Larian Studios
Posted By: LukasPrism Is this really the consensus? - 03/02/21 09:22 PM
I find this article a bit concerning: How Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Is Going (According To Fans)

I don’t get that impression at all from my time in the Suggestions & Feedback forum. Maybe I’m biased but my takeaway is that most folks would like to see this game align more closely with 5E – or at least attempt to - before Larian deviates off with their homebrew innovations.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Is this really the consensus? - 03/02/21 09:32 PM
The article mentions two of my main issues, too much DOS3, and dice rolling reduces opportunities to actually roleplay, so yea, I'd agree with that article.
Posted By: DragonSnooz Re: Is this really the consensus? - 03/02/21 09:39 PM
Quote
While it isn't clear when Baldur's Gate 3 will be released as a finished game, it appears there are aspects of the game players are enjoying, while there is also still room for changes fans would appreciate, both to the narrative and the combat and leveling systems. With the game largely unfinished, Larian Studios has the chance to incorporate this feedback and make the game more appealing to its audience.

On Steam and Reddit, a lot of people write about which characters they like, how they like the music, the setting, and the diverse dialogue choices. I think most complaints come down to combat, and whether it's representing DnD well enough.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Is this really the consensus? - 03/02/21 10:03 PM
I have read plenty of posts in these forums outlining the concerns address in the article. Speaking freely, I really think any links to DOS games should be to an absolute bare minimum just by nature that this is DnD, a totally different intellectual property which already has a rich background to draw from. I do feel there really is too much similarity to DOS at present and not enough of the 'soul' of Baldur's Gate games.
Posted By: Starshine Re: Is this really the consensus? - 03/02/21 11:01 PM
I feel the forum is the most negative of all places I've seen the game discussed. To the point that some positive things, can't be discussed here for fear of provoking the discourse and standard arguments.

I find that article kind of, empty in that it hardly says anything at all. Nothing really in it to agree or disagree with. There is a game, its reception is mostly positive but people disagree about stuff.
Posted By: AvatarOfSHODAN Re: Is this really the consensus? - 03/02/21 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by Starshine
I feel the forum is the most negative of all places I've seen the game discussed. To the point that some positive things, can't be discussed here for fear of provoking the discourse and standard arguments.

I find that article kind of, empty in that it hardly says anything at all. Nothing really in it to agree or disagree with. There is a game, its reception is mostly positive but people disagree about stuff.

Definitely agree. Although it is interesting to see the different demographics of people /interested/ in the game, even if they don't seem to like it's current state. I'm fascinated by the majority of people here versus the steam/GoG forums and versus the subreddit.

I also figured the article was going off of Steam reviews only, since they mentioned them.

As with all things on the internet, the consensus will always be a silent majority. For example, Gale and Shadowheart being the most romanced companions is only surprising if all you hear is that all the characters are too evil/unpleasant, or that people have trouble even getting the romances at all, or only hearing people's love of Astarion. Larian really is the only people who know what the real consensus is because they have access to all the raw data of player choices. This all reminds me though to leave a review on steam.
Posted By: CopperCrate Re: Is this really the consensus? - 03/02/21 11:52 PM
Originally Posted by Starshine
I feel the forum is the most negative of all places I've seen the game discussed. To the point that some positive things, can't be discussed here for fear of provoking the discourse and standard arguments.
All of this. There's some toxicity in here that's on the level of the 4th Ed edition wars and the Pathfinder 2 Open Playtest forums. Reddit generally is a lot more light hearted, although I did get called a fascist there for stating my opinion, so that was nice.

Skimmed the article and I kinda doubt they took a big enough sample size of opinions to represent the fan response. Looks like they scanned the Steam reviews and offered up a summary, which, given the nature of the article, fair enough.

From what I've seen there's a strong movemement for a pure 5E or more true to 5E approach to the rules. Some of those people are very sensible and some are outright loons who insist on virtual screamfests and, yes, accusations of fascism. I'd say there's a smaller group of people interested in diverting from the rules, but they're far more diverse in opinion, ranging from peeps like me who would prefer a rebalance of the ruleset that colors inside the lines to people out in Never Never land calling for WoW style mechanics.

As far as I can see the Purist movement have done a better job of stating their case. They've definitely convinced me that adding more of the book 5E features is a good idea, and I've come around enough that I think at least having a "More Book DnD" mode is in the best interests of the community. I mean some of them aren't going to be happy unless BG3 becomes a Solasta clone, which I doubt is ever gonna happen.
Posted By: Niara Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 12:09 AM
I hang out mostly in the feedback section, but I wouldn't have called these forums toxic, just from what I've seen. There were a few very problematic posters in the early weeks, but they provoked moderation to the point that they are no longer with us. Overall, I feel like the general tone of this forum is very civil, if heated and with strong feelings at times. At least, in the feedback section, I think. I know I try very hard to keep conversations polite and sensible and constructive, even in cases where I don't agree with what another person is putting forward.
Posted By: DiDiDi Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 12:31 AM
I don't think it's that toxic here (not anymore), but...

I did a quick checkup of my posts here and was surprised how generally negative they are - considering how much I like this game. The instinct is to crap on things you want changed, rather than praising things you (really) like, I guess... smirk If I didn't like this game, I wouldn't have bothered creating an account here.
Posted By: Icelyn Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 12:38 AM
I don't think the forum is toxic. There are just more people here focused on a strict interpretation of the rules. I favor a more flexible approach, for example, some artistic license in character design or modifying the rules a bit to fit a video game.

Reddit is definitely more lighthearted. Today's top post is Updated Astarion model after Larian confirmed he's 5'9" on their Twitter. Poor Astarion, so short! laugh
Posted By: Danielbda Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 12:53 AM
Originally Posted by CopperCrate
I mean some of them aren't going to be happy unless BG3 becomes a Solasta clone, which I doubt is ever gonna happen.
The comparisons to Solasta are in regards to combat and mechanics, not setting, narrative, graphics etc.
Larian said a while ago that they had to change the rules because the RAW mechanics didn't work in a video game environment. This has kinda been proven false by Solasta of all things, a game with 1/100 of their budget that adapted the combat exactly as it is in the book, and not only works, it is fun too.
Posted By: Innateagle Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 12:54 AM
It's a feedback forum about an alpha build that's, by definition, two steps away from being brokenly unplayable in its current iteration. Frankly i hope Larian's looking here, even if some may things may be considered 'toxic', rather than at the circlejerk that is reddit. I mean, on the forums the most discussed topics are gameplay and mechanics, on reddit they are Astarion and goblin romance.
Posted By: DiDiDi Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 01:01 AM
Originally Posted by Innateagle
It's a feedback forum about an alpha build that's, by definition, two steps away from being brokenly unplayable in its current iteration. Frankly i hope Larian's looking here, even if some may things may be considered 'toxic', rather than at the circlejerk that is reddit. I mean, in the forums the most discussed topics are gameplay and mechanics, in reddit they are Astarion and goblin romance.
Agreed, I guess that's what upvoting/likes does to discussion.

I also wonder how much useful is the actual feedback functionality (for things that are _actually_ broken). I have reported some of bugs that way (preP2, I think, not sure), but none got fixed yet. Then again, Ranger's Two-Weapon Fighting Style bug has been there since the very beginning of EA, has been reported probably everywhere and still not fixed, I guess priorities are a bit different now...

I was thinking about creating/hosting a community issue tracker... smile
Posted By: marajango Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 01:13 AM
I wouldn't read too much (badum) into one tiny article. I have known some news writers from gaming sites whose research consisted of nothing more than merely glancing over the topic they were writing about. Not because they are lazy people but because they barely have the time for real indepth research.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 01:23 AM
I don't find the atmosphere toxic at all. There was a period when some steam sorts came over but I tend to like the tone of this forum.

But, having said that, that's just a bad article. I don't know the author's circumstances but I suspect they are under pressure to produce lots of content quickly because that thing reads like it was written in one sitting without editing. For example:

Quote
They seem to approve of how Larian Studios has reimagined the world's appearance, applying many of the qualities that players saw in Divinity: Original Sin 2 in order to improve game mechanics and overall playability.

and then

Quote
Baldur's Gate 3 also takes a hit with some players due to frustrations with how similar gameplay is to Divinity: Original Sin 2 . . . [and unhappy with] the gameplay, which mirrors many of Divinity: Original Sin 2's mechanics.

So which is it? Are people happy with the DOS2 mechanics or not? Are some happy with DOS2 mechanics and others unhappy with them? I wouldn't know if I just read the article.

And yeah, some don't like d20 RNG. I do. Hopefully this will become a game option that people can turn on or off.
Posted By: spectralhunter Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by Icelyn
I don't think the forum is toxic. There are just more people here focused on a strict interpretation of the rules. I favor a more flexible approach, for example, some artistic license in character design or modifying the rules a bit to fit a video game.

Reddit is definitely more lighthearted. Today's top post is Updated Astarion model after Larian confirmed he's 5'9" on their Twitter. Poor Astarion, so short! laugh

Toxic. The word is so over used these days. Not picking on you. Just stating an observation.

I think most people, even diehard 5e people like myself understand some changes to rules need to be made as it translates to video games. But what Larian did is a travesty. So I’m here in hopes they change things.

And since Asterion is an elf, he’s not short. He’s actually slightly above average height. smile
Posted By: MyriadHappenings Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 02:47 AM
Some of the discourse does slant more on the negative to abrasive side. But it's a legacy sequel and people are passionate about the game being good. All things considered, the forums have been fairly civil.

I do admit I've been spending more time on the reddit lately, though. It's a lot of fun and negativity tends to wear on my mental health after a while, haha. Plus there's some gorgeous art over there. The tarot series on the companions was especially breathtaking.

Quote
Reddit is definitely more lighthearted. Today's top post is Updated Astarion model after Larian confirmed he's 5'9" on their Twitter. Poor Astarion, so short!

This is so funny to me. I would never consider 5'9 short. I'm like 5'4 lmao.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 02:51 AM
From most opinions I see outside foruns, the similarity of BG3 to DOS both in mechanics and aesthetics is the most cited critiscism.

And I agree that BG3 should have been thought from ground zero.

And, of course, TB is not usually well accepted by casual players.
Posted By: Icelyn Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 03:11 AM
Originally Posted by MyriadHappenings
This is so funny to me. I would never consider 5'9 short. I'm like 5'4 lmao.
5'9 is short for a guy, especially when compared with Lady Dimitrescu who is 9'6. laugh
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 03:21 AM
One does wonder if they’re regretting announcing this as Baldur’s Gate III and not giving it another title (someone suggested Baldur’s Gate: Rise of the Illithids). Making it a numbered sequel means there are expectations for it to follow the originals to a certain extent, and keep it reasonably close to a D&D ruleset. You’re immediately engaging a couple of devout and opinionated fanbases. It seems like those are restrictions Larian would have been happy to do without, having the freedom to make the game they way they like... But on the other hand there’s the prestige and inherent hype associated with the series, which they can surely capitalise on. I’d love to know whether it was a Larian or WotC decision to call it a sequel.
Posted By: MyriadHappenings Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 03:31 AM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
One does wonder if they’re regretting announcing this as Baldur’s Gate III and not giving it another title (someone suggested Baldur’s Gate: Rise of the Illithids). Making it a numbered sequel means there are expectations for it to follow the originals to a certain extent, and keep it reasonably close to a D&D ruleset. You’re immediately engaging a couple of devout and opinionated fanbases. It seems like those are restrictions Larian would have been happy to do without, having the freedom to make the game they way they like... But on the other hand there’s the prestige and inherent hype associated with the series, which they can surely capitalise on. I’d love to know whether it was a Larian or WotC decision to call it a sequel.

I've seen this argument before and it strikes me as semantics. Just using the Baldur's Gate title regardless of if it's a true sequel or not is going to bring hardcore fans to the series, just like the Devil May Cry reboot brought old fans to the series.

Quote
5'9 is short for a guy, especially when compared with Lady Dimitrescu who is 9'6.

Below average, sure (and even then that's by European standards, Asian standards skew a bit shorter iirc), but I still wouldn't call it short. Your second point is well-taken, however, lol.
Posted By: Tzelanit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 03:45 AM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I find this article a bit concerning: How Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Is Going (According To Fans)

I don’t get that impression at all from my time in the Suggestions & Feedback forum. Maybe I’m biased but my takeaway is that most folks would like to see this game align more closely with 5E – or at least attempt to - before Larian deviates off with their homebrew innovations.

You have to remember that the impressions and feedback on these forums are just the tiniest snapshot of the overall picture. This is just a tiny vocal minority and a grand majority of any game's fanbase won't be found toiling about on its forums, as indicated by the general inactivity from all but a handful of dedicated people. Whatever enthusiasm or hate you see for the game here are extremes that barely show up as a blip on the radar when taking all of the overall player impressions into account.

The game doesn't particularly feel like a Baldur's Gate game, but it doesn't feel like another entry in the Divinity world either. It's this weird homebrew amalgamation that tries to do too much, does none of it particularly well, but also doesn't exactly fail miserably either. After spending some time with the game, I regret buying into EA, and I wish that I could get a refund for it. I'd rather play something that's more purely D&D, or something that's more purely Divinity, and this game hasn't scratched either of those itches for me.

A refund is unfortunately impossible at this point since I doubt that anyone would go out of the way and make an exception to grant one with the amount of time I've invested into it, so I'll just take this as money lost and a lesson learned to avoid the early access process entirely like I had been for years up until this point. I'll keep an eye out on Larian products that are specific to the world of Rivellon and disregard everything else that gets shoved out the door.
Posted By: OcO Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 04:24 AM
On toxicity: I frequent these boards, Steam and Reddit. Steam is, imo, the most "toxic" of the group beyond doubt. While there is some back and forth here, it really isn't anything like the trolls over on Steam.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 04:24 AM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
One does wonder if they’re regretting announcing this as Baldur’s Gate III and not giving it another title (someone suggested Baldur’s Gate: Rise of the Illithids). Making it a numbered sequel means there are expectations for it to follow the originals to a certain extent, and keep it reasonably close to a D&D ruleset. You’re immediately engaging a couple of devout and opinionated fanbases. It seems like those are restrictions Larian would have been happy to do without, having the freedom to make the game they way they like... But on the other hand there’s the prestige and inherent hype associated with the series, which they can surely capitalise on. I’d love to know whether it was a Larian or WotC decision to call it a sequel.

If their intention was to do a DOS3 with FR skin they would be better accepted with a brand new IP.

In the end would have sold similar to BG3.
Posted By: Starshine Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 04:55 AM
With how little map there is, it cant feel like a BG game, yet. BG is all about choices, big world, many characters, many quests. EA will never feel like that as it's not the finished game.
If all the maps have as much diversity in zones and NPCs and things to do as the EA then, the game will definitely BG. I also have a feeling the illusion in our heads will turn out to be a god trying to come back to life in someway, which will tie the plot into BG too.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 05:00 AM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
One does wonder if they’re regretting announcing this as Baldur’s Gate III and not giving it another title (someone suggested Baldur’s Gate: Rise of the Illithids). Making it a numbered sequel means there are expectations for it to follow the originals to a certain extent, and keep it reasonably close to a D&D ruleset. You’re immediately engaging a couple of devout and opinionated fanbases. It seems like those are restrictions Larian would have been happy to do without, having the freedom to make the game they way they like... But on the other hand there’s the prestige and inherent hype associated with the series, which they can surely capitalise on. I’d love to know whether it was a Larian or WotC decision to call it a sequel.

If their intention was to do a DOS3 with FR skin they would be better accepted with a brand new IP.

In the end would have sold similar to BG3.

that's the weird part, they had enough success with DOS2 that they could have just made a DOS3 and it would have sold very well. Now there's this weird sort of disconnect between the D&D, BG and DOS fans.
Posted By: MyriadHappenings Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 05:10 AM
The only thing that feels similar to DoS2 to me is the origin system, which they probably kept because multiplayer is a big part of Larian’s appeal (and likely one of the major reasons they were picked by WotC).

It feels much more influenced by Dragon Age than DoS2 on the whole.
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 05:29 AM
Originally Posted by MyriadHappenings
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
One does wonder if they’re regretting announcing this as Baldur’s Gate III and not giving it another title (someone suggested Baldur’s Gate: Rise of the Illithids). Making it a numbered sequel means there are expectations for it to follow the originals to a certain extent, and keep it reasonably close to a D&D ruleset. You’re immediately engaging a couple of devout and opinionated fanbases. It seems like those are restrictions Larian would have been happy to do without, having the freedom to make the game they way they like... But on the other hand there’s the prestige and inherent hype associated with the series, which they can surely capitalise on. I’d love to know whether it was a Larian or WotC decision to call it a sequel.

I've seen this argument before and it strikes me as semantics. Just using the Baldur's Gate title regardless of if it's a true sequel or not is going to bring hardcore fans to the series, just like the Devil May Cry reboot brought old fans to the series.

It’s been so long and this game is so different, they could have simply called it “Baldur’s Gate”. There has been a trend of restarting franchises with as simple a name as possible. God of War, Doom, Tomb Raider etc. Given that you can’t carry anything over from BG2 and it’s set so much later, calling it 3 seems a bit manipulative.
Posted By: MyriadHappenings Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 05:47 AM
I suppose. Reboot titles often fee manipulative too, though. I’ve seen complaints from fans of the Metroid series disliking Federation Force because it’s a spinoff with little connection to the main series. There comes a point where you can’t win, where it’s just a matter of splitting hairs.

It takes place in and around Baldur’s Gate. It parallels the original themes of the game. It’s set in the forgotten realms. It wants to translate dnd rules into a video game format. It has multiple characters and callbacks to the original games. Not every sequel needs to be a direct continuation of the previous entry. I’m fine with them calling it Baldur’s Gate 3, just like I was fine with Dragon Age 2 as a name despite shifting away from a number of systems implemented in Origins.
Posted By: Baldurs-Gate-Fan Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 12:51 PM
Well let’s be honest and realistic......

They chose to make a sequel to one of the most beloved rpg game in history.
They realy cashed in on the name by selling incredible amount with only a alpha early access version.

However they didn’t make a game new from scratch but instead used not only the engine but also tons of mechanics and gameplay from a totally different game than the baldurs gate Games.

Is it so surprising that pisses off a lot of fans? Was that a miracle that couldn’t be foreseen?

Theory 1:

They knew this will happen but ignored it because the financial success of using baldurs gate name is simply overwhelming and outweighs negative criticism. And by choosing divinity as a core to start from they also have a lot of divinity fans on board.
From a commercial viewpoint I can respect that decision.

