Larian Studios
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.



Nope. Retain the skill check system, failure is interesting.
I'm personally reloading a lot... because it's EA and I'm trying to take a look at all possible outcomes and mechanics, before writing a feedback on them.
So at least from me those statistics are not valid and have nothing to do with "oh, I failed, but I need to win always".
Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.





Disagree. Failure *is* interesting. It simply means your story goes in a different direction. However, compared to DOS, it needed to be said this is actually the case. Sure, a lot of people will be reloading in order to try for the result they want. That is their choice. I prefer to keep the option to fail alive.
Interesting topic.

I think Larian should give the possibility for infinite re-roll. Why you ask ?
Here is why.

When I talked about the bad-feeling I get from the roll-dice, LOT of gamers said "just reload if you're unhappy".

So for my second game, this is what I did. I reload.
For an example, yesterday night I reloaded exactly 11 times my save just to get a positive roll-dice.

FACT IS : it was not fun and it was a lot of time lost.
FACT IS : I don't feel like I have time to lost in video game. I loved them but my time is precious and spending 5-10 minutes loading the same save again and again is a terrible waste and decrease of fun.
FACT IS : I don't have (or I wont take) times to do a new game crossing my fingers, hoping to have a better reroll this time in all the game...

So I understand people who love the thrill of the roll-dice. At least, I get it.
But I think this people should also understand and get MY point of view.

And this is why I think Larian should add a button "infinite re-roll" for the gamers like me (and I know, I'm not alone).
So the players who want to live in one roll-dice, keep living with one roll-dice, and the players, like me, who want to live "fully" control and choose the story they live, could reroll (I even think I could find funny to see how many times I have to roll to win a persuasion test at 3 !).

I call it a compromise.

Sadly I have the feeling it's something hard to accept for Larian (and even some people here)...


PS : Zellin, you're wrong an a little offensive. This is not about "I need to win always" this is about "I want to choose the story I want to live". Maybe some people have the time or the faith to play 33 games before having the outcomes they expected. Not me, not a lot of gamers.
I hope you can respect that and don't reduce it to a whining and childish desir.
I think the title of this topic is TERRIBLE. But the issue brought up isn't.

I agree that a BIG challenge the devs will face is "how to make failure interesting?"

So far, honestly, I'm pretty underwhelmed. I haven't found interesting outcomes after failures, just the feeling of missing out. But maybe those will be more apparent AFTER the first region. It's a bit too early to judge.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.





Skill checks are interesting, and add something to a cRPG that we rarely see. "Oh no I save scummed", well boo hoo, that's on you.
I think the thing they should do is introduce more inspiration points. The option to reroll is a nice feature to help out those people who can't handle not getting what they want.

But the thing is: Failed rolls rarely change your outcome, you get the default outcome. It's supposed to be a choice to try and get a better outcome, or in the case of talkin to your party members it's a risk to use the tadpole roll to peer into their mind. It can give you some cool information, at the risk of losing approval.

cRPGs have very often been very binary. "Have high enough stat, get the chat option", now that's boring. Especially if they show you "Oh hey, if you had more of this stat you could have gotten a better outcome".

I would also like to see some indication of which roll option has the best DC. Sometimes you choose to use the skill you are the most proficient in, but that isn't always the one with the best DC. But again: It's not supposed to be a "gimmie".



Originally Posted by Corren
I think the title of this topic is TERRIBLE. But the issue brought up isn't.

I agree that a BIG challenge the devs will face is "how to make failure interesting?"

So far, honestly, I'm pretty underwhelmed. I haven't found interesting outcomes after failures, just the feeling of missing out. But maybe those will be more apparent AFTER the first region. It's a bit too early to judge.


As I said, most of the failed tests just defaults back to what would happen if you don't try a test. You are trying to change someones mind, when you fail, their mind isn't changed, and they go on with their day.
Oh I saw this topic n the is Larian listening post, but here we do have it's own thread.

Copy and pasted from that thread:

I don't understand infinite re-roll?!
In essence you are saying you want to succeed any check you make in conversations? Or Just in gerneral? Why? Why is "failure" such a bad thing? There are usually other methods of getting round said failure (unless a fight ensues) and trying again later (like with character conversations).

But ok, let's say that's your point of view and all views are equal, then I don't think infinite re-roll is the way forward UNLESS you want to be able to select when you fail and when you don't, in which case in an easy option or optional selection box, yeah, you could add infinite re-roll points, I forget their name, the ones you can earn. Otherwise infinite re-roll is a waste of animation time, you could just remove the die and have auto-succeed.

I personally would rather more nuances to "failure", I want to charm Shadowheart but she rebuffs me now, but later on I do something heroic or evil that opens her eyes and she initiates a conversation recognising that she was wrong before. Black & White Suceed / Failure sucks. Sometimes it has to happen, I mean if you fail a last ditch intimidation roll and a fight ensues and someone dies, then that's that.


The issue with perceptions of failure is that it means instantly you get what you want vs you don't and that's it, however as I kinda stated above, it is situational though, what is it you want from a skill check? What do you think you are missing out on?

Example:
NPC - Hey I could give you a sword +2 but...
PC - Charisma roll required 12, rolls a 4
NPC - Ha arrogant fool, no sword for you
PC - Cries and player reloads.

Why reload? Does the mysterious NPC of sword +2's evaporate? Pick pocket him then, Murder him... BUT I'M GOOOOOOD?! Then Play that Role and live with it. This is an RPG in Digital form and it is supposed to be more like the P&P experience.
I already said you could add those special points add infinitum in an easy mode (give me story only) kinda way that some games look to offer, it wouldn't offend me if this was the case, but I certainly in No way condone the argument for removing the system? That is a strange request from the OP. Add options through positive dialogue, not remove options because something doesn't suit a person's particular playstyle.

EDIT: To add to previous example where Failure could be fun....
What IF after not getting said item, one of your companions at Camp "retrieves" it for you. Astarion for example, trying to charm you, comes back one night with said sword. You then have an alternative choice to make, accept it without asking the murky questions or deal with the fallout of what happened. Maybe you banish Astarion for his transgressions!! Or or or... Suddenly a failure becomes a whole other dynamic. The more of that there is in game, the more I'm happy not to save scum because the game doesn't deal with failure always as a simple closed book.
Why failure is often bad? Because game designers don't give other way.

Lets say that I want ask npc for favour, so first options are:
1) intimidation
2) persuasion
3) blackmail(because you found his letters somewhere before dialog)

You fail them and then you have second chance and more option:
1) history
2) favour/trade
3) religion(cleric or paladin)

So even if you will fail in first check because your charisma is low, and you haven't done research before dialog you still have check for INT or WIS. This will make game more interesting without loading.
Originally Posted by Zefhyr

PS : Zellin, you're wrong an a little offensive. This is not about "I need to win always" this is about "I want to choose the story I want to live". Maybe some people have the time or the faith to play 33 games before having the outcomes they expected. Not me, not a lot of gamers.
I hope you can respect that and don't reduce it to a whining and childish desir.

No, sorry, but what you're saying is exactly same thing sugar-coated. You're living a story instead of playing (that implies the risk of losing) a game with a story applied to it to drive your motivations. And of course as result in some cases failure is not an option for you, because it doesn't work for your story. You just add slightly more complex motivation to why you want some... artificial(???) wins.
And *sigh* as always in such cases you think people who are playing accepting loses have a lot of time and going to replay the game endlessly. Nope, I'm going to replay the first act through EA many-many times to see the changes and give feedback on them, but after release as with many other games I'll make one walk through, maybe second in coop and then I won't touch the game at least until I forget enough about it (years later with how my memory works).
But guess what? I'm not actually judging you or anyone for "I don't want that failure". I just don't want you people to turn RPG genre into Interactive Movie genre. So as long as you're suggesting just to add an option to re-roll for those who want, I'm fine with you. I'm even willing to give you another option: there can be a difficulty mode with no dialog rolls at all as if you automatically win, some games did it before. But, please, let's not lie to ourselves. There is maybe nothing childish or whiny in willing to have an artificial win, but it's not really a gamer approach and between gamers you will always catch disapproving glimpses, simple as that.
Originally Posted by Zellin
Originally Posted by Zefhyr

PS : Zellin, you're wrong an a little offensive. This is not about "I need to win always" this is about "I want to choose the story I want to live". Maybe some people have the time or the faith to play 33 games before having the outcomes they expected. Not me, not a lot of gamers.
I hope you can respect that and don't reduce it to a whining and childish desir.

No, sorry, but what you're saying is exactly same thing sugar-coated. You're living a story instead of playing (that implies the risk of losing) a game with a story applied to it to drive your motivations. And of course as result in some cases failure is not an option for you, because it doesn't work for your story. You just add slightly more complex motivation to why you want some... artificial(???) wins.
And *sigh* as always in such cases you think people who are playing accepting loses have a lot of time and going to replay the game endlessly. Nope, I'm going to replay the first act through EA many-many times to see the changes and give feedback on them, but after release as with many other games I'll make one walk through, maybe second in coop and then I won't touch the game at least until I forget enough about it (years later with how my memory works).
But guess what? I'm not actually judging you or anyone for "I don't want that failure". I just don't want you people to turn RPG genre into Interactive Movie genre. So as long as you're suggesting just to add an option to re-roll for those who want, I'm fine with you. I'm even willing to give you another option: there can be a difficulty mode with no dialog rolls at all as if you automatically win, some games did it before. But, please, let's not lie to ourselves. There is maybe nothing childish or whiny in willing to have an artificial win, but it's not really a gamer approach and between gamers you will always catch disapproving glimpses, simple as that.


You know where lies issue? In your ability points. You want make for example perfect orator so you put every point in charisma, you make him background where he spend all his file on debates and learning how to inspire people. And when you was old elf you decide to become bard. And now with your charisma on level 18+ you can tell orc that he is not a orc bu a really big dwarf.
Considering just how many rolls are in the game, and how most of them are just for fluff, it should eventually cause players to stop savescumming as much. Trying to savescum all the rolls will just make the game an unenjoyable nightmare.

The witcher games tried to fight savescumming by not making a lot of consequences for your choices apparent right away. I think Bg3 can do the same with just a massive amount of rolls and by teaching players that a successful roll is not always the best result. There are too few of these cases in the game currently though.

Permadeath mode with only 1 save and if it includes autosaves as soon as a roll happens... It will be absolutely amazing.

But yeah, definitely do not remove conversation rolls just because many players cannot handle a negative response from an npc instead of a positive one.
Zellin,
you're just stubborn.
You don't even try to understand.
You said "Nope, I'm going to replay the first act through EA many-many times to see the changes and give feedback on them". Well, yeah you obviously have more time than me. and nevertheless, I don't just said people who enjoyed it have a lot of times. I said they may have a lot of time (more than me which is true reading your comments) and they may liked the thrill.

Funny things is, you didn't say you will stop playing cause of no time but just to forget to enjoy it again. Ho lucky you.
Personnaly I know that, even if I would, I couldn't play the EA "many-many" times.

But that's not even the point.
As I said, I respect your opinion and your preferences but you ? You absolutely don't respect mine.

