Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Option this, option that

Every time I see a game with a long list of toggles and options, I get the feeling the devs don't have a clue how their game should play and just gave up and left it up to the player. I don't think it speaks well for the game, and I hate wading through endless pages of difficulty micromanagement.

Difficulty levels have been enough for a long time to play a game in a way that is suitable for anyone. I think it's pretty entitled to want a toggle or option for everything. Players should adapt to the game, that's part of the challenge. Everything that matters can be easily consolidated into 4-5 difficulty levels you set and lock before starting a playthrough.

Sometimes I feel like if Chess was invented tomorrow, there would be players demanding toggles to change how their Knight moves, or to turn them into Queens because they want it that way.

How do you even playtest a game that has endless difficulty permutations? E.g. Pathfinder had horrible balance.

Some of us dont desire to be challenged by their game, but entertained. :P

This may come as a surprise to you, but that is exactly what is happening.

I love to play Chess, i play them horribly, but i love it anyway ... so i played them a lot ...
And often, before the game starts i and my oponent have to agree on some rules.

The most requested is for example "no time" ... or prohibits taking "in passing" ... few times i encountered people who demanded to not use "castling" ... etc.
The point should be clear by now ...
Even if people would demand that every Pawn will move as a Queen ... as long as they both are fine with such game, there is no reason to not let them ...
And we are here talking about single player ... so all persons who have to agree is themselves. :P

Easily ... you pick what seems to suit you best, and if it doesnt, you adjust it.

Absolutely - I am a big believer in systems being interconnected - that's also while I dislike small DLCs and prefer major expansions. If you can remove individual parts from the game without negatively affecting the game, then it is not a well designed system.

Even difficulties are dodgy - I find that games tend to be designed around one or two difficulty settings at best. There are only few titles I can think of that offered a wide range of difficulties that scaled nicely - meaning where satisfying to play both on lower and higher difficulty settings.

There is definitely place for some options, even ones that "break" the game. Accessibility options and cheat codes are always welcome. That is however, different then designing game with a variable ruleset. On top of that BG3 "core" (default set of rules) still require a lot of work and balancing. If we ever get a nicely polished core ruleset, then one can start thinking of ways to expand it. The panic from the OP is unwarranted though - there is no indication that Larian is interested in creating flexible system.

Then don't use those options. By your own admission, you can simply ignore all of this, but you are choosing to not do so. So then that is your problem. You feeling like a cheater is YOUR problem. You're the one with the problem of not being able to control yourself, and you want the developer to fix your problem for you at other people's expense. Why?
I would HATE any RPG developer who tried to do this to me. The very definition of an RPG is for the game to NOT do this to the player. So I would argue now that it is all you guys who don't want options for whom BG3 is NOT your game. And in fact, no RPG is your game. By being opposed to options, and wanting the game to tell you exactly how to play it, you are essentially against the very idea of an RPG.
Then don't. No one is forcing you to wade through all those options and to micromanage your difficulty. You are completely FREE to ignore it all.

We have a ton of games like this. Assassin's Creed, from it's inception until Origins, just off the top of my head. I'd say it's odd that from Origins on it went more into options for things, except that they clearly stated that they were moving towards being an RPG. Isn't that strange???

There are things that shouldn't be options, unless, of course, they are covered with difficulty settings. But there's a list of things that can be, w/out adversely affecting anyone, except the people that feel like everyone has to play the game exactly the way they envision it, no matter what the devs may intend. I have not, nor will I ever, hit the Dark Souls/Soulslike communities insisting on difficulty settings. Those games are aimed at a particular audience, and while 30 years ago, I would have fit well into it, I don't anymore. Between age, and chronic migraines, I just can't keep up with that stuff anymore, so I don't bother with it, and I sure don't try to get them to change their design philosophy based on my own restrictions.

Lol. There's nothing wrong with options. Every game in the genre creates them. I'm not talking Dark Souls/Hack-Slashers. I'm talking games like BG3, Solasta, Pathfinder, Pillars, etc.

