During one of the gameplay demos Swen mentioned that the game will support both [s]isometric[/s] top-down mode, as well as the "free camera/third person" hybrid mode that is mostly shown off.

I would love to see more gameplay where the focus is on using mainly the more zoomed out isometric angle to play, without constantly having to focus on the mini-game of spinning the camera and changing angles all the time to execute actions. Ideally, the isometric mode should work as a kind of "tactical camera", where you always have an overview of all the action without having to hunt for the correct camera angle.

I hope the game plays well in that mode, as it is most reminiscent of the original games. If it doesn't work well it would be good to know! Solasta seems to execute the isometric angle while using a lot of verticality in game, and it gives me more of that infinity engine feel.

I do hope too, that they will work on top down view as to make it as enjoyable and smooth to play as possible.

I don’t expect it to play as well as BG1&2 or Pillars/Tyranny - those use “perspective projection” (WARNING! I am using terms I don’t fully understand) which allows to keep camera to be in one position and not conceal much. BG3 map is in full 3D, so like in D:OS2 wiggling the camera too peer behind corners and building and getting confused as to where is what and where our party came from will be part of the course I am afraid.

I prefer the rotating camera myself, gives you more freedom to choose what you want to see and also you can place more interactable objects, secret passages, hidden treasures, puzzles, etc in a map in 3D in less space so that could give you more things to explore.

Yes, definitely there are things you can do in 3D map that you can't in 2D. And while I disliked move to 3d in some of the older RPGs, Larian's games (and from what I played of Solasta demo) make a good use of 3D maps fully justifying the inconvenience of navigating a 3d envoroment.

I'm reminded of the earlier versions of DOS which gave ~90⁰ rotation. It was nice to have something, but frustrating that it wasn't the entire way round because sometimes (well, often) it's just more convenient to see stuff from a different angle. And then they did, and then it was obvious that everything facing away from the original perspective was completely lacking any detail!

Some time after that, I played Tyranny which really did feel a little constrained for my tastes since it was olde worlde sprites painted onto a static 2d background. I would've preferred it to offer at least some of the rotating and zooming of DOS; as much as I liked some of the '80s graphical adventure games, Tyranny felt a bit incongruous with its mix of more modern graphics and old tech.

That's one of those unholy ideas every one takes from FiraXCOMs. Free camera rotation is a must have mode in any game that does that. I am pretty sure, D:OS got over that phase by the time I got to play it.


PoE1 and Tyranny are quite static. I think PoE2 did a lot to liven up the world a bit and improve on visual fidelity. Still, "perspective projection" games aren't forced to use pre-rendered backgrounds - one can have 3d assets and still use perspective projection/isometric/whatever-the-correct-term-is view (think Starcraft 2 or Civ5). Meh, I don't mind either way, and classic isometric view is really bad in communicating verticallity in maps - something that upcoming RPGs play with a lot it seems.

I have to admit that I find it impossible to understand why anyone today would want the 2D painted graphics and sprite-based characters of BG1/2, apart from nostalgia, perhaps.

I know that some people find cameras that can rotate around the environment disorienting, so it is important to provide good map/minimp UIs, and even a camera "re-center" option to get back to a known orientation.

But other than that, I think it would be a real shame to be unable to look around the full 3D environment, as it looks to be a big step up in quality from previous Larian offerings.

I'll go one step further and admit to not really understanding why so many RPG fans still hold on to the isometric perspective. I loved that perspective back in the day, but the third-person perspective with a fully rotatable 3D camera is soooooooo much better.

Simply put: comfort of play and full overview of the battlefield. Being able to click on everything I need to click, and see what I have to see without having to stop and wiggle the camera.

Being able to zoomin gets old to me in 5 minutes. Hassle of having to regularly move the camera and going the wrong direction after combat encounter gets more and more annoying the more I play. And I definitely don't like those third-person, but still click-based movement BG3 have been showing off. It's like the worst of the both worlds.

Yes the being able to see everything part I get and do appreciate. That's exactly why I cannot handle playing in first person. But 3d-person with fully rotating camera tends to be a good compromise for me because I also really love being able to see my characters up close and in detail which you can't really do in isometric.

I agree completely !

(Having to) constantly rotate the camera can be a real hassle sometimes -- something oldschool isometric doesn't require (nor 3D RTS still around for that matter, e.g. Starcraft 2). If that is an option in BG3, I'd actually prefer it to play more akin to Gothic or Dragon Age, with a shoulder camera and WASD direct controls of the character. The shoulder cam will go in, as for WASD, that seems unlikely. That's for the exploration bits. The (party) combat is still best experienced from an overhead camera. Which could be toggled like in Neverwinter Nights 2.

It's a matter of implentation though. As August is almost around, will be interesting to see whether Wasteland 3 has improved upon its predecessor in that regard.

this reminds me of the debate with HoMM 5.
clarity vs aesthetics.
I personally think clarity isnt that important.

