Also Mr. Hardcore, as previously stated, i played the game in EA too. and i welcome the changes as they make BG3 accessible to more people. So stop the gatekeeping.
What does this mean? Gatekeeping - in this sense?
There is a literal 'story mode' in the game that will make it easy enough so that if your character is built horribly you will still be able to beat the game. I don't see anyone complaining about it. If you have no desire to deal with the systems put in place in the game, then you should play that difficulty. If you are looking for something more challenging, then you should play the other difficulties.
It's just the usual old buzzwords and poorly disguised shaming tactics. If you have ANY standard whatsoever about game design, if you care about getting a gaming experience with any resemblance of depth or balance, then you are clearly a basement dweller, an irrational purist not open-minded enough and a gatekeeper.
Originally Posted by Elessaria666
I Tuco's post is honestly borderline troll. It's not about discussion on a forum its a statement that they are right, everyone who disagrees is stupid, and there is no possibility that anyone else might have any defensible point that applies to people that are not Tuco. No-one else's needs, wants or opinions matter. At this point even engaging is manifestly pointless.
The only trollish thing here is you throwing a tantrum fit and calling me names, simply because I didn't instantly buy your useless platitudes about how I should just pretend a problem doesn't exist.
Also, the comparison between a mechanical rule that I "could just choose to pretend doesn't even exist" and the narrative choice of "killing druids or not" was borderline embarrassing, anyway.
What does this post contribute, Tuco?
Remember what happened last time you turned a regular tone like this?
This is your only warning.
It contributes by refuting using the term "gatekeeping" as something that is apt in this case. It makes an argument that "having standards about game design...depth or balance" does not make you a Bad Gatekeeper™. Which is a useful point to refute, imo. There's a difference between Gatekeeping that needlessly discourages a certain group from being involved in order to preserve the "in-group", vs adding mechanical game restrictions that might make a game less enjoyable for some people. Especially when there are potential difficulty levels in the game that could be tailored for different desired experiences.
His argument makes heavy use of aggressive hyperbole, sure, but note that his quoted statements are attacking arguments and posts, not the posters themselves. The closest he comes to attacking a poster is saying a user is "throwing a tantrum fit," but this is again a comment on specific actions, not on the person as a whole. I'll also echo @Boblawblah's statements.
To be more on topic:
Originally Posted by Stikyard
Being optional means I can ignore them. I do plan on playing with other people though and that could lead to an issue. I will be sure to bring it up before I start a game with my friends.
An option to "lock" Characters from being re-rolled and manipulated would be nice. Just give me an option to turn it off as host of my game.
You cannot allow multi-class characters to progress through spell levels at the same pace as single class characters, that is silly. Why wouldn't everyone grab a spell class then. One level of Cleric can buff and heal. And continue to progress through the spell levels?!
Agreed that option to lock some of these restrictions would be useful. 1.) They'd ensure that everyone was on the same page. 2.) They'd limit the need to remember every self-imposed limitation.
And as always, I wish Larian would provide more information on exactly what they meant by their changes to multiclassed spell progression, instead of mentioning it vaguely and then leaving us to stew for almost a month.