Theory 2:

They realy wanted to make a baldurs gate 3 game but have no idea of DnD or what made it so enjoyable. So they got some guys from wotc as advisors (probably those who almost killed DnD when they came up with 4th edition) and then try to implement things that have proven funny with their other games.
Posted By: Lunar Dante Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 01:53 PM
I think they wanted to please every public.
For the moment, it should not be a bad game, but it is not really BG and not really D&D.
I really hope, that they have some Solasta players working at Larian, because they would know that, yes, it is possible to be really closer to D&D, and yes, that it is good and fun.
I really hope also, that we will see more changes going in the right direction with Patch 4.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
I think they wanted to please every public.

...

I really hope also, that we will see more changes going in the right direction with Patch 4.

I did wonder this myself. The thing is that it is almost impossible to be all things to all people, it’s simply too ambitious.

I also hope to see some more changes given that there is plenty of time left in development but at times the radio silence from Larian is a little deafening. We don’t really have any idea of which feedback they are considering.
Posted By: Danielbda Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 03:44 PM
Originally Posted by Etruscan
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
I think they wanted to please every public.

...

I really hope also, that we will see more changes going in the right direction with Patch 4.

I did wonder this myself. The thing is that it is almost impossible to be all things to all people, it’s simply too ambitious.

I also hope to see some more changes given that there is plenty of time left in development but at times the radio silence from Larian is a little deafening. We don’t really have any idea of which feedback they are considering.
My deepest concern regarding their lack of feedback is that the decision to make a 5e DOS homebrew was deliberate and what they were going for since the beginning. It bothers me though that WotC would probably ask for them to stick with the core rules.
Posted By: Sordak Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 04:04 PM
the only people that want this to be closer to 5e are people that havent played 5e
Posted By: Lunar Dante Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak
the only people that want this to be closer to 5e are people that havent played 5e

No.
Posted By: DiDiDi Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 06:40 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak
the only people that want this to be closer to 5e are people that havent played 5e
BS
Posted By: DragonSnooz Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak
the only people that want this to be closer to 5e are people that havent played 5e
I want this to be closer because I've played a lot of cRPGs and 5e.

We're mostly all open to quality changes from 5e. But if I see something that isn't a quality change, I'm going to write about it.

Take 'dip' for example. Very few people are complaining about it because Wizard normally scales better than fighter, ranger, and rogue into the late-game. Dip only seems ridiculous because we're playing at level 1-4, so we're mostly being open-minded about dip.
  • If dip become a feat would players take it over +2 to strength or dexterity?
  • Larian has implemented changes to make life better for fighter, ranger, and rogue. Some of these changes most of us don't like because they are over-tuned. Some of them we are unsure about because we're all focused on spell scrolls, shove, higher ground, etc. at the moment.


Now onto higher ground, a lot of players agree that the advantage/disadvantage change should go.

Too many fights become a race for the high ground. We all expected to play turn-based combat, not spend the first few turns moving your character to higher ground. (Or reload to start more of your party at higher ground so you can actually start with some turn-based combat). Even if this game wasn't based off of 5e, I would be annoyed with higher ground advantage/disadvantage.

Combat in 5e is just more fun by not giving advantage/disadvantage everywhere and letting you have a party of five to six. For those of us who have played 5e, we all understand that there are other ways to buff a party of four besides making advantage available almost everywhere.
Posted By: Azariel Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 08:41 PM
A few things IMO on high-ground advantage,

I would be fine with adjusting advantage/disadvantage so long as they re-balance it, nothing is more tilting then not being able to hit the broadside of a barn just because you are on the same elevation as the opponent. I think High-ground should give some kind of advantage but the sheer difference between not having it and having it is the difference between being able to hit your target 8/10 times or 2/10 times and that makes it overly essential to game-play in the current build.

This especially sucks for surprise encounters because it either A. makes you use a spell slot to misty step to high ground right off the bat or B. since you know it's coming because you did it before re-arrange your party to where all range characters are already sitting on the high-ground to ambush the ambush.
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Is this really the consensus? - 04/02/21 11:25 PM
We have to remember that the people that are still posting on these forums - months into an EA (which hasn't had a major gameplay update yet), are a very self-selected minority. Most people played the EA, posted their feedback, and moved on.

I've generally observed 3 camps here in terms of opinion - people who want BG3 to be more like DOS, more like 5e RAW, or more like BG1/2 - and on any given day or thread, any of these groups could be the most focal.

Compared to the Steam forums, I can't say that this place is toxic. There is a small, vocal minority who are very emotionally invested in what they want BG3 fundamentally to be. Given that, sometimes discussions have devolved into emotional venting instead of actual feedback and game discussion.
Posted By: Tzelanit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 01:19 AM
I feel like I missed a post somewhere that caused this post to shift toward feedback of specific game elements as opposed to the intended discussion about the ethos that Larian is using to drive their vision for the game.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I've generally observed 3 camps here in terms of opinion - people who want BG3 to be more like DOS, more like 5e RAW, or more like BG1/2 - and on any given day or thread, any of these groups could be the most focal.

Compared to the Steam forums, I can't say that this place is toxic. There is a small, vocal minority who are very emotionally invested in what they want BG3 fundamentally to be. Given that, sometimes discussions have devolved into emotional venting instead of actual feedback and game discussion.

Ehh. Not great breakdown of the three camps you've identified the last two largely overlap (if they were distinct camps I would reside in both) and the first camp "people who want BG3 to be more like DOS" has perhaps 3 or 4 members. There as many people calling for the return of the 3.5 ruleset as there are advocates of cooldowns and action points.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 02:47 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I've generally observed 3 camps here in terms of opinion - people who want BG3 to be more like DOS, more like 5e RAW, or more like BG1/2 - and on any given day or thread, any of these groups could be the most focal.

Compared to the Steam forums, I can't say that this place is toxic. There is a small, vocal minority who are very emotionally invested in what they want BG3 fundamentally to be. Given that, sometimes discussions have devolved into emotional venting instead of actual feedback and game discussion.

Ehh. Not great breakdown of the three camps you've identified the last two largely overlap (if they were distinct camps I would reside in both) and the first camp "people who want BG3 to be more like DOS" has perhaps 3 or 4 members. There as many people calling for the return of the 3.5 ruleset as there are advocates of cooldowns and action points.

The biggest difference between the second and the third is the RtwP vs TB, if you don't care about that then there is no difference.
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 03:05 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Ehh. Not great breakdown of the three camps you've identified the last two largely overlap (if they were distinct camps I would reside in both) and the first camp "people who want BG3 to be more like DOS" has perhaps 3 or 4 members. There as many people calling for the return of the 3.5 ruleset as there are advocates of cooldowns and action points.

There are some pretty direct opposing wants between the BG1/2 camp and 5E camp though.
  • RTwP vs. Turnbase per 5E RAW
  • BG style adjusted monsters (including hp increases) (like in BG2) vs. Monsters implemented as RAW 5e
  • Okay with adjusted rules vs. rules implemented RAW (BG1/2 were far from 2.5E RAW)
  • No skill check (and thus no content lock) vs. skill check in dialogue and game (thus locks content)
  • Single character focused narrative (THE chosen one) vs. the table-top-esque group dynamic narrative of BG3/5E PnP (group of chosen ones)

With that said, it's totally valid for someone to say - I'd prefer a BG3 that's true to BG1/2, but if I can't have that, I'd rather have 5E RAW than Larian's invention. Which may be how some people can identify with both of those camps over the DOS/Larian camp.

Also, sometimes I have seen some instances where some people of these latter 2 camps are simply united more so by their distaste of Larian/DOS, than actually being on the same page (i.e. both camps may say this game is basically DOS3, etc).
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 03:32 AM
Let’s say BG3 ends up being more loosely based on 5E, and doesn’t tick the RAW compliance box that a lot of us seem to desire, are there other hopes?

We know about Solasta. Back in 2019, WotC announced that there were 7 or 8 D&D video games in development. So, if we consider Solasta as one, BG3, Dark Alliance… what does that leave us? Idle Champions? Is there anything else folk are aware of that might give a glimmer of hope? There should be another 3-4 that they could announce at any moment?
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 04:12 AM
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Ehh. Not great breakdown of the three camps you've identified the last two largely overlap (if they were distinct camps I would reside in both) and the first camp "people who want BG3 to be more like DOS" has perhaps 3 or 4 members. There as many people calling for the return of the 3.5 ruleset as there are advocates of cooldowns and action points.

There are some pretty direct opposing wants between the BG1/2 camp and 5E camp though.
  • RTwP vs. Turnbase per 5E RAW
  • BG style adjusted monsters (including hp increases) (like in BG2) vs. Monsters implemented as RAW 5e
  • Okay with adjusted rules vs. rules implemented RAW (BG1/2 were far from 2.5E RAW)
  • No skill check (and thus no content lock) vs. skill check in dialogue and game (thus locks content)
  • Single character focused narrative (THE chosen one) vs. the table-top-esque group dynamic narrative of BG3/5E PnP (group of chosen ones)

With that said, it's totally valid for someone to say - I'd prefer a BG3 that's true to BG1/2, but if I can't have that, I'd rather have 5E RAW than Larian's invention. Which may be how some people can identify with both of those camps over the DOS/Larian camp.

Also, sometimes I have seen some instances where some people of these latter 2 camps are simply united more so by their distaste of Larian/DOS, than actually being on the same page (i.e. both camps may say this game is basically DOS3, etc).

Yeah, I ignore the RTwP bloodwar even if I'm in the BG3 should be like BG camp. I just like turn based better. But fair enough in the venn diagram of the two the RtwP is a part of the BG camp not covered by 5e camp.

I've also not seen anyone asking for a BG 2 type difficulty adjusted monsters -- I think mods like sword coast stratagems were a response to the critique that the difficulty slider above 'core' was too crude. I think everyone would prefer a difficulty slider that increased the intelligence of the AI like SCS does. (the unmodded beholders are a pretty dumb bunch)

Eh, I don't think the origin character is more table top like. I think Solasta is more table top like. (and I prefer the BG3 model to Solasta in terms of role play) Like many DOS2 fans I thought non origin characters had a diminished experience. And even among the origins it's really Fane's story -- I just don't think you can compare the experience of playing as Fane v Beast.

Our disagreements aren't large but they boil down to this:
Quote
(BG1/2 were far from 2.5E RAW)
That's said often but when people try and talk about what is different it largely comes down to issues of movement / kitting and things that are true of every other D&D adaptation except Solasta. (that I know of) Things like eliminating spell components, encumbrance rules, gp weight and the like have been repeated by every other D&D game. BG1 was the best adaption of 2e RAW there was and most of the exceptions / exploits were made at the request of the community. And there's the rub

When I first played BG1 it was clear to me that it was made by TT players because it's house rules pretty much mirrored the house rules I used in my own games. Larian's house rules by contrast are, well, strange and I think you would have a hard time finding a Table Top group that uses them. I mean dip is just a weird thing to implement. Candles = magic arrows ?

So I think "purist" is a strawman for those of us who want as close to RAW as possible -- once Solasta implements the promised check boxes for its house rules I'll turn off spell components. Hopefully Larian will follow Solasta's lead and make its house rules optional.
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Let’s say BG3 ends up being more loosely based on 5E, and doesn’t tick the RAW compliance box that a lot of us seem to desire, are there other hopes?

We know about Solasta. Back in 2019, WotC announced that there were 7 or 8 D&D video games in development. So, if we consider Solasta as one, BG3, Dark Alliance… what does that leave us? Idle Champions? Is there anything else folk are aware of that might give a glimmer of hope? There should be another 3-4 that they could announce at any moment?

I assume with the increasing popularity of D&D, I'm hopeful that more games will be coming, especially if BG3 is commercially successful. BG did spawn Icewind Dale 1/2, Planescape Torment, NWN 1/2, Pool of Radiance, Temple of Elemental Evil, and some others.

Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous isn't exactly D&D, but for me is definitely still within the same genre of "D&D" games.
Posted By: marajango Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 07:19 AM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Let’s say BG3 ends up being more loosely based on 5E, and doesn’t tick the RAW compliance box that a lot of us seem to desire, are there other hopes?

We know about Solasta. Back in 2019, WotC announced that there were 7 or 8 D&D video games in development. So, if we consider Solasta as one, BG3, Dark Alliance… what does that leave us? Idle Champions? Is there anything else folk are aware of that might give a glimmer of hope? There should be another 3-4 that they could announce at any moment?
I'm looking forward to Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, coming out later this year. Pathfinder is based on DnD 3.5, so it's not that big of a difference.
Posted By: Roethen Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 03:36 PM
I'm just here to say everyone in the replies has excellent taste and I love this community. I don't think this forum is toxic. Healthy disagreements can be very constructive and I hope Larian is taking fans of the original BG and D&D seriously.
Posted By: Roethen Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 03:43 PM
Quote
And since Asterion is an elf, he’s not short. He’s actually slightly above average height. smile

Elves are actually "slightly shorter than humans on average," according to D&D Beyond, which I wish was a fact better known as a grown man at 5'7".

https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/elf
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 04:37 PM
Yup, DnD (or at least FR) has short elves.
Posted By: Danielbda Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
Yup, DnD (or at least FR) has short elves.
Wood elves and Drows are shorter than humans, but High elves are around the same height, if not taller.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 04:49 PM
No, all FR elves are shorter than humans. Wood elves (and Wild elves) are actually the tallest ones, Sun and Moon (high) elves are shorter.
Posted By: CopperCrate Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 05:21 PM
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Minthara must have been a basketball player back in Menzo.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 05:33 PM
She left Lolth because all the other Drow were mean to her about her length
Posted By: Roethen Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 05:46 PM
Thank you for your persistence.
Posted By: Icelyn Re: Is this really the consensus? - 05/02/21 06:21 PM
Originally Posted by Roethen
Thank you for your persistence.
laugh
Posted By: CopperCrate Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 02:52 PM
Originally Posted by Roethen
I don't think this forum is toxic. Healthy disagreements can be very constructive and I hope Larian is taking fans of the original BG and D&D seriously.

Yeah, when I said the t word earlier in this thread I was probably wrong. It's not like 4chan toxic. Not even as bad as, say, the 174 page 3 year long Stellaris FTL change thread. And I get it, I'm still irritated by the 5th ed book Ranger 6 years later. But both a drastic departure from 5E rules and a completely faithful 5E simulator aren't in the cards for this game. And there's a number of threads here that refuse to stop complaining about that. But I guess that's just par for the forum course.
Posted By: Danielbda Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 03:04 PM
Originally Posted by CopperCrate
But both a drastic departure from 5E rules and a completely faithful 5E simulator aren't in the cards for this game. And there's a number of threads here that refuse to stop complaining about that. But I guess that's just par for the forum course.
Because Larian still has not addressed this question, and it is the main source of complaints.
Posted By: Lunar Dante Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by CopperCrate
[quote=Roethen]But both a drastic departure from 5E rules and a completely faithful 5E simulator aren't in the cards for this game. And there's a number of threads here that refuse to stop complaining about that. But I guess that's just par for the forum course.

The problem is that it should be close to "faithful 5E simulator", because they clearly expressed this intention/engagement, and that currently, well, it is closer to a drastic departure on many aspects, arguing that it was not possible, or not fun, whereas we know (thanks to Solasta), that it is possible, and fun.
Posted By: booboo Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 05:00 PM
Yep, I think if they'd stated in the EA that BG3 was only loosely connected to 5E rules, people would be less bothered. I played all the content, and initially enjoyed it, but was increasingly put off by the many things that are patently not 5E and overpowered/game-balance breaking. And clearly inserted because they were 'cool'.

I can say, that if I had known - going in - that the intention was not to do actual 5E rules, but some kind of hybrid rule-set - I wouldn't have bought in at the EA stage. I would likely have bought later, when the game was cheaper (this is the most expensive EA that I have bought into), since I did enjoy DOS1/2 (but for a different experience - not as D&D game)

I accept that some things don't map well to a PC RPG game (without a DM) - but as several people have pointed out, there is another game in EA that shows it can be done for 5E.

That said, this is still EA, so maybe things will change to be more 5E-like, guess we'll see in the next update.
Posted By: dwig Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 07:39 PM
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
Originally Posted by CopperCrate
[quote=Roethen]But both a drastic departure from 5E rules and a completely faithful 5E simulator aren't in the cards for this game. And there's a number of threads here that refuse to stop complaining about that. But I guess that's just par for the forum course.

The problem is that it should be close to "faithful 5E simulator", because they clearly expressed this intention/engagement, and that currently, well, it is closer to a drastic departure on many aspects, arguing that it was not possible, or not fun, whereas we know (thanks to Solasta), that it is possible, and fun.

Strong agree. After playing Solasta it is very clear to me that a mostly faithful adaptation of 5E can be fun. I do not expect Larian to make the exact same decisions as the Solasta team (differing visions are fine), but using the excuse that adhering to the 5E rules is "not fun" is not going to sit well with me.
Posted By: Roethen Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by dwig
using the excuse that adhering to the 5E rules is "not fun" is not going to sit well with me.
+1
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 08:38 PM
Where was the expectation that BG3 will be a faithful adaptation to 5E set? I honestly do not recall any promises made in that regard. This is coming from someone who wants a more faithful adaptation to the rules (as a Paladin fan, I am dreading to see how they'll butcher my smite), but I've never had the expectation that the rules adaptation would be faithful.

Just look at the Baldur's Gate 3 Steam Store page vs. Solasta's.

  • BG3 only states that it is set in the world of dungeons and dragons in the intro paragraph. Its first mention of being "based on" 5e rules is in the full features list buried under the read more expandable.
  • Contrast that to Solasta - whose first line "TRUE TO THE TABLETOP"

It's clear where each games' vision and value proposition sits, regardless of our personal preferences.

We can all prefer steak to chicken, but it's unreasonable to order a chicken and be mad that you didn't get steak.



In terms of interviews, even from the very start, there was no mention of a "faithful adaptation to 5E". From an interview with Gamespot after the 2019 Announcement. It feels like from the start, they would be working with WoTC to be changing things in lore and gameplay.

Quote
We worked very closely with Wizards, they actually adapted certain things for us so that it would work in the video game also. They've been very, very flexible in that. There are adaptations that we had to make to turn it into a video game, but it features a lot of the iconic stuff that people love about Dungeons & Dragons.


