Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Is BG3 bad for the genre?

To tell the truth, I'm still trying to figue out what exactly Kanisatha and Zentu think is so bad about how the 5E rule set have been messed up in BG3.
Granted, I'm no expert on the rules but I just don't see what they don't like about the game.

Is this some sort of american thing? I am not the youngest, and I would not look up information in the library either. They tend to be just for lending books here. And I think you'd struggle getting by without a cell phone here, since a lot of services became digitalized, after covid. So I genuinely don't find it shocking that younger people are adapted to this lifestyle. That is the direction the world is going.

Till the first major blackout. The question is wether you should rely on all the modern stuff only or have backup abilities.

To BG3, it may be watered down, but that is not my main criticism (which is Larian's terrible quest design). Compared to real stories/literature, also BG1 and 2 were simple and dumb affairs. A bit like people thinking Game of Thrones had a diverse and complicated story, while it is actually a primitive joke compared to real history.

Well, we used to have blackouts quite often when I was young. Unsurprisingly, you could not do much either, because even in the ye olde times before internet a lot of services relied on electricity. I don't think being able to use a paper map or a library would be that much of a help if you live in a city.

As for BG3, I don't think it is watered down. I don't like how the main story is written, I think it is worse than what was in the EA. But I like the gameplay a lot, some mechanics in the original BG games felt underdeveloped (e.g. little influence of abilities on dialogues) or even nonsensical (like dual classing).

For me I don't like D&D mechanics generally, and 5e in particular, so this is not something specific to BG3. I find 5e D&D to be heavily watered down and simplified from 3.5e D&D. For others this is a good "streamlining" of the mechanics, but for me I much prefer the complexity of 3.5e rules; the more complex the more I like it. However, all D&D mechanics regardless of edition rely heavily on the randomness of dice to an extent that is too much for me. A little randomness at the margins is okay, and makes a game more fun. But at its core, I want mechanics where my choices and decisions as the player with respect to character building are what determine outcomes.

Got it. I'm not a fan of relying on the dice roll myself, and admit to getting very frustrated with all those "critical fails".
To be honest I liked the combat system in Assassins Creed best, but I do like the turn based, party system, especially now that I am controlling all the characters in combat.

Probably should've replied earlier for this, but I'm not sure on the etiqutte of "offtopic" conversations, but I guess it's fine in small quantities?

I am curious to see where Owlcat goes from here.
While they are moving away from their core base of Pathfinder rpgs, they do seemingly want to keep their games being very complex cRPGs.
Will they make concessions for things like game complexity or Companion romances (Cause I see a ton of complaints of RT's options not being playersexual)? Cause they do seem to be watching what Larian does, atleast on the Marketing side (I think atleast).


Well, I guess I just find Elden Ring's endings to be more interesting in their implications on the Lands Between as well as other people's interpretations.
That and how each ending is as valid as the other with them not being based on good/evil, with the exception of Frenzied, but even then maybe not. (Atleast to my understanding)
And well, by comparison, BG3 has:
1. "We've saved the universe and nothing really changes"
2. "I've killed/controlled the universe and I guess Faerun no longer exists?"
Tho, I guess some of the subplots (Raphael and Crown, Orpheus) might shake things up elsewhere somehow.

That part was more arguing against the "Generic +2 weapons" quote, which while the builds are pretty simple, the game does provide a ton of weapons/spells/ashes of war/etc to use and where most? of them are all valid options.
And well, I guess theres also learning the bosses movesets/weaknesses. Waterfowl dance says hi.


Crit fails on skill checks are a LarianBrew thing. Also, running as a Halfling is such a godsend for not getting 1's anymore that I can never play another race.

This is not true Critical Fails have been something in table top for a LONG time. True it was an optional rule but Larian is not the creator or alone in the use of this.

Not for skill checks, only for attacks.

Well, back to the point. Is BG3 bad for the genre?
I think not. It's a good game, it's a lot of fun, and people seem to love it. I have played it regularly, more so than I need to be doing.
I think it's good for the genre.