You are, arrognatly, talking about "artificial" win. What does it even mean ?
Artificial ? Please, define what is "natural win" in a roll-dice ?
Do you really think that in life when you say something to somebody there is a dice rolling in his head to decide if it take it favorably or not.

Please, it's just ridiculous.
And more, what is "natural" in a video game ? Is barrelmancy natural ? Or... I don't know... loading game ?
Yeah, maybe you should ask Larian to forbid the reload because it's articificial to reload a game because you are dead.
Look at you, giving some lessons and then I'm pretty sure you reload your game after loosing a fight because... you know... "it doesn't work for your story." See ? I guess you are going to "just add slightly more complex motivation to why you want some... artificial(???) wins." But let's be honest, reloading is the biggest "artificial" option here...

Yeah, this is how ridiculous your argument is.


It's not about "winning" cause, maybe you're not aware, but I'm pretty sure we can "win" the game without succeeded a single roll-dice.
It's about (but I heard you refuse to get it) "playing the adventure I look for".

Again, I respect the people who like the thrill of the roll (it's not like I didn't like it at all but that's not the point here).

I would like for you to do the same with the people who prefer to play the adventure they are looking for.


PS: did you even read my comment ?

You said
"So as long as you're suggesting just to add an option to re-roll for those who want, I'm fine with you."

after I wrote
"And this is why I think Larian should add a button "infinite re-roll" for the gamers like me (and I know, I'm not alone).
So the players who want to live in one roll-dice, keep living with one roll-dice, and the players, like me, who want to live "fully" control and choose the story they live, could reroll"

Looks like this is exactly what I suggest...
The system makes sense in theory.
The current implementation is shit.
One of the examples is the kid thiefling dying due to snake bite. You either get lucky on a roll or she dies. It's retarded. Keep the dice roll if you want in order for me to maybe convince the bitch to not be evil to the child, but if that fails, then at least let me carry through with my intentions. If I could not save the kid by talking the bitch down, then let me intervene and fight them to protect her.
This is just one example of course, there are lots of other interactions such as this throughout the game where the player gets locked out of options due to RNG. It's poorly done. Failure could be interesting sure, but it's not in this game.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
[...]So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.[...]


Um... To tell the truth, I don't understand why this is upsetting you so much. This is still early access after all, so reloading to try different die roll results is actually a means to find mistakes. Like those two occasions where I did exactly match the DC, but still failed the die roll.

If you dislike it so much, just host the game yourself. As far as I am aware, only the host can save the game during multiplayer, so if it's you, then you can basically force the other players to accept the die rolls.

Finally there's always single player, where you can play the way you like, including taking all the die rolls as they come.

I'd like to note, that a big part of the Baldur's Gate series is replayability, because there are so many things you can do different in a new playthrough. In order to experience those differences in BG3 you will often need different results in die rolls, some of which have pretty high DCs. If you have experienced, what the failure does in your first playthrough and want to know, what a success does on your second one, but fail it again, wouldn't you just reload? I sure would.

Automatically passing isn't something I'd like to see in this game, in fact I think it contradicts your own implied opinion, that players should just "roll" with their result. Why? Because, if you take every result without reloading, you will sometimes fail checks, which are easy for your character. But you will also sometimes succeed on checks, which seemed to be near impossible. That kind of dynamic isn't possible with an ability/skill threshold system.
Originally Posted by Gathord
Considering just how many rolls are in the game, and how most of them are just for fluff, it should eventually cause players to stop savescumming as much. Trying to savescum all the rolls will just make the game an unenjoyable nightmare.

The witcher games tried to fight savescumming by not making a lot of consequences for your choices apparent right away. I think Bg3 can do the same with just a massive amount of rolls and by teaching players that a successful roll is not always the best result. There are too few of these cases in the game currently though.


I don't think the witcher one was designed like that to fight savescumming as while the consequence was far from the choice, they were pre-determined. There was no randomness. It's very much an interactive movie, people just had to look online to know what would happen to control the narrative and the game is very:
- Press A for good consequence
- Press B for bad consequence

There is already quite a bit of troll encounters in the game, especially for people ignorant of the Forgotten Realms lore, where the "good" choice (i.e. people live) is probably the terrible options for a good aligned character long term.
Originally Posted by Gathord
Considering just how many rolls are in the game, and how most of them are just for fluff, it should eventually cause players to stop savescumming as much. Trying to savescum all the rolls will just make the game an unenjoyable nightmare.

The witcher games tried to fight savescumming by not making a lot of consequences for your choices apparent right away. I think Bg3 can do the same with just a massive amount of rolls and by teaching players that a successful roll is not always the best result. There are too few of these cases in the game currently though.

Permadeath mode with only 1 save and if it includes autosaves as soon as a roll happens... It will be absolutely amazing.

But yeah, definitely do not remove conversation rolls just because many players cannot handle a negative response from an npc instead of a positive one.

Witcher 3 made the correct choice to even make so called Positive choices turn out to be bad down the line, or at least questionable. Save the woman at the healer's hut with a Witcher Potion, hurray she lives... later on in game, find boyfriend who tells you she is brain damaged... urgh, screw you W3, but I love it.

If you make every Succeed vs Fail black and white, people Save Scum, because missing out feels like a punishment over which you had little to no control. Hurray I only need a 3+ to succeed, proceeds to roll a 2. Boom, you feel punished despite being good at something. Now I don't mind it, but I would prefer more nuance to failure and even success and to only see some of those decisions and rolls come to full fruition later on in the game.

In a previous over simplified example I gave about acquiring a sword, you could add to that and try for a charisma check, fail and then STILL have the option to auto succeed at acquiring through intimidation, the game allows you to suceed even in the face of failure, but now, later on the person you intimidated appears again and now you have to deal with the fallout of your previous decision.

Now it might be true that currently there are too few examples in the EA which feel as though failure is interesting, but as far as I see it, those are for us to highlight and recommend improvements (maybe we just havent seen the future results of a failed roll of course), rather than say something is shit and only have as retort that the idea should be scrapped.
Infinite re-roll for me is synonymous with Story mode difficulty. I think it's totally OK. Normally I am hard-core no-reload gamer but I can imagine myself in mood for this type of re-roll playthrough. Even now, in EA, I am save-scumming often from sheer curiosity and my testing fetish. Both playstyles are legit. Sometime you may want a concrete story, sometimes you may want random turmoil.
Man, I have such a ridiculous write-up on this topic if I thought it would ever percolate and become something.

TL;DR,

As a general rule, skill checks should influence how much information you get and how much information (true or not) you provide right now. They should rarely directly influence the outcomes of events; outcomes are determined by the successes and failures of activity and the choices you make. You make decisions based off of information. Decisions bear fruit far enough down the road to where a save would most likely be irrelevant.

Situation 1:
1. A druid is about to kill a kid right now.
2. Kid says im not horrible!
3. You, thinking kids shouldn't be killed, makes a persuasion check to save their life.
4. You fail, kid dies.
*Clippy shows up* Uh oh! It looks like you are trying to make a skill challenge! Most DMs use those only to heighten the drama of a larger event that is unfolding, not determine the outcome!

Situation 2:
1. A druid is sentencing a kid to death, to be executed the next dawn - i.e., in the future. She says this child is horrible and must be killed.
2. Almost everything in the conversation after this is irrelevant to the outcome, as the decision to free the kid or not is decision, and the outcome determined later as this is an overall game event. However, the rest of the chat is information

The time in the grove is spent spinning plates and getting info. Persuading here, stealing there, planting something here. Towards the end of lots of smaller quests and events the totality of all of the things you chose to do over the last 2 hours start bearing fruit. some are surprising, some are funny (I had a feeling hiring that madman to pretend he was an arch druid wouldn't go well...), and they overall build the DC for an impassioned speech or create enough of a distraction where you put the girl in a sack of potatoes and sneak out.

The overall structure of so many of these challenges is that of a Bang Bang Play.

What is a Bang Bang Play in Football? A bang bang play involves multiple events occurring at once or quickly, one after another. Because bang bang plays are used to describe a play that happens so quickly, they often lead to difficult calls being made and challenge flags being thrown to argue such calls.

The concept of a challenge in the game is fundamentally flawed. Its pivoted orthogonally to how events play out in D&D.
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Nope. Retain the skill check system, failure is interesting.

Bullcrap
Most likely still has to do with not having difficulty levels yet but also something that could easily please everyone with a simple toggle. Toggle on gets dice rolls, toggle off gets pass / fail skill checks like any other rpg.
Originally Posted by coredumped
The system makes sense in theory.
The current implementation is shit.
One of the examples is the kid thiefling dying due to snake bite. You either get lucky on a roll or she dies. It's retarded. Keep the dice roll if you want in order for me to maybe convince the bitch to not be evil to the child, but if that fails, then at least let me carry through with my intentions. If I could not save the kid by talking the bitch down, then let me intervene and fight them to protect her.
This is just one example of course, there are lots of other interactions such as this throughout the game where the player gets locked out of options due to RNG. It's poorly done. Failure could be interesting sure, but it's not in this game.

This is exactly why the die rolls should stay exactly as they are. Context is important, but is completely missed in this scenario. She's not planning to kill the child. She's planning to have a thief locked up until they're done with their ritual and release her. The fail circumstance is set by the child herself, who panics. Even if there was an option to attack, you wouldn't be able to prevent that by killing the druids. No matter what, you're always going to be locked out of options due to RNG, even if you "win" a roll, you're going to miss something.

"But Rob, I don't want to feel bad". That's great, I understand that, I do. I felt bad my first time in the grove, where I did fail that roll. But I didn't default to "I have to win this no matter how long it takes", I defaulted to "It's an RPG with consequences to not passing a roll". "But it's not fair, that check is too high". Go ahead, list out your arguments, and post them with a D20 roll, and I'll let you know when you change my mind. Here's a hint: You're going to need a natural 50 on that D20. While I tend to believe there shouldn't be a roll there at all, I believe that because I believe that it shouldn't really be possible to convince the de facto leader of the grove that thieves shouldn't be locked up, especially given what she stole. In three tries, so far, I have passed that roll twice. Lucky? Yeah, especially given my extensive history with RNG, and fail states, and considering that none of these rolls was save scummed to make.

What's lost in the "I don't have time for this" is that this is what RPGs with actual choices are all about, being able to replay for different results later. What's really ironic about it is, if the roll had no consequence, we'd be reading about things like "illusion of choice" instead... If this resulted in a game over screen, I might be inclined to change my mind, but as it stands right now? No. These pass and fail chances lead to different outcomes which, in and of themselves may be interesting. The immediate consequence of this fail may not be all that interesting, but what effect does it have on the rest of the story? I can't think of anything immediate, or in the rest of the chapter. Maybe the parents don't trust you when you lay out a plan for defending the grove, since you couldn't defend their child? That would be interesting. Interesting doesn't have to mean fun, however, or beneficial. There's an old Chinese curse, at least I've always heard it as credited to the Chinese: May you live in interesting times. I'm pretty sure they're not thinking "may every day be sunshine and rainbows" when they lay that curse out. That's why it's a curse, right?
Originally Posted by Orbax

As a general rule, skill checks should influence how much information you get and how much information (true or not) you provide right now. They should rarely directly influence the outcomes of events; outcomes are determined by the successes and failures of activity and the choices you make. You make decisions based off of information. Decisions bear fruit far enough down the road to where a save would most likely be irrelevant.