I think you need 3D camera control with complex environments. I didn’t have much trouble with camera control on DOS games, but with all the vertical stuff going on in BG3, they’ll probably need some extra options to the camera to make it easier to navigate.

Maybe that could include things like zoom out to top down or zoom out to isometric, but so doubt there will be a single view that always works the best.

Space mouse support would be nice. I guess that’s a bit too niche a product though.

Lots of good conversation in this thread, I just want to clarify that all I'm hoping for is more footage of a mode of playing the game that has been talked about by Larian, but not really shown so far. This is not a "it should be more like the originals"-thread.

I fully realize that, as an old Infinity Engine fan, this game may not be for me, someone who likes tactical top-down party based games, and that's fine. BG is allowed to evolve beyond what it was, so don't let that derail the conversation. The original saga has existed for 20 years, and is not diminished by this new entry. However, since Larian has mentioned that they will be actively working on making the game "feel" more like BG, I'm curious about seeing if it will be possible to play the game this way or not. For those who want it.

The free roaming, pseudo third-person, mode seems to be working fantastically so far, but it isn't really a mini game I'm interesten in playing. The old saying goes "show, not tell", but I find that Dungeons and Dragons is a lot more about the telling than the showing. Your own imagination can be as powerful as the actual visualisation. I find the gameplay demos so far very disorienting, and by far the largest amount of gameplay time goes to controlling the camera rather than, what I would call, playing the actual game.

Oh, HoMM is a seperate topic altogether - and aesthetics of 2d art vs 3d (though I don’t think this is what you meant). I much prefer handrawn animation films over CGI films, and I also have a special fondness for good 2d artwork in games - I loved Rayman Origins/Legends, klei work, and super art of Jen Zee elevated Supergiant into the best looking games in the industry while being overall quite modest in production values. With that said: I would love for proper 2d HoM&M. I “grew” up on HoM&M5, rather then 3, but there is something to story book aesthetic of the 3rd game, that holds up so so well to this day. IE games convey what they intended to this day. Dragon Age Origins on the other hand - yikes. And I won’t mention older 3D RPG which were always hideous.

Something I wasn't a fan of in D:OS1&2 was linking the characters - esencially we couldn't control a group, we could control only one character at the time, and link others to follow him like cattle. I never quite got used to it, constantly leaving someone behind or having someone rush to me when not asked for. I think Swen said in on the the showcases they are examening it, but don't quote me on that.

Yeah, and this happens constantly to Swen in the gameplay demos. The characters are spread out across the map, and he has to wait for them to catch up, scroll around individually control each of them. It looks quite nightmarish compared to a mode that would allow fairly easy control of both individuals and the full group.

Yes this is one I don't understand given that Larian is supposedly all about improving on things. Seamless control of the whole party has been around for a very long time, including in the original BG games. This whole linking up characters bit is very much a huge step backwards. Why not just do what most other party-based RPGs do? That works pretty darn well, right?

Two words: Multiplayer mode.
It´s easier to code for both if you do it that way instead of giving group orders.

Yes, and I also had this same feeling myself. And that again just feeds my concern that pretty much all major game design decisions have been made with the co-op play side of the game in mind.

He did say that there would be a select all button like the Infinity Engine games had. That will help some.

And so they should be, IMO. Like the DOS games, they are making BG3 with the full campaign for single player and multiplayer. That’s really quite rare. Its not a multiplayer game with a single player campaign bolted on the side. Neither is it a single player game with a crappy arena battle system just because everyone expects a multiplayer mode.

It’s not really something to be concerned about, provided they are also building everything with single player in mind, which I’m sure they are.

If some compromises have to be made, I’m fine with that. I don’t remember anything in DOS games where it seemed that multiplayer functionality was detrimental to the single player experience.

If anything, the ability to split the party over a large distance seemed an underused feature they could have made more of. There was one puzzle (I don’t remember which game) with twin dungeons, and what you did in one affected the other. You needed to switch between the two, which was perhaps slightly clunky in practice but still a nice little puzzle. It’s the only example I can think of that seemed designed around it though.

Of course it does mean that most of the time you won’t actually need to gather your party before venturing forth. I’m sure someone will complain about that.

Personally I would like:
- A freely movable camera, so you can see everything.
- a button to turn on/off if the camera follows your char, off means you move camera with moving mouse to the end of the screen or with direction buttons
- The option to see the word through your characters eyes, even if it is just a button to look around when you are standing still.

This way you can "simulate" anything, from a "over the shoulder camera following the char" to a fixed top down/isometric camera.
The videos show that you need to move the camera a lot because maps can be very vertical and enemies, treasures etc. can be in any direction.

In D:OS the chain mechanic was annoying and I wished for the controls from the IE games.
I played only single player.

