Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback skill check dice rolls, a really shit idea (turned savescumming into a core game mechanic)

I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.

Nope. Retain the skill check system, failure is interesting.

I'm personally reloading a lot... because it's EA and I'm trying to take a look at all possible outcomes and mechanics, before writing a feedback on them.
So at least from me those statistics are not valid and have nothing to do with "oh, I failed, but I need to win always".

Disagree. Failure *is* interesting. It simply means your story goes in a different direction. However, compared to DOS, it needed to be said this is actually the case. Sure, a lot of people will be reloading in order to try for the result they want. That is their choice. I prefer to keep the option to fail alive.

Interesting topic.

I think Larian should give the possibility for infinite re-roll. Why you ask ?
Here is why.

When I talked about the bad-feeling I get from the roll-dice, LOT of gamers said "just reload if you're unhappy".

So for my second game, this is what I did. I reload.
For an example, yesterday night I reloaded exactly 11 times my save just to get a positive roll-dice.

FACT IS : it was not fun and it was a lot of time lost.
FACT IS : I don't feel like I have time to lost in video game. I loved them but my time is precious and spending 5-10 minutes loading the same save again and again is a terrible waste and decrease of fun.
FACT IS : I don't have (or I wont take) times to do a new game crossing my fingers, hoping to have a better reroll this time in all the game...

So I understand people who love the thrill of the roll-dice. At least, I get it.
But I think this people should also understand and get MY point of view.

And this is why I think Larian should add a button "infinite re-roll" for the gamers like me (and I know, I'm not alone).
So the players who want to live in one roll-dice, keep living with one roll-dice, and the players, like me, who want to live "fully" control and choose the story they live, could reroll (I even think I could find funny to see how many times I have to roll to win a persuasion test at 3 !).

I call it a compromise.

Sadly I have the feeling it's something hard to accept for Larian (and even some people here)...


PS : Zellin, you're wrong an a little offensive. This is not about "I need to win always" this is about "I want to choose the story I want to live". Maybe some people have the time or the faith to play 33 games before having the outcomes they expected. Not me, not a lot of gamers.
I hope you can respect that and don't reduce it to a whining and childish desir.

I think the title of this topic is TERRIBLE. But the issue brought up isn't.

I agree that a BIG challenge the devs will face is "how to make failure interesting?"

So far, honestly, I'm pretty underwhelmed. I haven't found interesting outcomes after failures, just the feeling of missing out. But maybe those will be more apparent AFTER the first region. It's a bit too early to judge.

Skill checks are interesting, and add something to a cRPG that we rarely see. "Oh no I save scummed", well boo hoo, that's on you.
I think the thing they should do is introduce more inspiration points. The option to reroll is a nice feature to help out those people who can't handle not getting what they want.

But the thing is: Failed rolls rarely change your outcome, you get the default outcome. It's supposed to be a choice to try and get a better outcome, or in the case of talkin to your party members it's a risk to use the tadpole roll to peer into their mind. It can give you some cool information, at the risk of losing approval.

cRPGs have very often been very binary. "Have high enough stat, get the chat option", now that's boring. Especially if they show you "Oh hey, if you had more of this stat you could have gotten a better outcome".

I would also like to see some indication of which roll option has the best DC. Sometimes you choose to use the skill you are the most proficient in, but that isn't always the one with the best DC. But again: It's not supposed to be a "gimmie".





As I said, most of the failed tests just defaults back to what would happen if you don't try a test. You are trying to change someones mind, when you fail, their mind isn't changed, and they go on with their day.

Oh I saw this topic n the is Larian listening post, but here we do have it's own thread.

Copy and pasted from that thread:

I don't understand infinite re-roll?!
In essence you are saying you want to succeed any check you make in conversations? Or Just in gerneral? Why? Why is "failure" such a bad thing? There are usually other methods of getting round said failure (unless a fight ensues) and trying again later (like with character conversations).

But ok, let's say that's your point of view and all views are equal, then I don't think infinite re-roll is the way forward UNLESS you want to be able to select when you fail and when you don't, in which case in an easy option or optional selection box, yeah, you could add infinite re-roll points, I forget their name, the ones you can earn. Otherwise infinite re-roll is a waste of animation time, you could just remove the die and have auto-succeed.