Sorry to let you know but we had critical failure in skill checks back in the 1980s on table top.

If the game is claimed to be based on a particular edition of the rules, and the developer creates a rule that differs from that, then it is their homebrew, regardless of if that rule has existed in other earlier editions.
In this case, BG3 is (loosely) based on 5e, which does not have ciritical failures or critical successes, except for attack rolls and death saving throws. Natural 1s and natural 20s have no extra effect anywhere except in those two specific cases.
Critical failures and critical successes on ability checks (5e does not even have 'skill checks', formally speaking) and saving throws is, in this case, Larian homebrew because they do not work that way in the ruelset upon which the game is based.

I am not saying it is a base component of the game, I am referring to the original statement that seemed to indicate this was something Larian just thought up and created. Critical failure for even skill checks have been around LONG before Larian was a glimmer in Swen's eye. In fact the concept of critical skill failure has been in the DnD mindset for so long that there are long standing and common jokes about it. Go looking for something and it is sitting next to you all the time, "Well looks like a Nat 1 on that perception check, critical fail."

I will agree it is not a "standard" rule but it is one I always felt was a good rule to use.

I don't think anyone thinks or ever implied that Larian invented the concept or were the first to imagine it. With respect, the original statement was just that critical failures on ability checks are a Larian homebrew... and the comment is correct, they are. The comment was just that this implementation in the game is a deviation from the ruleset it's based on that Larian brewed in. Which it is, and they did (the implication that I'd read in that comment was that if the player doesn't like that particular implementation, to thank Larian for doing it that way, not 5e D&D, which does not).

Well, I guess using Larianbrew comes with the connotation/misunderstanding of that it was a Larian invented homebrew, rather than something that's existed for awhile in smaller spheres (Or larger, as I now know).

Which, in my short google searching, didn't show it was any sort of popular rule (i.e. didn't find anything) and I'm also rather an outsider to TTRPGs, so I just figured it was a rather unpopular rule and something that Larian decided to popularise/strongly utilize as iirc, "Failing is Fun" was tagline for the game in EA.
And for Games, I've only got Pathfinder, which doesn't have it either? (Although, I swear I Crit failed a Skill Check in Wrath once, but I could be remembering wrongly)

And yes, that was the implication; I can understand why for the randomness factor for a run (and the tagline) but I also don't want to deal with it ever again.

The real issue with critical failure is not in the concept but rather the implementation. Using a D100 having an always happening critical fail roll is much better implemented. With the D20 it just seems to happen to often.

A further tweak that could make since is to limit critical failures to two circumstances.

• Character does not have the skill in question. So when a character for example tries a lock pick but does not have Sleight Of Hand, then even with modifiers a natural 1 is a Critical Fail.
• Conversely if the character has the skill but is somehow hexed, cursed, injured or whatever where even with modifiers the adjust score is a 1 or less there is a critical fail.

I personally like the risk of a critical fail as it adds suspense to the game. Using lock picking as an example BTW, there are other options. I always have a Wizard keep a Knock spell on stand by. I also always have my strength character carry an extra weapon just for door/chest bashing.

As for critical failures in other skill checks in the game they make sense. Trying to hide in shadows, even the best thief would occasionally with a lapse of concentration or some unexpected event (kicking a small pebble he did not see) can fail the hide and even potentially draw attention to himself. What about conversations with Charisma, the same thing. Maybe you made a cultural fopaux while speaking to the person. This happens to even the best public speakers and negotiators. This could result in a failure, even a critical failure under the worst cases.

Couple of other tweak ideas for the game that might help.

• Turn off critical failure on Easy Mode or even scale it. Easy Mode for example has no auto failure period, the next mode up has auto failure but no critical failure, the harder modes have critical failure.
• Another idea is a variant I see often used in Table Top games, a natural one means a reroll, a one or a two on the reroll is a Critical Failure.

Some of the posts on this page got RPG history backwards.

