Dear TheStoryTeller
I feel I must disagree with many of the points you have made. With decades of both running and playing quite a few TTRPGs in my day (as well as playing the old Baldur's games) I will do my best to defend my stance respectfully and clearly.
1: Nearly every point the article you linked is a frustration stemming specifically from the choices of that particular player:
- They write about how Astarion ends up in your party. Odd, He didn't end up in mine. I didn't take kindly to his tricks.)
- The illithid encounter they mention also had a much higher success rate for my character than it did for their character. Complaining about a persuasion check based on a character you've built that is terrible at persuading people is betraying the very nature of TTRPGs in the first place. Failing forward is a big part of the game, and expecting to win every single check is not conducive to the way this game is played.
- They mention gripes with combat. They say there doesn't seem to be a cover system but that is wrong. I took advantage of cover in almost every fight. They complain also about the party makeup, which is only a problem for this player specifically. I picked a cleric and swept nearly every battle with ease. Hmm...This reviewer mentions frustration with movement or actions. That's odd, because it plays just like 5e. You have movement, and also, an action, a bonus action, and a reaction. "In reality, those characters both used their one action—usually an attack or spell, sometimes a potion chug or helping up a downed comrade—and now the only thing they can do is move." <<< This is a result of their choices as a player[i/]. My characters actually have more options per turn here than they would if we were playing 5e. A typical turn for me might look like jumping to a high point, attacking, then moving into cover. Or, casting a spell, running away, and then hiding. I get that they prefer the mechanics of other games, but this system is built to accommodate 5e rules/players and it does that very well.
- They talk about verisimilitude with the characters. This I actually agree with, to an extent. It is strange that every enemy is hyper-intelligent, and it is strange that during cutscenes NPCs and party members are blankly staring off into the distance twiddling their thumbs. However, the one point I have to disagree with wholeheartedly is the idea that your party hates you, or that they [i]should love you. If you found yourself in their shoes, you would likely be just as distrusting, just as unnerved and upset, and just as hostile to people you've never met before. This is mirrored not only in real-life, but especially in the world of TTRPGs. When a new party member is introduced, and they don't immediately trust or are forthright with you, that creates an opportunity for growth, drama, and character development. This is a feature I greatly appreciate, as having them immediately be your best friend would feel very, very...fake. Also, spoiler alert, the next NPC you meet is super friendly and asks you if he can join you before you have a chance to ask them.
2: So as you can see per my last point, you're not necessarily entering a party where everybody hates you. Part of the game is building trust with people you do not know, getting to know them better, and perhaps even coming to love them on day. This type of character development could not be possible if you started the game off as childhood best friends. It's also not, in my opinion, very fun or interesting if there is no drama between the characters. Perhaps that's just a personal preference, but I bet your favorite books, movies, tv shows, and video games would agree with me.
3: [q]"Seriously. The story has to be good, everything ELSE (like the game) is built on top. If the players are made to feel uncared for, by a product they have purchased, I think it is reasonable to expect they want their time and money back, as per that article."[/q] I understand your preference may be for a feel-good story of warmth and compassion, but I have to admit that those types of stories are quite antithetical to the core of the D&D gameplay loop. It sounds like this game isn't for you, and that's totally fine. These concerns, however, fail to hold a light to the long legacy of play at the heart of D&D, and the willingness to tell a difficult, gut-wrenching, hero's journey.
This game is almost exactly what I expected. I played the old BGs. I played the Divinity games. I've played/run crunchy rules-heavy TTRPG, and rules-light murderous TTRPGs like Troika or Mork Borg. I think that the person reviewing BG3 was expecting something that Larian had no intention of delivering, and in fact what they
did deliver was pretty damn close to exactly what they've been promising. If you want to try the game for yourself, I recommend it without a doubt. It's got some issues with enemy AI and some other minor things regarding NPC behavior but otherwise the system it is built on is a solid one. The story so far is strong, and leaves A LOT of room for interesting development. Don't take this singular review too seriously. If you really want to know, play the game for yourself and see if you can create an entirely unique & different experience for yourself, just like I did.