I personally would rather more nuances to "failure", I want to charm Shadowheart but she rebuffs me now, but later on I do something heroic or evil that opens her eyes and she initiates a conversation recognising that she was wrong before. Black & White Suceed / Failure sucks. Sometimes it has to happen, I mean if you fail a last ditch intimidation roll and a fight ensues and someone dies, then that's that.


The issue with perceptions of failure is that it means instantly you get what you want vs you don't and that's it, however as I kinda stated above, it is situational though, what is it you want from a skill check? What do you think you are missing out on?

Example:
NPC - Hey I could give you a sword +2 but...
PC - Charisma roll required 12, rolls a 4
NPC - Ha arrogant fool, no sword for you
PC - Cries and player reloads.

Why reload? Does the mysterious NPC of sword +2's evaporate? Pick pocket him then, Murder him... BUT I'M GOOOOOOD?! Then Play that Role and live with it. This is an RPG in Digital form and it is supposed to be more like the P&P experience.
I already said you could add those special points add infinitum in an easy mode (give me story only) kinda way that some games look to offer, it wouldn't offend me if this was the case, but I certainly in No way condone the argument for removing the system? That is a strange request from the OP. Add options through positive dialogue, not remove options because something doesn't suit a person's particular playstyle.

EDIT: To add to previous example where Failure could be fun....
What IF after not getting said item, one of your companions at Camp "retrieves" it for you. Astarion for example, trying to charm you, comes back one night with said sword. You then have an alternative choice to make, accept it without asking the murky questions or deal with the fallout of what happened. Maybe you banish Astarion for his transgressions!! Or or or... Suddenly a failure becomes a whole other dynamic. The more of that there is in game, the more I'm happy not to save scum because the game doesn't deal with failure always as a simple closed book.

Why failure is often bad? Because game designers don't give other way.

Lets say that I want ask npc for favour, so first options are:
1) intimidation
2) persuasion
3) blackmail(because you found his letters somewhere before dialog)

You fail them and then you have second chance and more option:
1) history
2) favour/trade
3) religion(cleric or paladin)

So even if you will fail in first check because your charisma is low, and you haven't done research before dialog you still have check for INT or WIS. This will make game more interesting without loading.

No, sorry, but what you're saying is exactly same thing sugar-coated. You're living a story instead of playing (that implies the risk of losing) a game with a story applied to it to drive your motivations. And of course as result in some cases failure is not an option for you, because it doesn't work for your story. You just add slightly more complex motivation to why you want some... artificial(???) wins.
And *sigh* as always in such cases you think people who are playing accepting loses have a lot of time and going to replay the game endlessly. Nope, I'm going to replay the first act through EA many-many times to see the changes and give feedback on them, but after release as with many other games I'll make one walk through, maybe second in coop and then I won't touch the game at least until I forget enough about it (years later with how my memory works).
But guess what? I'm not actually judging you or anyone for "I don't want that failure". I just don't want you people to turn RPG genre into Interactive Movie genre. So as long as you're suggesting just to add an option to re-roll for those who want, I'm fine with you. I'm even willing to give you another option: there can be a difficulty mode with no dialog rolls at all as if you automatically win, some games did it before. But, please, let's not lie to ourselves. There is maybe nothing childish or whiny in willing to have an artificial win, but it's not really a gamer approach and between gamers you will always catch disapproving glimpses, simple as that.

You know where lies issue? In your ability points. You want make for example perfect orator so you put every point in charisma, you make him background where he spend all his file on debates and learning how to inspire people. And when you was old elf you decide to become bard. And now with your charisma on level 18+ you can tell orc that he is not a orc bu a really big dwarf.

Considering just how many rolls are in the game, and how most of them are just for fluff, it should eventually cause players to stop savescumming as much. Trying to savescum all the rolls will just make the game an unenjoyable nightmare.

The witcher games tried to fight savescumming by not making a lot of consequences for your choices apparent right away. I think Bg3 can do the same with just a massive amount of rolls and by teaching players that a successful roll is not always the best result. There are too few of these cases in the game currently though.

