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)

there is just sooooo much going on in and around the grove and I dig it.

Bury the "lede" btw

I don't think you painted it incorrectly, I was just saying that from my point of view, and what she tells drow players after the fact, that it wasn't a very accidental scenario with a snake acting on instinct. Its HER snake. There was 1% of her that thought the child might walk away alive haha. From what I took out of the scenario and based on the influences she is under at least ^.^

that's fair; i was on a wood elf the time i went though the first time. You are right her demeanor changed as a drow.

Disagree. The tension of rolling and being able to fail makes things interesting and fun.

What might help though is finding a way of communicating to the player that they didn't "lose", which makes them think they should reload. Failure is supposed to be part of the fun, but the game itself presents it in a way that makes you think that is not the case.

If you fail the roll, what does she tell the other druid to do? I agree, let's walk through it, and see who's at fault for the child dying.

I can save us a few steps in this dialog. She tells him to lock her up, and the kid panics, and gets bitten. Am I misremembering anything? Did something in the English language change to get from "lock her up" to "kill the child" as was posted and is what I responded to? No? Then no, charity isn't what's needed, but it does rhyme, perhaps you meant "clarity"?

So, for people who can read and choose to do so in full, please reference my original posts and the point they were making that was its typically better to slowly introduce players into important situations to give them attempts to prepare, gather information, and attempt a few activities using skill checks prior to & instead of a single life or death roll that, even if you knew it was coming, there was nothing you could possibly do to really get a leg up on or influence the situation meaningfully. Learn from Robert's mistakes, read with the intent to understand.

Oh this is rich. There is no mistake, except maybe they should have had the other druid go ahead and lock her up if you pass the check. Yes, I can read plain text, and I even speak English, mostly fluently, which is a good thing, since I'm an native English speaker, well, American speaker, the language is definitely different from the Queen's English. The mistake is misleading people saying that someone has to prepare their players for a druid intending to kill a child, when that's not the scenario we're walking into. BTW, that dialog to the Drow? It isn't unique to a fail on that roll, you get the same one if you pass it, so what was she referring to then? It's simple, it really is, and there's no mistake being made by me here; I read the situation for what it was, pass and fail, and didn't feel like it was unfair. What would be unfair is making that roll meaningless, because the idea is that you're trying to convince her to not lock up a thief, there's nothing in the dialog about stopping her from killing a child.

So yes, there is a sound bit of advice in there: Make sure you know what the situation actually is before you go assigning motives on your own, and then presenting your assigned motives as facts. I realize that that idea runs counter to the modern age of "debate", but I'm not from the modern age, and prefer the old fashioned way of sticking to the facts as presented, instead of making up my own set of facts and then arguing in support of those.

The biggest disconnect was you thinking that I was claiming that it was a narrative life or death. I was saying it was a life or death as those were the actual stakes at hand. It could have been freedom or jail, pudding or pie, or tickles and wiggles and the fact remained that player agency was removed and they were put into a situation that they were at a disadvantage for in level, tools, and information. The odds being stacked implied a narrative bias as it was not level appropriate and the story would have been better served as a complete cutscene if players don't get a fair shake at it. DC8 would have been appropriate if that is what they are doing as the check, as 99% of them are, are persuasion based and the majority of classes do not stack that score. There are no creative ways to solve that problem. Its have high charisma or a character that can cast guidance - neither one of which is a given - or be at a disadvantage and have a child die. It was lazy, it was disingenuous as to your chances, and the vast number of issues posted across all forums with this specific instance show that it frustrated a great deal of players.

The situation wasn't a bad idea, it was executed with a ride or die roll that was too high. Seeing the girl get dragged off and the snake now guarding the cage, you getting a chance to performance roll and snake charm (fun!), or you being able to gather a few druids to your side in protest against the new leader's authoritarian rule that has come to this so she says "fine, if it happens again, all the refugees are out of here. By force." and she storms off. I can think of so. many. ways. to make that an enjoyable encounter that gives players a proactive shake at being introduced into the politics of the circle. As it is, it is hamfisted, unfair, and serves the narrative purpose of building her persona more poorly than almost any other way.

So, no, at no point have I talked about auto-success, easy rolls, or wand waving. This is talking about giving level 1 players, who also might be new to D&D and don't think high CHA + Guidance + disguise self, of course! immediately, to have some progressively more challenging & interesting attempts to resolve what is an interesting hook - the freedom and life of a refugee child. You don't need to kill the kid immediately to get the message across that she is willing to imprison or harm children fleeing from literal hell to find a safe home.

Thx you mrfuji3.
It's a relief to have someone hearing me !
Indeed, the problem, for me again, is to continuously lost to a point I found it a little ridiculous ! ^^"

I agree with your proposition as with your attitude !