This is very good point. Also my rule of thumb when playing tabletop DnD is rolling d20 whenever characters are in time pressure or when they are in completely new situation. For routine tasks I allow just take 10 or even 20 when failure doesn't matter.

That kid and snake dialog is horrible for many reasons. I still can't comprehend I can save a goblin in cage by standing between her and loaded crossbow but can't save the child. So I really get the frustration here. Rolling a die is not a culprit here, the whole desing of situation is. In tabletop I could still had some options even after the bite. Using medicine, or antivenom, or even revive scroll.

By the way the best dialogue system with success/failure outcomes has Disco Elysium. Failures were enjoyable and you had a interesting built-in mechanic to re-roll some checks.
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
Most likely still has to do with not having difficulty levels yet but also something that could easily please everyone with a simple toggle. Toggle on gets dice rolls, toggle off gets pass / fail skill checks like any other rpg.

The only difference here, is of course, that we actually see and make the rolls. Pass/Fail skill checks are made against either a hard number, or a percentage chance, so they're still a roll of the dice.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
Most likely still has to do with not having difficulty levels yet but also something that could easily please everyone with a simple toggle. Toggle on gets dice rolls, toggle off gets pass / fail skill checks like any other rpg.

The only difference here, is of course, that we actually see and make the rolls. Pass/Fail skill checks are made against either a hard number, or a percentage chance, so they're still a roll of the dice.


Or they could do what a lot of games do and just not show you the dialogue option at all if you can't pass it. People seem weirdly fine with missing dialogue options as long as they don't know they are there.
I don’t remember having encountered a conversation option I couldn’t pass?!
I mean difficult, yeah sure, but to my knowledge there aren’t any shown you cannot pass?
I think Kagha and the child is one of the very few examples when the roll mechanics actually work very well. I wish more of them would be like this one. As I see it, Larian really wanted to kill this child to establish Kagha's character (which is legitimate, it's a very good scene because there is an element of an accident to it but the way Kagha responds later is an excellent character moment and really interesting), but also wanted to stick to their philosophy of "ENDLESS CHOICE AT ANY COST EVEN IF IT MEANS SCREW THE STORY", so what they did very wisely is to give us a very hard roll. most players will get the story as they intended, and the few who'll be successful will get less story but the feeling of success. a great moment in my books. and of course the most important part about it - no super great affects on the main story. so you can fail and not lose too much (and as I say, I think in this case even gain a fascinating character arc).

Unfortunately, most dice rolls are not like this. most result in either battle, no option to move forward in a quest, or success.
It wasn't an edgy decision, it was a bad one. It removed agency and option and got a player briefly involved in a bad situation they were intended to fail at just so the DM could make a point. There are other ways to do it like just have you make a perception check and see this happen across the way, otherwise you see a dead body and need to ask someone so they tell you who did it otherwise a snake did..

As a DM, if the argument is narrative and mechanics, they did a piss poor job of it and I could spend all day writing down more interesting things that could happen that the players could be involved in that also drove home the fact that choices matter. Making choices matter and then restricting their ability to choose and act is a dick move.

Can I justify what they did? Yes. I can actually justify just about anything. The question is what is the best way to do that and I cannot imagine a scenario where I would end up choosing what they did.
Originally Posted by Orbax
It wasn't an edgy decision, it was a bad one. It removed agency and option and got a player briefly involved in a bad situation they were intended to fail at just so the DM could make a point. There are other ways to do it like just have you make a perception check and see this happen across the way, otherwise you see a dead body and need to ask someone so they tell you who did it otherwise a snake did..

As a DM, if the argument is narrative and mechanics, they did a piss poor job of it and I could spend all day writing down more interesting things that could happen that the players could be involved in that also drove home the fact that choices matter. Making choices matter and then restricting their ability to choose and act is a dick move.

Can I justify what they did? Yes. I can actually justify just about anything. The question is what is the best way to do that and I cannot imagine a scenario where I would end up choosing what they did.

I disagree. And I'll tell you upfront I'm not a D&D guy, not that I think it should matter anyway. I think you miss the point here. This moment in the game is not really about mechanics, and it's defiantly not about the child or the player. This moment is about Kagha. The only change I would say might be valid is to remove the option to change the outcome altogether. The player's choice in a video game is not the same as a player's choice in a D&D session. and there is no DM. there is a story, in which the player has some choice regarding how it will unfold, but the player can't (and shouldn't) be able to affect every single event in the game. because you just can't account for that if you are not a human DM.
Thats why I said it was a bad choice - if a DM, which is just a different medium game designer - wants something to happen, it happens. Its a dick move to make people think they can do something about it and then do everything you can to make it so they fail so the thing you wanted can happen.That idea of making people feel helpless by giving them an almost certain to fail what 3? 4? checks? to get through shadow period without a dead kid...As a DM the times you say "If you roll a nat 20 Ill let it happen" are for when everyone agrees there is realistically nothing here for you to do. That is what they repeatedly fail. They are obviously having a story they would like to have happen and you can try to stop it. That works great for the main plot. The rest of the time is you just trying to put fires out because they will burn whatever it is to cinders if you don't. You rarely walk in with a chance to stop the fire from being started in the first place. Its the beat of the drum, your entry point into choices, and the odds being stacked against you that tell you how this story either should be or at least how it will probably go. Every time that dice pops up for a check in conversation, the player shouldn't drop their shoulders and mutter "fuck". It should be exciting.
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
Most likely still has to do with not having difficulty levels yet but also something that could easily please everyone with a simple toggle. Toggle on gets dice rolls, toggle off gets pass / fail skill checks like any other rpg.

The only difference here, is of course, that we actually see and make the rolls. Pass/Fail skill checks are made against either a hard number, or a percentage chance, so they're still a roll of the dice.


Or they could do what a lot of games do and just not show you the dialogue option at all if you can't pass it. People seem weirdly fine with missing dialogue options as long as they don't know they are there.

Yeah, because they don't know they missed it. It can be a different story on a message board somewhere when they find out though.
Yeah I have to say this one grated a little with me as well.

If I am a Chaotic Good kinda guy, I might take exception to not being able to try and intervene here, I mean I can see it going South a mile away and I would expect particular companions to react accordingly. Maybe Gale feels that a well timed firebolt could solve the snake problem and he makes a move (narrated), and if I let him, that leads us into an escalating situation that I either try to diffuse or allow, or simply fail to stop but in a different manner to before. Heck maybe even the child dies as a result of my interference. Or I stop Gale because I am not a good guy and don't want to get involved.

But if you are going to show me something with my character standing right there, then unless I am tied up or whatever, I see no reason not to be able to try and get involved. Maybe add a timed dicision here so I don't have long to ponder.
Hmm, not goin to debate wether dice rolls are good or bad. But, those against it...how many crpgs that you played, has had this mechanic before?
Originally Posted by Riandor
Yeah I have to say this one grated a little with me as well.

If I am a Chaotic Good kinda guy, I might take exception to not being able to try and intervene here, I mean I can see it going South a mile away and I would expect particular companions to react accordingly. Maybe Gale feels that a well timed firebolt could solve the snake problem and he makes a move (narrated), and if I let him, that leads us into an escalating situation that I either try to diffuse or allow, or simply fail to stop but in a different manner to before. Heck maybe even the child dies as a result of my interference. Or I stop Gale because I am not a good guy and don't want to get involved.

But if you are going to show me something with my character standing right there, then unless I am tied up or whatever, I see no reason not to be able to try and get involved. Maybe add a timed dicision here so I don't have long to ponder.

...or, I stop Gale because I am a good guy, and don't want to get involved? Back to context again: She's not planning to kill the child, she's planning to lock her up, and release her later. Perhaps I believe that locking up someone that stole the central idol to a temple should be locked up? This is, after all, the point of the roll, you're trying to convince her that she shouldn't want to lock up a thief.
You are ALL missing the point. Especially the thickskulls going "oh u savescummer boo hoo".

It's not that 'failure is interesting' or not. It may well be.

It's that I'm willing to guarantee to you that if larian did a check in their analytics, they would find that almost everyone savescums almost all the time, specifically in skill checks.
That, then, would mean the system is a failure, regardless of what you think about it personally. IF people are spending inordinate amounts of time loading saves then its a bad system for a pc game.


Now, I might be wrong, but I'm so sure I'm not, I'm willing to guarantee it.
Also note larian put out a message telling people to "please accept failure please", showing this may be the case.

Disagree.

1- It's totally obvious what is about to happen and the so called head of the Druids is only escalating the issue when she could easily diffuse it.

2 - Locking up a child for theft is not condusive to a good character, at least not in my view. Lawful/Good in a medievel setting, yeah mayyyybe, it's why I prefaced it with Chaotic good, as in Good but with my own slant on rules and either way it doesn't take away the design choice to not allow your character to intervene, even if it's a bad idea? If I think that snake needs killing before something potentially goes wrong, that's a roll I want to make and one that directly impacts my choices.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
You are ALL missing the point.

It's not that 'failure is interesting' or not. It may well be.

It's that I'm willing to guarantee to you that if larian did a check in their analytics, they would find that almost everyone savescums almost all the time, specifically in skill checks.
That, then, would mean the system is a failure, regardless of what you think about it personally.


Now, I might be wrong, but I'm so sure I'm not, I'm guaranteeing it here.
Also note larian put out a message telling people to "please accept failure please", showing this may be the case.


What are you basing your "almost everyone" on? Posts on the forums? The game's sold over a million copies, how many of those players have responded to whatever survey you're citing, but not providing, are you counting as "almost everyone"? I know I certainly never saw this survey. In the example that's being tossed around currently, I have 2 successes, and one fail, with no save scumming. I'd be extremely surprised to find that I'm the only one that isn't save scumming there, or anywhere else. My reloads have been a direct result of party wipes, which can be attributed to bad rolls, or good rolls if you're in the party of NPCs that wiped me...
Clearly the OP doesn't know how to play D&D-- there is no 'reloading' in D&D, if you fail a roll you fail it and take the consequences.
Stop save scumming.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Lightzy
You are ALL missing the point.

It's not that 'failure is interesting' or not. It may well be.

It's that I'm willing to guarantee to you that if larian did a check in their analytics, they would find that almost everyone savescums almost all the time, specifically in skill checks.
That, then, would mean the system is a failure, regardless of what you think about it personally.


Now, I might be wrong, but I'm so sure I'm not, I'm guaranteeing it here.
Also note larian put out a message telling people to "please accept failure please", showing this may be the case.


What are you basing your "almost everyone" on? Posts on the forums? The game's sold over a million copies, how many of those players have responded to whatever survey you're citing, but not providing, are you counting as "almost everyone"? I know I certainly never saw this survey. In the example that's being tossed around currently, I have 2 successes, and one fail, with no save scumming. I'd be extremely surprised to find that I'm the only one that isn't save scumming there, or anywhere else. My reloads have been a direct result of party wipes, which can be attributed to bad rolls, or good rolls if you're in the party of NPCs that wiped me...