Making a game good for both single and multiplayer is a laudable goal, but there is a lot missing from that at the moment, as this thread shows perceived inadequacy in both camera handling and group control, but there is also a lack of companion AI when they are not all player controlled ( SP and short-handed MP groups ).

Being able to split the party in the D:OS games ( and still present in BG3 ) is a good idea, but if Swen has problems with using it ( I did too in D:OS ), the chain UI is probably a bad design that needs reworking. The chain system also has no concept of group arrangement or follow/separation distance between linked members that would be important in SP, but not needed in MP.

Camera view handling seems reasonably fully featured but also appears to lack much thought as to options that would allow both SP and MP players to see things as they prefer. Adding configurable camera-follow features would help both the 3rd person and high-angle cameras avoid the need to be manually changed, without having to really alter their current view handling code. The OP wish to have only a fixed-orientation high-angle camera would be more difficult since the environment is truly 3D, which means a great deal is hidden from a fixed orientation camera: you would lose much of the benefit of 3D, and the view handling would need significant alteration to be able to indicate the existance of hidden features ( adding flase-color silhouettes, etc )

Just assuming Larian will know what everyone wants and do it right is probably wishful thinking.

How is that significantly different than drawing a selection box around characters that you want to group together, etc?



Why would they need AI? In turn based combat that would significantly drop the tactics available if companion characters acted on their own, and outside combat the only things suitable to automate would be selling wares, or offering to lockpick a door the lead character selects but can not open, etc.


D:OS 1 has a selection of party formations and in D:OS 2 that was expanded to allow a custom configuration where you could position specific characters within a grid of 17 slots, in addition to the list of formations.

i didnt even know that and i finished that game multiple times.
amazing

Linking makes it clunky to position party members prior combat. You move your group and notice an enemy encounter coming up. You click your tank forward and then want to have your archers/mages on high ground hill. Now your tank is also running there, because everybody is linked. You need to detach party members apart every time you want to position your party by hand. You also don't have the option to select the facing direction of your formation, it's always away from where you currently are. And finally linking and unlinking party members is finicky.

While exploring out of combat, I think the linking works fine. But when you need that finer level of positioning, it's a lot more cumbersome than standard real time strategy controls.

In the IE games you can look at your chars all the time. To select chars you just have to click a char or hold the mouse button to select an area.
In D:OS you have to change the order and links between characters all the time.

Example: You have 4 chars ABCD standing

AB
CD

and you want the left chars to go left and the right chars to go right. All of them are one group.
BG2: Hold the mouse button to select the left chars, click left. Hold the mouse button to select the right chars, click right. done.
D:OS2: Move the porttraits of 3 chars away from another so all 4 chars are separated. Move the portrait of character A and C together to link them. Move the portraits of character B and D together to link them. Click on character A or C and click left. Click on character B or D and click right. done.

You can play BG2 without dragging around character portraits all the time.
Multi player can also be done with BG2 controls. When starting a game you just have to select who controls wich character. BG1+2 had multiplayer and so far I have seen no complains that players had problems to select and control their chars.

That could be easily (at least in principle) fixed with a hotkey or UI button to unlink the party, and another (or toggle) to re-group afterwards.




If you want B and C to go left and A and D to go right, you have to move at least one of the characters first to be able to select them in groups.
In D:OS 2 you would only have to unlink 2 of the characters, and lining them together could easily be part of the second character unlinking; that is 2 drag and drops, pretty much mechanically the same as 2 click and drags to select.

Yes, multiplayer can be done with BG2 controls. That's why multiplayer is not a factor in the party management method.

I found the IE party control annoying at times, and it encouraged just selecting everyone and having them attack the same target, rarely needing to select individual characters to manage them. If the story wasn't interesting, I would not have finished PS:T just for the combat.

Others have already done a pretty good job of explaining why the linking mechanism sucks. I will simply add that it is non-intuitive, cumbersome, and a general pain in the ass.

I do not really get what´s the difference.

As far as I know in DoS games (they´re the most popular games that use linking besides some JRPGs so I´ll use them as an example) you can actually see your entire party if you link them or let some of them go and flank the enemy from the other side if you unlink them, the same as in IE games.


I do not really know why Sven do not linked their companions in the gameplay and keep them separated at all times, but in DOS games if you link all your party they follow you along. And you can choose a party formation that they keep while walking or in combat, as in IE games. The only difference is that they do not do anything besides following you around unless you told them so.
You can select two, three or four of them, like in IE games. The difference is that you do not do that drawing a box with your mouse, you do that linking your character portraits. That´s it.

It´s actually easier to manage your party that way in exploration because the IA does not move your characters for itself and they do not attack automatically, break invisibility or run mindlessly into a web/poison cloud/trap unless you actively order them to do so.

As @Daze said, it´s pointless to have an IA managing your team members in a game like BG3 because you can fine-tune, control your characters and give them orders directly about what they have to do all the time.

