I find it fascinating that those who support Larian's implementation to at least a moderate or majority percent all seem to actively define anyone who doesn't as being a 5e purist who wants an exact or literal interpretation of the as-written rules, when there is, as far as I'm aware, quite literally not a single person on this entire forum who has ever asked for that or ever indicated that they want that in any way... and yet, no matter how many times other people point this out to them, they never acknowledge it, never accept it, and always run right back to that exact same rhetoric every time it come sup. Why? I'm really quite genuinely curious as to how a person's mind must work and what their thinking must be to continue to do that... can one of you who frequently paints others as wanting 5e pure rules or as hoping for them, please explain this to me?
I don't think there is any such thing as a 5E purist. The 5th edition of D&D was designed around homebrew and flexibility. Ironically a "purist" would be someone who understands that the game needs to be adjusted as needed.
No, I think we are dealing with a group that wants to stick to RAW, because they feel that will produce the best possible gaming experience for people who appreciate strict rules and a group that is fine with flexibility as long as it results in broad appeal and an overall fun experience.
Really, nobody is wrong, they are both valid points of view. My issue is on ad hominem attacks and aspersions cast on the people working on this project masked behind "I am just giving feedback". Also the endless people who seem to think they know what everyone wants while having no actual data to back that up. There is only one company that does have that information and they are not obligated to share it with anyone.
What this entire exchange proves more than anything is that Larian is 100% right not to say anything until they have a finished patch to present to people.
This statement, though eloquently written, typifies my frustration with the entire discussion.
When I say "I don't like the way that BG3 works right now" that is NOT the same thing as "casting aspersions" at the people working on the project. I am simply being honest about how I feel about it. Calling this "aspersions" really seems to me like an attempt to shut down half of the conversation.
Likewise, when you say that we feel that it will produce the best possible gaming experience "for people who appreciate strict rules..." you are so close, and then shoot wide of the mark. I do think that it will produce a better gameplay experience than BG3 as it exists right now... but I don't see what this has to do at all with "people who appreciate strict rules".
Now, there is a good long time before release, and it is possible that larian will convince me that their homebrew is better than a fairly strict adherence to 5e. But they are VERY FAR from that right now (IMHO, of course). At the moment I think the best approach would be to implement a rule set much closer to 5e and THEN add in Larianized Homebrew to taste. That would stand a much better chance of creating a balanced and interesting game than the ad hoc approach that they are taking now.
Exactly. They should start with a foundation of RAW, then work with their homebrew from that, incrementally.