Dumbing things down / "streamlining" had been the name of the game ever since the early to mid 2000s, safe for a couple tiny indies (Spiderweb with Jeff Vogel et all). No genre had been as fucked with as RPGs, numerous studios and major publishers closing for good prior. Even Immersive Sims at least had Arkane... The few remaining RPG studios meanwhile did everything they could to hide that they were actually still in the business of still making RPGs. Targeting crowds who'd prior never touched one before.

This only ever turned around when Kickstarter and digital distribution rolled around. Which Larian were a part of... and which lead to BG3. So for BG3 to occupy the spot somewhere in between is actually kind of providing the transition games that have been missing all along. Bioware et all stopped making even stuff like Kotor or Dragon Age Origins, which were basically baby's first RPGs (the original Baldur's Gate had hardly been a hardcore RPG to begin with).


I'd love them to target quality over quantity for once. With three huge games in the space of but five years plus countless DLC, they are basically the assembly liners of CRPGs, and it shows in all aspects including quality of content. But it seems part of their business to keep pumping out releases like that so that they have new stuff on the shelves at all times generating income. But that's a bit OT.

Yep, I've really liked the Geenforge series, such an interesting setting & writing.

To be fair... "RPG" is such a nebulous term... Pretty much every game can be categorized as a "Role Playing Game". Even in Pong you're "playing the role" of a table tennis player.

The genre defining features of an "RPG" makes it even worse given that the typical staples of the genre... Have nothing at all to do with role playing. Things like stats and levels and equipment... As opposed to actually relevant RP content like good writing, deep characters, great worldbuilding...

Like, the genre is often defined by the more spreadsheets you need to build a character, the more "Hardcore" it is. While the deeper narrative based games like Life is Strange or Telltale's Walking Dead get sidelined as "Adventure Games"

It's honestly one of my biggest beefs with the genre as a whole. Irregardless of whatever subgenre of RPG it is, CRPG, JRPG, ARPG (The latter being the most egregious in it, where you're lucky if there's even a story in the first place let alone a GOOD one)

They keep using the term "RPG" yet the games focus on everything but actually role playing. Instead just being some form of Leveling/Stats/Loot based adventure game. At this point I'm not sure if the genre will ever actually get around to being about narratives and playing a role within said narrative or if it will continue to be epitomised by spreadsheet simulators and tacked on romances.


I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. They recently put out a survey focused on gauging how people buy and play games and with some focus on popularity of major IP's (Like Star Wars, LotR, Fallout, WH40k etc) suggesting they're looking at getting rights to another major IP to produce another game and seeing how soon they can cash in on it.

Eh, idk. In terms of bugginess, they could do with developing for a bit longer, but the effort, and dare I say, passion for setting they are using, is definitely there in their games.
But given that cRPGs are very niche, I can imagine their budget might be a bit thin.
So maybe they should pivot to an easier rule system which might capture a larger audience, but other areas of quality like full VO might be a mistake, given that it didn't help Deadfire.

Ofcourse they could just pivot to a different genre, like Obsidian with the Outer Worlds, which has done better than Deadfire.


Well, genre tags like RPG and Adventure games seem to be based on the history of the games and generally what Game designers have all agreed on than what they actually mean in a dictionary or what the game is actually like.
Where RPGs have a history with TTRPGs, where character development/building and combat are the central pillars.
Whereas Adventure games focus on the narrative with little to no combat involved (Unless you add the "Action" prefix).
Atleast going by definitions, like from here: https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/17547

I guess it makes the difference between something like The Witcher 3 and RDR2, where RDR2 is an Action-Adventure game because it doesn't have character building, even though the role playing aspect is almost identical.
(Although, in the end, it's just arguing over semantics, I guess)

The other part I don't see is how RPGs don't have or focus on a narrative of some sort. I personally can't think of any RPGs that don't have one, even ARPGs and I also consider cRPGs to be the best at telling deep interesting stories and characters.
However, yes, the "Role playing" part is fairly limited in most ARPGs, atleast from the ones I can remember.


Tbf, there were also a bunch of smaller IP's in there like Babylon 5, so it looked more like a list of popular IPs at Owlcat that they would be interested to work on based on whats popular in their community than a cash grab.