Thanks for coming and give us some insight about the devs. opinions @Daze

I found it OK. Could perhaps be improved a bit with a keyboard shortcut or two.

Maybe hold a key and click to unlink and move current character, and another key to either group all within range or draw a selection box?

- As far as I know, Raze is the community manager, not a dev. I think he said at one point that all he sais is his own opinion and he has no special information what the devs are thinking.

- In D:OS you have to link and unlink your characters all the time. When you walk from one place to another its easier to let them walk together. Before combat it is better to split up and put your characters in good positions. Lets look at when they enter the village. They lose a dialogue roll and combat starts, the goblin uses a fireball and damages all party members. Better would be if one char sneaks one one roof with goblins, another char sneaks on the other roof with goblins and a third char stand on a different roof. Then the 4th char walks through the gate. If you fail the talk roll and combat starts, the chars on the roof can kick the goblins down and shoot with advantage while the char on the ground can finish them if the goblins survive the fall and they will get an AoO if they want to run back on the roof.

- In D:OS and BG you can do exactly the same things with your characters. But in BG you can do it without moving around portraits all the time.

- Not sure if this was in BG or a strategy game like command and conquer: You can define a button to select groups. You select a group of whatever chars you like and assign a button to it. This plus a "select all button" should be more than enough to control all chars without moving portraits.

@Raze: Different people have different preferences. I never had any problem with controlling characters in any IE game, but for me the link mechanic in D:OS was very annoying.

While this thread initially only asked for more top-down gameplay, the discussion so far has made me realize how important the control system is in order for the top-down party play to work well.

I disliked feeling like you weren't really controlling a party in the DoS games. I much preferred the strategy game-like control system of IE, where you could create control groups and shift/ctrl click the selections you wanted. Much like StarCraft, and pretty much every RTS ever since then. It['s a good and fast system for controlling a unit of characters.

Again, BG is allowed to evolve and improve beyond what it once was, but I don't think what they've shown so far is much of an improvement.

You can actually create subgroups in DoS games linking two, three or four characters, use a formation or select individual members of the party with a shortcut.

It would be welcome if they also create shortcuts to select/unselect the entire party too.

In the June 18th gameplay stream, Swen said that they will be adding a select all button, I believe it is in the second half of the stream, can't remember exactly where.

I think the value of chain linking is that you can create designated fixed subgroups so you don’t have to reselect those characters individually each time you want to move them collectively. It definitely needs some fine tuning to work optimally. It would be nice if you could select two characters and hit crtl G to group and upgroup them like a strategy game, and if the UI made it more obvious when characters were grouped so you don’t run into the issue of accidentally causing characters to traverse across the map when you don’t want them to.

This map will be far more interactive then prior games, so I think it makes sense that you control only one character directly and the rest are following.

And support.



That depends on the situation; I wasn't following BG3 development before the official announcement, for example, but have seen discussions and brought up issues with the design team. In this case I have not specifically checked with anyone involved with the UI and control design, but if it was generally considered to be a worse design, there was lots of time to change it.



Yes, this, or at least an ungroup/regroup function, would be useful.
Dragon Commander allows assigning groups of units to hotkeys to control.

And Divinity encyclopaedia.

I do actually mean the combat. Why would I want to spend a huge amount of time baby-sitting a whole party of characters and their summons/pets through combat, rather than mainly role-playing MY character? Clearly, it should be *POSSIBLE* to control all party characters/summons/pets individually if that is what a player wants, but it should not be *MANDATORY*. If the monsters have combat AI, then so can party characters/summons/pets, even if this means you need to have an additional "simple-combat" mode.

I suppose it depends exactly what game Larian are making, and who they want/expect to buy it?

Obviously D:OS2 players who are also TT DnD players are very positive in the forums. What we have seen so far would provide a good experience for them, and they are busy in other threads discussing detailed character builds for optimum tactics, drawing on what is probably ~1000 pages (?) of 5e information.

But what about someone that likes playing single-player RPG video games, but that is not a "DnD nerd". Is everyone expected to go and read and understand hundreds of pages of 5e, just to be able to get through the combat, which may not be why they want to play the game?

If BG3 really is only for the existing Larian/DnD multiplayer hard-core, then there is no need to think about anyone else; but if the audience is intended to be wider, it might be wise to consider some quality-of-life settings that allow the game to satisfy other playstyles.



I didn't remember the D:OS1 formations, so I went back to look, and eventually noticed the decoration at the top of the party chain UI was actually a selection button; I did not notice that while playing. It sounds like D:OS2 also had an ability to distance characters with the grid? ( I didn't get on with the first game, so I passed on the second ). If so that's good.

As I said, I think the chain / party split are good ideas, but not the best implementation. The drag/drop seemed to be unpredictable, and I found it unhelpful that I had to move the mouse from the centre of the screen to fiddle with the portraits on the side, just to select a single character to move. Other posters to the thread have made similar observations; there are better ways to use a mouse for control.