And what's wrong with having tons of options if the devs are okay with implementing them? I mean, Solasta has a ton of options for the game, even what color dice you're going to use for enemies versus friendlies. They're a low-budget dev, and they created tons and tons of options.

That said, of course I want them to limit options if it means major work that could be put to good use elsewhere.

I mean, options like the following should be no big deal:

1. Shove pushes enemies 5 feet/ Shove pushes enemies a number of feet equal to however Larian has designed it presently.
2. Shove can also push enemies prone. (They have various things that can knock targets prone now. Why not implement Shove Prone?) / Turn Shove Prone off.
3. Auto-Success on All Skill Checks On/Off. Meaning, if players want to just always succeed in every dialogue option they pick, why not create an option that allows them to auto-succeed in every skill check in dialogues? It's a matter of telling the algorithm that the minimum a character can roll is the DC.
4. Turn on/off the skill check dice roll. Some people don't like the animation. Should be able to control shutting it off.
5. Party Max Size = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. If playing multiplayer, options are grayed out for anything less than the number of players you are playing with. Don't have to change the encounters or difficulties or nothing. This, by itself, is simply changing the number of characters you can have in your party. The game is actually already designed to handle up to 6 at least, and even 8 is allowed - though 8 is a bit scuffed. Still, they COULD fix it so it isn't scuffed and allow up to 8. The point, however, is that it's a matter of changing a single digit, allowing players to have as many or as few as they want without changing difficulty or nothing.
6. How many camping supplies are needed to Long Rest. Again, just a number change. Default is 40. But, if players want a more limited Long Rest system, they could increase the number themselves to whatever they want with Larian providing recommended settings.

These are options that wouldn't hurt the game and should require not that much effort on Larian's part. So why not allow people to have these options?

Shove is a perfect example that shouldn't have any toggles at all. It should be 5ft. and an Attack Action. Then they can design battlefields with that 5ft range in mind. It's hard to place lava pits if a Shove can be 5ft or 50ft. And we are now seeing just how bad it can get in Grymforge. Who would ever want to toggle Shove prone off as an option? Turning combat moves off with a toggle? Why?

Auto-success of skill checks would completely undermine the entire skill system. It would be like having a "Combat off" toggle. Those could be part of a Story mode difficulty for players who really don't want to be challenged in any way and just want to experience the story like a book.

I do support toggles that impact animations and the speed and flow of gameplay such as a toggle for instant skill check rolls. Then again, who likes watching those long rolls ever. They should just be much faster by default. But generally toggles that don't mess with the rules are fine.

Exactly :3

I never said they were GOOD options and that I liked them. I simply meant that they could be done easily if it makes the majority of people happy.

Fine. You don't like Shove only going 5 feet. Make it a toggle so those who want a Yeetfest experience can have a Yeetfest experience. It's a matter of changing a calculation in the system. It's not going to break the game. I personally want a 5 foot Shove experience, and Shove Prone, but maybe there are people (and there are) who don't want it for some reason. Fine. Let me at least have it as an option so I can Shove Prone. Mechanics are pretty much in the game already. We just need an actual button so we can do it without needing a quarterstaff or some spell or surface or whatever. Simple shove prone please, and if people don't like it, option it at least.

See. The reason why so many people say, "I at least want the option," on these forums is because they get pushback about EVERYTHING. "I want Shove to only be 5 feet," I say, and 92 pages later, we're still arguing about whether Shove should only be 5 feet or whether it should be left alone as is currently.

So, we say, "Give me at least the option, so at least I can play the game the way I want." And now the laundry list of options is 1 km long.

I'm just saying. Fine. I don't mind options as long as they're things that can be done easily enough by Larian. Change the color of dice option. Great. Good. Easily done, I'm sure. Turn off dice roll animations. Easily done, I'm sure. Shove 5 feet versus 50 feet. Change calculation. Party size max = 6 instead of 4. Change of a single digit. All easy.

What I don't like is when we start getting into "Let's at least have an option for it" discussions when it's about something like weather, day/night cycle, the resting system, etc. Now we're getting into "options" that would take a lot of work to implement all aspects of it.