Totally with you on this!

I didn't Save Scum once due to a bad roll, ah actually tell a lie, once when I had passed a particul test, game glitched and I had to re-do that sequence. Failed watched what happened and then reloaded again to get my original result to continue where I should have been and I say this as someone who is totally partial to a bit of save scumming now and again.

The system is in no way a failure, what it is is perhaps lacking nuance in select areas. I also personally feel it would help if my character was voiced (as the Origin characters will be in these situations) so that it feels like an interaction rather than just a die roll result.
Originally Posted by Orbax
Man, I have such a ridiculous write-up on this topic if I thought it would ever percolate and become something.

TL;DR,

As a general rule, skill checks should influence how much information you get and how much information (true or not) you provide right now. They should rarely directly influence the outcomes of events; outcomes are determined by the successes and failures of activity and the choices you make. You make decisions based off of information. Decisions bear fruit far enough down the road to where a save would most likely be irrelevant.

Situation 1:
1. A druid is about to kill a kid right now.
2. Kid says im not horrible!
3. You, thinking kids shouldn't be killed, makes a persuasion check to save their life.
4. You fail, kid dies.
*Clippy shows up* Uh oh! It looks like you are trying to make a skill cha
llenge! Most DMs use those only to heighten the drama of a larger event that is unfolding, not determine the outcome!

Situation 2:
1. A druid is sentencing a kid to death, to be executed the next dawn - i.e., in the future. She says this child is horrible and must be killed.
2. Almost everything in the conversation after this is irrelevant to the outcome, as the decision to free the kid or not is decision, and the outcome determined later as this is an overall game event. However, the rest of the chat is information

The time in the grove is spent spinning plates and getting info. Persuading here, stealing there, planting something here. Towards the end of lots of smaller quests and events the totality of all of the things you chose to do over the last 2 hours start bearing fruit. some are surprising, some are funny (I had a feeling hiring that madman to pretend he was an arch druid wouldn't go well...), and they overall build the DC for an impassioned speech or create enough of a distraction where you put the girl in a sack of potatoes and sneak out.

The overall structure of so many of these challenges is that of a Bang Bang Play.

What is a Bang Bang Play in Football? A bang bang play involves multiple events occurring at once or quickly, one after another. Because bang bang plays are used to describe a play that happens so quickly, they often lead to difficult calls being made and challenge flags being thrown to argue such calls.

The concept of a challenge in the game is fundamentally flawed. Its pivoted orthogonally to how events play out in D&D.


You're absolutely correct.
Missing out additional info, as a history check fails and maybe later coming to a wrong assumption is completely different from such hard-checks as "kid dies because surprise skill check in the middle of a conversation".
A hard-check in a surprise situation, okay, but several of the checks here seem just to be there to enforce reloading.

Especially in a program where people tend to miss any rolls above difficulty 1.
Originally Posted by Grantig


Missing out additional info, as a history check fails and maybe later coming to a wrong assumption is completely different from such hard-checks as "kid dies because surprise skill check in the middle of a conversation".
A hard-check in a surprise situation, okay, but several of the checks here seem just to be there to enforce reloading.


That is another critical point. In D&D you always know that "phew, ok...gonna go talk to that druid. Can someone cast guidance on me? Druid player, can I get enhance ability on Charisma? Oh, I cast disguise self on me to make myself look like a wood-elf. Here goes nothing!"

NOW you can mess with rolls being important. Players know, will prep, will get info, use spells, all of that before going in and talking to an important NPC. If I narrated them walking into a tense situation with the King of All Lands and God and Satan and they saw it from 100 feet and cut them off as they began to whisper plans on what to do and said "So, you continue walking the 100 feet up to them. They immediately notice you. What do you say". Lol, wow that is fucking them. That is exactly what they do with cut scenes over and over for this stuff.
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Grantig

Missing out additional info, as a history check fails and maybe later coming to a wrong assumption is completely different from such hard-checks as "kid dies because surprise skill check in the middle of a conversation".
A hard-check in a surprise situation, okay, but several of the checks here seem just to be there to enforce reloading.

That is another critical point. In D&D you always know that "phew, ok...gonna go talk to that druid. Can someone cast guidance on me? Druid player, can I get enhance ability on Charisma? Oh, I cast disguise self on me to make myself look like a wood-elf. Here goes nothing!"

NOW you can mess with rolls being important. Players know, will prep, will get info, use spells, all of that before going in and talking to an important NPC. If I narrated them walking into a tense situation with the King of All Lands and God and Satan and they saw it from 100 feet and cut them off as they began to whisper plans on what to do and said "So, you continue walking the 100 feet up to them. They immediately notice you. What do you say". Lol, wow that is fucking them. That is exactly what they do with cut scenes over and over for this stuff.

The thing is, in this Kagha situation, you can do all that stuff. You probably have talked to the tieflings and know that Kagha has arrested their child for stealing the idol, so you have in information to prep. Cast guidance and disguise self on yourself before you open the stone door.

If you don't prep before opening the door, that's kind of on you. And at that point you're 15 feet away, and maybe your DM would still allow you to cast guidance. But most DMs would either not allow that or would roleplay the Kagha noticing the players and asking "Hey, why are you casting all those spells aimed at influencing opinions on yourself from 15 feet away from me?" (which the game can't do)

Btw I agree that the Kagha situation should have more options. An insight check to guess that the child is going to run, a dexterity check to put yourself in front of the child/kill the snake, and initial dialogue option (NOT a check) to walk between the snake and the child, similar to putting yourself between the crossbow tiefling and the caged goblin. I like the dialogue dice rolls, but there should be more degrees of failure/success and the kid shouldn't die from failure from a basically unrelated check.
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Grantig


Missing out additional info, as a history check fails and maybe later coming to a wrong assumption is completely different from such hard-checks as "kid dies because surprise skill check in the middle of a conversation".
A hard-check in a surprise situation, okay, but several of the checks here seem just to be there to enforce reloading.


That is another critical point. In D&D you always know that "phew, ok...gonna go talk to that druid. Can someone cast guidance on me? Druid player, can I get enhance ability on Charisma? Oh, I cast disguise self on me to make myself look like a wood-elf. Here goes nothing!"

NOW you can mess with rolls being important. Players know, will prep, will get info, use spells, all of that before going in and talking to an important NPC. If I narrated them walking into a tense situation with the King of All Lands and God and Satan and they saw it from 100 feet and cut them off as they began to whisper plans on what to do and said "So, you continue walking the 100 feet up to them. They immediately notice you. What do you say". Lol, wow that is fucking them. That is exactly what they do with cut scenes over and over for this stuff.

Hey, there's a perfect game for ya'll: Assassin's Creed 2. I was supposed to run around and gather all these feathers, and I didn't have time for that stuff, so I didn't. When I played Brotherhood? It said I did.

As to pass/fail on difficult persuasion checks? Here's a thought, let's test out how "automatic success rolls" really works. Switch off you PC, and head to the nearest luxury car lot in your area. Link us the video where you passed the persuade check to give you their most expensive car for free. Hyperbole aside, there should absolutely be dialog skill checks, and not just "history". That's why we have dialog skills with set values that we can change accordingly. We can buff it, we can increase it through stat increases, although that will be more apparent later, as we gain levels beyond level 4. Why bother with it if we're just going to sweep it under the rug because someone may not like a fail state?
The Bottle Of Save States

Those who have a played a retro video game on an emulator will be familiar with the concept of save states. This is a feature that allows the emulator to save your progress outside the boundaries of the game.

A magic item exists in the world of Dungeons & Dragons that acts in a similar manner to the save state feature. It is the thought bottle, which debuted in the Complete Arcane.

The thought bottle is sort of like the Pensieve from Harry Potter, in that it allows the player to store their experiences inside the device.

This allows the player to store their experience points total for the cost of five-hundred experience points.

Once the player has stored their experiences inside the thought bottle, then they can spend their experience points on creating magic items and for using the effects of spells like permanency.

They can then restore all of those lost points by using the thought bottle.

people have created many "save game spells" too


but with a "story mode" the game would succeeded on each rolls

where with a "hardcore mode" the game save when you exit and that's it. but people do use alt+f4 to close the game so it does not save and you can try to roll again.

Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.


Proceeds with assumptions... This thread is stupid. I'm getting sick and tired of this type of crap, especially with that tone. Are you this much fun at the zoo too?

"This was bullshit. That aquarium was way too blue and not representative of the desires of all people that want to see a slightly less blue aquarium! I paid for this! I DEMAND YOU CHANGE IT"
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Grantig

Missing out additional info, as a history check fails and maybe later coming to a wrong assumption is completely different from such hard-checks as "kid dies because surprise skill check in the middle of a conversation".
A hard-check in a surprise situation, okay, but several of the checks here seem just to be there to enforce reloading.

That is another critical point. In D&D you always know that "phew, ok...gonna go talk to that druid. Can someone cast guidance on me? Druid player, can I get enhance ability on Charisma? Oh, I cast disguise self on me to make myself look like a wood-elf. Here goes nothing!"

NOW you can mess with rolls being important. Players know, will prep, will get info, use spells, all of that before going in and talking to an important NPC. If I narrated them walking into a tense situation with the King of All Lands and God and Satan and they saw it from 100 feet and cut them off as they began to whisper plans on what to do and said "So, you continue walking the 100 feet up to them. They immediately notice you. What do you say". Lol, wow that is fucking them. That is exactly what they do with cut scenes over and over for this stuff.

The thing is, in this Kagha situation, you can do all that stuff. You probably have talked to the tieflings and know that Kagha has arrested their child for stealing the idol, so you have in information to prep. Cast guidance and disguise self on yourself before you open the stone door.

If you don't prep before opening the door, that's kind of on you. And at that point you're 15 feet away, and maybe your DM would still allow you to cast guidance. But most DMs would either not allow that or would roleplay the Kagha noticing the players and asking "Hey, why are you casting all those spells aimed at influencing opinions on yourself from 15 feet away from me?" (which the game can't do)




It is why I made a broader point and the details that you are referencing were contextual to that. I maybe be just one DM, and not most, so I cant speak for the world, but I do have some experience in this:

[Linked Image]

When an NPC says "Kagha is waiting for you in the door" you don't blow all your spells (actual rest mechanic wink ) for....what exactly? talking? sneaking? saving children? for what is a meet and greet. You don't place people into important situations blind. The level of information gathering you are talking about still doesn't lead to the expectation that you cross that threshold and need to deal with her about to kill a kid. Even seeing the kid, you dont expect her to be anything more than an overprotective druid scolding a child. I am sorry, it is unreasonable to think that given the information you are given and the likelihood of piecing it together on your first time playing the game to be able to prepare for that conversation sufficiently that you can give yourself a good chance at having the outcome you wanted (not that you KNOW what the situation is!).