As I had cause to open up D:OS to check on the UI, I'll make a final observation ( below ) about lack of in-game information - with the suggestion that it is improved for BG3, please.

On opening D:OS1 you are presented with ways to start the game, and some configuration options; no README, no FAQ, no Manual. The only place from the start screen that I could find that gave any useful game information was the key-binding options that give an idea of what you can do. In-game, the information was limited to short tutorial tips, which barely told you anything, and load-screen tips, which were never up for long enough to read. Even when I went looking and found the official manual, the information in it seemed sparse ( for example, it explained how to drag/drop portraits in the chain UI, but not that you could use party formations ).

These comments are intended to be constructive, so please take them that way. I would like BG3 to be a game I want to play, and that many others will want to play. It would be a shame if it sold well, but was critically panned for not meeting expectations.

Yes indeed. This is the $1,000,000 question. For whom, exactly, is this game being made? Is it just D:OS2 fans and TT D&D 5e fans? Or is it for any and all single-player RPG videogame fans? If it is the former, then that's not me (and I suspect a total target audience of only about 2 million). If the latter, then yes that's me. So the biggest question of all for me, which has not yet been addressed at all anywhere in any interview, is what @etonbears asks here: what kind of QoL/difficulty settings and customizations will the game have? And especially, what exactly will be included within any "story mode" setting?

AD&D or 3.5 was far more complicated than 5e and many people played NWN games or IWD-BG games without ever open a PNP manual. Rarely they made a game without some tutorial or explanations ingame of lots of the mechanics, and you usually do not have to understand the math involved in the combat to fully enjoy games like POE, BG, ToEE, POE, Shadowrun, etc...

It´s dissapointing the amount of people that consistently refer to others as "nerds" just because they are not scared of manuals of more than two pages and without lots of pictures when confronted with something the´re passioned with. (nothing wrong with seeking games to have fun and for evasion, so they do not want some complicated things, that´s understandable. But it would be nice if they tone down the disdain for people that do not see that as an option, if only a little).

I will make a suggestion for Larian. They should make a "Collector´s edition" with a manual in paper and some goodies; but also they could make the "Contempt edition", with a colouring book with lots of pictures, less than 30 words and maybe a backer code that unlocks a customized UI that hides the MP option and some other options in the final game so some people could have the illusion that the game is customized to them and only to them.

So they would only see the options they like in the game and not the ones that other people like (even tho the existence of those options would not impede 90% of the options they like) and they would have a more enjoyable experience.

After reading some of the posts, I think they have a huge virgin market to exploit in there.

Personally, I've found RTwP combat to require far more babysitting with groups, sometimes to the point of not even being able to control my main character in combat, as I needed to control the archer/mage to keep them from wasting resources or making poor targeting decisions.



Generally, the information on game systems and mechanics is provided through in-game tutorials and tooltips (the tutorial messages are also logged in a section of the journal).

>babysitting
cause its a party RPG?
Its not neverwinter nights 1.
Sure AI is a thing in RTWP games, but do you trust that with the game? Especaily when it comes to casters, unless you wanna go full programming and write endless lists of what your NPCs are supposed to do, and in that case you might aswell micro em.

You can and should turn off the party AI in an RTwP CRPG. The AI is not smart enough to make sound tactical decisions during most combat situations.

I am actually surprised that this is even an issue.

Yeah, I would never trust an AI to control my party members. This is especially true for a game based around D&D where casters have limited spell slots.

- about rules:
I am happy that BG1+2 came with a huge manual. To be honest, DnD 2E can be quite unintuitive. It took a bit to understand the concept of thaco ( to hit armor class zero ). Your hit value, armor class and saves should be as low as possible while most other stats should be as high as possible. Stats do nothing over a wide range and have only an effect when they are very high or low. So a ring of protection+2 actually lowers your AC by 2 which is good. You could not equip some magic items at the same time while other items worked together (you could not equip a magic armor and a ring/cloak/amulet of protection at the same time, but you could use the sewer cloak or the ring of gaxx together with them which also improved AC among other things. Sorry, I still do not understand the logic behind this.) For me it was often confusing when I read "spell x lets the target use a saving throw versus magic -2" if this is good or bad.

DnD 3E/pathfinder is the most complex system I know. Even after tons of reading and playing several games I do not understand everything. For example for every effect you have to remember what type of effect it is to find out if it stacks with another effect. Lots of abilities require several conditions in order to work. There are tons of classes, races and feats. In a computer game the computer does the calculating but it is beyond my understanding how players can keep track of all this stuff in PnP, when your char has 5 different buffs, the enemy causes 2 debuffs and you have 10 passive fears and class abilities, all of this with different types of effects and durations.
Example from pathfinder kingmaker: A lv8 aldori defender fighter gets +2 shield AC and +2 dodge AC when making a full attack while having a duelling sword equipped and nothing in your off hand and fighting defensively.
On the pro side, it became more intuitive in so far that higher numbers are always better.