The one quote I can find that leans most towards a "faithful adaptation" would be this quote from a PCGamesn interview with Sven. But even then, it's clear in the quote that Larian would be making adaptations for the game. You can argue that Larian has gutted the heart of D&D in their translation, but you have to be expecting changes.

Quote
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.

The cool thing we found is that a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, actually survived the translation, so I think that if you like Dungeons and Dragons and you want to play BG3, you’re going to be happy.
Posted By: Roethen Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 08:45 PM
Something to think about next time I cram a wheel of cheese down Astarion’s throat in the middle of combat. smile
Posted By: TheFoxWhisperer Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 08:46 PM
That last quote sums it up.

They came up with "solutions" for stuff that actually does work, as Solasta has proven, making it worse.

Currently with how the ruleset and mechanics work, combat is focussed around the Larian homebrew rules and changes, which is very similar to DOS combat mechanics. The D&D ruleset did not really survive the translation at all, nor is the game a true D&D experience. It feels more like a blend between DOS and Dragonn Age to me.

If you are looking for a D&D style game, which that basically says, you are going to be dissapointed. Not happy.
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 09:04 PM
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
That last quote sums it up.

They came up with "solutions" for stuff that actually does work, as Solasta has proven, making it worse.

Currently with how the ruleset and mechanics work, combat is focussed around the Larian homebrew rules and changes, which is very similar to DOS combat mechanics. The D&D ruleset did not really survive the translation at all, nor is the game a true D&D experience. It feels more like a blend between DOS and Dragonn Age to me.

If you are looking for a D&D style game, which that basically says, you are going to be dissapointed. Not happy.

I think that's a fair take. I want to be fair to Larian (in that they never offered a faithful adaptation), but that doesn't mean I don't have my own issues with the game.

For me, I'm most unhappy about improper-reactions and no-held actions (which I think removes an entire strategic layer from the game).
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 09:08 PM
If they truly ‘meticulously’ started with 5E and then started improvising to fix it, it’s a real shame we never got to test that version in EA.
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 09:12 PM
It's natural the official early access forums are seen as more "toxic". People tend to focus on the things they don't like and want changed significantly more in a place they are (more) likely to be heard, than praise what most agree Larian does well.

I see 3 large issues:

Combat. Excessive environmental shenanigans and excessive bonuses for higher ground/flanking advantage. In particular jumping to flank and gain attack advantage, and putting weapons on flame. Both are virtually guaranteed extra damage, but require the player to perform the same time wasting, boring ritual over and over and over again. This is bad gameplay and is likely to cause class imbalances too (ie barbarians reckless attack ability is rendered worse than useless). Excessive environmental effects may be fun, but also takes a dump on class balance (everyone can fireball) and takes the focus away from the class development. Just think that Larian hasn't found the right balance between what worked well in DOS2, but works less well in BG3.

Resting mechanic. Wrecks immersion and class balance. Either implement it properly with camp changing after location and preferably a day/night cycle like the original games,and/or implement some magical camp like the "Rope Trick" spell that creates an extradimensional space, and/or make evermore house rules to buff the classes relatively nerfed. Alternatively, scrap the mechanic and implement cooldowns and action points like DOS2. The current balance is neither here nor there. Address narrative dissonance between allegedly being in a desperate battle against time and unlimited sleep.

Loot focus and inventory mini-games. Weakest part of DOS2 makes a comeback in BG3 sadly. I would prefer an abstracted system with a party inventory which automatically sorts and stacks by loot type (not accessible in combat). Secondary personal inventory (accessible in combat) should be limited to a smallish amount of hotbar quick slots. Less trash loot. Items that can be used for crafting should be clearly marked as such (in DOS2 you were worried selling items would ruin crafting). Heal items should be scrapped or abstracted to be used automatically after combat (ie. give slow regeneration). Healing related to class abilities should be buffed to compensate classes that are made less useful by the easy access to sleep/heal.
Posted By: Roethen Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Quote
While it isn't clear when Baldur's Gate 3 will be released as a finished game, it appears there are aspects of the game players are enjoying, while there is also still room for changes fans would appreciate, both to the narrative and the combat and leveling systems. With the game largely unfinished, Larian Studios has the chance to incorporate this feedback and make the game more appealing to its audience.

On Steam and Reddit, a lot of people write about which characters they like, how they like the music, the setting, and the diverse dialogue choices. I think most complaints come down to combat, and whether it's representing DnD well enough.

I agree, and I think this is where the company has the most to gain and the least to lose if it listens to those of us who actually pay attention to gameplay (which I like to think is the majority here in the forum).
Posted By: etonbears Re: Is this really the consensus? - 06/02/21 11:32 PM
I would say you are accurate in your assessment @Topgoon.

Prior to the EA release, there were several months of forum debate ( mostly civil ) discussing how Larian might implement 5e rules and the BG legacy.

At that time, the main complainants were expressing angst that the game felt more like DOS than the original BG games, but there were also discussions on obvious changes to the 5e action economy, lack of control over reactions, and a number of other changes that could be easily gleaned by looking at the gameplay streams and developer comments.

It was very clear from available game footage and developer interviews that BG3 was never intended to be a tabletop emulator, or a tabletop game-aid; unlike NWN/NWN2 which were both designed to be used in that way. There have been no guarantees of providing anything beyond a story-driven co-op RPG; everything else that has been mentioned by Larian is aspiration, at best.

If anyone posting here thought there was a promise to implement 5e closely, then that is wishful thinking.

Of course, anyone ( and everyone ) should be free to express their preferences, and ( if you care to ) make rational arguments to support your preferences. That is one way that Larian will be able to guage how broad or narrow their market is, and how well or poorly their design decisions are received by different market segments.

Ideally, Larian will provide enough optional gameplay settings to allow most players to feel comfortable with the game, but if your expectations diverge too greatly from the EA experience, you should expect to be disappointed.

Larian have never said they cannot implement the 5e rules exactly; tabletop RPG rules sets are sometimes exhaustive, but rarely exceed simple arithmetic in mathematical complexity. What they have said is that the 5e rules do not always work well for the game they are making and the broad audience they are aiming to please.

Unlike Solasta, whose audience will likely be dominated by PnP players, BG3 is an expensive production that needs a broader audience, most of whome will be mainstream videogame players. Larian could not make BG3 based on the Solasta sales model.

With such a broad audience, I doubt there will be consensus on anything very much.
Posted By: Nyloth Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 12:10 AM
Originally Posted by etonbears
I would say you are accurate in your assessment @Topgoon.

Prior to the EA release, there were several months of forum debate ( mostly civil ) discussing how Larian might implement 5e rules and the BG legacy.

At that time, the main complainants were expressing angst that the game felt more like DOS than the original BG games, but there were also discussions on obvious changes to the 5e action economy, lack of control over reactions, and a number of other changes that could be easily gleaned by looking at the gameplay streams and developer comments.

It was very clear from available game footage and developer interviews that BG3 was never intended to be a tabletop emulator, or a tabletop game-aid; unlike NWN/NWN2 which were both designed to be used in that way. There have been no guarantees of providing anything beyond a story-driven co-op RPG; everything else that has been mentioned by Larian is aspiration, at best.

If anyone posting here thought there was a promise to implement 5e closely, then that is wishful thinking.

Of course, anyone ( and everyone ) should be free to express their preferences, and ( if you care to ) make rational arguments to support your preferences. That is one way that Larian will be able to guage how broad or narrow their market is, and how well or poorly their design decisions are received by different market segments.

Ideally, Larian will provide enough optional gameplay settings to allow most players to feel comfortable with the game, but if your expectations diverge too greatly from the EA experience, you should expect to be disappointed.

Larian have never said they cannot implement the 5e rules exactly; tabletop RPG rules sets are sometimes exhaustive, but rarely exceed simple arithmetic in mathematical complexity. What they have said is that the 5e rules do not always work well for the game they are making and the broad audience they are aiming to please.

Unlike Solasta, whose audience will likely be dominated by PnP players, BG3 is an expensive production that needs a broader audience, most of whome will be mainstream videogame players. Larian could not make BG3 based on the Solasta sales model.

With such a broad audience, I doubt there will be consensus on anything very much.

Oh, I can't believe I'm seeing the voice of truth on this forum.
Posted By: Azariel Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 01:06 AM
I agree with those stating that the size and scope of this game in the current era likely won't be successful enough sticking to a fully faithful interpretation of the 5e rules. That said I do think there are some changes that do make sense that won't hurt their standard gamer fan and will address at least some of the concerns from the D&D and BG fans.

Most of these have been mentioned but I will also add my thoughts as someone who never really played the original BG series and someone who, while interested, has never played a full campaign of D&D (started one but the group fell apart.)

1: resting, for the love of god this is something that is stupid in it's current state. short rests are useless because you can simply long rest w/o consequence. Not only that the game actively encourages you to take long rests every 15 feet as over half the EA story plays out in camp. The amount of content I missed cause I thought long resting was something that should be done sparingly is staggering. This is especially weird because of the time-crunch the game appears to put on you (turning into a Mind Flayer and all that.) I thought I would be playing around spell slots trying to save them for good opportunities. Nah, just spam all the spell slots and take a long rest every fight... (honestly I thought Fallout 4 felt like it was rushing you to do the MSQ without detours but BG3 takes it to a whole other level.)

2: Reactions, not a lot to say about this other then it just doesn't work that well in it's current iteration.

3: Dipping, honestly I don't use this mechanic because I think it's tedious and adds nothing (except extra dmg) to gameplay. (coating weapons pre-fight in oil or poison could be a thing.) at least at that point me setting my sword on fire with a candle would at least make some semblance of sense.

4: Advantage, This is something I have thought about a fair bit from an outside perspective. On one hand I get it standing at someones flank would realistically give you an advantage on attacks, that's common sense. and in the Immortal words of Obi-Wan "It's over Anakin! I Have the high ground!.) High ground is also realistically advantageous. However, when playing I found this aspect a best tedious and at worst a pain in the ass. This was true in DOS2 as well and often takes me out of the immersion by repositioning my characters mid conversation (or before) into advantageous positions. in part because my ranger and mage would brilliantly be standing right next to the enemy at the start of the fight. (sometimes this would make sense like if we got ambushed but other times why is my archer standing face to face with a fighter when objectively the odds of a fight breaking out are high.) you could get around this is dos2 with shortish CD movement abilities so it wasn't that big a deal but in BG3 it uses a spell slot which you would ideally want to save. That's to say nothing about the fact that rogues/rangers have no such ability at least early on. With all that taken into account I feel elevation plays to big a roll in advantage especially with how the system works currently.

5: Action Economy, let's start by saying dash is largely awful.... Jump fills a similar roll and often does it better as it only uses a bonus action. This could be at least slightly solved if jumps range was limited by your movement per-turn. or used a full action. Only rogues (and maybe rangers?) should have sneak/stealth as a bonus action. (AI still needs to be less retarded.) for all other classes it should be a full action.

6: this is more of a personal preference after trying out solasta but I would like to see my rolls on screen (and not just the 20s and 1s) I noticed when playing solasta I was less frustrated when I missed a target when I was able to see the rolls. (this can maybe be a toggle-able option.)

Honestly, there are probably other changes that wouldn't effect the average CRPG player but would help alleviate some of the issues D&D and BG fans have but these are the things I can think of ATM.

Personally I like the game more or less as is. (with a few exceptions like resting being required for half the story plot.) But many of the things I mentioned I wouldn't have an issue if they did get changed to help alleviate the issues other fans have.
Posted By: Danielbda Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 02:24 PM
Originally Posted by etonbears
It was very clear from available game footage and developer interviews that BG3 was never intended to be a tabletop emulator, or a tabletop game-aid; unlike NWN/NWN2 which were both designed to be used in that way. There have been no guarantees of providing anything beyond a story-driven co-op RPG; everything else that has been mentioned by Larian is aspiration, at best.

If anyone posting here thought there was a promise to implement 5e closely, then that is wishful thinking.

Larian have never said they cannot implement the 5e rules exactly; tabletop RPG rules sets are sometimes exhaustive, but rarely exceed simple arithmetic in mathematical complexity. What they have said is that the 5e rules do not always work well for the game they are making and the broad audience they are aiming to please.

.
Two points here:
One can wonder why WotC went with Larian given the intention of not adapting the 5e rules, or why they did not enforce a faithful adaptation, which would be better for their product (the D&D books).
IMO that's a bad strategy from Larian and WotC. D&D has an estimated 40 million playerbase, if they went with a faithful adaptation, they would be drawing from the D&D and CRPG public, and a fraction of this would make a smash hit. DOS playerbase is much smaller, so it seems strange to focus on those, given that probably a large share would buy the game regardless.
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Two points here:
One can wonder why WotC went with Larian given the intention of not adapting the 5e rules, or why they did not enforce a faithful adaptation, which would be better for their product (the D&D books).
IMO that's a bad strategy from Larian and WotC. D&D has an estimated 40 million playerbase, if they went with a faithful adaptation, they would be drawing from the D&D and CRPG public, and a fraction of this would make a smash hit. DOS playerbase is much smaller, so it seems strange to focus on those, given that probably a large share would buy the game regardless.

This analysis has a couple of assumptions:

1) A "faithful adaptation" is required to draw the D&D crowd

2) The perception of BG3 is that it's more Larian/DOS than D&D

We have to remember the bias intrinsic to the people posting on these forums right now - we are literally a minority of die-hard nerds posting endlessly on a forum for a game that's in EA, months in without an update

There are many D&D players who don't even recall or understand the abilities of their own characters, nevermind care about what the RAW ruling of X and Y is. What "Larianisms" that sticks out to some people here like a sore thumb, can just be a "oh look, a fun house rule" for many other players.

There are lot of D&D players who care so much more about the narrative and roleplaying more than the mechanics. In fact, on tabletop, a lot of discussion here would be labelled as people trying to "rule lawyering" a DM. Look at what Larian HAS been focusing on - the characters, their romances, and the narrative design. It would seem like for the majority of the public, that's what they care about most, over a few mechanical implementation.

I think it's safer to assume that both Larian and WoTC, who actually has the numbers (market research and the in-game feedback/data), has run them, and calculated this is the best strategy to move forward with. We don't actually know DOS 2 sales (steamspy says 2-5 million), and the 40 million D&D playerbase number is an overaching number with no details. If WoTC has done their market research correctly they'd have a good understanding of what the breakdown of that 40 million is, and have segmented it properly to know who are likely to buy a D&D videogame, and thus strategized accordingly to their needs.
Posted By: etonbears Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 05:39 PM
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Originally Posted by etonbears
It was very clear from available game footage and developer interviews that BG3 was never intended to be a tabletop emulator, or a tabletop game-aid; unlike NWN/NWN2 which were both designed to be used in that way. There have been no guarantees of providing anything beyond a story-driven co-op RPG; everything else that has been mentioned by Larian is aspiration, at best.

If anyone posting here thought there was a promise to implement 5e closely, then that is wishful thinking.

Larian have never said they cannot implement the 5e rules exactly; tabletop RPG rules sets are sometimes exhaustive, but rarely exceed simple arithmetic in mathematical complexity. What they have said is that the 5e rules do not always work well for the game they are making and the broad audience they are aiming to please.

.
Two points here:
One can wonder why WotC went with Larian given the intention of not adapting the 5e rules, or why they did not enforce a faithful adaptation, which would be better for their product (the D&D books).
IMO that's a bad strategy from Larian and WotC. D&D has an estimated 40 million playerbase, if they went with a faithful adaptation, they would be drawing from the D&D and CRPG public, and a fraction of this would make a smash hit. DOS playerbase is much smaller, so it seems strange to focus on those, given that probably a large share would buy the game regardless.

On point 1 (why would WotC go with Larian), I'd say several things:
- they talked about and agreed the game approach and modifications ( according to Swen )
- any publicity is good publicity
- they want to cross-sell to people that don't already play DnD
- WotC may simply not be as dogmatic and purist as some of their players

It is also worth pointing out that recent DnD videogame products have included new 2e and 3.5e content from Beamdog, so WotC are clearly not only interested in 5e licencing.

On point 2 (addressable market), I was unable to find any original link to anything that supports the 40M number ( it was not in the Bloomberg story that your link referenced ), and the figure is not properly explained either.

The real number of players is unknowable, and must be estimated. The last time I saw credible figures that appeared to quote WotC directly, about year before the Bloomberg article, the active player base was estimated at 10M for 5e, and 5M for all other editions. Most likely, if the 40M was a 2018 WotC estimate, it included inactive players that used to play DnD ( which would include me, last played 2e on the TT ).

As a comparison market size, the active videogame player base is conservatively estimated at 300M ( Ignoring the players who only like things like candy crush / angry birds ).

Relatively few videogame players will buy BG3, and relatively few DnD players will buy BG3; but the disparity in market sizes does show where the potential is, and that matters when making design decisions.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 06:12 PM
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.
Posted By: etonbears Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

I think players often project their own assumptions on WotC that are not necessarily true ( unless you have some solid evidence to suggest they only want 5e products, of course ). WotC make money from all DnD properties, and they get publicity from all DnD properties; why would they not want that ?
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 09:08 PM
Yeah it’s quite possible WotC weighed up the overall benefits and judged that onboarding a greater number of new players to some version of D&D, even if it’s a looser ‘Larian’ rendition, is better than avoiding some potential confusion or backlash due to rules variation.
Posted By: nation Re: Is this really the consensus? - 07/02/21 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Yeah it’s quite possible WotC weighed up the overall benefits and judged that onboarding a greater number of new players to some version of D&D, even if it’s a looser ‘Larian’ rendition, is better than avoiding some potential confusion or backlash due to rules variation.
i really hope this isnt the wotc thought process or business strategy - idk if sales of larian's interpretation of dnd 5e via a video game medium will also lead to increased sales of wotc tabletop products. sure there may be some increased interest in wotc dnd 5e products once bg3 launches, but i just wonder if that growth wouldnt also occur naturally (and potentially at an increased rate) if larian's bg3 product more closely reflected the 5e tool/ruleset (specifically the combat/spells and rest mechanics most glaringly, imo)

still, looking forward to what the next patch/update adds to the ea experience - as an aside, i hope the next update allows us to get to lvl 5 and open up multiclassing, as i think it would add a bunch of hours of ea content
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: Is this really the consensus? - 08/02/21 08:37 AM
Its funny how people mention valid complaints and feedback WHICH NATURALLY ARE NEGATIVE about the game are labeled as <toxic>...
The toxicity ironicly is opposite to that. People who smell roses 24/7 , the forums is a place to just make you feel happy and cosy making friends...everything is peachy.
This is a forum to gather feedback on a ongoing game being made, a game that is incomplete and that people already bought to test run. A game that is quite underwhelmingly carrying a BG1 and BG2 legacy on its shoulders.
This isnt tea time with grandma and I love you Larian time.