Guards would take you to her. They would make you wait while you watched a conversation like what happened. You MIGHT be able to say "no!". The point, like I said quite clearly, was that shouldn't have been a life or death scenario. Regardess of the guard rails you put up to keep it moving forward, the stakes are too high for what you could reasonably expect to influence having literally just walked in the door. If they want to kill the kid for narrative and Kagha building,then do so. If not, give a buffer where people can try to make sense of the scenario before having to pull the trigger.
Failure is necessary and should be permanent with lasting consequences. Save scumming is possible in every single D&D single player game that is worth speaking of. It is down to personal play style. That being said, i would love to see an option to only have a single save file for a given playthrough so that save scumming isn't possible. Divinity had this for high difficulties. Make this an inherent part of ALL save files at release. With how buggy the current game is, custom save points are a necessity though, so save the "iron man" system for release.
It's much simpler than that.

Kagha will kill the kid, unless... you save her by the means you can, and are willing to use. So if you lack the means to talk her out of it, then... You can attack her. If you're not willing, then she'll kill the kid. End of story. At least, the kid's.
Originally Posted by Orbax
It is why I made a broader point and the details that you are referencing were contextual to that.......
When an NPC says "Kagha is waiting for you in the door" you don't blow all your spells (actual rest mechanic wink ) for....what exactly? talking? sneaking? saving children? for what is a meet and greet. You don't place people into important situations blind. The level of information gathering you are talking about still doesn't lead to the expectation that you cross that threshold and need to deal with her about to kill a kid. Even seeing the kid, you dont expect her to be anything more than an overprotective druid scolding a child. I am sorry, it is unreasonable to think that given the information you are given and the likelihood of piecing it together on your first time playing the game to be able to prepare for that conversation sufficiently that you can give yourself a good chance at having the outcome you wanted (not that you KNOW what the situation is!).

Guards would take you to her. They would make you wait while you watched a conversation like what happened. You MIGHT be able to say "no!". The point, like I said quite clearly, was that shouldn't have been a life or death scenario. Regardess of the guard rails you put up to keep it moving forward, the stakes are too high for what you could reasonably expect to influence having literally just walked in the door. If they want to kill the kid for narrative and Kagha building,then do so. If not, give a buffer where people can try to make sense of the scenario before having to pull the trigger.

To be nitpicky, guidance is a cantrip ^_^

I'll agree that you dont know that you'll be walking into such a hostile situation, but I'll argue against you that it's a simple meet and greet. The druid at the entrance were pretty hostile to you and the tieflings were incredibly upset and worried that their child was being held hostage. It's not a normal "Hi, my name is ____, good to meet you" situation.

You shouldn't be able to piece everything together before any dialogue. Especially this child thing. The child acted impulsively and Kagha/the snake reacted impulsively. You shouldn't be able to learn that the outcome of this dialogue might be child death before the dialogue even begins!

As to your last paragraph, I think we're in agreement. I think there should be an additional check (during the dialogue) related directly to the child death (stepping in the way, for example). Currently, we think the check is to "let the child go or keep the child in captivity" but actually is "keep the child alive or let her die" which is misleading. I'd be fine with the dialogue being entirely cutscene with no check.

Originally Posted by rodeolifant
It's much simpler than that.

Kagha will kill the kid, unless... you save her by the means you can, and are willing to use. So if you lack the means to talk her out of it, then... You can attack her. If you're not willing, then she'll kill the kid. End of story. At least, the kid's.

Not true. There is no option to attack her once you realize that she is going to kill the kid. Initially, if you fail the check, you just think "Ah well, the child will stay in jail for a big longer."

You can attack her after she kills the kid, but this is obviously not the same.
Posted By: eLeF Re: skill check dice rolls, a really shit idea. - 29/10/20 04:21 PM
Problem is that many skill checks in EA are too difficult. Get all the skill bonuses and buffs you want but often you will just keep failing because RNG is stacked against the player. Perhaps this will get adjusted in the future, after all act 1 should take it easy but I don't get the "failure is rewarding/fun" idea. One failed skill check could mean death for an entire party and then you will have to reload anyway. That is not what I consider fun or rewarding, I consider that a brick wall.
Originally Posted by Orbax


Guards would take you to her. They would make you wait while you watched a conversation like what happened. You MIGHT be able to say "no!". The point, like I said quite clearly, was that shouldn't have been a life or death scenario. Regardess of the guard rails you put up to keep it moving forward, the stakes are too high for what you could reasonably expect to influence having literally just walked in the door. If they want to kill the kid for narrative and Kagha building,then do so. If not, give a buffer where people can try to make sense of the scenario before having to pull the trigger.

It's funny because I was just thinking that if I was too far away and was just shown this as an unfortunate cinematic then that's one thing, But my character is too close for this to be unavoidable and I don't mean saving the child per say, but simply intervening.

I also agree that spells such as Guidance and Disguise might be options (sheesh didn't even think of those), but as a Half Elf Ranger, the last thing I thought I needed in a meet and greet with Druids, was to do all that. My mistake maybe.

MrFuju3

I was talking about disguise self and enhance abilities :p

I am all for walking into difficult scenarios. We made the joke that the theme song for my campaigns should just be this constantly in the background https://youtu.be/u9VMfdG873E

I like stress. Last session there was no fighting and at one point I just was playing something out and kept asking them "Do you do anything?" they saying it was like watching a movie and the drama was just brutal, they had no idea what was going to happen to any of the parties involved, including them. They had made some decisions based on very little info and hedged their bets the best they could before saying "ok....I do it".

I want people to use notes. I want them to talk to people. They have learned that if you take things at face value, you will most likely not be making the BEST decision. It isn't always a tricksy, but there is usually something more to gain by being thorough. In low level scenarios, where there almost no tools at a player's disposal you have to rely on simple scenarios or scenarios that are broken down into a series of sufficiently simple tasks that the outcome is probably achievable. At least for things where you would know that the players would most likely wish to narratively succeed as there isn't a material, impactful reward like a Cloak of Elvenkind at stake. It is there to give them a win while letting them be creative. Its why they're here.

The Shadow Druid arc would be the one where difficulty comes in. This is something Id write 1 hour before the session if I forgot to prep as it stands.

- I go into the library
- Ok, through the bookcase you see a large wooden chest
- Can i open it?
- Inside is a letter to Kagha from "evil overlord shadow druid" that explains he left important info at X marks the spot.
- Ok, I talk to kagha and tell her I found her letter
- uhm...that isn't an option. You feel like God is telling you to go to the swamp and deal with this arc later.
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Orbax


Guards would take you to her. They would make you wait while you watched a conversation like what happened. You MIGHT be able to say "no!". The point, like I said quite clearly, was that shouldn't have been a life or death scenario. Regardess of the guard rails you put up to keep it moving forward, the stakes are too high for what you could reasonably expect to influence having literally just walked in the door. If they want to kill the kid for narrative and Kagha building,then do so. If not, give a buffer where people can try to make sense of the scenario before having to pull the trigger.

It's funny because I was just thinking that if I was too far away and was just shown this as an unfortunate cinematic then that's one thing, But my character is too close for this to be unavoidable and I don't mean saving the child per say, but simply intervening.

I also agree that spells such as Guidance and Disguise might be options (sheesh didn't even think of those), but as a Half Elf Ranger, the last thing I thought I needed in a meet and greet with Druids, was to do all that. My mistake maybe.


Yeah you can charm her (if she fails throw), guidance, disguise self didn't really do anything - she liked me for being a drow though, commented that I understand a spider protecting her brood. It didn't really make too much of a difference, it was still an annoyingly high DC haha
Another example of where playing Drow has some cool options, where as playing Half-Elf Ranger is clearly too bog standard a choice lol
Originally Posted by Riandor
Another example of where playing Drow has some cool options, where as playing Half-Elf Ranger is clearly too bog standard a choice lol


Well, it took me 7 playthroughs to get to drow haha. Im old school and are like "nah, drow are rare and have sunlight sensitivity and everyone hates them it doesnt make sense" and dont allow them in games. This game is WAY easier as one though, NO downside and everyone is scared of you and respects you.
Orbax

So would you be happy if you could talk to the druids outside and some/one of them would hint that that Kagha is prone to violence? And then that would open up a dialogue option w/Kagha where you say "Make your snake back away from the kid and then we can talk" If so, I 100% agree.

As to you example, you can only find this letter after the kid is dead, right? So it's not like you could confront Kagha and use this letter to save the kid???
But yes I also agree that once you find this suspicious letter, you should immediately be able to talk to Kagha about it. That's just common sense.
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Grantig

Missing out additional info, as a history check fails and maybe later coming to a wrong assumption is completely different from such hard-checks as "kid dies because surprise skill check in the middle of a conversation".
A hard-check in a surprise situation, okay, but several of the checks here seem just to be there to enforce reloading.

That is another critical point. In D&D you always know that "phew, ok...gonna go talk to that druid. Can someone cast guidance on me? Druid player, can I get enhance ability on Charisma? Oh, I cast disguise self on me to make myself look like a wood-elf. Here goes nothing!"

NOW you can mess with rolls being important. Players know, will prep, will get info, use spells, all of that before going in and talking to an important NPC. If I narrated them walking into a tense situation with the King of All Lands and God and Satan and they saw it from 100 feet and cut them off as they began to whisper plans on what to do and said "So, you continue walking the 100 feet up to them. They immediately notice you. What do you say". Lol, wow that is fucking them. That is exactly what they do with cut scenes over and over for this stuff.

The thing is, in this Kagha situation, you can do all that stuff. You probably have talked to the tieflings and know that Kagha has arrested their child for stealing the idol, so you have in information to prep. Cast guidance and disguise self on yourself before you open the stone door.

If you don't prep before opening the door, that's kind of on you. And at that point you're 15 feet away, and maybe your DM would still allow you to cast guidance. But most DMs would either not allow that or would roleplay the Kagha noticing the players and asking "Hey, why are you casting all those spells aimed at influencing opinions on yourself from 15 feet away from me?" (which the game can't do)




It is why I made a broader point and the details that you are referencing were contextual to that. I maybe be just one DM, and not most, so I cant speak for the world, but I do have some experience in this:

[Linked Image]

When an NPC says "Kagha is waiting for you in the door" you don't blow all your spells (actual rest mechanic wink ) for....what exactly? talking? sneaking? saving children? for what is a meet and greet. You don't place people into important situations blind. The level of information gathering you are talking about still doesn't lead to the expectation that you cross that threshold and need to deal with her about to kill a kid. Even seeing the kid, you dont expect her to be anything more than an overprotective druid scolding a child. I am sorry, it is unreasonable to think that given the information you are given and the likelihood of piecing it together on your first time playing the game to be able to prepare for that conversation sufficiently that you can give yourself a good chance at having the outcome you wanted (not that you KNOW what the situation is!).

Guards would take you to her. They would make you wait while you watched a conversation like what happened. You MIGHT be able to say "no!". The point, like I said quite clearly, was that shouldn't have been a life or death scenario. Regardess of the guard rails you put up to keep it moving forward, the stakes are too high for what you could reasonably expect to influence having literally just walked in the door. If they want to kill the kid for narrative and Kagha building,then do so. If not, give a buffer where people can try to make sense of the scenario before having to pull the trigger.