DnD 5E seems to be much easier to understand than the stuff above. In order to prepare for BG3 I read the players handbook and I had no problems to understand most stuff. Of course other books added many classes, races and feats and there will definitely be several players who will need some time to understand it, but the basic rules seem to be relatively simple compared to previous editions.

I can understand that some fans of older editions are unhappy. They spend tons of time to master a super complex system until they finally manage to cheese the hell out of it and create godlike chars and suddenly the devs create a more simple system.

I hope BG3 comes together with a manual similar to BG1+2, which was great and helped a lot to understand things. The players handbook is nice, but even I as a complete noob to 5E can see many differences between the PnP rules and the computer game and there are surely many differences I did not see.
I had this problem in P:K. The game explains stuff not very good in game. I did lots of online reading for the PnP rules and then I had to guess what is different in the computer game. I found several examples, but no halfway complete list of differences between PnP and computer game.
Any (computer) game with very complex rules, including every game based on a PnP system, should come together with some kind of in game manual that explains those rules.

PS, in the obsidian forums I said:
"Lets invent a rule: Every sufficiently complex RPG will have legal combinations to break the game. If this is impossible either its not an RPG or its not complex enough.

By break I mean you become almost immortal against most enemies. Deadfire is a complex RPG by this definition. I just finished Mass effect again and it is not. Its easy in general, just shoot stuff and watch for cover. Just to be sure: Just because a game is not a very complex RPG does not mean it is a bad game and not every complex RPG is good."

- about controlling only the main char:

In theFallout games and Arcanum you controlled only your char and your party members did whatever they want. The original Fallouts and Arcanum were turn based. (Arcanum was almost unplayable in real time combat for me). OK, I admit that the party members often acted very stupid. In F3 a companion jumped down a cliff to chase after an enemy. He disappeared in the distance and I never saw him again. Since then I played F3 and New Vegas only solo, I did not play later Fallouts.

I absolutely want to control ALL of my party members in BG3. But there are turn based games where you can control only your main char and I am not totally against the OPTION to play this way as long as you also have the option to control all chars.

But there are RPGs and there are RPGs. BG1&2 are party based RPGs. Fallout and Arcanum are not.

Also combat in traditional Tim Cain design has a different role to play then in BGs. In Fallout1&2 and Arcanum combat is one of the ways of engaging with the world, not a core feature. You can have a character who is good in fight, one who is charismatic - then companions can do the beating for you. Combat in Fallout1&2 and Arcanum is pretty awful by itself, but it's not a main gameplay loop - I played through Fallout2 without participating in combat myself. Later fallouts are entirely different beast, mixing in action RPG gameplay style.

DnD, on the other hand, originated in wargames. DnD cRPG were always heavily focused on combat, and while occasionally skippable it is one of the main gameplay loops - in BG1&2 the most robust gameplay loop by far, and it's design revolves around party interactions.

I made this point on another forum, and think it is very relevant here. I think a big part of why we all have such huge differences in our combat system preferences has to do with our differences in combat gameplay styles. I think this is what @etonbears was trying to get at, and he was not trying to put down anyone. Certainly that's not my intent here either.

I think whether we like the spellcasting side of combat or the melee side of combat is what makes a huge difference. If one strongly prefers the spellcasting side, then yes, micromanaging (i.e. babysitting) a spellcaster-heavy party can be very demanding, especially in RT/RTwP systems. And by contrast, spellcasting becomes so much easier and more efficient with turns. On the other hand, if one prefers melee combat, then micromanaging a melee-heavy party is not that difficult, and is quite easy and FUN in a RTwP system.

For me, I have always MUCH preferred the melee side over the spellcasting side. My most favorite class to play in D&D is the fighter class, multiclassed with some other complimentary class such as rogue or ranger or barbarian (but NOT a spellcasting class). The same for my party companions, where I typically avoid taking along companions who are strictly spellcasters. I don't mind having some spellcasting ability in my party, especially for healing, but only as a secondary class of a multiclassed character. So every "spellcaster" in my party will primarily be using a ranged missile weapon, and only resort to casting spells very occasionally.

These differences in our combat gameplay style preferences, I think, go a great way in explaining our differences in our combat system preferences.

IMHO it´s not exactly that. Nobody wants to put himself through 200 pages of rules if you can do the same with 20 pages and there are lots of game systems that have some overcomplicated rules (Anima comes to mind).

The thing is not that the ruleset becomes more simple, the crux of the matter is that when you simplify rules you have to cut somewhere. Most of the time it´s superfluous content but sometimes it involves losing some key features.