The bar of once great studios has sadly already been set VERY VERY low with Cyberpunk...Hopefully it wont get any lower.

And by the way, we are nearing the 6 month mark on this <alpha> version of the game. I am not seing major changes to anything. Little tweaks this and that, and bug fixes...so yea people are worried and complaining.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 08/02/21 11:07 AM
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

I think players often project their own assumptions on WotC that are not necessarily true ( unless you have some solid evidence to suggest they only want 5e products, of course ). WotC make money from all DnD properties, and they get publicity from all DnD properties; why would they not want that ?

SoD was developed as DLC for the old game. The NwN module is DLC. That's not the same as a new game.

Beamdog has literally said themselves that using 2nd ed for new products is off the table. WotC doesn't want it, they want to promote their current line of dnd.
Posted By: Gt27mustang Re: Is this really the consensus? - 08/02/21 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

SoD was an expansion, not a stand alone game. It simply used the same AD&D rules as the game that came before and after in the same saga. For NWN, my guess is that it is a new module of an existing engine\ruleset. I also don't think they would be allowed to use 5E if they made a brand new game from the ground up.
Posted By: dwig Re: Is this really the consensus? - 08/02/21 11:00 PM
I do think that Larrian would be better off making the game faithful to 5E. However, I will be satisfied with a DoS/5E hybrid provided they implement enough features and moding hooks to allow grognards to fix HP bloat, AC, and barrels with mods as they desire.
Posted By: Niara Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 12:20 AM
Imagine if WotC gave this to Larian, whose basic opinion seems to be that many of them think that playing 5e D&D is not fun, full in the knowledge that they would completely butcher their implementation of the ruleset, because they knew the studio's history of functionally an entirely different but similar genre of game (and subsequent fan base), along with the hype legacy of Baldur's Gate would be guaranteed to bring in both large crowds of existing D&D fans, and a large audience of people from other styles who stand the chance of becoming interested in D&D as a result - and they knew that in doing this, the largest, loudest volume of player outcry would be those familiar with D&D telling all of the others that the game would be so much better and more engaging and more fun if they'd only tried to create a more faithful interpretation of the 5e ruleset... Because then at least a significant portion of that untapped legion who don't already play D&D and buy their books, would be more likely to be tempted to do so, in response to being presented with a shoddy example that was kinda fun but also meh, and being told that the actual game system is much better, by so many people.

Just a morning before-I've had-tea thought...
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
Imagine if WotC gave this to Larian, whose basic opinion seems to be that many of them think that playing 5e D&D is not fun, full in the knowledge that they would completely butcher their implementation of the ruleset, because they knew the studio's history of functionally an entirely different but similar genre of game (and subsequent fan base), along with the hype legacy of Baldur's Gate would be guaranteed to bring in both large crowds of existing D&D fans, and a large audience of people from other styles who stand the chance of becoming interested in D&D as a result - and they knew that in doing this, the largest, loudest volume of player outcry would be those familiar with D&D telling all of the others that the game would be so much better and more engaging and more fun if they'd only tried to create a more faithful interpretation of the 5e ruleset... Because then at least a significant portion of that untapped legion who don't already play D&D and buy their books, would be more likely to be tempted to do so, in response to being presented with a shoddy example that was kinda fun but also meh, and being told that the actual game system is much better, by so many people.

Just a morning before-I've had-tea thought...

Now we’re getting the big brain theories. Either way WotC wins – on one hand they get a faithful 5E simulator that can be built upon for other adventures, DM mode, VTT, etc – or on the other hand they get a shoddy product that drives consumers to their superior tabletop game. I think you’ve nailed it.
Posted By: Innateagle Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 05:03 AM
I think Larian doesn't care too much about tabletop rules because most people don't care about it. Show me 10 people who want a 5d thing in there and i'll show you 100 who want more hair options kinda thing. And both of those groups probably aren't even the majority of players.

But then again i believe quite strongly their market is Dragon Age's audience and not DND/old-school BG fans (would explain why the game has more mechanics in common with Origins than BG), so as long as they don't provide worse gameplay than Inquisition it's likely most aren't even gonna know it wasn't faithful/could have been better.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 07:23 AM
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I think Larian doesn't care too much about tabletop rules because most people don't care about it. Show me 10 people who want a 5d thing in there and i'll show you 100 who want more hair options kinda thing. And both of those groups probably aren't even the majority of players.

But then again i believe quite strongly their market is Dragon Age's audience and not DND/old-school BG fans (would explain why the game has more mechanics in common with Origins than BG), so as long as they don't provide worse gameplay than Inquisition it's likely most aren't even gonna know it wasn't faithful/could have been better.

This is probably it.

More people care about their virtual dress up doll getting laid, than if the gameplay is good.

My only hope at this point, is that modders can salvage this title.

I'll be playing Kingmaker, or IWD, or BG2, or working on my own setting.

What a disappointment this is EA has been.
Posted By: DiDiDi Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 12:57 PM
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I think Larian doesn't care too much about tabletop rules because most people don't care about it. Show me 10 people who want a 5d thing in there and i'll show you 100 who want more hair options kinda thing. And both of those groups probably aren't even the majority of players.

But then again i believe quite strongly their market is Dragon Age's audience and not DND/old-school BG fans (would explain why the game has more mechanics in common with Origins than BG), so as long as they don't provide worse gameplay than Inquisition it's likely most aren't even gonna know it wasn't faithful/could have been better.
Agreed. frown Let's at least hope that there's still more people that want a good RPG (regardless of how much faithful to 5e it is) than there's waifu-seekers that want a dating sim.

I also believe that besides some people that want a faithful 5e implementation just for the sake of the game being FR/D&D/BG3, there are (or WILL be) many people like me who realize that after 20+ hours of playing, the combat just really blows and that making it more like 5e and less than DOS might be one feasible way to improve it.
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
[quote=Innateagle]

I also believe that besides some people that want a faithful 5e implementation just for the sake of the game being FR/D&D/BG3, there are (or WILL be) many people like me who realize that after 20+ hours of playing, the combat just really blows and that making it more like 5e and less than DOS might be one feasible way to improve it.

Larian actually built some really slick systems in DOS – all the buffing/debuffing, countering elements etc. Hugely strategic and perfect for a turn-based game. Unfortunately D&D is a lot more convoluted, I can see why it would take them some time to transition across. Heck, D&D Beyond only just added advantage/disadvantage on skills after several years and they’re only building a character sheet. There are a LOT of systems that need to interplay correctly and many, many exceptions and edge cases. I’m going to remain optimistic that they just need more time.
Posted By: etonbears Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

I think players often project their own assumptions on WotC that are not necessarily true ( unless you have some solid evidence to suggest they only want 5e products, of course ). WotC make money from all DnD properties, and they get publicity from all DnD properties; why would they not want that ?

SoD was developed as DLC for the old game. The NwN module is DLC. That's not the same as a new game.

Beamdog has literally said themselves that using 2nd ed for new products is off the table. WotC doesn't want it, they want to promote their current line of dnd.

I have no clue what the licencing deals are, because they are commercially confidential. However, the fact remains that new content has appeared for old rules systems, and WotC have not created friction.

Similarly, since the 5e TT rules were introduced, I have seen 4 new videogames using DnD/FR branding that don't use ANY of the DnD rulesets, never mind 5e.

Even the videogame that WotC themselves released uses poker-dice mechanics rather than DnD rules. It seems to me that they are most focussed on ensuring that the current FR Story/World State/Characters that accompany their 5e games is used consistently, rather than making everything use the 5e ruleset.

WotC have said themselves that they want people to consume the DnD/FR brand in whatever way appeals to them, and have made it available in many forms other than just the TT rules.

Solasta seems most clearly a videogame product designed to appeal to TT players, whereas the "Larian-style" DnD seems less clearly liked by TT players.

But maybe TT players are not even the audience WotC want to reach with BG3? Maybe it's the several million that played BG1/2? Maybe it's the nearly 20 Million that have played ( or still play ) Neverwinter with it's modified 4e ruleset? Or the tens of Millions that choose games based on recommendations from the videogames media, who are less likely to be effusive with a strict 5e interpretation?

Or maybe "Dungeons and Dragons:Dice Adventures" is the shape of things to come? Perhaps it's foreshadowing the release of an all-new 6e Ultra-streamline edition DnD based on poker-dice ( just $49.99 fo a full set!). wink
Posted By: etonbears Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
Imagine if WotC gave this to Larian, whose basic opinion seems to be that many of them think that playing 5e D&D is not fun, full in the knowledge that they would completely butcher their implementation of the ruleset, because they knew the studio's history of functionally an entirely different but similar genre of game (and subsequent fan base), along with the hype legacy of Baldur's Gate would be guaranteed to bring in both large crowds of existing D&D fans, and a large audience of people from other styles who stand the chance of becoming interested in D&D as a result - and they knew that in doing this, the largest, loudest volume of player outcry would be those familiar with D&D telling all of the others that the game would be so much better and more engaging and more fun if they'd only tried to create a more faithful interpretation of the 5e ruleset... Because then at least a significant portion of that untapped legion who don't already play D&D and buy their books, would be more likely to be tempted to do so, in response to being presented with a shoddy example that was kinda fun but also meh, and being told that the actual game system is much better, by so many people.

Just a morning before-I've had-tea thought...

Yep, that's something along the lines of the way WotC seem to have been operating in the last decade.

Like any other company, they want to find ways to drive product sales, and crowd-sourcing their marketing is certainly part of it. They seem more inclusive and less hardcore in their views than some of their players!
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 11:13 PM
Originally Posted by etonbears
[quote=Niara]
Like any other company, they want to find ways to drive product sales, and crowd-sourcing their marketing is certainly part of it. They seem more inclusive and less hardcore in their views than some of their players!

I’m sure the likes of Jeremy Crawford would love to see a faithful adaptation... but the higher ups at Hasbro are probably like, meh?

Mike Mearls appeared to be the one who kicked off BG3 with Larian, he was fairly rules-focused. That’s all history now though.
Posted By: etonbears Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
[quote=Innateagle]

I also believe that besides some people that want a faithful 5e implementation just for the sake of the game being FR/D&D/BG3, there are (or WILL be) many people like me who realize that after 20+ hours of playing, the combat just really blows and that making it more like 5e and less than DOS might be one feasible way to improve it.

Larian actually built some really slick systems in DOS – all the buffing/debuffing, countering elements etc. Hugely strategic and perfect for a turn-based game. Unfortunately D&D is a lot more convoluted, I can see why it would take them some time to transition across. Heck, D&D Beyond only just added advantage/disadvantage on skills after several years and they’re only building a character sheet. There are a LOT of systems that need to interplay correctly and many, many exceptions and edge cases. I’m going to remain optimistic that they just need more time.

I wouldn't bet on it! Swen described their dev process as building general systems for content, then putting them together to see what players can do with them. That sort of approach can lead to many edge and corner cases with a ruleset like DnD which is not designed in the same systematic manner.

Personally I'm OK with the current implementation except for auto-reactions, which needs some thought.

I would also like to see what would happen if the ADV/DISADV system was modified so a single source did not negate ALL opposing sources. I don't mean double or triple advantage that some 5e players apparently use, but it seems that e.g. 4 x ADV against 1 x DISADV should still result in an ADV role.

Might make some of the Larian-added sources of ADV/DISADV less irksome?

Might also get me roasted by super-irate hardcore 5e players wink
Posted By: DragonSnooz Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 11:40 PM
Originally Posted by etonbears
Personally I'm OK with the current implementation except for auto-reactions, which needs some thought.

I would also like to see what would happen if the ADV/DISADV system was modified so a single source did not negate ALL opposing sources. I don't mean double or triple advantage that some 5e players apparently use, but it seems that e.g. 4 x ADV against 1 x DISADV should still result in an ADV role.

Might make some of the Larian-added sources of ADV/DISADV less irksome?

Might also get me roasted by super-irate hardcore 5e players wink
I think most forum visitors are in agreement reactions can be improved.

The issue is more that advantage and disadvantage being everywhere undermines spells and abilities, that's why it's irksome. It's too easy to get advantage and you end up repeating these new best strategies over and over again. There is no incentive to deviate strategy.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Is this really the consensus? - 09/02/21 11:42 PM
Originally Posted by booboo
Yep, I think if they'd stated in the EA that BG3 was only loosely connected to 5E rules, people would be less bothered. I played all the content, and initially enjoyed it, but was increasingly put off by the many things that are patently not 5E and overpowered/game-balance breaking. And clearly inserted because they were 'cool'.
It would have been preferable if they had made that more clear. I remember reading something that said they wanted to be as close as possible to 5e, so the differences stood out to me as being wrong or needing to be fixed. There are definitely things I would prefer to be closer to 5e and some that need fixing, but I also understand that some things need a bit of modification to fit into a video game.

Originally Posted by Niara
Imagine if WotC gave this to Larian, whose basic opinion seems to be that many of them think that playing 5e D&D is not fun, full in the knowledge that they would completely butcher their implementation of the ruleset, because they knew the studio's history of functionally an entirely different but similar genre of game (and subsequent fan base), along with the hype legacy of Baldur's Gate would be guaranteed to bring in both large crowds of existing D&D fans, and a large audience of people from other styles who stand the chance of becoming interested in D&D as a result - and they knew that in doing this, the largest, loudest volume of player outcry would be those familiar with D&D telling all of the others that the game would be so much better and more engaging and more fun if they'd only tried to create a more faithful interpretation of the 5e ruleset... Because then at least a significant portion of that untapped legion who don't already play D&D and buy their books, would be more likely to be tempted to do so, in response to being presented with a shoddy example that was kinda fun but also meh, and being told that the actual game system is much better, by so many people.

Just a morning before-I've had-tea thought...
This would make sense. laugh

Originally Posted by Scribe
More people care about their virtual dress up doll getting laid, than if the gameplay is good.
The scary thing is that you are probably right. frown Would rather they leave the detailed parts of this crap to modders and work on actual gameplay.

Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Let's at least hope that there's still more people that want a good RPG (regardless of how much faithful to 5e it is) than there's waifu-seekers that want a dating sim.
Might want to hope that those of us that want real gameplay are the ones to be heard. For those that want the dating sim crap, it is already in game and not being taken away from you, so let the rest of us have actual gameplay. It is already bad enough that we have that stuff shoved down our throats at character creation with the "who do you dream of", which apparently means "who do you want to fuck", not who you may actually dream of.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 10/02/21 09:14 AM
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

I think players often project their own assumptions on WotC that are not necessarily true ( unless you have some solid evidence to suggest they only want 5e products, of course ). WotC make money from all DnD properties, and they get publicity from all DnD properties; why would they not want that ?

SoD was developed as DLC for the old game. The NwN module is DLC. That's not the same as a new game.

Beamdog has literally said themselves that using 2nd ed for new products is off the table. WotC doesn't want it, they want to promote their current line of dnd.

I have no clue what the licencing deals are, because they are commercially confidential. However, the fact remains that new content has appeared for old rules systems, and WotC have not created friction.

Similarly, since the 5e TT rules were introduced, I have seen 4 new videogames using DnD/FR branding that don't use ANY of the DnD rulesets, never mind 5e.

Even the videogame that WotC themselves released uses poker-dice mechanics rather than DnD rules. It seems to me that they are most focussed on ensuring that the current FR Story/World State/Characters that accompany their 5e games is used consistently, rather than making everything use the 5e ruleset.

WotC have said themselves that they want people to consume the DnD/FR brand in whatever way appeals to them, and have made it available in many forms other than just the TT rules.

Solasta seems most clearly a videogame product designed to appeal to TT players, whereas the "Larian-style" DnD seems less clearly liked by TT players.

But maybe TT players are not even the audience WotC want to reach with BG3? Maybe it's the several million that played BG1/2? Maybe it's the nearly 20 Million that have played ( or still play ) Neverwinter with it's modified 4e ruleset? Or the tens of Millions that choose games based on recommendations from the videogames media, who are less likely to be effusive with a strict 5e interpretation?

Or maybe "Dungeons and Dragons:Dice Adventures" is the shape of things to come? Perhaps it's foreshadowing the release of an all-new 6e Ultra-streamline edition DnD based on poker-dice ( just $49.99 fo a full set!). wink

Phillip Daigle probably has a pretty good idea how WotC feel about it.
Posted By: Imryll Re: Is this really the consensus? - 10/02/21 01:06 PM
I personally would rather Larian focus on making a fun game, not a DnD simulator. I also like the party of four. While some groups are more vocal than others, I think that the forums make it clear that the notion of there being a consensus is illusory and/or wishful thinking.
Posted By: Lunar Dante Re: Is this really the consensus? - 10/02/21 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by Imryll
I personally would rather Larian focus on making a fun game, not a DnD simulator.

Good news, we know that both are possible, thanks to Solasta.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 10/02/21 02:21 PM
Originally Posted by Imryll
I personally would rather Larian focus on making a fun game, not a DnD simulator.

Unfortunately for that false dichotomy the main way of making BG3 more fun is to make it more true to 5e.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 05:16 AM
The argument that 'BG 3 doesnt need to be 5e rules' is nonsense. Its saying 'we cannot use 5e rules as the game will reach less people' but that is neither provable, nor remotely likely at all.

You want to reach people who are interested in Baldurs Gate? Well other than a cheap name drop (check) they could implement the rules that are current. 5e.
You want to reach people who are into D&D now? 5e.
You want to reach people who are into turn based games with depth? Solasta proves what? 5e.
You want to reach people who play video games? Well...they dont care, they play whatever, so no harm in guess what? 5e.

Honestly unless the next update says 'we hear you, we will fix things and get closer to 5e' then its just an admission of lack of effort. They never tried. Its not like they built the game into 5e and cut back. No, they built on top of the engine and rules they are already used to.

Its PAINFUL levels of obvious.

Either implement the rules set appropriately, or make sure mod creators can do the job for you after the fact.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 07:40 AM
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Imryll
I personally would rather Larian focus on making a fun game, not a DnD simulator.