The bolded here? This is a misconception on your part. This is something that a quality DM may, in fact, have in store for their campaign. This, is why I would never want to play in a campaign you run, because it's all going to be "oh, that's fine, you won xxx automatically". I can sit home and write all of that I'd ever need to feel good about myself, or my gaming sessions. What about this event was not foreshadowed, even if not the exact situation? Did you not get the same cutscene the rest of us did upon first approaching the grove? What I didn't expect to find was a subordinate Druid disageeing with her decision to imprison the girl, a fact that makes even less sense after this encounter, when you talk to him. Again, she's not planning to kill the girl. Nothing in her dialog points to that being her intention, she even blatantly says to lock her up until the ritual, and yet, you come here and claim her intent was to kill the girl, after citing your experience as a GM? It's spoken dialog, and you still missed it?
If you know its there, you can go to the swamp and read the letter in the tree first. Even them, you have to save the kid before you get the option to confront her. You cant tell anyone else. What I did was I read the letter and freed Halsin before ever going to the grove and meeting her and i STILL couldnt tell Halsin or confront her prior to the child about shadow druid stuff. There is no way to circumvent that vignette that ive been able to think of yet. Hmm. I just thought of one. I wonder if I can cast invisibility on the kid or something....anyway, its just gon' happen.

And lets say there was a person outside that cave entrance transition. You hear, flat out, "I think Kagha means to kill that child that was caught trying to steal our sacred idol!"

You have to put yourself behind the veil. Honestly, what do you actually do at level 1 to prepare for that? You probably just walk in and see what the fuck is going on. It was only when I was level 4 and had waited that I came back to it with some new ideas and none of them worked there either. You are being set up to fail, plain and simple. If they want the narrative that bad, then just do it. There is no benefit or disbenefit to you for the child dying other than that shitty ring that you get from the parents. Maybe theyre in BG later, probably not. Since its inconsequential and youll probably fail, just play it out, its more dramatic that way.

The flaw is in the very nature of what they were trying to do and the the tools given and your odds of success against an arch druid at level 1. It was a farce beginning to end and it took the worst part of narrative and decision making and made the player care almost nothing for the outcome other than wanting a kid not dead on principle.
Originally Posted by robertthebard

The bolded here? This is a misconception on your part. This is something that a quality DM may, in fact, have in store for their campaign. This, is why I would never want to play in a campaign you run, because it's all going to be "oh, that's fine, you won xxx automatically". I can sit home and write all of that I'd ever need to feel good about myself, or my gaming sessions. What about this event was not foreshadowed, even if not the exact situation? Did you not get the same cutscene the rest of us did upon first approaching the grove? What I didn't expect to find was a subordinate Druid disageeing with her decision to imprison the girl, a fact that makes even less sense after this encounter, when you talk to him. Again, she's not planning to kill the girl. Nothing in her dialog points to that being her intention, she even blatantly says to lock her up until the ritual, and yet, you come here and claim her intent was to kill the girl, after citing your experience as a GM? It's spoken dialog, and you still missed it?


That is a very strong position, I am sorry you feel that way about these games I ostensibly DM that are in line with your imagination. For clarity, please actually read the posts in the thread before going too far down a rabbit hole. https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=721868#Post721868
I think Larian should give the possibility for infinite re-roll. Why you ask ?
Here is why.

When I talked about the bad-feeling I get from the roll-dice, LOT of gamers said "just reload if you're unhappy".

So for my second game, this is what I did. I reload.
For an example, yesterday night I reloaded exactly 11 times my save just to get a positive roll-dice.

FACT IS : it was not fun and it was a lot of time lost.
FACT IS : I don't feel like I have time to lost in video game. I loved them but my time is precious and spending 5-10 minutes loading the same save again and again is a terrible waste and decrease of fun.
FACT IS : I don't have (or I wont take) times to do a new game crossing my fingers, hoping to have a better reroll this time in all the game...

So I understand people who love the thrill of the roll-dice. At least, I get it.
But I think this people should also understand and get MY point of view.

And this is why I think Larian should add a button "infinite re-roll" for the gamers like me (and I know, I'm not alone).
So the players who want to live in one roll-dice, keep living with one roll-dice, and the players, like me, who want to live "fully" control and choose the story they live, could reroll (I even think I could find funny to see how many times I have to roll to win a persuasion test at 3 !).

I call it a compromise.

Sadly I have the feeling it's something hard to accept for Larian (and even some people here)...

Again, I respect the people who like the thrill of the roll (it's not like I didn't like it at all but that's not the point here).

I would like for Larian to do the same with the people who prefer to play the adventure they are looking for.
Just put an infinity'rerool button and EVERYBODY would be happy (except for those who wants to impose their point of view).
So...

Looking at DnD balance, the player can't even reach level 5. Which means you are weak, a nobody, and will have a hard time in encounters (Be social or combat).
- Mostly DnD players are used to failure in this early levels, it is expected. (Game starts hard and get easier when you are strong)
- It is also normal for DnD players to dislike the early levels and begin the adventure at 5th level
- Even when you do all correctly, the Critical Failure will strike, and you will have to adapt.

Looking at PC single player game, it is hard to newcommers not used to failure, they will savescum their way to success, as failure is just "time lost".
- Mostly gamers in this spectrum are accostumed to a ramping difficulty, starting easy, and getting harder. (Game starts easy, and you become powerful as the challenges get harder)
- It is common to save scum in order to get the desired outcome.
- If you do all correclty, the expected outcome is always the same.

Possible solutions:
- Easier difficult to the game with lower DC
- Separate the Social and Combat difficulties to meet different standards
- Lower the Social DC as a whole in the ares up to level 4.

Downside to choose the difficulty:
- Some people will expect to be able to cope with harder difficulties, and whine when they can't.
Zefhyr:

Larian games have a Story Mode difficulty; I have no problem putting an infinite re-roll ability here. Of course, if this is implemented, why not just let people automatically succeed any dialogue check?
Larian games also have an Easy Mode: Maybe all dialogue DCs could be decreased by 5? And/or you get 1 re-roll per check.

Normal or Hard or 5e RAW mode should NOT have infinite re-rolls. If I select a hard difficulty, I don't want to be tempted at every failed check to roll again. That would not be fun for me. If I re-rolled, I would feel like I'm cheating. If I didn't re-roll, I'd feel like I was purposefully missing out on content. Neither is fun (for me).

An "infinite re-roll" should not be present in every game mode. (An optional check-box that is, by default, turned off would also be fine with me)
If this wasn't an issue,
Larian wouldn't have posted an official message to players to "please don't savescum, have fun experiencing failure", like that is a message that resonates with the human spirit lol.
And yes, I'm assuming savescumming is 99% the situation. If you think it's not the case, I have nothing to tell you, you're being deliberately blind..
As soon as larian release analytics about this, you'll see it's the truth.


Go on BG3 forums, see how people are talking about how to minimize savescumming using skills etc. in every situation. Savescumming is the game. It's actually become a game mechanic in this game because of this design. It's a shit design.



That is why I suggest the D:OS way, which simply avoids it altogether, where successes are locked behind long-term decisions.
You automatically succeed/fail on checks according to your
1) race
2) backstory
3) basic stats
4) skills
5) proficiencies
6) spells
7) companions
8) items in inventory
9) character class
10) past choices in the game
etc.
There are so many factors that can be taken into account that I think it'll still guarantee a unique experience through the game each time.



That said, this also is not a good solution necessarily, given the gravity of some choices in the game (little girl murdered or little girl saved) so in this case some choices should probably be taken away in order to refine the story. That situation with Kagha should probably be re-written entirely, to happen later and under specific conditions (like, if the player agrees with her that the tieflings are pests and vermin, or if the player chooses to oppose her and fight, then the girl tries to run away and gets bitten, etc, while if the player brings in the real druid the situation is avoided etc).
There is (almost) nothing fun about failure right now.
As I said before, the main problem with this mechanic is that there's just way too much of it in the game, and it has way too much power.
Originally Posted by Abits
There is (almost) nothing fun about failure right now.
As I said before, the main problem with this mechanic is that there's just way too much of it in the game, and it has way too much power.


There will also never be anything fun about failure here.

Failure means "you didn't get what you wanted".
What are you gonna do?
"You didn't get what you wanted, u failure, but here's a piece of candy instead" ? It just doesn't work here. Which is why savescumming became a core mechanic.

It works excellent in actual tabletop D&D because there's no save/load anyway, because the players don't even know what they want exactly, since they're not given a list of possible dialogue choices with a reasonable understanding of what the desired outcome of each is, and its usually a stressful or humorous thing that happens and the whole group is there and it just works.
But in a pre-scripted computer rpg it doesn't.



Another solution btw is to just disallow saving at all except in some few checkpoints in the game, but that's very impractical given players may play for a while without reaching a checkpoint, and people hate not having a save function.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
Originally Posted by Abits
There is (almost) nothing fun about failure right now.
As I said before, the main problem with this mechanic is that there's just way too much of it in the game, and it has way too much power.


There will also never be anything fun about failure here.

Failure means "you didn't get what you wanted".
What are you gonna do?
"You didn't get what you wanted, u failure, but here's a piece of candy instead" ? It just doesn't work here. Which is why savescumming became a core mechanic.

It works excellent in actual tabletop D&D because there's no save/load anyway, because the players don't even know what they want exactly, since they're not given a list of possible dialogue choices with a reasonable understanding of what the desired outcome of each is, and its usually a stressful or humorous thing that happens and the whole group is there and it just works.
But in a pre-scripted computer rpg it doesn't.



Another solution btw is to just disallow saving at all except in some few checkpoints in the game, but that's very impractical given players may play for a while without reaching a checkpoint, and people hate not having a save function.

There is actually one very good example of "failing is fun in the game". If you are captured by gut and fail all your escape attempt rolls, you get a suprise visit from Raphael's minion. That's a cool way to use this mechanic. But it's a single case out of dozens (possibly hundreds) of rolls.
I don't condemn save scumming; this just needs to be a difficulty setting so you can by bypass rolls if that is a part of the game you don't want to engage with. I don't feel like it will degrade game play for anyone else who chooses not to use that setting.

Personally i like some of the failure options in this game but not everyone does.
I agree to leave it as it is - dice outcome is the dice outcome - thats D&D and its imitating luck/lack of .....the skills etc are taken into account in the figure - use the guidance cantrip to get +4 .....pretty simple really.
Originally Posted by Tarorn
I agree to leave it as it is - dice outcome is the dice outcome - thats D&D and its imitating luck/lack of .....the skills etc are taken into account in the figure - use the guidance cantrip to get +4 .....pretty simple really.



If only you had posted sooner, no one would have to say anything
Originally Posted by Tarorn
I agree to leave it as it is - dice outcome is the dice outcome - thats D&D and its imitating luck/lack of .....the skills etc are taken into account in the figure - use the guidance cantrip to get +4 .....pretty simple really.