Using D&D as an example: You reach 5e and suddenly the sorcerers are the only casters in the world that could modify their spells with metamagic (i.e casting a spell as a bonus action, empower, give it longer reach, or casting it silently), you have to choose between improve your stats or a feat, you cannot learn new skills, languages or tools after level one (besides a few subclasses), druids do not have animal companions anymore and and your option in combat for pure warriors (besides some subclasses) is Auto-attack most of the time in a "Yo, dawg, I heard you like attacking, so I will put an attacking option for when you are attacking with your attacks while using your attack to attack with your attacking abilities" way.
I understand people that are used to have more build and combat mechanics options in previous editions are a little disenchanted with some things of D&D5e (A fantastic edition in most aspects).

In the TT it´s not that a big deal because you could just ask your DM and RP what you want to do.
You may ask if you can taunt your enemies to attack you instead of your squishy party member, shout a battlecry to intimidate your enemies, try to destroy their shield with a heavy blow, shoot the cyclops´s eye to blind it, using a feint to distract them from your real attack with your off-hand weapon, disarm them or kick a table to take cover behind it, etc.
But in a videogame your "DM" only speaks binary, so that option is out of the table. So a more simplified ruleset translates into less fun things you can do in combat.

In that regard Paizo´s "Pathfinder" is a great game ruleset to translate into a videogame, because you already have a lot of combat maneouvers, arcane feats and lots of features you can use in and out of combat in the manual as core rules, so you have to put that in the videogame instead of relaying in your DM to allow players to do cool things in combat.


Using a videogame example, if you take a look at the Fallout franchise it evolved from a isometric rpg to a shooter rpg of sorts, but the games retain some of the features in fo3 and FNV. FO4 got rid of the skills&feats in character creation, using a simplified system where you just pick a perk that improves your character or you need to find a bobblehead in the world to use some ability instead of levelling up to choose it. And that´s ok because you do not need to know your exact "%hit" in a RT shooter or stuff like that.
But at the same time when they got rid of the "skills" they took away the uses of the skills when you interact with the world in Fo3 or FNV with characters or to solve some quests without using your guns. I liked using your medicine to cure wounded soldiers, explosive to disarm mines, speech or barter to use in conversations, or science to know about tech stuff...
In FO4 you seem to be trained to do almost everything (besides hack computers and unlock locks), use and repair any weapon you find including plasma weapons or flamethrowers, use power armor or heavy machineguns;.. No matter if your female character is a former lawyer because you just go and click on it and it´s done which is a thing I do not particularly care about in a RPG.

older systems arent even that complex, just bloated most of the time, and by older system i mean 3.5 because thats what most people that talk about "older systems" refer to.
Anyone else pretty much grumbles along in the OSR circles anyway

5e is of course bad. But thats not because its less "complex", cause it realy isnt all that much less complex.
its just badly designed, because its a half baked mess between nostalgia appeal and trying to make thigns accessible, in the end creating a product that appeals to the lowest common denominator while simultaniously also beeing just as horribly balanced as older editions.

Oh boy, I love edition wars. 5th edition is the best edition since 2nd. I'll never understand people who put balance above fun. (looking at you J.E. Sawyer) 2nd was stupidly unbalanced. And it's the best ruleset ever. One of the things I like about DOS2 is that doesn't worship at the altar of balance. Pyroclastic eruption is insanely powerful and it's the only way I was able to complete a tactician solo against that demon doctor (whose name I can't spell).

I think the issue of complexity comes down to how engaged / immersed in the world you are. If you really like the setting -- like the Forgotten Realms -- complexity is good, you want to have every option. If you aren't really into the setting -- and I wasn't really into Rivelon -- then simpler is better.

Of the editions I played, I would rank them:

5
2
3
4

And 5 wins be a long gulf. I find the ruleset to both robust and elegantly designed. Intuitive and more than deep enough to create fun characters and encounters.

Sorry _Vic_ if the "DnD nerd" term triggered you in some way. For anything I am personally interested in, I consider myself something of a super-nerd or super-geek, have often been called such, but have never considered it to be negative or insulting ( more a badge of honour ). Your experience may be different, of course.

Just for the record, from about 1970 until about 1995 I was playing TT wargames with little metal figures ( napoleonic , ancient, ww2 and Tolkein ), map-and-counter wargames ( including the ultra-nerdy and still incomplete Europa Series WW2 games ), and fantasy/sci-fi RP games, such as Runequest, Traveller, Space Opera, and of course D&D. I've still got hundreds of games, source books and loads of miniatures, but I have not really cared to use them since computers became capable of interesting games, which is now my preference.

Yes, there are more complex game systems than 5e, and approached the right way, they can be successfully translated into video games that can reasonably be learned by people unfamiliar with the game system. So, my concern is about whether this is true of BG3.

There is a lot of forum chatter stressing the importance of "tactical combat", having the right build, and the need for effective party combinations in combat. That may be what you are looking for, but I'm more interested in the story, the world and non-combat activities. So, my question is a simple one; is BG3 also for a wider RP audience or solely for combat fans.

