Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

So when I said you described an arpg I thought you were talking about a game without a chance to hit, minimal status effects and a very low volume of spells that you could play in real time. So my mind went right to something like the Witcher. I didn't mean controlling a party in real time, that was a miscommunication on me, my bad

Yes I am all about planning everything, and yes I am very good at it. So yeah, I want the game to reward me for having done my homework, for having pre-planned, and for having made good choices with my character development, and absolutely NOT have game outcomes be determined by sheer luck or randomness. To each their own, right?


I haven't seen any such info, but would be interesting. I would be very pissed at them, as someone who has backed with a decent amount of money their two Pathfinder games, if their attitude is to include a TB option in their RTwP games but not include a RTwP option in their TB game.

As you are all about planning, I'm all about improvising. I would like a game to reward me for being able to change plans fast and to adapt to new situations. I come in with a plan, but half the fun is trying to take the one part that worked and figuring out what the heck to do now. I don't like games with situations where you had to have had a plan from the start of the game. It seems to limiting to me, but again this is just my perspective.

As with most things in videogames, it is best if you can succeed using a variety of approaches.

If you are the sort that likes to plan, the game should allow you to seek out information and advantages that will allow that approach. Equally, it should be possible to work out situtions for which you have not prepared from careful observation.

Too many games seem to delight in denying the player the opportunity to choose an approach. This simply results in players using internet walkthroughs to play, which is probably the surest indicator that the game was poorly designed.

Twittersphere, where they are posting about hirings. https://twitter.com/vibe_crc/status/1287334684641366016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1287334684641366016%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html1287334684641366016

Not much is known about this project yet else, and whether they return to Kickstarter with it at all. Starfinder seems the safest best though, as that's basically Paizo's Sci/Fi thing. A third Pathfinder game would likely be of a similar mold as the rest again. It may even be a smaller-scale side-project, as Starfinder AFAIK isn't as popular as Pathfinder.

I don't much care about this TB/RTwP debate either way . Actually, I find it rather tiresome. There are games that are better off turn-based, and there are games that are better off Real-time. If any original Baldur's Gate developer had ever thought in such limited boxes, we'd never had BG.

This is my attitude as well.

And @neongreg, I also like and value surprises and improvisation. But I still see that as being separate and different from things being determined by rolls of dice.

I also think etonbears has it right, I love having options open. And I'm curious now, what kind of plans do you have? Do you plan it out attack by attack or just a general strategy of hitting a weak point?

Actually when I spoke of planning I meant in a very strategic sense, planning how I intend to approach the game overall, how I intend to develop my main character, then also my party, both the individual companions as well as the party overall in terms who's going to cover what party functions, etc. If at all possible, I even map out ahead of time exactly how I will be leveling up my characters (P:Km is set up excellently for this; the PoE games a little less so but still also pretty good).

At the tactical level of an individual battle, firstly it starts with how I have set up my party, and then gets down to the level of each individual party member and their functions. So with a party of six, I usually set it up as a main battle line of three up front consisting of my tank in the middle and two mobile dps flankers including my PC. A dedicated archer (may be rogue or ranger type) sits behind this line and shoots at the most dangerous of the enemy's casters. If I have pets or summons, they also sweep around the sides for the rear of the enemy. But my archer can quickly switch to melee if the enemy manages to get behind my line. Then I have two caster types of my own, one arcane and one divine, with the arcane focused on offensive or crowd-control spellcasting and the divine on buffing/debuffing or healing spellcasting. The arcane caster will also be able to switch to missile combat if necessary, while the divine caster can switch to second-line melee if necessary. If party size drops to five, the dedicated archer gets cut. If party size drops to four, specialized party roles become impractical, and the optimal party setup sadly degenerates down to four generic and boring jacks-of-all-trades.