Concerning the child, it's (surely) a little dumb but... When I play (at least when I first play) a RPG, I really, really, really, play it with all my heart and since I'm a reaaly cheesy-sweet-heart, I'll ever do my best to be a good guy so the kids dying cause I tried to be persuasive why more like a slap in my face than a pleasant, funny and "well-written" event.

I would participate to the debat at a "higher" level.

It's just theorical but I would like to give my point of view about dialogues and roll-dice.

I completely understand it ni D&D. Because when you (as a GM) submit an encounter to your players, they choose the answer they want to give, they invent it, they create it in their mind. So the GM have to decide on the moment if the answer will work or no. And because it could be hard to decide if the choice of the players are good, the GM used roll-dice as a... referre."
It's like "I think what you said wont work but if you think so well... let's decide the dice" and the GM choose a difficulty.
This is how a imagine it.

But, in a video game it's different because the developpers have prepared everything. They have prepared the story, the encounter and the sentences. So it's not like... it's not like the game could be "surprised" by the sentence the gamers will choose. The developpers might have decided what could happen, why put this sentence or this others.
That's why they shouldn't need a roll-dice. Because they shouldn't haven't argue with the gamers.

It's like... writting a book. You will never read a book and suddenly
" - Luke, Im' your father...
Please reader, roll a dice to decide if Luke will get through it or not because I'm not really sure of what's happening next."

If as video gamers we had to wrote our OWN sentence, roll-dice would be more legitimate.
For now, it is, from my point of view, just a design decision as simple as "we will do like in a pen and paper party".
But it can't work the same since the gamers didn't create their answers and so the game doesn't have to deal with unexpected proposition.
Roll-dice is like the game is playing dumb.
Like a guy worked a lot and decided that using persuasion at this moment could change the mind of the NPC cause it would made sense. But then after he decided, well it would be logic thant this sentence works but let's just roll a dice to see if I am good at my job or not."

Again, I am not asking, here, to remote roll-dice, I'm just explaining why, from a theorical poitn of view, it doesn't seem to be appropriate for a video-game.

I dont know all DMs, just how I do, but here is a sample of my notes. I usually write about 5000-6000 words per session and try to accomodate what will happen. Its not a lot different than writing a game:

- By this time its evening and cold and muddy. Ardred shouts out that Gristle Pete is cookin some grub and dinner'll be in an hour so make yourselves comfortable. If the doors upstairs have a key on them, that means you can have it. They aren't charging for the few brave souls who make it out here these days.

- If they help Gristle Pete he'll bitch about the rats always scratching down below. Always banging and hissing and makin whispering noises.

- They'll be able to hear the scraping and hissing if they get closer to the west side of the warehouse at a DC10.

- DC10 with thieves tools to get in the main door. The noises are coming from the north. Perception check of 15 will reveal a secret panel to the north that is not quite closed.

- If they don't have at least 3 people over 13 stealth, the lizard folk will close the door and go under the secret trap door (perception 20 (finds it and they'll notice at 25 some of the boxes and bags have small purple lines drawn onto them. Opening them reveals jewels. Each one will have about 300 gold worth of coin and jewelery in them, investigation 15). Though a DC 15 will let them hearing slow breathing beneath the floor.

otherwise those with darkvision will see shadowy forms in the dark, grey outlines, hard to make out. Perception check (12, see that they have tails)

- Most likely fight at that point.
*after fight ardred will come running in*

- Will be furious this was happening and thank them, saying they've more than earned their keep. Goes over to a chest in the corner and unlocks it with a key at his hip and counts out 50gp for them. Says he wishes he had more, but its a road repair operation.

Depending on if they've seen the sword on Bog Luck, or if they show the cape / mask / signs they have from the dragon cult, Bog Luck will be confronted - death or something Ardred finds appropriate. Hes actually pretty damn smart, and will spill the beans, knowing this to be something without a good outcome. Ardred will order one of the group, since they seem to know about the cult, to go to his room with a guard. They'll see his books on philosophy and nature studies and get the gist that hes actually pretty smart. Under his bed they find a simple chest with 100gp in it, and Ardred will split it with them.

**What he spills**
- He had joined with the cult a few years ago, mainly because they gave him money for looking after a slimey tunnel that no one had touched in years. Used to be a drain for the swamp, but they built the warehouse over it. About 6 months ago, though, he was told people would come to him from time to time, and to mark the goods and put it in the room over the tunnel. Hes been here longer than anyone and no one but him knew about the room. He swears, and is honest, that he has no idea who had been taking it and thought it was just some silly thing they were doing. If he had known it was the lizard folk he would have turned them over immediately.**

There are dice rolls that do have serious consequences. You can talk your way out of fights, or you can end up becoming food for a mind flayer.