Unfortunately for that false dichotomy the main way of making BG3 more fun is to make it more true to 5e.
Can the argument, "but this is fun" please die in a fire somewhere and never come back. In case people are not aware, fun is entirely subjective. I hate MOBAs and FPS. Last I checked those are both very popular game genres. I would bet most of the people playing them, are having a lot of fun, despite my hatred of the genre. Some people enjoy stabbing themselves. I am sure that the majority of us do not. "Fun," is not an argument for anything, so please lets leave it out of the thread since its not something which is objectively measurable and nor does it move the discussion anywhere.
Originally Posted by Scribe
The argument that 'BG 3 doesnt need to be 5e rules' is nonsense.
Its not nonsense though, because strictly speaking, no games "need" to use any specific ruleset at all. Using a ruleset is a choice and there are both pros and cons to making any choice.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Its saying 'we cannot use 5e rules as the game will reach less people' but that is neither provable, nor remotely likely at all.
That may be one reason, but there are also plenty of other reasons you could choose to change rules. Its actually fairly likely that if they made the game significantly shallower it would have a larger audience, just look at games like Skyrim for example. The trend from Daggerfell -> Morrowind -> Oblivion -> Skyrim was to dumb the series down and it seems like the public at large loves it. WoTC also agrees with this idea, since the whole purpose of 4 and 5e was to dumb down 3.5 and make it more accessible. Whenever 6e comes, you can almost certainly bet it will dumb itself down even further.
Originally Posted by Scribe
You want to reach people who are interested in Baldurs Gate? Well other than a cheap name drop (check) they could implement the rules that are current. 5e.
Die hard fans of the original games want 2e, not 5e. Hell will freeze over before WoTC allows a company to make a game using the 2e rules, but thats another story entirely.
Originally Posted by Scribe
You want to reach people who are into D&D now? 5e.
If you poll people of any edition of D&D, the majority of players actually, by and large do not care at all about rules purity. Their main draw to the game is the social interactions with other people, which may explain Larian's heavy focus on multiplayer.
Originally Posted by Scribe
You want to reach people who are into turn based games with depth? Solasta proves what? 5e.
Actually, Solasta proves that you can make a financially successful game (although likely not sell 2m+ copies or at AAA graphic/audio quality), which appeals to the niche subset of players who do care about rules purity. Solasta is not a complex game. 5e is just dumbed down 3.5e and even then, none of these games (neither BG3 nor Solasta) are mechanically deep. These are not 4x games with high levels of strategy and long term planning. There may be more emphasis on what you do on the micro level, but the macro level is completely devoid. With that being said, I can enjoy both games (BG 3 and Solasta) for what they are trying to do, but I will never pretend that they are games which are trying to sell depth - they are not.
Originally Posted by Scribe
You want to reach people who play video games? Well...they dont care, they play whatever, so no harm in guess what? 5e.
Whilst the general public may not care about specific details on a micro level (for example, whether you can dip weapons or not), there are certain themes and trends which can be observed in the general public and which its very clear Larian is aware of. For example, the hatred of (and inability to understand) RNG. 4x games manipulate RNG because of player cognitive biases against RNG. So do FPS, Squad based tactics games like XCom and even racing games. You can find quotes from developers of very successful games in pretty much every genre of gaming stating that players hate RNG, which is why its one of larian's primary focuses.

We also know that the majority of people who play RPGs do not finish them, which sadly, heavily promotes front loading the good experience. It doesn't matter if the last 70% of the game is bad because 90% of players will only play the first 30% and if that leaves them with a good impression, then the chances are they will buy the sequel.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Honestly unless the next update says 'we hear you, we will fix things and get closer to 5e' then its just an admission of lack of effort.
Just because someone is listening to you, doesn't mean they will always agree with you.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Either implement the rules set appropriately, or make sure mod creators can do the job for you after the fact.
Fortunately for you, they have already said mod compatibility will be something that has a high level of priority.
Posted By: Lunar Dante Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 07:54 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp
Can the argument, "but this is fun" please die in a fire somewhere and never come back. In case people are not aware, fun is entirely subjective. I hate MOBAs and FPS. Last I checked those are both very popular game genres. I would bet most of the people playing them, are having a lot of fun, despite my hatred of the genre. Some people enjoy stabbing themselves. I am sure that the majority of us do not. "Fun," is not an argument for anything, so please lets leave it out of the thread since its not something which is objectively measurable and nor does it move the discussion anywhere.

smile
I am so happy to read that. Because, you know, it is Larian's argument. They said they do not follow d&d rules because it is more fun.
Funny, isn't it ?
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 08:06 AM
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
Originally Posted by Sharp
Can the argument, "but this is fun" please die in a fire somewhere and never come back. In case people are not aware, fun is entirely subjective. I hate MOBAs and FPS. Last I checked those are both very popular game genres. I would bet most of the people playing them, are having a lot of fun, despite my hatred of the genre. Some people enjoy stabbing themselves. I am sure that the majority of us do not. "Fun," is not an argument for anything, so please lets leave it out of the thread since its not something which is objectively measurable and nor does it move the discussion anywhere.

smile
I am so happy to read that. Because, you know, it is Larian's argument. They said they do not follow d&d rules because it is more fun.
Funny, isn't it ?
I don't really care which side is using the argument (there are people on both side who say that something must stay a certain way because its more fun), I would just appreciate if it stopped happening. I imagine they probably did have reasons for making changes aside from just "well fun," (in fact, I could write my own argument for either side were I so inclined) but writing a full on technical analysis of why a change is made takes time away from someone whose time is likely better spent doing something else and so the "but its fun" got used as a cop out. Better that they had not said anything at all however, if they could not get the relevant person to write out their explanation for why.
Posted By: daMichi Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 10:35 AM
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
Originally Posted by Sharp
Can the argument, "but this is fun" please die in a fire somewhere and never come back. In case people are not aware, fun is entirely subjective. I hate MOBAs and FPS. Last I checked those are both very popular game genres. I would bet most of the people playing them, are having a lot of fun, despite my hatred of the genre. Some people enjoy stabbing themselves. I am sure that the majority of us do not. "Fun," is not an argument for anything, so please lets leave it out of the thread since its not something which is objectively measurable and nor does it move the discussion anywhere.

smile
I am so happy to read that. Because, you know, it is Larian's argument. They said they do not follow d&d rules because it is more fun.
Funny, isn't it ?

I wanted to say the same thing 😁
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 02:02 PM
Originally Posted by Sharp
Fortunately for you, they have already said mod compatibility will be something that has a high level of priority.

Frankly, this is all that matters.
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by daMichi
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
Originally Posted by Sharp
Can the argument, "but this is fun" please die in a fire somewhere and never come back. In case people are not aware, fun is entirely subjective. I hate MOBAs and FPS. Last I checked those are both very popular game genres. I would bet most of the people playing them, are having a lot of fun, despite my hatred of the genre. Some people enjoy stabbing themselves. I am sure that the majority of us do not. "Fun," is not an argument for anything, so please lets leave it out of the thread since its not something which is objectively measurable and nor does it move the discussion anywhere.

smile
I am so happy to read that. Because, you know, it is Larian's argument. They said they do not follow d&d rules because it is more fun.
Funny, isn't it ?

I wanted to say the same thing 😁

Ehh, I'm not sure framing this like it's a formal debate between us and Larian - where both sides are required to present sound arguments - is really the correct way to look at this.

100% agree that Larian's vision for BG3 is based on their subjective definition of "more fun"

The difference is, between us and Larian, only Larian is actually making the game. If both parties are just offering subjective opinions, why the heck would Larian follow our subjective opinion over their own? Especially when we do not represent the majority of consumers.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 03:00 PM
Originally Posted by Topgoon
The difference is, between us and Larian, only Larian is actually making the game. If both parties are just offering subjective opinions, why the heck would Larian follow our subjective opinion over their own? Especially when we do not represent the majority of consumers.

The majority won't care.

The argument presented is false. 'oh pure 5e is less fun'

They don't know that. They didn't implement it. It's as hollow a statement as the name drop Baldur's Gate.

It's corporate speak.
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by Scribe
The majority won't care.

The argument presented is false. 'oh pure 5e is less fun'

There are no objective arguments presented by either side here that can be deemed true or false. Both camps (5e RAW is more fun) and (Changing 5e RAW can be more fun) are subjective opinions.

The only objective truth here is that 5E Raw isn't perfect, and neither is Larian's adaptation. However, it is perfectly reasonable for Larian to choose to follow their own subjective opinion over others, or what they deem to be the majority's subjective opinion.


Originally Posted by Scribe
They don't know that. They didn't implement it. It's as hollow a statement as the name drop Baldur's Gate.

It's corporate speak.

From a PCGamesn Interview, Swen said the following:

Quote
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.

The cool thing we found is that a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, actually survived the translation, so I think that if you like Dungeons and Dragons and you want to play BG3, you’re going to be happy.

If we are to believe Larian, then they did start with RAW, but made adjustments prior to making it into EA.

You can choose to assume that they are lying in that interview. However, if that is your position, that one: they are lying, and two: they never had any desire to implement 5e RAW, then realistically, it might be best to disengage until you see an in-game update from them that proves this position wrong.
Posted By: CopperCrate Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 04:11 PM
The "Pure 5E is the only way to save this game" posts in this thread approach self parody.
Want to educate your children and ensure your place in heaven? 5E
Want to lose weight and restore your hairline? 5E
5E must be implemented in all games for always ever even chess and Fortnite or the human race is doomed!

Seriously. 5E is not the only way D&D has ever been played and I guarantee you, sure as sunshine, there will eventually be a 6th edition and its rules will be, horror of horrors, Different!

On a related note, I do really love when people use "homebrew" as a pejorative. The entirety of roleplaying games descend from Dave Arneson's homebrew game Blackmoor and Gygax selling his homebrew version of Blackmoor as D&D. There may be DMs somewhere out there who only follow the rules of 5th Edition with zero deviations, but that's not the tradition. People have always adjusted the rules for their own games, whether they were PnP with three players or AAA games with 3 million. Larian's got every right to adjust the rules to suit their needs and some of us, as players, have every right to enjoy it. Whether or not other games have used different editions or implementations of the current edition doesn't deny them that right.
Posted By: daMichi Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 04:59 PM
Originally Posted by Topgoon
From a PCGamesn Interview, Swen said the following:

Quote
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.

The cool thing we found is that a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, actually survived the translation, so I think that if you like Dungeons and Dragons and you want to play BG3, you’re going to be happy.

If we are to believe Larian, then they did start with RAW, but made adjustments prior to making it into EA.

You can choose to assume that they are lying in that interview. However, if that is your position, that one: they are lying, and two: they never had any desire to implement 5e RAW, then realistically, it might be best to disengage until you see an in-game update from them that proves this position wrong.

It's not that I believe they are lying, Sven's statement just rises more questions than it answers.
How did they see it worked or didn't work? Did they implement every rule and class in the game? If I want to see if something works or not, I have to test it thoroughly. Or did they just test it on paper and thought - "oh, ok, that is probably not working in a vido game"?
If they implemented and tested everything in the game, why is it not in EA? If they did not implement everything and tested it, on what basis did they come to the conclusion something doesn't work?

For me that statements just doesnt add up.



Originally Posted by CopperCrate
On a related note, I do really love when people use "homebrew" as a pejorative. The entirety of roleplaying games descend from Dave Arneson's homebrew game Blackmoor and Gygax selling his homebrew version of Blackmoor as D&D. There may be DMs somewhere out there who only follow the rules of 5th Edition with zero deviations, but that's not the tradition. People have always adjusted the rules for their own games, whether they were PnP with three players or AAA games with 3 million. Larian's got every right to adjust the rules to suit their needs and some of us, as players, have every right to enjoy it. Whether or not other games have used different editions or implementations of the current edition doesn't deny them that right.

I think it was stated time and time again, that nobody who likes a more true 5e implementation is against homebrew stuff. It just needs to make sense.
If I imagine a situation like with some of the homebrew stuff Larian cooked up at a table, it would probably be rejected by most people (at least I play with). But thats what a Season 0 is for - to compromise on homebrew stuff. Right now we are in EA - kind of season 0 regarding the game, at least thats how I see it.

EDIT:
Session 0, not season 0
Posted By: dwig Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by Topgoon
The difference is, between us and Larian, only Larian is actually making the game. If both parties are just offering subjective opinions, why the heck would Larian follow our subjective opinion over their own? Especially when we do not represent the majority of consumers.

The majority won't care.

The argument presented is false. 'oh pure 5e is less fun'

They don't know that. They didn't implement it. It's as hollow a statement as the name drop Baldur's Gate.

It's corporate speak.

Also, Solasta is fun, so claiming pure 5e isn't fun is flatly false.
Posted By: Peranor Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 05:02 PM
I love the dice rolls in BG3. But I'm in the minority there I think
Posted By: DuskHorseman Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by CopperCrate
The "Pure 5E is the only way to save this game" posts in this thread approach self parody.
Want to educate your children and ensure your place in heaven? 5E
Want to lose weight and restore your hairline? 5E
5E must be implemented in all games for always ever even chess and Fortnite or the human race is doomed!

Seriously. 5E is not the only way D&D has ever been played and I guarantee you, sure as sunshine, there will eventually be a 6th edition and its rules will be, horror of horrors, Different!

On a related note, I do really love when people use "homebrew" as a pejorative. The entirety of roleplaying games descend from Dave Arneson's homebrew game Blackmoor and Gygax selling his homebrew version of Blackmoor as D&D. There may be DMs somewhere out there who only follow the rules of 5th Edition with zero deviations, but that's not the tradition. People have always adjusted the rules for their own games, whether they were PnP with three players or AAA games with 3 million. Larian's got every right to adjust the rules to suit their needs and some of us, as players, have every right to enjoy it. Whether or not other games have used different editions or implementations of the current edition doesn't deny them that right.
Well spoken, friend.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 05:34 PM
Oh we certainly wouldn't want our arguments to turn into a parody....

As long as its all open to mods, I'm past caring.

Fix Movement Controls.
Make EVERYTHING open to Mods.

Races, Spells, Actions, Bonus Actions, items, Consumables, resting, all of it.

Then we can homebrew to our hearts content, while people play dress up, teleport to camp from inside a dungeon, and try and score with some NPCs.

Don't get me wrong Larian is making things pretty.

The gameplay isn't there though. The actual game, we play.
Posted By: Lunar Dante Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 07:31 PM
Good news for D&D5 (well it HAS to be good news) :
"Featuring Principal Rules Designer of Dungeons & Dragons Jeremy Crawford (D&D5 Respect Rules Man), Creative Director Swen Vincke ..."
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by dwig
Also, Solasta is fun, so claiming pure 5e isn't fun is flatly false.

+ 10,000

Right now I'm hoping that Solasta becomes such a success that its engine becomes the basis for new modules.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by dwig
Also, Solasta is fun, so claiming pure 5e isn't fun is flatly false.

+ 10,000

Right now I'm hoping that Solasta becomes such a success that its engine becomes the basis for new modules.

Is it open to Mods?
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 08:38 PM
Probably will be. But "open to mods" doesn't really mean anything to me.

If you need to mod to get the experience you want something is wrong with the core game.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 08:52 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Probably will be. But "open to mods" doesn't really mean anything to me.

If you need to mod to get the experience you want something is wrong with the core game.

The fact it's based on the SRD is why I ask. The SRD is very shallow. Mods would allow one to make what they want, while bypassing licensing.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 09:15 PM
Good point. I'm sure it will be -- it's unity based and there are plenty of mods for unity games.

Yeah, the biggest thing missing from the SRD is 1) the Forgotten Realms lore and 2) the battlemaster

So I could see someone modding the battlemaster. Having said that and while I'll always prefer Faerun to other settings I think devs have done a nice job within the limits of SRD. Hopefully they will get a crack at full license someday.
Posted By: nation Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Probably will be. But "open to mods" doesn't really mean anything to me.

If you need to mod to get the experience you want something is wrong with the core game.
+1 this. the whole 'modders will fix it' mentality can get wicked frustrating imho - now i love the modding community and the value that modders provide across various game genres, and obvs this doesnt apply in all scenarios, but to generally say 'modders will fix it' to deflect or ignore criticism of gaming mechanics while in an early access build doesnt do bg3 or the studio (allegedly) any favors
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Probably will be. But "open to mods" doesn't really mean anything to me.

If you need to mod to get the experience you want something is wrong with the core game.
+1 this. the whole 'modders will fix it' mentality can get wicked frustrating imho - now i love the modding community and the value that modders provide across various game genres, and obvs this doesnt apply in all scenarios, but to generally say 'modders will fix it' to deflect or ignore criticism of gaming mechanics while in an early access build doesnt do bg3 or the studio (allegedly) any favors

Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all accepting this state of the game.

I simply doubt the Devs will fix it.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 10:03 PM
While we're on the topic of mods, how moddable is DOS2? Are we talking Never Winter Nights level or Skyrim? Will BG3 be as moddable as those games?
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 10:28 PM
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Originally Posted by daMichi
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
Originally Posted by Sharp
Can the argument, "but this is fun" please die in a fire somewhere and never come back. In case people are not aware, fun is entirely subjective. I hate MOBAs and FPS. Last I checked those are both very popular game genres. I would bet most of the people playing them, are having a lot of fun, despite my hatred of the genre. Some people enjoy stabbing themselves. I am sure that the majority of us do not. "Fun," is not an argument for anything, so please lets leave it out of the thread since its not something which is objectively measurable and nor does it move the discussion anywhere.

smile
I am so happy to read that. Because, you know, it is Larian's argument. They said they do not follow d&d rules because it is more fun.
Funny, isn't it ?

I wanted to say the same thing 😁

Ehh, I'm not sure framing this like it's a formal debate between us and Larian - where both sides are required to present sound arguments - is really the correct way to look at this.

100% agree that Larian's vision for BG3 is based on their subjective definition of "more fun"

The difference is, between us and Larian, only Larian is actually making the game. If both parties are just offering subjective opinions, why the heck would Larian follow our subjective opinion over their own? Especially when we do not represent the majority of consumers.
I wouldn't be so sure. There are probably reasons they made these changes not related to, "it is fun," but I remember a comment from Chris Wilson (the lead developer of Path of Exile) about technical feedback given on Path of Exile. Keeping in mind, that is one of the games with the most interactive dev teams out there. He stated that whenever players are really upset about a lack of substantive reasoning given for a specific change or mechanical implementation, most of the time, the person responsible for that specific rule change is someone whose dev time is really important and getting them to explain why the change was made adequately to the player base, takes away an hour or two of their time which could be used better elsewhere, to actually improve the game. Furthermore, he stated that in those scenarios, most of the time, having that explanation is not going to mollify the player base even if they then know the reasons why those changes were made.