And as far as automatic success on dice... Some people REALLY want it. Why not? Why not allow it as an option? So what if it takes away from the original intent of the game? If it's easy to do, and it allows some people to really enjoy the game because they don't want to have to reload every time they fail, then why the heck not? - as long as it doesn't take too much work to do.

LOL I love you referred to me as not being able to control myself like I'm a junkie or something who just can't possible help myself hehe. What I was trying to say is that the developers should be testing the game and getting feedback to make it the most fun experience it can be without relying on each individual player to figure out for themselves how the game should be. If something is a cumbersome mechanic, the developer should fix it, not the player. Like I said, I'm ok with the options existing, it just indicates a lack of clear direction from the developer, IMO.


I'm confused by this. My understanding of RPGs is that they are about roleplaying as a character through a narrative story, which may involve customizing your character. I've never thought of RPGs as being defined by being able to change the core game mechanics/rules. In a game like FF7 for instance, I don't recall being able to change the max number of characters in your party or how often random encounters occur. You just had to play by the rules of the game. That's what makes it fun and challenging.

RPG is an extremely broad genre that contains a large number of sub-genres and permutations. This is the difference between open and closed RPG systems. A closed or restricted system often doesn't allow you to do things like change who your character is or how they act in certain parts of the story. You're along for the ride, but you aren't really in control, as you have pre-written characters and linear storytelling. These types of RPGs often share a lot of similarities with the adventure games genre, in which the player assumes a pre-written role in an interactive story that is often driven by exploration or puzzle solving, instead of direct character choices.

An open or unrestricted system can allow you to make your own character, set in-game details for them (background options, even system options), determine how they progress, and give you options on how they act in parts of the story, with less linear storytelling (or at least attempting to have less linear storytelling). You have more control over the world in general. This is the thing that attracts a lot of people to ttrpgs, the greater level of control you have over your characters, their choices, and the world. "Railroading" is a big concern for a lot of ttrpg players, and game masters trying to exert too much control over the choices of the players often get accused of railroading. Now, some people go a little nuts with the level of control offered in ttrpgs, but that's a whole other conversation.

Both are RPGs, but they differ in the amount of control and customisation that the player is allowed to have on the world and the character(s). If someone prefers closed systems, that's fine, options are supposed to be optional, after all. Difficulty sliders and other individual settings are pretty normal for video games based off of ttrpgs. No one here actually wants 10 pages of individual options, a lot of what is being discussed falls into broader categories, such as wanting a "strict" 5e rules setting, which would encompass a lot of game changes. Take a look here for the range of mechanical behaviors changed by the difficulty sliders in Neverwinter Nights. It has a lot of mechanical impact on how spells, statuses, combat and other things work in game.

Developers do usually have a clear direction, otherwise games would never come to fruition. And, developers do usually put together a "default" experience that they assess to be appropriate for most of their audence.

Unfortunately, game audiences are VERY broad nowadays, but often quite shallow as regards tolerance of complexity and detail. So when a developer gets this "default" assessment wrong, it can be very difficult to rectify, particularly if there are no alternate ( optional ) ways of playing the game that can be readily switched in as a new default ( CP2077 for example ).

You have to remember that the primary reason that most games are made is commercial rather than artistic, so it is generally very important for a developer to match their "vision" to as many audience preferences as can be accomodated. A game has to be satisfying to play, whether or not you reach the intended "end goal" of the game, which ( for a variety of reasons ) most game-starts never reach.


No, most players of book-and-dice based RPGs routinely change rules to suit themselves. This was always positively encouraged by the inventors of D&D and other early RPGs.

Most computer RPGs do contain a primary narrative arc, mostly because it is not currently possible to provide enough interesting play options that offer an interesting world to RP in more generally. Bethesda games are probably the least narrative RPGs, and have the most community expansion and following due to mod friendliness.

I would also note that "fun" and "challenge" are quite subjective terms, which most players would disagree on. For example, my main interest in BG3 is probably the degree to which it can be community expanded after the game releases, in the same way NWN1/2 are still being used today, which may be unlikely to interest you.