Well for the first part, about Chara tee development, I do that same thing all the time. I love thinking exactly how my character will function and what he'll look like at the end and how I get there. Now I don't think random dice affect this planning, but I'm not exactly sure how you think it does? I'm not trying to be cynical, I'm just not fully understanding what you mean.

I think the dice can have an impact on tactics however. I have to agree that parties of four tend to create more jack of all trade characters, but I think it's still somewhat possible. I think we'll have to wait and see how dedicated roles can be when ea comes out, cause I'm not sure.

Well, in DnD terms, planning might be as simple as being able to find out the types of damage/effect that a potential opponent can deal, and those to which they are resistant or susceptible; this allows you to prepare, and gives you an edge.

It might also include investigating ways to avoid a potential opponent; through stealth, finding an alternative route, persuading or tricking some other actor into distracting the opponent, luring the opponent away from the route you wish to take etc.

The best designed games take into account a wide variety of possibilities. Most don't, of course, but players will often find their own ways to manipulate ( cheese ) the limited options they are offered; which is a perfectly valid attitude for a player to take if the game design is inadequate, in my opinion.

I'm generally rubbish at designing good characters and parties for combat, I usually look at what is available and go with what seems interesting ( only to find that the skills etc you have selected are no use in that particular game ). This is why I need to plan - how to avoid combat, or even the odds so I have some chance of not dying all the time!

Quick research shows they indeed have some SF project brewing. I only hope it won't affect Wrath of the Reightous. With how Kingmaker launched I would hope they would be commited to fixing WotR, if need be, post launch.

The interaction between character development and dice randomness is in the extent to which how you developed your character is what determines outcomes (including in combat), versus the dice rolls determining those outcomes. Now obviously this is not absolute (i.e. not black and white/either or). D&D for example obviously does include character development. But for my tastes, in D&D, how you choose to develop your characters doesn't matter enough while random chance (the D20 roll) matters too much. I want my careful planning of my characters and my choices in their development to matter more in outcomes (in dialog, in skill/ability checks, and in combat) and the D20 roll result part to matter less. So it's a balance thing. For me, the balance is too much towards the D20 roll in D&D. By contrast, if you look at the PoE system, for me that is awesome because your character development choices matter more heavily and the die roll's impact on outcomes is much lighter/narrower.

^Seconded.

Yeah, mostly I think with skills/abilities that a skill-level check is more reasonable than randomness. Particularly where skills are knowledge based, and/or not under time pressure - you either can or can't do something.

Under pressure, I can see that skills can and should have some variability, but whether the DnD criticals on 1 & 20 are a good solution is not so clear.

So I think the d20 does have a lot of impact, but the most impact from randomness is just making your character. Having your ability modifiers directly based on luck is the biggest impact I think.

the roll of the D20 imitates life - you can plan all you like or be as skilled as you like but everyone has a bad day - or a bad turn of luck ! ability scores & all other "adjustments" just increase the odds in your favour to allow for skill & planning !
Unless you are a ranger - they just are outright awesome.

Yeah, but games are supposed to be fun.

Crappy outcomes & party wipes are all part of the fun ! overpowered D&D characters who cant fail at anything without divine intervention also gets un-fun pretty quick too

Apparently only except for combat happening in turns. No imitating of real life there.

What is fun for someone at a given moment, it's very subjective. Without a way to adjust randomness from difficulty settings, character stats and even cheats if needed; even the best game can become annoying very quickly.

Not just the randomness detail, but everything is a mixed bag: there are parts one likes, parts that are somehow tolerable, and others which are hated (for a good reason, though of course all is just subjective).
Including the various expectations based on what each of us expect from definitions such as a "Baldur's Gate" game and beyond.

Of course will be impossible to please everyone, in a limited time, even if the budget would be unlimited. Having more options to adjust more things, can add a bit of sweetness to those bitter parts. If still isn't tasty enough, then it's a bad roll, try another game, that's how life works -- and when this happens it's rarely fun. That's why I like games more than life: they are about fun. Life could learn from these games