Wow. Kinda crazy how it blew up like this.
So, here I go again. Let's get something straight first. I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out why yes you can blame the game. It was simply an observation based on personal experience.
If you play basketball with certain rules, like the actual rules, for years and then someone comes along and tells you that you can suddenly just grab the ball and run with it without dribbling, that throws off your entire game. It's therefore not your fault, per SE, but the fault of the one changing the rules.
If I play Tabletop and everyone is pulled into combat and gets 1 surprise round, [...]
Please don't use this line of logic to argue against the rules in BG3. Although it is true that many BG3 rules are different than tabletop 5e, using different rules isn't inherently bad. You lose familiarity for some tabletop 5e enthusiasts, sure, but this loss can easily be made up for by an improvement in rules, or just a change that makes things different in an interesting way. E.g., BG3's Ranger is different than tabletop, but widely regarded to be an improvement.
My, and many forum posters', arguments against BG3 are context-less: many BG3 mechanics are bad on their own merits. I won't repeat the reasons here because they've been stated multiple times ITT.
Or, if you really want to blame the game's changed rules, blame any (lack of) tooltips and in-game glossary. Any rule should be clearly explained in game, especially rules that differ from the system the video game is based on.
Ok. Fine. No Tabletop. I reword:
Wow. Kinda crazy how it blew up like this.
So, here I go again. Let's get something straight first. I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out why yes you can blame the game. It was simply an observation based on personal experience.
If you play basketball with certain rules, like the actual rules, for years and then someone comes along and tells you that you can suddenly just grab the ball and run with it without dribbling, that throws off your entire game. It's therefore not your fault, per SE, but the fault of the one changing the rules.
If I play turn-based video games and 100% of turn-based cRPGs play a certain way, then it messes up your gameplay when you play BG3 and suddenly that's not how it is. You don't LOOK at who is actually in combat because you expect everyone is in combat because that's how all the other cRPGs play. So you take your turn and watch your enemies move and then suddenly realize, "Holy crap! They're all attacking my MC because my other characters aren't drawn into battle too, and none of them have had a turn yet and it's already round 2 of combat and my MC is now mostly dead. Well frick!"
This has happened to me numerous times since I started EA, and it's gotten better but still happens. Yes. After over a year and a half, you'd think I'd be used to it, but when I play Pathfinder and Solasta and XCom and Shadowrun and every other turn-based game while waiting for BG3 to be released, I again get used to all party members pulled into combat when 1 is. So it's super easy to forget each time I try BG3 again.
If they don't change it, whatever. I'll get used to it, but it IS a thing.
If I game every week with Timmy, Sally, and Nick and then one week Nick isn't there, it doesn't take me a round or two of combat to notice. That's all I'm saying.
Hmm. I don't see the parallel here. Seems more way off the mark and doesn't relate. I can play chess with Timmy, Sally and Nick and then one week later I can play chess with Billy and still play the exact same game with all of them because I'm playing the game by the same expected rules. Now if Henry comes along and starts making the Knight move like the Queen, suddenly I have a totally different experience.
As Fuji pointed out, it's one thing to change rules and do something different if there is a beforehand explanation. Basically tooltips. Then it's like, "Oh. This game is different than other games. They're playing by different rules. Now those different rules have been communicated and I understand them and I can rethink my play style."
But when Henry starts playing by his own rules and he doesn't explain those rules and you don't agree to them, that's when you have a problem.
Anyway, like I said, I've gotten more used to it after 500, or is it 600 hours now... By the gods!... Have I really wasted that much time on this game? I must really like it. Ahem. All I'm saying is that it is understandable that people might be frustrated that the game doesn't draw all characters into combat. And yes, because it doesn't play as expected, it can be blamed.
And what's more, getting back to topic, if the rules are easily exploited, it means they weren't well thought out or implemented, making the game broken and messy. Imagine chess with major exploit rules. "Well, the pawn can only move one space, unless he's next to the Bishop. Then he can kill everyone in a straight line in any direction. Checkmate. The king is in a straight line from the pawn and can't move because he is surrounded by his own peeps.". That's broken and boring because whoever goes first CAN always win. The player who goes first COULD play by non-broken rules, but in the player's mind he/she always knows he/she CAN simply exploit that one OP move and win. It thus really cheapens the experience.