I like having options so that I can play as I like and others can play as they like, too! 😊

I would like these options:

• Option to turn off dirt and blood on characters
• Option to have dialogue that starts automatically go to the pc
• Option to remove encumbrance

I vote for the option to turn off options.

+1

However I fear the SS Larian Shove has long since sailed.

I don't mind having options as long as they don't get in the way of having depth to the experience of the game and fleshing it out.

I DO have a problem with having so many options that they all become shallow ways to slightly tweak the game. It's like when people say, "If you don't like the origin system, then don't use it." If the game ends up being built entirely around the origin system, you are shoehorned into a predetermined character personality, and if you don't choose an origin character, your experience is markedly shallower. So what's the point of a custom character? (This point is controversial on this forum, I know. I'm not anti-origin system; I just understand why people are frustrated with it taking away from what could be a more in-depth custom character experience)

When it comes to options, I support having as many as possible provided they do not take away from time and resources that could be put towards increasing depth, interaction, immersion, and fun in the game that can be enjoyed universally, regardless of how you want to customize the game. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes... less is more.

This is either pure troll ...
Or hard proof that our educational system should include some basic automatisation or programming ...

Stuff you dont turn on are off ... and by turning off abylity to turn them on they dont become even more off.

Hmm... I totally get the appeal of "just playing the game" without having to micromanage your gaming experience, although I myself much prefer being able to micromanage my difficulty settings (probably because I come from a turn-based tactical game background), but the thing is, it really would not make sense to have little to no options in BG3 nor do I think it is a reasonable thing to ask for. Allow me to explain my reasoning:

1) Baldur's Gate is a series based on Dungeons and Dragons (D&D / DnD), set in one of most popular universes of said game.
And why does that matter? D&D is a game that is literally *built* on the idea of customizing a tailor-made campaign for a unique party of players. D&D can as easily be played by number crunchers who just want to dungeon crawl, do tactical encounters and get loot, as it can be played by heavy RPers that want to spend multiple sessions to just RP around in a city or village. Most parties want some kind of balance between combat and RPing - but it is completely individual how much one prefers one activity before another. Some people want 50-50, some 40-60, 20-80 and some want no dice/stat combat, alternatively no RPing, at all.

The only reason D&D manages to carter to such an enormous and diverse audience is because of the customization. Said customization usually involves a session zero; a meeting or gathering where all players and the DM discuss and (hopefully) agrees on a set of rules to make their table comfortable and fun for everyone involved. The way I see it, the option list is pretty much the "session zero" of a cRPG. I decide together with my DM (Larian, in this case) how I want to play the game and Larian tries their best to tailor the campaign based on my preferences (while still holding on to their base idea - aka, the core of the game). To me, having options regarding the difficulty (i.e "Oh, I'd like to focus on RPing so please make encounters a bit easier") is as valid as wanting to cut out specific things that may or may not be uncomfortable/non-interesting - like the nudity scenes ("I am not really comfortable with ERPing, could we skip those parts and focus on the emotional bits?") or even turn off romance entirely.

2) Larian's game history includes a lot of customization, "homebrew" and options.
DoS2 have different difficulty settings and a lot of options on top of that (referring to the menu with loads of boxes that can be checked/unchecked). To many players' despair (and some other players' great joy), Larian has chosen to include a lot of stuff from DoS2 to BG3 and cutting general options and game customization out of the equation would be a... Very interesting move (and not in a good way imo). Point being - Larian has a history of wanting to give players options and hence, I believe it would be unreasonable to expect them to shy away from this philosophy now. *Especially* when they are picking up the torch of a very well-respected game legacy within the CRPG genre.

The best part is that all you need to do to have exactly this ... is simply ignore all options.

I should have specified I was talking about video game RPGs. I completely understand that rule customization is a fundamental part of TTRPGs. I have DMed several times.

I'm fine with options as long as the core game is balanced and fun without needing to utilize any of those options. I know that "fun" is subjective but that's what games are supposed to be and the goal that Larian should be striving for