I just hope they fix it. I don't think it works. I failed a rolls several times under the influence of guidance, even when my score was higher than necessary.
mrfuji3
it's nice to talk with someone who accept a different opinion.
It gives me the opportunity to moderate my point of view.
Because, this is not like if I was radically against the roll-dice (I mean, I played a looooot of game, especially rpgs) but here it feel really random and not fun.
There are times where I could accept failures but there are more times when it just feel... not fun and most unfair.
I... Ok, I though (pretty sure I write it bad... think with past grammar) I was familiar with D&D but maybe I'm not because when peoples said "it's like is in D&D" it doesn't satisfy my unsatisfaction. So i guess I don't really care about D&D and more about how I feel playing the game.
And I swear I could live with this roll-dice if it was.... better.
For now, it feels random (but like reaaaaaaally random) and I feel... powerless.
I'm the kind of guy who put everything in charisma and socials skills cause I love to resolve conflict by talking as I love to understand the others.
But in this game, it feels like I had no charisma, no social skills. And this is why the explanation about the D&D and +2,3,4, etc didn't ring a bell for me.
After my first game I just thought "damn so many skills points and charisma points wasted"

So maybe I don't understand D&D system at all, but... I don't care. I just focus on the feelings the game gives me. And with this actual roll-dice system, the feeling is wrong (and yeah, the kids killed cause I failed my persuasion was just... out of nowhere... like "shit all the points I spent in charisma and social skills are actually a penality"... But this is not the only case. So maybe the problem isn't only in the roll-dice but also in the... perfectionnable dialogue junctions...)

And so, yeah, for now, I would like to have some options who make me feel that I can be, indeed, socially skilled (which need more than a +4 onr my roll-dice...)
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by robertthebard

The bolded here? This is a misconception on your part. This is something that a quality DM may, in fact, have in store for their campaign. This, is why I would never want to play in a campaign you run, because it's all going to be "oh, that's fine, you won xxx automatically". I can sit home and write all of that I'd ever need to feel good about myself, or my gaming sessions. What about this event was not foreshadowed, even if not the exact situation? Did you not get the same cutscene the rest of us did upon first approaching the grove? What I didn't expect to find was a subordinate Druid disageeing with her decision to imprison the girl, a fact that makes even less sense after this encounter, when you talk to him. Again, she's not planning to kill the girl. Nothing in her dialog points to that being her intention, she even blatantly says to lock her up until the ritual, and yet, you come here and claim her intent was to kill the girl, after citing your experience as a GM? It's spoken dialog, and you still missed it?


That is a very strong position, I am sorry you feel that way about these games I ostensibly DM that are in line with your imagination. For clarity, please actually read the posts in the thread before going too far down a rabbit hole. https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=721868#Post721868

I'm disagreeing with what was posted here. The post said "need to deal with her about to kill a kid". This is not what we walk in on. It's not even in her head, from what she actually says. "Lock her up" =/= "kill the kid". I don't need to read any other threads to understand exactly what I'm arguing against here, it's right there in print. There is a misconception about what's going on. A link was provided to show what an excellent GM the poster is, and yet, even with spoken dialog expressing her intent, they claim "need to deal with her about to kill a kid". That tells me everything I need to know.
I 100% believe that out of context snippets that you use to reinforce pre-existing opinions without attempting to view something charitably and see if there is merit is all you need when reading something you don't feel you immediately agree with. I think we are in accord.
Originally Posted by Orbax
I 100% believe that out of context snippets that you use to reinforce pre-existing opinions without attempting to view something charitably and see if there is merit is all you need when reading something you don't feel you immediately agree with. I think we are in accord.

What's to view charitably? When did "lock her up" become the same as "kill the kid"? I must have slept through that Merriam Webster edit of the English language.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Orbax
I 100% believe that out of context snippets that you use to reinforce pre-existing opinions without attempting to view something charitably and see if there is merit is all you need when reading something you don't feel you immediately agree with. I think we are in accord.

What's to view charitably? When did "lock her up" become the same as "kill the kid"? I must have slept through that Merriam Webster edit of the English language.


Does she ever attempt to lock the child up? Lets just walk through this one and see what I may have been referencing.
Zefhyr
I agree that the d20 makes a lot of checks feel random and easy to fail even if you made a charismatic character. And you not having fun continuously failing checks is valid feedback.
I made this point in some other thread, but something missing from BG3 compared to PnP is: group checks. Often, in PnP D&D, party members will work together on conversation checks which mechanically gives advantage on the check. This is not present in BG3, and unclear if it will be present. Advantage is incredibly powerful, and would allow you to succeed on checks ~50% more often.

Also, of course, Larian should
-implement degrees of failure: failure by 1 leads to a different outcome compared to failing by 10
-make failing more fun, as they claimed they were trying to do.

Originally Posted by Orbax
Does she ever attempt to lock the child up? Lets just walk through this one and see what I may have been referencing.

I've mostly stopped following your conversation with robert, but yes Kagha is clearly intending to lock the child up. See subtitles https://youtu.be/lJ1g13BMxB8?t=15 and https://youtu.be/lJ1g13BMxB8?t=33
I was so shocked when the kid died when i failed that check; and her intent wasn't to kill the kid in the first place. It was an unforeseen circumstance surprising to all involved but the snake who was acting on instinct. That outcome was unfortunate but wonderfully executed.

and the fallout from it was *chef's kiss*
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Nope. Retain the skill check system, failure is interesting.


This + ironman mode, so people cant save scum due to our nature
Originally Posted by Popsculpture
I was so shocked when the kid died when i failed that check; and her intent wasn't to kill the kid in the first place. It was an unforeseen circumstance surprising to all involved but the snake who was acting on instinct. That outcome was unfortunate but wonderfully executed.

and the fallout from it was *chef's kiss*


Well, Teela is her snake, that she commands. She had set Teela on watch over the child as it was and that was an opportunity to kill. If you play Drow, Kagha is proud of it and "knows" you understand that you bite when you protect your brood. There wasn't a whole lot of *gasp, how did that happen* from Kagha on that one. She was minorly bothered after the fact, if thats what the emotion of the twitchy face grab animation was, but then was like whatever, bury her, focus on the rite.
Oh yeah, Kagha is the absolute worst but that is by design. especially when you find her back ally deals and motivation. I'm sorry didn't mean to bury the lede; i wasn't trying to paint Kagha in a sympathetic light.

Fixed grammar lol; thanks Orbax
there is just sooooo much going on in and around the grove and I dig it.
Originally Posted by Popsculpture
Oh yeah, Kagha is the absolute worst but that is by design. especially when you find her back ally deals and motivation. I'm sorry if I buried the lead; i wasn't trying to paint Kagha in a sympathetic light.



Bury the "lede" btw smile

I don't think you painted it incorrectly, I was just saying that from my point of view, and what she tells drow players after the fact, that it wasn't a very accidental scenario with a snake acting on instinct. Its HER snake. There was 1% of her that thought the child might walk away alive haha. From what I took out of the scenario and based on the influences she is under at least ^.^
that's fair; i was on a wood elf the time i went though the first time. You are right her demeanor changed as a drow.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.



Disagree. The tension of rolling and being able to fail makes things interesting and fun.

What might help though is finding a way of communicating to the player that they didn't "lose", which makes them think they should reload. Failure is supposed to be part of the fun, but the game itself presents it in a way that makes you think that is not the case.
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Orbax
I 100% believe that out of context snippets that you use to reinforce pre-existing opinions without attempting to view something charitably and see if there is merit is all you need when reading something you don't feel you immediately agree with. I think we are in accord.

What's to view charitably? When did "lock her up" become the same as "kill the kid"? I must have slept through that Merriam Webster edit of the English language.


Does she ever attempt to lock the child up? Lets just walk through this one and see what I may have been referencing.

If you fail the roll, what does she tell the other druid to do? I agree, let's walk through it, and see who's at fault for the child dying.

I can save us a few steps in this dialog. She tells him to lock her up, and the kid panics, and gets bitten. Am I misremembering anything? Did something in the English language change to get from "lock her up" to "kill the child" as was posted and is what I responded to? No? Then no, charity isn't what's needed, but it does rhyme, perhaps you meant "clarity"?
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Orbax
I 100% believe that out of context snippets that you use to reinforce pre-existing opinions without attempting to view something charitably and see if there is merit is all you need when reading something you don't feel you immediately agree with. I think we are in accord.

What's to view charitably? When did "lock her up" become the same as "kill the kid"? I must have slept through that Merriam Webster edit of the English language.


Does she ever attempt to lock the child up? Lets just walk through this one and see what I may have been referencing.

If you fail the roll, what does she tell the other druid to do? I agree, let's walk through it, and see who's at fault for the child dying.

I can save us a few steps in this dialog. She tells him to lock her up, and the kid panics, and gets bitten. Am I misremembering anything? Did something in the English language change to get from "lock her up" to "kill the child" as was posted and is what I responded to? No? Then no, charity isn't what's needed, but it does rhyme, perhaps you meant "clarity"?


So, for people who can read and choose to do so in full, please reference my original posts and the point they were making that was its typically better to slowly introduce players into important situations to give them attempts to prepare, gather information, and attempt a few activities using skill checks prior to & instead of a single life or death roll that, even if you knew it was coming, there was nothing you could possibly do to really get a leg up on or influence the situation meaningfully. Learn from Robert's mistakes, read with the intent to understand.
Originally Posted by Orbax


So, for people who can read and choose to do so in full, please reference my original posts and the point they were making that was its typically better to slowly introduce players into important situations to give them attempts to prepare, gather information, and attempt a few activities using skill checks prior to & instead of a single life or death roll that, even if you knew it was coming, there was nothing you could possibly due to really get a leg up on or influence the situation meaningfully. Learn from Robert's mistakes, read with the intent to understand.


Oh this is rich. There is no mistake, except maybe they should have had the other druid go ahead and lock her up if you pass the check. Yes, I can read plain text, and I even speak English, mostly fluently, which is a good thing, since I'm an native English speaker, well, American speaker, the language is definitely different from the Queen's English. The mistake is misleading people saying that someone has to prepare their players for a druid intending to kill a child, when that's not the scenario we're walking into. BTW, that dialog to the Drow? It isn't unique to a fail on that roll, you get the same one if you pass it, so what was she referring to then? It's simple, it really is, and there's no mistake being made by me here; I read the situation for what it was, pass and fail, and didn't feel like it was unfair. What would be unfair is making that roll meaningless, because the idea is that you're trying to convince her to not lock up a thief, there's nothing in the dialog about stopping her from killing a child.

So yes, there is a sound bit of advice in there: Make sure you know what the situation actually is before you go assigning motives on your own, and then presenting your assigned motives as facts. I realize that that idea runs counter to the modern age of "debate", but I'm not from the modern age, and prefer the old fashioned way of sticking to the facts as presented, instead of making up my own set of facts and then arguing in support of those.
The biggest disconnect was you thinking that I was claiming that it was a narrative life or death. I was saying it was a life or death as those were the actual stakes at hand. It could have been freedom or jail, pudding or pie, or tickles and wiggles and the fact remained that player agency was removed and they were put into a situation that they were at a disadvantage for in level, tools, and information. The odds being stacked implied a narrative bias as it was not level appropriate and the story would have been better served as a complete cutscene if players don't get a fair shake at it. DC8 would have been appropriate if that is what they are doing as the check, as 99% of them are, are persuasion based and the majority of classes do not stack that score. There are no creative ways to solve that problem. Its have high charisma or a character that can cast guidance - neither one of which is a given - or be at a disadvantage and have a child die. It was lazy, it was disingenuous as to your chances, and the vast number of issues posted across all forums with this specific instance show that it frustrated a great deal of players.