I don't have any wish to take anything away from the game as shown that many people like. But, just as I don't want to have to have super reflexes to play and enjoy a "twitch" game, I also don't wish to need to become super-competent at everything 5e to avoid constantly dying in BG3. If anything, it is you who seem to be objecting to me wanting to enjoy the game, not the other way around.

Pretty sure it´s you the one that draw a line between "DnD nerds" and "the others" and "People that like RP" and "Combat nerds" and i´m sure there are plenty of people that could be both. Me included.
If you just want to enjoy the story and nothing else, you just have to lower the difficulty so the complexity of the system do not thwart your gameplay experience and you can play whatever character you want without worrying about anything else. But let the others enjoy the full D&D3e experience with all the features possible.
Almost all games have that in 2020: Easy mode? Story mode?, etc.
I do not really understand what exactly is your complaint. Seems to me you´re just creating illusionary barriers for people that simply like different things, trying to focus the discussion about the game into things you like, while diminishing the opinions of other people using derisive terms at the same time.
Too many threads about builds, rules and tactical combat in the forum for your taste? Well, Don´t read them. Simple.


Since when a robust character creation and gameplay mechanics has to do with how a good story is made? Different departments, different people, mate.

One does not take away from the other, they´re unrelated. You could have a good story and character creation; but crappy graphics and weird combat mechanics, like "Arcanum", and games with incredible character creation and good combat but a terrible story like "Grandia 3"; and games that have great story and character creation/combat mechanics but the controls are weird like VTM: Bloodlines. Luckily there´s modders to fix that, may the great Spaghetti protect them all.

You´re worried about the quality of the story, rp options, exploration, etc? Cool, join the club.
But they can work in a good story AND into a good implementation of the D&D ruleset because that´s unrelated, and if the story of BG3 is not up to the standards you have in the end; that would not be because the consultant of Wotc and one of the designers were doing extra calculations for battlemaster maneouvers or abjurator´s barrier. You can safely blame the writing department.

And before you draw the "budget card", BG3 already have the ruleset made by WoTC, they do not have to do that from scratch like in other games (PoE, tyranny, etc), so they only have to implement them.

I don’t see this distinction between people liking combat or story. While I’m sure everyone has their preference, these aren’t mutually exclusive categories and most RPG fans I’ve ever met care about both. These aren’t two distinct fandoms.

It’s too early to comment on the story, but from what I’ve seen in the game demos, RP looks fabulous. Lots of distinct options and outcomes.

I wasn't arguing for "the other system", that train's already left the station ( and we are not supposed to mention it ). I agree that "the other system" requires even more babysitting if you want to have complete and accurate control of your party in combat encounters with optimal efficiency, and superior results. But that's the point, I don't care about about that; I care about getting through encounters rapidly, because I don't find the actual mechanical combat particularly interesting in any game.

BG3 already has AI that understands combat for all the enemy entites, and it already has per-character configurable AI for reactions ( which is, in itself, going to give you non-optimal outcomes ) for party members, so it does not seem a stretch to allow players the OPTION to put any party character under AI control, preferably using configurable preferences as with the existing BG3 reaction system ( or something like DA:O which allowed you to specify party member combat preferences ).

In fact, the effect is no different than playing BG3 in multiplayer, where you control only one character, and can request other players to do things, but can't guarantee their behaviour.



Yes, I know, but the tutorial information is sparse/incomplete if you come to the game "cold". I'm sure that anyone involved in kickstarter/early access for a game is heavily invested and doesn't need much information once the game releases.

Some games are much better at pointing you to information sources than others ( whether Manuals, mini-sites, wikis, FAQs, whatever ), and some games have more complete and accurate in-game information. I was simply pointing out that D:OS was not particularly well-documented, in my opinion as someone coming to the game without any prior knowledge. No worse than most games, to be honest.

Well, AI in TB should be an order of magnitude more sensible than in "the other system" because it knows where everyone is when selecting an action, so it can avoid fireballing your party, for example. Not suggesting YOU should use party-character AI, just that it would be a nice addition for those that don't care to micro party characters in RPGs.

Well, I might have good news for you. From Community Update 4:

Baldur’s Gate 3 is a party-based game that you can play alone, controlling each character, or as a party of up to four where each person rolls their own character. (It’s of course possible to also play as 2, or 3 people, with AI, etc).

https://store.steampowered.com/newshub/app/1086940/view/2725191788513398452

Thanks for that, Dagless. I actually have this in my email as well, but hadn't looked at it when I posted.

It does seem like Larian are being both thoughtful and listening to feedback from around the web, which is why I continue to comment, suggest and criticise, even though it can sometimes feel like there is strong resentment for anyone that has an alternative viewpoint

Interestingly, in one interview talking about RPGs in general, Swen said he'd always had an idea for his perfect RPG he'd like to make someday, implying that it's not yet technicall possible or too costly. I'd be curious to know what his vision is!