The ones that seem to have the least weight are things like lore checks. I've seen a few concrete lore checks and few that were simply implied. The result in those cases, at least from my experiences, have been flavor and didn't have any negative or positive impact.

The one thing they NEED to add in is an option for the party members to interject (for good and for bad) in conversations. So they can either make a bad situation worse, a good situation better, or maybe even keep a situation from plummeting to the bottom of the abyss. They need more interactivity to happen in conversations, things like being able to sway a conversation with options to hand over goods or the like, during the conversation.

As to changing how the dice rolling system works, there are legal issues here. They don't OWN the setting, so they have to use the rules set the owners say they have to use. And when they have to make adjustments, they need permission. And something as core as how you define success would be one of those "need permission" sort of things.

I like skill checks myself. Different outcomes is good. The problem is having to roll multiple times for the same action, such as dropping a tadpole to the ground and THEN lifting your foot to stomp it down. Once should be enough.

Well this was always going to be the case unless it autosaves after every dice roll. Why does it bother people that some people choose to re-load to get the desired result on a single player playthough? That's on them and is hardly non-linear RPG gameplay either.

I am sure you will be able to download a mod on day one of release to make all your "I wanna I wanna" dreams come true and remove all random elements the dice roll system brings. Oh and DOS isn't D&D.

The problem with the system as it is now, as I see it, is that failure is not interesting. There are times when rolls should be used to distinguish between success and failure, but it would be to everyone's benefit if they were used to distinguish between less binary outcomes while still honoring player agency.

Example:

There is a child in danger

Larian: What do you want to do, ignore the child or save them?
Player: Fuck it, I'm here, lets save the little bastard.
Larian: Roll to see if you save the child player! Target number 16!
Player: Rolls a 3.
Larian: The child dies as a result of your incompetence!

The reason players often resent this is because they have little to no control over the outcome. What is the point of providing their input if the results are random? This outcome isn't earned and the player will feel cheated -and if the game cheats then so will the player.



Alternate example:

There is a child in danger

Larian: What do you want to do, ignore the child or save them?
Player: Fuck it, I'm here, lets save the little bastard.
Larian: Roll to see if you save the child player! Target number 16!
Player: Rolls a 3.
Larian: In your haste to save the child you have attracted unwanted attention. This isn't over yet! Prepare yourselves.


The attraction of Dungeons and Dragons is that it is a deterministic game. Don't play monkey in the middle with the player agency. Allow them to work towards the solutions they see as meaningful, if they lack the skills or ability necessary to do something well, then allow them to do it badly unless there is an imperative for purely pass fail dichotomy.

edit: The story shouldn't be happening TO the player, it should explored cooperatively. In Dungeons and Dragons there are a range of results, it is rarely ever pass fail. There is success and failure, there is critical success and critical failure, and almost every quality game runner I have known has always made allowance for the near miss conversion. If you are a point or two away from a difficult challenge the result is often mitigated to reflect that. Use the system to give the player more variety, not less.

I see so it the binary aspect of the rolls giving the player either/or (live or die) and nothing inbetween. I can get behind that, there is some of that in conversations but the outcome is always either/or you just get another chance to roll again for fight/not fight. A failed roll may make your job MUCH harder to achieve the desired outcome but not necessarily fail outright and in such cases may get some tasty loot from the failure. +1

That's why I like random encounters when resting tbh.

It really isn't, though..

I just want to say that this is just my opinion and that I don't intend to offend anyone if you disagree with my thoughts. I just want people to understand where I and people like me are coming from and why we like checks. And YES Larian CAN do better in many of the checks. There is always room for improvement. Some peoples previous suggestions for how a sequence of events could be altered are great and I hope Larian improves some of them.

That said . . I love the checks and the game so far, I don't mind when things don't go as planned, and I also don't mind reloading once in a blue moon if something really doesn't work out as I expected (typically if the choice I select causes my character to do something I didn't intend). But 98% of the time I just go with the flow.

Nearly every other game out there gives you a simple pass if you meet a certain threshold. And what does everyone do . . . put points into charm or whatever and bingo, pass Every Single Check. Its boring and pointless. Just make it an interactive story and be done with it. And I love interactive stories . . . they have their place!

But I want an adventure! . . . one where I don't know what's going to happen . . . one where my hero tries to influence things as best he can based on the skills I've given him. And I'm so excited that Larian is so far providing this adventure.

