lot of that. I mean, there’s really much more than in DOS2.



GC: But you’re not going to branch out and start making shooters or something?

SV: Like Cyberpunk?

GC: Oh, get you! SV: [laughs] I like RPGs. I like strategy games. Those are the two things that I started making games for and from your questions you must like the same type of games. So I like XCOM. I like anything that makes me feel like I’m in the world and where I can make decisions that can affect it and where I have a lot freedom. So that is the type of game you can see us making in the future. Also, I think all games will converge eventually in that direction.

Maybe it's just the snippets I'm reading...

But I get the impression that Swen has absolutely no idea that MANY of the people who love the BG franchise have likely never played tabletop DnD and likely have no interest in doing so, and REALLY have no interest in playing a video game that's 'closer' to the DnD tabletop experience.


The beauty of the cRPG is that you don't have to bog yourself down with most of the things being discussed here. You can, as long as the game is made well and every resource you need is easily accessible in the UI. But it has to be a versatile experience.

@Nobody_Special, you mentioned you think it will be TB because of the difficulties going from 5th ed. to RTwP. I think the bigger point is if it's too difficult because of the complexity of the tabletop rules, then it won't matter which method is used. There will either be substantial changes that have to be made and it turns into something completely different, or it will be a convoluted mess where there's so many technical and insignificant steps involved, there ends up being no actual payoff {i.e. fun) for the player.

Also, you made the statement, "If you want the computer to control your character why even play?" Was BG, BG2, Torment, IWD, IWD2, etc not all about preparing your characters, setting up your spells, kits, and strategies, and then letting the computer "show you the results" of your work, I.E the Payoff? That's what BG3 should be about. Not trying to slow it down and make it like playing a board game with your family.

I'm sorry. This seems like it's not going well based on the statements I'm seeing in these interviews. And it seems like Swen is missing a serious amount of perspective required when making a BG game.

Hope there's more news soon.

I think that Sven Vinkle has the things pretty clear, it is just they do not want to tell anything right now for whatever strategic or marketing reasons they have.


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...-turn-based-rpgs-and-dreams-coming-true/

We asked Vincke about the experience of adapting D&D, to which he replied:

We started by taking the ruleset that's in the Player's Handbook. We ported it as faithfully as we could, then there were some number of things that we saw that doesn't work that well, and so we started looking for solutions to do that. The hardest part—and this is the most interesting part also about it, because there's a lot of stuff from the rules that actually ports quite well, so—but the most interesting part is the role of the Dungeon Master...

Whatever is not in the book he'll say "Well, I'll do this," and the Dungeon Master says "Sure!" And then he'll think about what type of check he's going to make you do, and then that's going to be what you're going to roll with, and the entire party will work with that. In a video game, you don't have that, so in a video game you have to make systems that allow you to do this. And so, coming up with those systems has been a lot of fun, and making them link to the ruleset as it is has been the interesting bit about that.
[...]

Vincke said that's exactly what Larian was trying to do. He was irate when recalling that the genre hit a dead end in the late '90s:

I just never understood the idiocy of not continuing on everything else that was present. We had Fallout; we had Baldur's Gate. I was a big Ultima fan also, so I didn't understand why that just had to end there. Nobody wanted to invest anything more—it was just a dry—it was impossible to find investment for these type of games, right?

I mean, like, Beyond Divinity for instance was a turn-based game back in the day, and I flatly got told here at this show, at E3, "You gotta make it real time!" Right? "You have to make it real time—nothing else sells any more! You're not going to get any single minimum guarantee!" Which is how you fund studios, back in the days at least, if you don't make it real time.

It's actually quite alarming for me at the moment. What bothers be the most right now is their true intentions was to make this a co-op, multiplayer and DM game. The single player there is just a distraction for it not being baldur's gate online. More and more interviews are just taking about playing with your friends, Google stadia where you can play anywhere by just sending someone a link and they can play it even in a browser. DM mode, crafting your own module, etc.

Perhaps it's not Larian decision, possibly WotC. This basically next gen version of Neverwinter Nights?
In time I believe we will all see their true intentions.

Re: the plan to use streaming to easily invite others to join the game... one of the things WotC can hopefully make peace with is that in real life, for non-D&D tabletop PnP players, setting side the time to regularly join gaming CRPG sessions is... a risky venture at best. People are just too damn busy irl in general, and have too many excellent choices about what to engage with via streaming. The beauty of a single player game is precisely that you can take your own sweet time, proceed at your own pace. Set the game aside for a month if you have to and come back to it later.