I imagine with changes to 5e, the situation is similar. There are probably reasons not related to "fun" for why those changes were made, in fact, I could even make some. I dislike the dipping mechanic for example and think that its silly and takes away from the verisimilitude of the world. A reason they may have implemented it is because martial classes have very few actions to perform in combat and so it gives them more actions to do and thereby opens them to becoming more tactical to play. I still don't think its a good change, but that is besides the point.

Anyone could write those IGN promotional articles, they don't need a high level of knowledge of the game's systemics to do so. An article which actually explained the reasoning for changes made would firstly take dev time away from those specific people responsible for those decisions and secondly, for the vast majority of the general public make for dry reading. Keep in mind, those articles are written as advertisement, they aren't written to explain decisions to the player base.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by dwig
Also, Solasta is fun, so claiming pure 5e isn't fun is flatly false.

+ 10,000

Right now I'm hoping that Solasta becomes such a success that its engine becomes the basis for new modules.
Keep in mind, Solasta and BG 3 have different target audiences. What is fun for one audience may not be fun for the other. Both games are in EA, but let us for a moment consider the size and scope of the 2 markets. Here are some numbers from steamspy (keeping in mind that steamspy's numbers are not 100% accurate, but we can still be somewhat confident in them).

Solasta 20,000 - 50,000.
Baldur's Gate 3 1,000,000 - 2,000,000.

Its blatantly obvious that the crowd of people buying the one game, is not the same as the crowd of people buying the other.
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 11/02/21 10:44 PM
Originally Posted by Sharp
I dislike the dipping mechanic for example and think that its silly and takes away from the verisimilitude of the world. A reason they may have implemented it is because martial classes have very few actions to perform in combat and so it gives them more actions to do and thereby opens them to becoming more tactical to play. I still don't think its a good change, but that is besides the point.

I agree that dipping is ridiculous and that you’ve probably correctly guessed their rationale. I think they’re trying to fix problems that don’t exist though because the game is incomplete or they’re not used to thinking in 5E terms. Warriors may have ‘less to do’ but some people prefer simpler characters to run. And, particularly when you get to higher levels, items can definitely give players more options. We’re constantly joking about the fighter in our Avernus campaign being the best spellcaster in the party because we’ve given him all the items with charges that he can cast from. Warriors at low levels can also get clever using items… alchemists fire, smoke grenades, oils, poisons etc. We don’t need to turn every fighter into Beric Dondarrion to make them viable.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 12:09 AM
Quote
Keep in mind, Solasta and BG 3 have different target audiences. What is fun for one audience may not be fun for the other. Both games are in EA, but let us for a moment consider the size and scope of the 2 markets. Here are some numbers from steamspy (keeping in mind that steamspy's numbers are not 100% accurate, but we can still be somewhat confident in them).

Solasta 20,000 - 50,000.
Baldur's Gate 3 1,000,000 - 2,000,000.

Its blatantly obvious that the crowd of people buying the one game, is not the same as the crowd of people buying the other.

Mmmm. I attribute the high numbers to a) the Baldur's Gate name b) the D&D label c) Larian's reputation. In that order.

Tactical Adventures is unknown company making a low budget, combat-oriented, SRD game with next to zero hype around it. What's kind of amazing that is that producing such a good game with all the marks against it. Were they to get the Baldurs Gate 4 contract I think the numbers would be comparable.

Don't get me wrong -- BG3 is better in some respects like story and roleplay but Solasta excels in term combat. Best fight in BG3 is the hag fight because it's creative (illusions, alignment-related dialogues, advances a quest) *and* because it doesn't take any homebrew rules to win. No barrels, king of the hill, surfaces or dipping required to finish this one. That quest makes the game imo.

Compare that to the mud mephit fight which is another surface / king of the hill fight. The ancient tree quest feels like a toned down version of DOS2 battle. Not as good as DOS2 and not D&D either.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 12:12 AM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by Sharp
I dislike the dipping mechanic for example and think that its silly and takes away from the verisimilitude of the world. A reason they may have implemented it is because martial classes have very few actions to perform in combat and so it gives them more actions to do and thereby opens them to becoming more tactical to play. I still don't think its a good change, but that is besides the point.

I agree that dipping is ridiculous and that you’ve probably correctly guessed their rationale. I think they’re trying to fix problems that don’t exist though because the game is incomplete or they’re not used to thinking in 5E terms. Warriors may have ‘less to do’ but some people prefer simpler characters to run. And, particularly when you get to higher levels, items can definitely give players more options. We’re constantly joking about the fighter in our Avernus campaign being the best spellcaster in the party because we’ve given him all the items with charges that he can cast from. Warriors at low levels can also get clever using items… alchemists fire, smoke grenades, oils, poisons etc. We don’t need to turn every fighter into Beric Dondarrion to make them viable.

Agreed. It also replaces the martial cantrips like green flame blade -- candles shouldn't compete with class features. What's the point of having a Beric Dondarrian like class if anyone with a candle can replicate the effect?
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 12:50 AM
Keeping in mind, this is speculation on both of our parts since neither of us have the market data available to companies like Larian or Bioware.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Mmmm. I attribute the high numbers to a) the Baldur's Gate name
Most gamers today likely do not even know what Baldur's Gate even is, in terms of name recognition, I would say it ranks fairly low. Still one of my all time favorite games, but if I asked someone on the street what is Baldur's Gate they would probably think its a geographic location vs if I asked them what is Diablo, there is a chance they would correctly state that it is a game. Even if you polled people exclusively who play games, you probably won't see much in the way of name recognition. Baldur's Gate does have a cult following, but its important to recognize it is just that... A cult following. It isn't a high level of brand awareness.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
b) the D&D label
The market for D&D products is at most (taking the most positive number I have seen posted anywhere) 30m, more realistically 10m and pessimistically something like 2m for currently released products. Of this market, there will be some overlap (but not 100% overlap) with people who buy video games as opposed to buying tabletop products. In contrast, the market for video games is something like 300m+ people who are actively purchasing games. Video games is one of the top 5 largest markets for entertainment in the world and its fast climbing that list. Skyrim sold over 30m copies. There is a larger market for Elder Scrolls Games than for D&D as a whole.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
c) Larian's reputation.
Probably does come into play to some extent. I wouldn't say that its as known as EA or Bethesda, but it is definitely more well known than Tactical Adventures.

I would attribute the sales to the following.

1. Marketing. Larian has heavily marketed the game pretty much everywhere. It was the front page of steam for a while. It was a demo game in new apple tech demonstrations. Its been at large conventions. You get the idea.
2. Larian's Reputation.
3. D&D Product.

This misses the point however. The point is that, as you have correctly stated.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Tactical Adventures is unknown company making a low budget, combat-oriented, SRD game with next to zero hype around it.
As opposed to Larian, which is not an unknown company and is not making a low budget game and there is hype around it. In other words, the audience for the game is almost entirely different to the audience for Solasta. Comparing the games is an apples and bananas comparison, they are not trying to appeal to the same audience. If we took the maximum steamspy number for Tactical Adventures (50,000) and the minimum for BG 3(1,000,000) and say that 100% of the people who play solasta care about mechanics and dislike the changes made in BG 3, they would still only account for 5% of the players in BG 3. In other words, a tiny minority. Not the same market at all.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Were they to get the Baldurs Gate 4 contract I think the numbers would be comparable.
Unlikely. If you look at the sales figures for Western RPGs, most Western RPGs do not break past the 1m-2m sales figures range. Pretty much the only exceptions to this are the games made by 4 companies. Bethesda, Bioware, CDPR and now Larian with D:OS 2. If you look at the games in particular which sold that much, you will notice none of them are particularly mechanically complex. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are also not the only D&D games produced, there are others and we can look at how many copies they sold. Neverwinter Nights, which was also made by Bioware (so it had company recognition as it was by the company which made BG), sold ~2.6m copies and was about as Faithful to the edition as the BG games were. NWN 2 was unfortunately delisted on steam at some point and so its sales figures are not reliable, but given the history of obsidian, its safe to assume it did not sell more than NWN 1. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is also in the 1m-2m sales figures range. All of these games were games which had brand recognition for some existing IP and none of them surpassed the sales of D:OS 2.
Posted By: nation Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 01:06 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
We don’t need to turn every fighter into Beric Dondarrion to make them viable.

Agreed. It also replaces the martial cantrips like green flame blade -- candles shouldn't compete with class features. What's the point of having a Beric Dondarrian like class if anyone with a candle can replicate the effect?
+1 lol - love these references and makes me want to roll a revenant with beric dondarrion inspiration - maybe bg3 race dlc? altho idk how larian would implement those racial features given the current ea build.

i also agree with the overall sentiment regarding dipping and to a lesser extent the number of consumables/throwables - i think there are too many/plentiful non-hp like potions/throwable items, which really is moreso a critique of the inventory clutter/loot bloat ive experienced in ea, as i do think having these potion options are important. i just wish they were a more rare and thereby increasing their overall impact upon use, but the abundance may also just be an ea feature
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 01:31 AM
Quote
Most gamers today likely do not even know what Baldur's Gate even is, in terms of name recognition, I would say it ranks fairly low.

It's mistake to assume that BG only appeals to gamers.

We can see a pretty clear pattern with Beamdog and Larian -- sales dramatically exceed expectations when the D&D label is used. This is because D&D draws in people who don't identify as gamers. I'm not a gamer, I'm a casual. I have zero interest in playing Witcher or Cyberpunk. (heresy altert) But slap those two D's on a game and: < shut up and take my money meme>

Again, with Beamdog, one of big mistakes they made was only using gamers as beta testers. But the first version of the EEs didn't work on integrated graphics cards -- because what gamer in their right mind uses integrated graphics, right? They lost nearly a year of momentum and undisclosed numbers of refunds because they falsely assumed their audience was limited to the gaming community.
(not trying to bash at all, it's just missteps made on false assumptions are instructive)

Or go to comic con and look a the number of cosplayers, go to any D&D tournament and your will see Baldur's Gate references. You will find Baldur's Gate fans a comic conventions, cosplaye events and, of course at table top tournaments -- it's a Big Tent.

Quote
In contrast, the market for video games is something like 300m+ people who are actively purchasing games.

Of that number we would need to separate fans of shooters and the like from the RPG fans. I'd estimate the number of RPG gamers who had never heard of D&D at about 5 percent or so? And let's also take the growth of DnD interest into account -- compare the sales numbers by years and you will have pretty impressive stonks chart.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp
Keeping in mind, this is speculation on both of our parts since neither of us have the market data available to companies like Larian or Bioware.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Mmmm. I attribute the high numbers to a) the Baldur's Gate name
Most gamers today likely do not even know what Baldur's Gate even is, in terms of name recognition, I would say it ranks fairly low.

If this was the case, they wouldn't have named the game Baldur's Gate III
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 02:42 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
It's mistake to assume that BG only appeals to gamers.
Fortunately I started that paragraph with the general public, not just gamers. Ask someone if they know what Apple is, they absolutely do. Ask them if they know about the Fifa games, they probably do. Ask them if they have heard of Diablo or Skyrim, less likely than Fifa, but there is still probably some awareness. D&D? I would hazard a guess and say the entire brand of D&D has about as much brand awareness as the Elder Scrolls games. Yes, you heard me, the entire of D&D. Baldur's Gate specifically? Its pretty much just something that is obscure.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Quote
Most gamers today likely do not even know what Baldur's Gate even is, in terms of name recognition, I would say it ranks fairly low.
We can see a pretty clear pattern with Beamdog and Larian -- sales dramatically exceed expectations when the D&D label is used.
In the case of Larian, that was clear marketing bullshit. They knew what they were doing when they spent that much money on advertising. How many games get to be the banner image of steam, or the demonstration for the release of a flagship apple product? They knew they were going to appeal to a much wider audience, because they were marketing on such a huge scale. That 1-2m sales of the EA I would be willing to bet was almost entirely due to this. Now here is the question, of those 1-2m people who bought the game, how many would have bought it without that viral advertising. Just a guess, but I would bet significantly less, regardless of the "D&D" name being there. Beamdog's sales numbers are not even in the same ballparks as Larians, so its not a useful comparison at all.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Again, with Beamdog, one of big mistakes they made was only using gamers as beta testers. But the first version of the EEs didn't work on integrated graphics cards -- because what gamer in their right mind uses integrated graphics, right? They lost nearly a year of momentum and undisclosed numbers of refunds because they falsely assumed their audience was limited to the gaming community.
(not trying to bash at all, it's just missteps made on false assumptions are instructive)
Beamdog was very clearly not marketing to the same audience and at no point was it marketing at the same scale. The only people who would have heard of these games, are people with a vested interest already. When the EA went live, it was most viewed game on Twitch. People I know, who don't play games at all, were talking about BG 3 because they saw it on tech demonstrations, where they were only there for the tech. You can bet that people who are completely unfamiliar with D&D are playing BG 3 and probably a lot of them, I would guess the majority, because that was just how much the game was advertised.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Or go to comic con and look a the number of cosplayers, go to any D&D tournament and your will see Baldur's Gate references. You will find Baldur's Gate fans a comic conventions, cosplaye events and, of course at table top tournaments -- it's a Big Tent.
No, its only a big tent when you look at it in the context of your "world view." If you ask people outside of those conventions if they have ever heard of BG, most of the time, the answer you will get is no. Look at the size of the cult followings for games like league of legends, or Dota or minecraft. Even if you stick to fantasy specifically, D&D is small relative to the big boys. The most valuable fantasy franchise in the world is Pokemon and its worth roughly 10x as much as WotC. Lord of the Rings is worth roughly twice WotC, not just D&D. Those franchise's are so popular that their merchandise is like a plague, you can find it everywhere.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Of that number we would need to separate fans of shooters and the like from the RPG fans. I'd estimate the number of RPG gamers who had never heard of D&D at about 5 percent or so? And let's also take the growth of DnD interest into account -- compare the sales numbers by years and you will have pretty impressive stonks chart.
Separation helps when you do not have viral advertising, because the people who are actively interested in the type of product you produce are likely to actively seek it out. In the case of a game which is advertised on a mass market level, it helps to a lesser extent. Lets say that (hypothetical situation here) there are 1m dedicated RPG fans who will buy pretty much every RPG that is released and actively look for RPGs. Lets say a new RPG comes out which isn't marketed well and they all buy it, so 100% of the RPG market buys it. In contrast, lets say there is another RPG which is released, which does things that dissatisfies people who like RPGs and so only 10% of them buy it. At the same time however, this RPG is mass marketed and over 100m people see an advertisement for it. Of that 100m, 5% decide to try it on a whim. This game has sold far more, simply by virtue of advertising to a larger audience.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Sharp
Keeping in mind, this is speculation on both of our parts since neither of us have the market data available to companies like Larian or Bioware.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Mmmm. I attribute the high numbers to a) the Baldur's Gate name
Most gamers today likely do not even know what Baldur's Gate even is, in terms of name recognition, I would say it ranks fairly low.

If this was the case, they wouldn't have named the game Baldur's Gate III
Thats assuming there is only 1 reason to name a game Baldur's Gate III. There isn't. You could be a fan of a series and want to make your own sequel to it. WotC could also have a contractural obligation requiring them to use the name. We could also look at another example where something similar happened - Fallout 3. Fallout 1 and 2 had a cult following which was very disappointed (rightfully so imo) with Bethesda's sequel to the fallout games. But you can bet that Bethesda wasn't the underdog in that situation trying to make money off of name recognition, they were the much bigger company.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 03:25 AM
Quote
No, its only a big tent when you look at it in the context of your "world view."

We'll that's all we have, right? If you have somehow managed the trick of seeing things from the the view from nowhere then congrats, you got me beat. But I don't either of have access to purely objective pov, we're both trapped in our worldview.

As @Dexi says there was a reason so many companies for competing for the rights to the Baldur's Gate name.

Quote
If you ask people outside of those conventions if they have ever heard of BG, most of the time, the answer you will get is no.

Only from your "world view" :p I think people interested in minecraft and pokemon are pretty different from the people interested in DOS or BG. Probably some Dota overlap. Sure LOTR is the grandpa of all fantasy settings but I'm not buying that it's the one IP to rule them all, so much of Tolkien's world shows up in Faerun . . .

@nation

Quote
love these references and makes me want to roll a revenant with beric dondarrion inspiration

Nice smile If they implement it and remove dipping I will definitely run a spellblade at some point. Agreed on all issues.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 03:27 AM
To suggest D&D and Baldur's Gate, the name, are not massive draws within the Fantasy/CRPG space, is bordering on insulting to the whole conversation.

Anyone, literally anyone, who play's CRPG's, knows Baldur's Gate.

What a farce of a conversation.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 04:17 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
As @Dexi says there was a reason so many companies for competing for the rights to the Baldur's Gate name.
Whilst its not possible to view things from an objective perspective, you can contextualize them within a better framework (I will admit, my wording in the previous quote there was a bit bad). If you only look at D&D within the context of the direct fandom, its the only world you will ever see and so it will appear to encompass everything. But even as a fan of something, where you only personally remain within that community, its possible to "broaden your horizons" by finding metrics or measuring sticks. Hence why I brought up other brands as references. They give you a measuring stick to compare with. Another example I could use is the world. Its huge right? Its all we know and interact with. And yet for scale, this is what we know about the size of the observable universe.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
As @Dexi says there was a reason so many companies for competing for the rights to the Baldur's Gate name.
And there was a reason why all of the others got turned down. You know what that reason was? Money. WotC wanted a game to advertise D&D, not the other way around. They didn't want D&D to advertise a game. Obsidian outright said they didn't get the rights to BG 3 because their publisher at the time didn't have the money for it and so the deal fell through. Sure, there will be some people who play BG 3 because it is BG 3, but the majority of the people who play BG 3 will play it because of mass marketing and not because of the brand, just like Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is actually a very good example of this. Most people now who are aware of the Fallout IP know nothing about Fallout 1 or 2, despite them being the origin of the series. Bethesda's recreation of Fallout effectively "killed" the original image created by Interplay. I would not be surprised if, within 5 to 10 years, the idea of what "Baldur's Gate" is, will have been completely replaced with Larian's new game. The image that you or I have of Baldur's Gate will be completely at odds with what the mainstream media thinks it is, because that is what is probably going to happen.