With regards to the Kagha situation. It absolutely makes a more interesting, dramatic, and impactful story if the child dies. It sets up Kagha as a villain, it gives you reason to take the quest to assassinate her, gives reason for the other druids to turn on her when she is exposed, and leads to dramatic events later if she survives until Halsin's return. I do suspect that Larian intended this result but threw in the option to save the kid for those who wanted it.

If you really want to influence these events then you build a character who has the skills and buff them with guidance, etc. And you can buff your stats AFTER beginning the conversation. So failing to pre-buff really isn't a concern here.

But if the child is saved by being released . . what is Kagha? A mildly annoying character. There is very little motivation to have her removed. Sure she plans to close the grove, but that doesn't impact your character, you are just looking for a healer and moving on. The Teiflings are leaving the grove one way or another regardless.

We don't read novels where nothing bad ever happens . . . why do we want a game like that?

Honestly I'd love Larian to troll us and alter the Kagha conversation so that if you Pass the check the child dies, but if you fail you save her. A few checks where 'success' clearly generates a bad result would teach players that they need to consider if they want to attempt the check in the first place. In a way the tadpole checks are kind of like this . . . you can pass whatever check its for but . . . bad things are going on in your head and there are likely consequences.

Also for many checks . . . they are meant to be a last resort. You are having to make the check because you didn't resolved the situation already or are attempting a risky activity that perhaps you shouldn't be doing. The injured mind flayer is an great example. Its super risky to talk to a mind flayer . . . and if you do there is a good chance it will kill you. The sensible thing is to kill it (preferably before killing the poor fisher people) and not talk to it.

Making the mistake, failing the roll, and getting a 'game over' is a great learning experience that this game is serious! You have to think about what you are doing. Again most other games have conditioned us that we can 'ask every question' and 'select every option' and there will be zero consequences. Baldur's Gate 3 is NOT like that. Larian has provided us with a range of options . . . some of which are BAD and should be avoided.

Combat is serious . . . just walking into combat will frequently result in death. Yet few people complain about the chance of dying from combat. You expect to plan ahead, scope out your options, and be very careful before engaging in combat. You need to do the same thing in conversation.

And there are often more options than people realize. Rescuing the guy in the burning building for example, even if you fail the check there is another way after that to save him (that doesn't require checks).

Larian has made a more complex game than many of us appreciate. I've screwed up many times over my playthroughs only to later learn of better alternatives I could have taken. That is one of the things I love about the game.

I'm sure Larian will provide a Story Mode like they did for their other games that will allow you to pass checks. But you really are doing yourself a disservice. Think ahead, make the hard decisions, accept and react to events as they play out. Live the adventure! Its more rewarding in gaming and in life for that matter!

Baldur's Gate 3 is off to such a bold and wonderful start! I want to see that continue.

Seems to me the OP and those who agree with him is approaching this from a bit of a compulsively perfectionist mindset. Something I struggle with too tbh. Alongside Larian's obvious efforts to make failure less binary/more interesting from a roleplaying stance (that critics here, alas, seem unappreciative of), perhaps there should be even more done in this regard:

1. Optional hidden rolls. Compulsive perfectionist player is unaware of having failed a roll thus won't be triggered to save scum. Ignorance is bliss.
2. More generous award of dice re-roll mechanic linked to difficulty level/optional difficulty.

I must admit though alongside the authority of ILLITHID WISDOM and Larian's interesting roleplaying failure, I have less sympathy for the weak minded save scummers (and I include myself in this category). However! I would really like Larian remove option to save in the middle of combat, given the very binary rng-nature of D&D - it is way too tempting to save scum.

I don't know what has gotten into people but it seems that many have this perfectionist mindset and can't handle adapting or rolling with the punches. That's the best part of this game to be honest, the fact that there is so much in this game that plays out after a failed roll that leads into other branching stories and not just a dead end. If you don't want spoilers don't read ahead, but it was really interesting to see the after effects of Kagda and the Tiefling child, and seeing her parents getting revenge, which you can also interfere.

Just deal with the consequences people, I'm glad that Larian is enforcing this kind of behavior. Savescummers need to move away from savescumming.

Wait, wait, wait. I may be a good even an excellent game but "complex" ?
I wouldn't call a game with some random consequences "complex" !

Try a quantic dream game if you want something "complex".

Btw, quantic dream used a LOT of QTC, which share a LOT of unexpected consequences, and surprisingly I ever enjoyed them and accept them.
But yeah, I'm kind of a perfectionist mindset. Let's say I want to save the kids, so unless his death is crucial for the story, I would like to have the opportunity to sav her.


Well, this is exactly what I did and this is exactly why I don't appreciate the current roll-dice. Cause I did and still failed A LOT. ^^"