Permadeath mode with only 1 save and if it includes autosaves as soon as a roll happens... It will be absolutely amazing.

But yeah, definitely do not remove conversation rolls just because many players cannot handle a negative response from an npc instead of a positive one.

Zellin,
you're just stubborn.
You don't even try to understand.
You said "Nope, I'm going to replay the first act through EA many-many times to see the changes and give feedback on them". Well, yeah you obviously have more time than me. and nevertheless, I don't just said people who enjoyed it have a lot of times. I said they may have a lot of time (more than me which is true reading your comments) and they may liked the thrill.

Funny things is, you didn't say you will stop playing cause of no time but just to forget to enjoy it again. Ho lucky you.
Personnaly I know that, even if I would, I couldn't play the EA "many-many" times.

But that's not even the point.
As I said, I respect your opinion and your preferences but you ? You absolutely don't respect mine.

You are, arrognatly, talking about "artificial" win. What does it even mean ?
Artificial ? Please, define what is "natural win" in a roll-dice ?
Do you really think that in life when you say something to somebody there is a dice rolling in his head to decide if it take it favorably or not.

Please, it's just ridiculous.
And more, what is "natural" in a video game ? Is barrelmancy natural ? Or... I don't know... loading game ?
Yeah, maybe you should ask Larian to forbid the reload because it's articificial to reload a game because you are dead.
Look at you, giving some lessons and then I'm pretty sure you reload your game after loosing a fight because... you know... "it doesn't work for your story." See ? I guess you are going to "just add slightly more complex motivation to why you want some... artificial(???) wins." But let's be honest, reloading is the biggest "artificial" option here...

Yeah, this is how ridiculous your argument is.


It's not about "winning" cause, maybe you're not aware, but I'm pretty sure we can "win" the game without succeeded a single roll-dice.
It's about (but I heard you refuse to get it) "playing the adventure I look for".

Again, I respect the people who like the thrill of the roll (it's not like I didn't like it at all but that's not the point here).

I would like for you to do the same with the people who prefer to play the adventure they are looking for.


PS: did you even read my comment ?

You said
"So as long as you're suggesting just to add an option to re-roll for those who want, I'm fine with you."

after I wrote
"And this is why I think Larian should add a button "infinite re-roll" for the gamers like me (and I know, I'm not alone).
So the players who want to live in one roll-dice, keep living with one roll-dice, and the players, like me, who want to live "fully" control and choose the story they live, could reroll"

Looks like this is exactly what I suggest...

The system makes sense in theory.
The current implementation is shit.
One of the examples is the kid thiefling dying due to snake bite. You either get lucky on a roll or she dies. It's retarded. Keep the dice roll if you want in order for me to maybe convince the bitch to not be evil to the child, but if that fails, then at least let me carry through with my intentions. If I could not save the kid by talking the bitch down, then let me intervene and fight them to protect her.
This is just one example of course, there are lots of other interactions such as this throughout the game where the player gets locked out of options due to RNG. It's poorly done. Failure could be interesting sure, but it's not in this game.

Um... To tell the truth, I don't understand why this is upsetting you so much. This is still early access after all, so reloading to try different die roll results is actually a means to find mistakes. Like those two occasions where I did exactly match the DC, but still failed the die roll.

If you dislike it so much, just host the game yourself. As far as I am aware, only the host can save the game during multiplayer, so if it's you, then you can basically force the other players to accept the die rolls.

Finally there's always single player, where you can play the way you like, including taking all the die rolls as they come.

I'd like to note, that a big part of the Baldur's Gate series is replayability, because there are so many things you can do different in a new playthrough. In order to experience those differences in BG3 you will often need different results in die rolls, some of which have pretty high DCs. If you have experienced, what the failure does in your first playthrough and want to know, what a success does on your second one, but fail it again, wouldn't you just reload? I sure would.