For WotC, this is not about making a faithful D&D game, its about creating brand awareness within a different market space. If you honestly believe WotC cares 1 whit about faithfulness to rules and not about their bottom line, then let me please point you to Sword Coast Legends or Neverwinter (the mmo). The OGL alone should tell you what they care about, because its not the rules. The rules are not the IP that matters to them, its the setting that makes them money.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
[quote]
Only from your "world view" :p I think people interested in minecraft and pokemon are pretty different from the people interested in DOS or BG. Probably some Dota overlap.
The fact that the people who enjoy minecraft or pokemon are different to the people who enjoy BG or D:OS points out something obvious. If you are trying to market your game towards that larger audience (which, given Larian's marketing tactics, they obviously do), it means you are going to need to make adjustments to your game in order to make it more appealing towards that audience. Which is again, why Solasta and BG 3 are not an apples to apples comparison. Solasta is not trying to appeal to a broader audience, BG 3 most definitely is.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Sure LOTR is the grandpa of all fantasy settings but I'm not buying that it's the one IP to rule them all, so much of Tolkien's world shows up in Faerun . . .
I picked LotR only because its likely you would recognize it, but its also actually not very high up on the list. There are plenty of other Fantasy series between LotR and Pokemon when it comes to generating revenue. In terms of brand awareness, think about how pervasive the merchandise for a brand is and that should give you some idea of just how valuable the brand is. Things which are basically household names are the "kings" when it comes to popularity and D&D is just not up there. Harry Potter, Micky Mouse and other brands like this are up near the top. The average person on the street knows their name. By contrast if you polled a random sample of 100 people, I would guess that only at most 1 or 2 would know what D&D is.
Originally Posted by Scribe
To suggest D&D and Baldur's Gate, the name, are not massive draws within the Fantasy/CRPG space, is bordering on insulting to the whole conversation.
Baldur's Gate came out in 1998. There are people alive now, who were born after the game came out, who are old enough to drink. I would be willing to bet that the majority of people who play RPGs, have not played BG and many people (probably also the majority) have not even heard of it and that is just if we are discussing CRPGs. If we broaden it to fantasy as a whole and not just games, BG might as well not exist, because its influence is negligible next to the likes of Pratchett, Sanderson or the many other fantasy authors who have a huge influence on the genre.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Anyone, literally anyone, who play's CRPG's, knows Baldur's Gate.

What a farce of a conversation.
The great thing about absolute statements is that they are very easy to disprove. A good friend of mine that I met 5 years ago, who is an avid fan of RPGs, had never heard of BG until BG 3 came out. Sure they had played most RPGs post 2006ish, but anything before that point in time was lost in the mists of time to them.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 04:24 AM
Sure.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 04:44 AM
Nice website. Sure, if you want to make the case that we can ask the question in ways that allows to gather data I'm fine with that. "Have you heard of the Baldur's Gate video game" is a questions that could produce data with a certain degree of objectivity. I'm just saying we are having a conversation without such data available to us so we're just imagining ways to interpret the evidence we have.

Your point is that BG is a 20 year old game / DnD is a game from the 70s and people don't know about 20 year video games much less 50 year old table top games unless you are part of niche market. I also think you are saying that because I played the original that my perspective is skewed. Am I right?

I'm saying that there are somethings before my time that have become well known. Canonical. Part of geek culture. I know about Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Metropolis, Dracula, Frankenstein, the creature from the Black Lagoon, Spaceballs and a whole list of things are that before my time because they have become part of the culture. I think as many people know about DnD as know about Star Wars. I think more people know about Baldur's Gate than know about Fallout.

And I get that's just, like, my opinion man but without data what else do we have? smile
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 05:01 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Your point is that BG is a 20 year old game / DnD is a game from the 70s and people don't know about 20 year video games much less 50 year old table top games unless you are part of niche market. I also think you are saying that because I played the original that my perspective is skewed. Am I right?
No, I am not saying that, otherwise I would include myself in that particular skew given I also played those games. I am saying that because you are likely part of communities where D&D is a part of the sub culture, your perspective is skewed. Mine is probably skewed in the other direction, given that I live somewhere on the continent of Africa and I am pretty much the only person I know IRL who even remotely interacts with this kind of media. The only way I can interact with people who have similar interests is...online. If you were to do a survey in my local community, I would probably be the only person who has ever even heard of D&D. The big brands however, are still here. You can still find merchandise for Star Wars, or Mickey Mouse.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I'm saying that there are somethings before my time that have become well known. Canonical. Part of geek culture. I know about Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Metropolis, Dracula, Frankenstein, the creature from the Black Lagoon, Spaceballs and a whole list of things are that before my time because they have become part of the culture. I think as many people know about DnD as know about Star Wars. I think more people know about Baldur's Gate than know about Fallout.

And I get that's just, like, my opinion man but without data what else do we have? smile
Whilst some things may be a "part of geek sub cultures" they aren't all equal. We can almost certainly say that D&D is not equal to Star Wars in terms of brand awareness, given that Star Wars is valued at close to 70 Billion and WotC (not D&D, the entire of WotC including MtG) is valued at close to 10 billion.

Here is another interesting chart to look at. It shows the interest on Google over time in various search terms. Baldur's Gate does not even show on the chart thats how low the interest is in comparison. I would like to note that this is a very inaccurate method of comparing interesting in topics as some topics will have much higher online interest than real life interest (I specifically included World of Warcraft there to illustrate this), but it is still interesting to look at.
Posted By: DragonSnooz Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 05:37 AM
I don't know if it's fair to compare games to WoW in terms of google searches. WoW is Wow. If data went back to the 90's I'm sure we would see peaks for Baldur's Gate then.

Trends that are interesting to see.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 05:41 AM
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I don't know if it's fair to compare games to WoW in terms of google searches. WoW is Wow.

Trends that are interesting to see.
I included WoW specifically to show some of the issues with this method of comparison, namely that some things will have much higher online interest than interest in real life and that for some particular topics, if you are interested in the topic, you will need to google the topic a lot. WoW is an example of both of these. If you play the game, you will need to spend a lot of time referring to articles and videos created by many different people on multiple websites and thus this will result in more than just a single search query. Minecraft would be another example of a game like this, as Minecraft is essentially a wiki game where almost all the information required to play is located on the wiki.

WoW is almost certainly not as big as Star Wars, despite appearing as such on that graphic. In the link you included btw, all the searches for BG 3 are included in the BG topic.
Posted By: DragonSnooz Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 05:44 AM
It still is interesting that Baldur's Gate in the early 2000's was searched slightly higher than Divinity 1 and 2 are in the late 2010's. Meanwhile DnD has more searches than any of those.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 05:54 AM
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It still is interesting that Baldur's Gate in the early 2000's was searched slightly higher than Divinity 1 and 2 are in the late 2010's. Meanwhile DnD has more searches than any of those.
It isn't that surprising, Given that by that point Bioware already had a reputation and Larian was still in the process of establishing one. Almost all of the search interest to BG in the spike ~2018 can be attributed to BG 3. What is more interesting is if you take the same chart and throw Dragon Age onto it.
Posted By: DragonSnooz Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 06:01 AM
Bioware had established themselves by then. I'm considering that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were the first hits for Bioware and Divinity 1 and 2 are the first hits for Larian. It's comparing two points where each company was at a similar state.

Bioware had KOTOR and Mass Effect before Dragon Age. Will Larian be at similar levels with their 5th game?

It also looks like using a DnD IP with Baldur's Gate helped Bioware with how popular DnD was with RPG fans.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 11:39 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Sharp
Keeping in mind, this is speculation on both of our parts since neither of us have the market data available to companies like Larian or Bioware.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Mmmm. I attribute the high numbers to a) the Baldur's Gate name
Most gamers today likely do not even know what Baldur's Gate even is, in terms of name recognition, I would say it ranks fairly low.

If this was the case, they wouldn't have named the game Baldur's Gate III
Thats assuming there is only 1 reason to name a game Baldur's Gate III. There isn't. You could be a fan of a series and want to make your own sequel to it. WotC could also have a contractural obligation requiring them to use the name. We could also look at another example where something similar happened - Fallout 3. Fallout 1 and 2 had a cult following which was very disappointed (rightfully so imo) with Bethesda's sequel to the fallout games. But you can bet that Bethesda wasn't the underdog in that situation trying to make money off of name recognition, they were the much bigger company.

There is only one reason to name it Baldur's Gate 3 and that is name recognition. See there is this concept in media and promotion that the more something is a sequel, the less likely into are to attract new audience. Putting a number at the end of a movie or book or game directly hurts the sales. Numbered sequels generally have a constant downwards sloping profit in comparison to each other. The only offset of this is -- you guess it --brand recognition.

When WotC or Larian -- regardless of where the decision came from -- put a 3 at the end of Baldur's Gate they are directly hurting the possible revenue from the production. They wouldn't do this if it was any random old game. The only reason they would choose this title is that they thought that the gain from the name recognition factor was equal or greater to their loss from the sequel-drop-off factor.

And it's funny that you chose Fallout 3 as an example because there is absolutely no reason Beth bought that IP except brand recognition. They bought a cheapish, shelved IP with a huge recognition factor, to use the name for their own games without any regard for the original series. This isn't "underdog" business strategy. This is big dog business strategy, that's why Beth did it.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 02:03 PM
I'm not sure why people are trying to argue that this game isn't popular because of the name. It's Baldur's Gate. Probably the most popular crpg series of all time. Yes, we get it, more copies were technically sold by the modern "crpgs" but that doesn't change the fact that a company using the name Baldur's Gate brings an immense weight to the title.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
I'm not sure why people are trying to argue that this game isn't popular because of the name. It's Baldur's Gate. Probably the most popular crpg series of all time. Yes, we get it, more copies were technically sold by the modern "crpgs" but that doesn't change the fact that a company using the name Baldur's Gate brings an immense weight to the title.

Self delusion is high on this forum. Regardless, we are finally going to get some information soon. So let's hope for a good update.
Posted By: Sir Dent Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 07:43 PM
I think a lot of the response is similar to what was posted in the article, at least from the Forum group as I have read it. I started playing the game late last month So I am new to the game and to the forum. I was a huge fan of the original BG and BG2, played the expansions as well, and that 1.5 digital expansion that was put out a few years ago (Dragonspear?). I have played DnD since 93 or 94, and have played every edition of the game but started in second edition and played most heavily in 3.5. I started because I had played some of the earlier computer games, namely the Eye of the Beholder trilogy. I have never played any of Larians other games. My synopsis of the game and surrounding information and forums:

The forums are not nearly as toxic as others I have been on. About a quarter to a tenth of the level of toxicity as BG 1.5 had depending on when you stepped into either forum, and even that wasnt near as bad as to some ccg forums ive been in.

BG 3 will never have the feel of BG1 or 2 its a different map system, rule edition, and storyline. It is not bad, but it doesnt rely on rolls for the bulk of the game more or less than the original (maybe a less on story/character interaction) It still has most of the feel of a DnD/BG game but it is missing a few elements to me
- No rolling for characters (yet?), i know its a fifth edition thing and a balance of power thing in multiplayer groups, understand it but just losses some feel
- actual turn based actions feels more like DnD but not so much BG combat
- I miss Minsc and boo, but I understand its a different time, so he might not be around, and even if you made minsc, if you didnt get Jim Cummings doing the voice work then you would get angry people missing their nostalgia.
- I dont necessarily miss random encounters
- Spellcasters that dont have fireball dilute the feeling of spellcasting classes (should be better when levels increase)
- Cant form a full and balanced party without having someone who feels out of place for good or evil alignment
- I kind of miss the hunger issues found in a lot of older DnD games where you could starve. It would seem this might be something that could be added later with all the food found around the world

5'9 is actually tall for the world average and I want to say average for most editions' height generation tables

The only thing that really annoys me is buying and selling, my computer seems to lag during barter so I am stuck selling one at a time and the gold values dont match the merchant prices, I wouldnt mind so much if what we saw was an intuition roll to guess the price or if there was a way to haggle the merchants down, or if it was simply the merchants could be asked about their gouging and reply there is a scarcity due to a run on supplies because of the crash/refugees/goblin raids/whatever.
Posted By: DuskHorseman Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by Sir Dent
I think a lot of the response is similar to what was posted in the article, at least from the Forum group as I have read it. I started playing the game late last month So I am new to the game and to the forum. I was a huge fan of the original BG and BG2, played the expansions as well, and that 1.5 digital expansion that was put out a few years ago (Dragonspear?). I have played DnD since 93 or 94, and have played every edition of the game but started in second edition and played most heavily in 3.5. I started because I had played some of the earlier computer games, namely the Eye of the Beholder trilogy. I have never played any of Larians other games. My synopsis of the game and surrounding information and forums:

The forums are not nearly as toxic as others I have been on. About a quarter to a tenth of the level of toxicity as BG 1.5 had depending on when you stepped into either forum, and even that wasnt near as bad as to some ccg forums ive been in.

BG 3 will never have the feel of BG1 or 2 its a different map system, rule edition, and storyline. It is not bad, but it doesnt rely on rolls for the bulk of the game more or less than the original (maybe a less on story/character interaction) It still has most of the feel of a DnD/BG game but it is missing a few elements to me
- No rolling for characters (yet?), i know its a fifth edition thing and a balance of power thing in multiplayer groups, understand it but just losses some feel
- actual turn based actions feels more like DnD but not so much BG combat
- I miss Minsc and boo, but I understand its a different time, so he might not be around, and even if you made minsc, if you didnt get Jim Cummings doing the voice work then you would get angry people missing their nostalgia.
- I dont necessarily miss random encounters
- Spellcasters that dont have fireball dilute the feeling of spellcasting classes (should be better when levels increase)
- Cant form a full and balanced party without having someone who feels out of place for good or evil alignment
- I kind of miss the hunger issues found in a lot of older DnD games where you could starve. It would seem this might be something that could be added later with all the food found around the world

5'9 is actually tall for the world average and I want to say average for most editions' height generation tables

The only thing that really annoys me is buying and selling, my computer seems to lag during barter so I am stuck selling one at a time and the gold values dont match the merchant prices, I wouldnt mind so much if what we saw was an intuition roll to guess the price or if there was a way to haggle the merchants down, or if it was simply the merchants could be asked about their gouging and reply there is a scarcity due to a run on supplies because of the crash/refugees/goblin raids/whatever.
Well, a small response to this, if I may!
>No rolling for characters (yet?), i know its a fifth edition thing and a balance of power thing in multiplayer groups, understand it but just losses some feel
Larian has mentioned that it's not included in Early Access, but they said they "realized that many were partial to it" (Paraphrasing) in their FAQ.
>I miss Minsc and boo, but I understand its a different time, so he might not be around, and even if you made minsc, if you didnt get Jim Cummings doing the voice work then you would get angry people missing their nostalgia.
Well, Minsc is a staple! There have been whiffs, deep in the forgotten places beyond where man was yet meant to see, a creation of Larian not yet brought to light... Something of him lingers there. The scent of hamster droppings and kicked wheels. He may, at some point, emerge from that forgotten place into the light of Early Access, but that day is not yet upon us...
>Cant form a full and balanced party without having someone who feels out of place for good or evil alignment
I suppose, in a certain way, that's the point. Larian has mentioned that they like a slightly dysfunctional party who has some kind of tension and friction between them. This may be rectified as time goes on, as well, as more companions are to be added.
Posted By: Alrik Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 11:30 PM
5e rules are way too simple, shallow and vague to be implemented directly. Implementing rules more directly would work with Pathfinder 2E because its rules are more complex and have more depth and A LOT more decision making, but 5e is just way to simple of a game for it to work in a complex CRPG.
Posted By: Sadurian Re: Is this really the consensus? - 12/02/21 11:44 PM
Originally Posted by Scribe
Self delusion is high on this forum. Regardless, we are finally going to get some information soon. So let's hope for a good update.
Take the edgelord snarkiness elsewhere, please, and stop being dismissive of the opinions of other posters.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 13/02/21 12:26 AM
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Scribe
Self delusion is high on this forum. Regardless, we are finally going to get some information soon. So let's hope for a good update.
Take the edgelord snarkiness elsewhere, please, and stop being dismissive of the opinions of other posters.

Fair enough, I'll just let the comments regarding this already being the greatest game of all time, already!, pass.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 13/02/21 01:07 AM
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Scribe
Self delusion is high on this forum. Regardless, we are finally going to get some information soon. So let's hope for a good update.
Take the edgelord snarkiness elsewhere, please, and stop being dismissive of the opinions of other posters.

Fair enough, I'll just let the comments regarding this already being the greatest game of all time, already!, pass.
Which ones? I don't see any.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 13/02/21 01:15 AM
Up in the announcement thread, MANY comments on Steam.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Is this really the consensus? - 13/02/21 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by Scribe
Up in the announcement thread, MANY comments on Steam.
Well that explains why I don't see them, I stopped reading pretty much every area that has non constructive discussion.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 13/02/21 02:06 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp
Originally Posted by Scribe
Up in the announcement thread, MANY comments on Steam.
Well that explains why I don't see them, I stopped reading pretty much every area that has non constructive discussion.

Wise choice.
Posted By: FuryouMiko Re: Is this really the consensus? - 13/02/21 10:54 AM
Talking of non-constructive discussion, has anyone seen the articles TheGamer.com is shitting out?

Have some comedically badly researched "gaming articles";

https://www.thegamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-best-weapons-armor-early-access/ nentions greatswords having reach, spears having a high attack speed, and complains about helmets not boosting AC!

https://www.thegamer.com/best-baldurs-gate-games-metacritic/ lists the top ten Baldur's Gate games! Although I'm not sure which ones didn't make the cut since that's all of them.
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 14/02/21 08:05 PM
Having taken a really good look at Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous over the weekend, and just the sheer amount of depth in it – FAR more classes, subclasses, skills and abilities than anything in the 5E PHB - I don’t think Larian should have any issue translating D&D into a reasonably faithful rendition of 5E. Owlcat has a much smaller team too.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 14/02/21 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Having taken a really good look at Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous over the weekend, and just the sheer amount of depth in it – FAR more classes, subclasses, skills and abilities than anything in the 5E PHB - I don’t think Larian should have any issue translating D&D into a reasonably faithful rendition of 5E. Owlcat has a much smaller team too.

Its not a question of possibility. Its an issue of if they desire to do it. Pathfinder, and Solasta make it perfectly clear.
Posted By: etonbears Re: Is this really the consensus? - 14/02/21 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Having taken a really good look at Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous over the weekend, and just the sheer amount of depth in it – FAR more classes, subclasses, skills and abilities than anything in the 5E PHB - I don’t think Larian should have any issue translating D&D into a reasonably faithful rendition of 5E. Owlcat has a much smaller team too.