The game engine gives you computer generated companions that would be your friends playing characters at a tabletop game. And the game engine acts as the DM. In a way, that's awesome. Maybe not as great as a real life tabletop game. But still amazing when you think about it.

If WotC/Larian believes that they will make a more popular game than BG1 and 2 by trying to funnel consumers into trying multiplayer, I think they are most likely sorely mistaken. As mentioned, it's really hard to keep a multiplayer game going, and there are so many great choices for people to spend their leisure time on. Don't get me wrong: It's great that multiplayer will be an option! But the reason BG1 and 2 were so successful is because it translated D&D into a deeply engaging CRPG experience that could be experienced as a single player.

Ironically, as a SP game the BG series did create a sense of community, and shared experience. Devoted players to this day go to forums and talk strategy, share ideas atfor creative playthroughs, their love of certain NPCs, the lore of the setting, favorite classes/kits, the story, etc. The shared experience that the game brings is through discussion on forums. New players show up all the time at the Beamdog forums and reddit subs. This goes all the way back to the old PlanetBaldursGate and Ironworks forums that sprouted in the late 90s.

Now if that single player experience works best as a turn based game for 5E, that's cool with me. If it allows me to appreciate the mechanics of D&D better that's kind of neat. Myself, I think I'll be okay with a TB game. And if BG3 offers a multiplayer mode via streaming that serves as a gateway with easier access than ever to tabletop D&D then great. That’s all good imo.

But imho the bottom line is that this game better totally F-ing rock as a SP game.

Artagel maybe consider that the people who MADE these games in the first place played DnD.
Maybe consider that these are DnD games, in a DnD setting, following the DnD ruleset.
Thats what i keep saying: Make something in the spirit of the original, do what the Original Developers would have done if they had modern technology.

Be a fan of the idea that the original developers had, not the product that was, as all products are, limited.

but on your actual point: You can automate dice rolls, but you cannot automate inspiration, as inspiration is something the player has to willingly acitvate. Thats the point.
You can make ONE diceroll easier. Need a specific spell to end an encounter? Need to convince an NPC to be on your side?
Realy need to make that saving roll to survive a breath attack? Thats when you use that. If the game automatically rolled the next dice roll with advantage, then the entire system would be useless.
Why should the PC play the game itself? and the PC also doesnt play the game in Infinity engine games, the PC does the dicerolls, you still tell your dudes wehre to go and who to attack and what to cast. Any system that is ACTIVE in DnD is also ACTIVE in Infinity engine games.
The Engine only represents dicerolls and the DM.

Its good that Sven seems to share my sentiment: make what you want to make, dont be bound by what your publishers tell you.
Thats how you got good games, trying to constrain Developers will not get you good games, it will get you derivative drivel that tries to chase after the success of another.
Has there ever been a game that aped another and didnt innovate that surpassed the original?
The only one i can think of is League of Legends that surpassed DotA, but tell me, what MMO succeeded WoW while beeing a WoW clone?
What RTS suceeded Starcraft while beeing a starcraft clone? What fighting game outdid Streetfighter in beeing streetfighter?
you can only create good things by innovation.

Archaven its not a conspiracy. They stated their "true" intentions already.
Thats about the only thing we know

Lemernis Baldurs Gate also had MP; its not like having MP limits single player somehow.

My concern is that one of the things Swen decides "doesn't work in a video game" from D&D rules is its combat system and he then replaces it with the combat system from the D:OS games. The D&D combat system and the D:OS combat system have nothing in common other than the very superficial claim that they're both "turn based."

I think that's also my primary concern when it comes to their adaptation of the 5e system.
I'm all for giving Larian free reins since it generally has resulted in some great games, but I don't want it to come at the cost of a 'diminished' experience where nearly all layers of depth, character builds and [combat] mechanics are removed or adjusted to make a more streamlined experience.

Bukke so you dont want it to be 5E then?
Because exactly what you said is the criticism that most DnD players had towards 5E compared to older editions.

I am for the most part indifferent to which iteration of D&D is used for the game as long as it's a proper video game adaptation of the respective system.
I can understand that Larian might feel a need to alter certain elements due to the difference of the platform, but that does not necessarily mean I'd be satisfied with a partial conversion 'inspired' by 5e (or any other version for that matter)

Yeah, exactly. If they do a reasonably (not necessarily 100%) faithful adaptation of D&D 5e rules for their combat system, I would be ok with that even though I consider RTwP to be far superior than any TB system. This is because TT D&D rules for combat are actually very deep and rich and complex, and in reality are not truly "turn" based so much as they are rounds and initiative based. By contrast, the D:OS combat system is shallow, superficial, dumbed-down garbage.