Automatically passing isn't something I'd like to see in this game, in fact I think it contradicts your own implied opinion, that players should just "roll" with their result. Why? Because, if you take every result without reloading, you will sometimes fail checks, which are easy for your character. But you will also sometimes succeed on checks, which seemed to be near impossible. That kind of dynamic isn't possible with an ability/skill threshold system.

I don't think the witcher one was designed like that to fight savescumming as while the consequence was far from the choice, they were pre-determined. There was no randomness. It's very much an interactive movie, people just had to look online to know what would happen to control the narrative and the game is very:
- Press A for good consequence
- Press B for bad consequence

There is already quite a bit of troll encounters in the game, especially for people ignorant of the Forgotten Realms lore, where the "good" choice (i.e. people live) is probably the terrible options for a good aligned character long term.

Witcher 3 made the correct choice to even make so called Positive choices turn out to be bad down the line, or at least questionable. Save the woman at the healer's hut with a Witcher Potion, hurray she lives... later on in game, find boyfriend who tells you she is brain damaged... urgh, screw you W3, but I love it.

If you make every Succeed vs Fail black and white, people Save Scum, because missing out feels like a punishment over which you had little to no control. Hurray I only need a 3+ to succeed, proceeds to roll a 2. Boom, you feel punished despite being good at something. Now I don't mind it, but I would prefer more nuance to failure and even success and to only see some of those decisions and rolls come to full fruition later on in the game.

In a previous over simplified example I gave about acquiring a sword, you could add to that and try for a charisma check, fail and then STILL have the option to auto succeed at acquiring through intimidation, the game allows you to suceed even in the face of failure, but now, later on the person you intimidated appears again and now you have to deal with the fallout of your previous decision.

Now it might be true that currently there are too few examples in the EA which feel as though failure is interesting, but as far as I see it, those are for us to highlight and recommend improvements (maybe we just havent seen the future results of a failed roll of course), rather than say something is shit and only have as retort that the idea should be scrapped.

Infinite re-roll for me is synonymous with Story mode difficulty. I think it's totally OK. Normally I am hard-core no-reload gamer but I can imagine myself in mood for this type of re-roll playthrough. Even now, in EA, I am save-scumming often from sheer curiosity and my testing fetish. Both playstyles are legit. Sometime you may want a concrete story, sometimes you may want random turmoil.

Man, I have such a ridiculous write-up on this topic if I thought it would ever percolate and become something.

TL;DR,

As a general rule, skill checks should influence how much information you get and how much information (true or not) you provide right now. They should rarely directly influence the outcomes of events; outcomes are determined by the successes and failures of activity and the choices you make. You make decisions based off of information. Decisions bear fruit far enough down the road to where a save would most likely be irrelevant.

Situation 1:
1. A druid is about to kill a kid right now.
2. Kid says im not horrible!
3. You, thinking kids shouldn't be killed, makes a persuasion check to save their life.
4. You fail, kid dies.
*Clippy shows up* Uh oh! It looks like you are trying to make a skill challenge! Most DMs use those only to heighten the drama of a larger event that is unfolding, not determine the outcome!

Situation 2:
1. A druid is sentencing a kid to death, to be executed the next dawn - i.e., in the future. She says this child is horrible and must be killed.
2. Almost everything in the conversation after this is irrelevant to the outcome, as the decision to free the kid or not is decision, and the outcome determined later as this is an overall game event. However, the rest of the chat is information

The time in the grove is spent spinning plates and getting info. Persuading here, stealing there, planting something here. Towards the end of lots of smaller quests and events the totality of all of the things you chose to do over the last 2 hours start bearing fruit. some are surprising, some are funny (I had a feeling hiring that madman to pretend he was an arch druid wouldn't go well...), and they overall build the DC for an impassioned speech or create enough of a distraction where you put the girl in a sack of potatoes and sneak out.

The overall structure of so many of these challenges is that of a Bang Bang Play.

What is a Bang Bang Play in Football? A bang bang play involves multiple events occurring at once or quickly, one after another. Because bang bang plays are used to describe a play that happens so quickly, they often lead to difficult calls being made and challenge flags being thrown to argue such calls.

The concept of a challenge in the game is fundamentally flawed. Its pivoted orthogonally to how events play out in D&D.

Bullcrap