Its not a question of possibility. Its an issue of if they desire to do it. Pathfinder, and Solasta make it perfectly clear.

Exactly this. Literal 5e seems to be not the game they are making, and not the audience they are targetting.

Modding to 5e literal should be a thing though, assuming anyone who cares is capable of doing it.

Similarly, modding may enable some BG1/2 echoes, again provided anyone that cares is capable of creating the necessary mods.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Is this really the consensus? - 14/02/21 09:24 PM
There's a gap between literal and what they showed us at the moment.

About combats it's not D&D with reasonable homebrewed you could have arround a table... It's homebrewed combats with D&D's spells...

I would be fine with this if :

- this game wasn't named Baldur's Gate 3 because this name gives me a feeling of "realistic" (in the reality of the FR) classic fantasy combats, not classic Larian WTF combats.

- they didn't make all this show with WotC arround the game (in their videos/events). This let me thought about a D&D video game, not a new kind of D&D video game with a massive Larian layer upon it.

- they didn't claim to implement the rules as faithfull as possible first then tweak what doesn't work in a video game.

If you look at the game now, it looks like it's nearly all D&D that doesn't work according to them...
I can't believe that it wasn't a lie because seriously, something is wrong everywhere.

(Reactions, healing/food, advantages, weapons range, time management, rest, action economy, diping, barrelmancy, inventory management/height, jump and movement, conditions, monsters skills, poison, ammunition, grenades, magical items,.....)

Even a +1d4 fire damage sword or +1/+2 arrows ? Seriously that doesn't work in a video game ?

Ofc they can do what they want with their game but at the moment I feel cheated a bit (but maybe I'm just stupid/naive).

I probably wouldn't have bought the game yet if they had another communication about it.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 14/02/21 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
There's a gap between literal and what they showed us at the moment.

About combats it's not D&D with reasonable homebrewed you could have arround a table... It's homebrewed combats with D&D's spells...

I would be fine with this if :

- this game wasn't named Baldur's Gate 3 because this name gives me a feeling of "realistic" (in the reality of the FR) classic fantasy combats, not classic Larian WTF combats.

- they didn't make all this show with WotC arround the game (in their videos/events). This let me thought about a D&D game, not a new kind of D&D RPG with a massive Larian layer upon it.

- they didn't claim to implement the rules as faithfull as possible first then tweak what doesn't work in a video game.

If you look at the game now, it looks like it's nearly all D&D that doesn't work according to them...
I can't believe that it wasn't a lie because seriously, something is wrong everywhere.

(Reactions, healing/food, advantages, weapons range, time management, rest, action economy, diping, barrelmancy, inventory management/height, jump and movement, conditions, monsters skills, poison, ammunition, grenades, magical items,.....)

Even a +1d4 fire damage sword without diping or +1/2 arrows ? Seriously that doesn't work in a video game ?

They can do what they want with their game but at the moment I feel cheated a bit (but maybe I'm just stupid/naive).

I probably wouldn't have bought the game yet if they had another communication about it.

I feel the same. Many of these things could be fixed, but mostly I am mad at myself, for paying for something that if I had done any research on, I would have seen I should not yet purchase.
Posted By: Terminator2020 Re: Is this really the consensus? - 14/02/21 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Scribe
I feel the same. Many of these things could be fixed, but mostly I am mad at myself, for paying for something that if I had done any research on, I would have seen I should not yet purchase.
Ok. However even if you did like I pay for this 60 euro (or 60 to 72,73 United States Dollar since you are in USA) it is not so super much money for us. Well you do have "ok or fairly much" money like me I do know that. If you want to talk about money you can do I here:
Discussion about real life, TV series or movies

Anyway I do want that they do this game better as you want. It is also for me not has good as BG1 and BG2 was for me at least yet:

Yes I do like the graphics and music and main story in BG3, but it could be more better.
Posted By: FuryouMiko Re: Is this really the consensus? - 14/02/21 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Even a +1d4 fire damage sword or +1/+2 arrows ? Seriously that doesn't work in a video game ?

Ofc they can do what they want with their game but at the moment I feel cheated a bit (but maybe I'm just stupid/naive).

I probably wouldn't have bought the game yet if they had another communication about it.

You're level 1-5. You don't start seeing magic weapons in 5e until the end of that level progression at the earliest.
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 12:14 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
If you look at the game now, it looks like it's nearly all D&D that doesn't work according to them...
I can't believe that it wasn't a lie because seriously, something is wrong everywhere.

(Reactions, healing/food, advantages, weapons range, time management, rest, action economy, diping, barrelmancy, inventory management/height, jump and movement, conditions, monsters skills, poison, ammunition, grenades, magical items,.....)

You’re so right. They’re having us believe they ‘meticulously’ tried all of these things the 5E way then reverted to the DOS systems to make it more fun?
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 02:54 AM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
If you look at the game now, it looks like it's nearly all D&D that doesn't work according to them...
I can't believe that it wasn't a lie because seriously, something is wrong everywhere.

(Reactions, healing/food, advantages, weapons range, time management, rest, action economy, diping, barrelmancy, inventory management/height, jump and movement, conditions, monsters skills, poison, ammunition, grenades, magical items,.....)

You’re so right. They’re having us believe they ‘meticulously’ tried all of these things the 5E way then reverted to the DOS systems to make it more fun?

Yeah no, I dont buy that for a second. laugh
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 06:25 AM
Originally Posted by FuryouMiko
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Even a +1d4 fire damage sword or +1/+2 arrows ? Seriously that doesn't work in a video game ?

Ofc they can do what they want with their game but at the moment I feel cheated a bit (but maybe I'm just stupid/naive).

I probably wouldn't have bought the game yet if they had another communication about it.

You're level 1-5. You don't start seeing magic weapons in 5e until the end of that level progression at the earliest.

Whatever, in BG3 you can dip, you find item that grants poison to the weapons of your heal's target, you can find tons of fire arrows and potions... If this work to Larian, a single fire sword should work too.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 06:45 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by FuryouMiko
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Even a +1d4 fire damage sword or +1/+2 arrows ? Seriously that doesn't work in a video game ?

Ofc they can do what they want with their game but at the moment I feel cheated a bit (but maybe I'm just stupid/naive).

I probably wouldn't have bought the game yet if they had another communication about it.

You're level 1-5. You don't start seeing magic weapons in 5e until the end of that level progression at the earliest.

Whatever, in BG3 you can dip, you find item that grants poison to the weapons of your heal's target, you can find tons of fire arrows and potions... If this work to Larian, a single fire sword should work too.

Thats actually one of my major issues. 5e is a low magic item assumed environment. To have all these random bonus effects, it really throws everything off.
Posted By: dwig Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 05:27 PM
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by FuryouMiko
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Even a +1d4 fire damage sword or +1/+2 arrows ? Seriously that doesn't work in a video game ?

Ofc they can do what they want with their game but at the moment I feel cheated a bit (but maybe I'm just stupid/naive).

I probably wouldn't have bought the game yet if they had another communication about it.

You're level 1-5. You don't start seeing magic weapons in 5e until the end of that level progression at the earliest.

Whatever, in BG3 you can dip, you find item that grants poison to the weapons of your heal's target, you can find tons of fire arrows and potions... If this work to Larian, a single fire sword should work too.

Thats actually one of my major issues. 5e is a low magic item assumed environment. To have all these random bonus effects, it really throws everything off.

+1
Posted By: Lunar Dante Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 06:36 PM
+1 to all
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 07:35 PM
I’ve been pondering the significance of Jeremy Crawford joining Larian for the Panel from Hell this week. Since he’s the principal 5E rules designer at Wizards, why do you think he’s been invited for this panel? It could be they are wheeling him out to explain why 5E rules don’t need to be translated to a video game faithfully? Or perhaps they’re going the other way and leaning more into 5E so he’s there to explain how they’ve worked hard in 5E on the action economy and balance and Larian are moving to emulate that?
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I’ve been pondering the significance of Jeremy Crawford joining Larian for the Panel from Hell this week. Since he’s the principal 5E rules designer at Wizards, why do you think he’s been invited for this panel? It could be they are wheeling him out to explain why 5E rules don’t need to be translated to a video game faithfully? Or perhaps they’re going the other way and leaning more into 5E so he’s there to explain how they’ve worked hard in 5E on the action economy and balance and Larian are moving to emulate that?

I'm a pessimist, so you can probably guess what I think. An attempt to give this current mess validity.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I’ve been pondering the significance of Jeremy Crawford joining Larian for the Panel from Hell this week. Since he’s the principal 5E rules designer at Wizards, why do you think he’s been invited for this panel? It could be they are wheeling him out to explain why 5E rules don’t need to be translated to a video game faithfully? Or perhaps they’re going the other way and leaning more into 5E so he’s there to explain how they’ve worked hard in 5E on the action economy and balance and Larian are moving to emulate that?

it will be defensive for sure.

"We're thrilled with how BG3 is progressing", etc, etc. There's no way he's going to say "Actually..." lol
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 07:50 PM
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I’ve been pondering the significance of Jeremy Crawford joining Larian for the Panel from Hell this week. Since he’s the principal 5E rules designer at Wizards, why do you think he’s been invited for this panel? It could be they are wheeling him out to explain why 5E rules don’t need to be translated to a video game faithfully? Or perhaps they’re going the other way and leaning more into 5E so he’s there to explain how they’ve worked hard in 5E on the action economy and balance and Larian are moving to emulate that?

it will be defensive for sure.

"We're thrilled with how BG3 is progressing", etc, etc. There's no way he's going to say "Actually..." lol

I hope you’re wrong but I doubt it. He has a keen eye for the rules and I’m sure he’d like to see them given a chance, but he’s also the first to say play it however you like at your own table.
Posted By: DragonSnooz Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 08:05 PM
It's probably to show that they do converse with WotC about the game. It could also be to talk about the challenge of transitioning rules from a human DM into a computer ruleset. (For example, Adv/Disadvantage are supposed to cancel each other and sometimes they don't in Patch 3).


Lastly, I'm hopeful we are getting combat changes.
We do need to acknowledge that levels 1-4 are the least fun part of a DnD campaign combat-wise and that it's okay to have some homebrew to compensate. (Keyword some).
Posted By: Danielbda Re: Is this really the consensus? - 15/02/21 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I’ve been pondering the significance of Jeremy Crawford joining Larian for the Panel from Hell this week. Since he’s the principal 5E rules designer at Wizards, why do you think he’s been invited for this panel? It could be they are wheeling him out to explain why 5E rules don’t need to be translated to a video game faithfully? Or perhaps they’re going the other way and leaning more into 5E so he’s there to explain how they’ve worked hard in 5E on the action economy and balance and Larian are moving to emulate that?
I think this will reveal WotC's strategy.
They own the IP, so if they wanted they could've put in the contract that they want the rules implemented. If Larian took the project means they both agreed on the terms, this might be that WotC gave them some room to change the mechanics but MAYBE (as many here have pointed out, the majority is silent) this has generated some backlash and their market research indicates that players want a faithful adaptation, thus they are "consulting" through Crawford.

If he is dismisse during the conference and does not make any statement regarding rule implementation, they've probably already agreed with Larian's changes and that's how the game will ship.

I don't have market research, but it would seem logical to me that WotC would want to enforce rule implementation to push cross-sales.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I’ve been pondering the significance of Jeremy Crawford joining Larian for the Panel from Hell this week. Since he’s the principal 5E rules designer at Wizards, why do you think he’s been invited for this panel? It could be they are wheeling him out to explain why 5E rules don’t need to be translated to a video game faithfully? Or perhaps they’re going the other way and leaning more into 5E so he’s there to explain how they’ve worked hard in 5E on the action economy and balance and Larian are moving to emulate that?

Had the same thought / worry. It will be an interesting test for WotC because if they take a "these are just house rules and Larian is the DM" line they will do some damage to their reputation.

I mean if house rules can deviate this much why pay WotC for a ruleset anyway?
Posted By: daMichi Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I’ve been pondering the significance of Jeremy Crawford joining Larian for the Panel from Hell this week. Since he’s the principal 5E rules designer at Wizards, why do you think he’s been invited for this panel? It could be they are wheeling him out to explain why 5E rules don’t need to be translated to a video game faithfully? Or perhaps they’re going the other way and leaning more into 5E so he’s there to explain how they’ve worked hard in 5E on the action economy and balance and Larian are moving to emulate that?

Had the same thought / worry. It will be an interesting test for WotC because if they take a "these are just house rules and Larian is the DM" line they will do some damage to their reputation.

I mean if house rules can deviate this much why pay WotC for a ruleset anyway?

At your table the rules can deviate as much as your group wishes.

The license is for the Forgotten Realms.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 09:01 PM
Of course they can. We all know this. I had a number of house rules. But someone sets the standard that we all deviate from. And that standard should fly from the flagship product. When I was running table top games that someone was the tournaments.

The question I have is are they going to use the house rules talking pointas the thin edge of wedge to argue that the game should remain as DOS-D&D hybrid. I want to see something closer to the rulebooks, I think that would be more fun. Solasta is really fun and it's showing that you need to hybridize the rules to make them fun.

Sure the license is for the Realms and the rules are just "whatever the house decides" why not just use "Mae'rune" as your setting? The PoE world is essentially the Forgotten Realms after it had been taken over by atheists armed with artificer tech. I mean really -- that Sawyer's stated reason for creating his own setting, he didn't want to have to deal with WotC.
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 09:25 PM
If they want to just say it's for the setting fine, just drop the pretense that it's a D&D game. Pack some explosive barrels around, cast spells of scrolls as a fighter, and down that side of roast dwarf before a goblin Archer fires yet another acid arrow at you.

Sounds great. /s
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 09:28 PM
Originally Posted by daMichi
At your table the rules can deviate as much as your group wishes.

The license is for the Forgotten Realms.
Isn't the license also for the non-SRD rules? Most of the subclasses, all the feats except for Grappler, etc? E.g., the only Fighter SRD subclass is Champion, so the license allows Larian to use Battlemaster. This is especially relevant since Larian wants to give the players options, and Champion Fighter is the complete opposite of this...
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 09:44 PM
This is a part of the SRD that I don't understand. Pathfinder pays WotC something but, reading the SRD, I can't figure out why it does.

Could be this part on the checklist:

* I want my content considered for inclusion in digital games

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
This is a part of the SRD that I don't understand. Pathfinder pays WotC something but, reading the SRD, I can't figure out why it does.

Could be this part on the checklist:

* I want my content considered for inclusion in digital games

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd

Correct me please if I'm wrong, but Pathfinder was based on the 3.5 SRD, which was complete enough to look like D&D still, and Pathfinder can now stand alone.

The 5.1, is very bare bones.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 10:00 PM
Your information may be better than mine, Pathfinder may now standalone. My source for Pathfinder pays WotC a percentage of sales was someone who sounded confident on a forum smile
Posted By: Scribe Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 10:04 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Your information may be better than mine, Pathfinder may now standalone. My source for Pathfinder pays WotC a percentage of sales was someone who sounded confident on a forum smile

I'd have to get a copy of the book but I'm almost positive (after researching the SRDs) that the 3.5 SRD creating D&Ds largest competitor was an oops. smile
Posted By: Dexai Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Your information may be better than mine, Pathfinder may now standalone. My source for Pathfinder pays WotC a percentage of sales was someone who sounded confident on a forum smile

I don't think this is true, though I have no proof. Pathfinder was as far as I know based on the 3.5 SRD, which was free.


Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by daMichi
At your table the rules can deviate as much as your group wishes.

The license is for the Forgotten Realms.
Isn't the license also for the non-SRD rules? Most of the subclasses, all the feats except for Grappler, etc? E.g., the only Fighter SRD subclass is Champion, so the license allows Larian to use Battlemaster. This is especially relevant since Larian wants to give the players options, and Champion Fighter is the complete opposite of this...

It is and it isn't. Mechanics like subclasses and feats and such are in a very grey area, legal-wise. I don't think there's a lot WotC could do if somebody were to recreate the Eldritch Knight subclass or the Lucky feat, for example. But the IPs and trademarks are much more legally "tangible" if you get what I mean. They're defensible and easily recognisable. They're big selling points.
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Your information may be better than mine, Pathfinder may now standalone. My source for Pathfinder pays WotC a percentage of sales was someone who sounded confident on a forum smile

I'd have to get a copy of the book but I'm almost positive (after researching the SRDs) that the 3.5 SRD creating D&Ds largest competitor was an oops. smile

I actually read an article once that stated WotC considers SRD a success because it did exactly what it intended to do, expand the tabletop audience. I can’t vouch for the validity of that, but D&D has expanded significantly since than so there might be something to it.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Is this really the consensus? - 16/02/21 11:21 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by daMichi
At your table the rules can deviate as much as your group wishes.

The license is for the Forgotten Realms.
Isn't the license also for the non-SRD rules? Most of the subclasses, all the feats except for Grappler, etc? E.g., the only Fighter SRD subclass is Champion, so the license allows Larian to use Battlemaster. This is especially relevant since Larian wants to give the players options, and Champion Fighter is the complete opposite of this...

It is and it isn't. Mechanics like subclasses and feats and such are in a very grey area, legal-wise. I don't think there's a lot WotC could do if somebody were to recreate the Eldritch Knight subclass or the Lucky feat, for example. But the IPs and trademarks are much more legally "tangible" if you get what I mean. They're defensible and easily recognisable. They're big selling points.
Makes sense. I imagine it strongly depends on the amount copied. If someone recreated a Eldritch Knight without D&D 5e license and called it a "Mage Knight", WotC probably couldn't do that much about it. But if someone recreated ~all of the 5e subclasses and feats, then WotC would have a good copyright infringement argument even if all the names were changed.
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Is this really the consensus? - 17/02/21 08:26 PM
Let’s hope some game journalists jump on here soon and see what people really think about Patch 4 and how much Larian is listening to us.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Is this really the consensus? - 17/02/21 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Let’s hope some game journalists jump on here soon and see what people really think about Patch 4 and how much Larian is listening to us.

I guess they had proven that they just don't listen anyone else than those saying "best game ever".
Sorry about that, frustration.
Posted By: spectralhunter Re: Is this really the consensus? - 17/02/21 08:31 PM
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Let’s hope some game journalists jump on here soon and see what people really think about Patch 4 and how much Larian is listening to us.

I don’t read articles for their opinions. A lot are bought and paid for. I do read for features and technical aspects but even that I don’t take it seriously.
© Larian Studios forums