The situation wasn't a bad idea, it was executed with a ride or die roll that was too high. Seeing the girl get dragged off and the snake now guarding the cage, you getting a chance to performance roll and snake charm (fun!), or you being able to gather a few druids to your side in protest against the new leader's authoritarian rule that has come to this so she says "fine, if it happens again, all the refugees are out of here. By force." and she storms off. I can think of so. many. ways. to make that an enjoyable encounter that gives players a proactive shake at being introduced into the politics of the circle. As it is, it is hamfisted, unfair, and serves the narrative purpose of building her persona more poorly than almost any other way.

So, no, at no point have I talked about auto-success, easy rolls, or wand waving. This is talking about giving level 1 players, who also might be new to D&D and don't think high CHA + Guidance + disguise self, of course! immediately, to have some progressively more challenging & interesting attempts to resolve what is an interesting hook - the freedom and life of a refugee child. You don't need to kill the kid immediately to get the message across that she is willing to imprison or harm children fleeing from literal hell to find a safe home.
Thx you mrfuji3.
It's a relief to have someone hearing me !
Indeed, the problem, for me again, is to continuously lost to a point I found it a little ridiculous ! ^^"

I agree with your proposition as with your attitude ! laugh


Concerning the child, it's (surely) a little dumb but... When I play (at least when I first play) a RPG, I really, really, really, play it with all my heart and since I'm a reaaly cheesy-sweet-heart, I'll ever do my best to be a good guy so the kids dying cause I tried to be persuasive why more like a slap in my face than a pleasant, funny and "well-written" event.

I would participate to the debat at a "higher" level.

It's just theorical but I would like to give my point of view about dialogues and roll-dice.

I completely understand it ni D&D. Because when you (as a GM) submit an encounter to your players, they choose the answer they want to give, they invent it, they create it in their mind. So the GM have to decide on the moment if the answer will work or no. And because it could be hard to decide if the choice of the players are good, the GM used roll-dice as a... referre."
It's like "I think what you said wont work but if you think so well... let's decide the dice" and the GM choose a difficulty.
This is how a imagine it.

But, in a video game it's different because the developpers have prepared everything. They have prepared the story, the encounter and the sentences. So it's not like... it's not like the game could be "surprised" by the sentence the gamers will choose. The developpers might have decided what could happen, why put this sentence or this others.
That's why they shouldn't need a roll-dice. Because they shouldn't haven't argue with the gamers.

It's like... writting a book. You will never read a book and suddenly
" - Luke, Im' your father...
Please reader, roll a dice to decide if Luke will get through it or not because I'm not really sure of what's happening next."

If as video gamers we had to wrote our OWN sentence, roll-dice would be more legitimate.
For now, it is, from my point of view, just a design decision as simple as "we will do like in a pen and paper party".
But it can't work the same since the gamers didn't create their answers and so the game doesn't have to deal with unexpected proposition.
Roll-dice is like the game is playing dumb.
Like a guy worked a lot and decided that using persuasion at this moment could change the mind of the NPC cause it would made sense. But then after he decided, well it would be logic thant this sentence works but let's just roll a dice to see if I am good at my job or not."

Again, I am not asking, here, to remote roll-dice, I'm just explaining why, from a theorical poitn of view, it doesn't seem to be appropriate for a video-game.
I dont know all DMs, just how I do, but here is a sample of my notes. I usually write about 5000-6000 words per session and try to accomodate what will happen. Its not a lot different than writing a game:

- By this time its evening and cold and muddy. Ardred shouts out that Gristle Pete is cookin some grub and dinner'll be in an hour so make yourselves comfortable. If the doors upstairs have a key on them, that means you can have it. They aren't charging for the few brave souls who make it out here these days.

- If they help Gristle Pete he'll bitch about the rats always scratching down below. Always banging and hissing and makin whispering noises.

- They'll be able to hear the scraping and hissing if they get closer to the west side of the warehouse at a DC10.

- DC10 with thieves tools to get in the main door. The noises are coming from the north. Perception check of 15 will reveal a secret panel to the north that is not quite closed.

- If they don't have at least 3 people over 13 stealth, the lizard folk will close the door and go under the secret trap door (perception 20 (finds it and they'll notice at 25 some of the boxes and bags have small purple lines drawn onto them. Opening them reveals jewels. Each one will have about 300 gold worth of coin and jewelery in them, investigation 15). Though a DC 15 will let them hearing slow breathing beneath the floor.

otherwise those with darkvision will see shadowy forms in the dark, grey outlines, hard to make out. Perception check (12, see that they have tails)

- Most likely fight at that point.
*after fight ardred will come running in*

- Will be furious this was happening and thank them, saying they've more than earned their keep. Goes over to a chest in the corner and unlocks it with a key at his hip and counts out 50gp for them. Says he wishes he had more, but its a road repair operation.

Depending on if they've seen the sword on Bog Luck, or if they show the cape / mask / signs they have from the dragon cult, Bog Luck will be confronted - death or something Ardred finds appropriate. Hes actually pretty damn smart, and will spill the beans, knowing this to be something without a good outcome. Ardred will order one of the group, since they seem to know about the cult, to go to his room with a guard. They'll see his books on philosophy and nature studies and get the gist that hes actually pretty smart. Under his bed they find a simple chest with 100gp in it, and Ardred will split it with them.

**What he spills**
- He had joined with the cult a few years ago, mainly because they gave him money for looking after a slimey tunnel that no one had touched in years. Used to be a drain for the swamp, but they built the warehouse over it. About 6 months ago, though, he was told people would come to him from time to time, and to mark the goods and put it in the room over the tunnel. Hes been here longer than anyone and no one but him knew about the room. He swears, and is honest, that he has no idea who had been taking it and thought it was just some silly thing they were doing. If he had known it was the lizard folk he would have turned them over immediately.**
There are dice rolls that do have serious consequences. You can talk your way out of fights, or you can end up becoming food for a mind flayer.

The ones that seem to have the least weight are things like lore checks. I've seen a few concrete lore checks and few that were simply implied. The result in those cases, at least from my experiences, have been flavor and didn't have any negative or positive impact.

The one thing they NEED to add in is an option for the party members to interject (for good and for bad) in conversations. So they can either make a bad situation worse, a good situation better, or maybe even keep a situation from plummeting to the bottom of the abyss. They need more interactivity to happen in conversations, things like being able to sway a conversation with options to hand over goods or the like, during the conversation.

As to changing how the dice rolling system works, there are legal issues here. They don't OWN the setting, so they have to use the rules set the owners say they have to use. And when they have to make adjustments, they need permission. And something as core as how you define success would be one of those "need permission" sort of things.
I like skill checks myself. Different outcomes is good. The problem is having to roll multiple times for the same action, such as dropping a tadpole to the ground and THEN lifting your foot to stomp it down. Once should be enough.
Well this was always going to be the case unless it autosaves after every dice roll. Why does it bother people that some people choose to re-load to get the desired result on a single player playthough? That's on them and is hardly non-linear RPG gameplay either.

I am sure you will be able to download a mod on day one of release to make all your "I wanna I wanna" dreams come true and remove all random elements the dice roll system brings. Oh and DOS isn't D&D.
The problem with the system as it is now, as I see it, is that failure is not interesting. There are times when rolls should be used to distinguish between success and failure, but it would be to everyone's benefit if they were used to distinguish between less binary outcomes while still honoring player agency.

Example:

There is a child in danger

Larian: What do you want to do, ignore the child or save them?
Player: Fuck it, I'm here, lets save the little bastard.
Larian: Roll to see if you save the child player! Target number 16!
Player: Rolls a 3.
Larian: The child dies as a result of your incompetence!

The reason players often resent this is because they have little to no control over the outcome. What is the point of providing their input if the results are random? This outcome isn't earned and the player will feel cheated -and if the game cheats then so will the player.



Alternate example:

There is a child in danger

Larian: What do you want to do, ignore the child or save them?
Player: Fuck it, I'm here, lets save the little bastard.
Larian: Roll to see if you save the child player! Target number 16!
Player: Rolls a 3.
Larian: In your haste to save the child you have attracted unwanted attention. This isn't over yet! Prepare yourselves.


The attraction of Dungeons and Dragons is that it is a deterministic game. Don't play monkey in the middle with the player agency. Allow them to work towards the solutions they see as meaningful, if they lack the skills or ability necessary to do something well, then allow them to do it badly unless there is an imperative for purely pass fail dichotomy.

edit: The story shouldn't be happening TO the player, it should explored cooperatively. In Dungeons and Dragons there are a range of results, it is rarely ever pass fail. There is success and failure, there is critical success and critical failure, and almost every quality game runner I have known has always made allowance for the near miss conversion. If you are a point or two away from a difficult challenge the result is often mitigated to reflect that. Use the system to give the player more variety, not less.

Originally Posted by DistantStranger
The problem with the system as it is now, as I see it, is that failure is not interesting. There are times when rolls should be used to distinguish between success and failure, but it would be to everyone's benefit if they were used to distinguish between less binary outcomes while still honoring player agency.

Example:

There is a child in danger

Larian: What do you want to do, ignore the child or save them?
Player: Fuck it, I'm here, lets save the little bastard.
Larian: Roll to see if you save the child player! Target number 16!
Player: Rolls a 3.
Larian: The child dies as a result of your incompetence!

The reason players often resent this is because they have little to no control over the outcome. What is the point of providing their input if the results are random? This outcome isn't earned and the player will feel cheated -and if the game cheats then so will the player.



Alternate example:

There is a child in danger

Larian: What do you want to do, ignore the child or save them?
Player: Fuck it, I'm here, lets save the little bastard.
Larian: Roll to see if you save the child player! Target number 16!
Player: Rolls a 3.
Larian: In your haste to save the child you have attracted unwanted attention. This isn't over yet! Prepare yourselves.


The attraction of Dungeons and Dragons is that it is a deterministic game. Don't play monkey in the middle with the player agency. Allow them to work towards the solutions they see as meaningful, if they lack the skills or ability necessary to do something well, then allow them to do it badly unless there is an imperative for purely pass fail dichotomy.

edit: The story shouldn't be happening TO the player, it should explored cooperatively. In Dungeons and Dragons there are a range of results, it is rarely ever pass fail. There is success and failure, there is critical success and critical failure, and almost every quality game runner I have known has always made allowance for the near miss conversion. If you are a point or two away from a difficult challenge the result is often mitigated to reflect that. Use the system to give the player more variety, not less.



I see so it the binary aspect of the rolls giving the player either/or (live or die) and nothing inbetween. I can get behind that, there is some of that in conversations but the outcome is always either/or you just get another chance to roll again for fight/not fight. A failed roll may make your job MUCH harder to achieve the desired outcome but not necessarily fail outright and in such cases may get some tasty loot from the failure. +1

That's why I like random encounters when resting tbh.
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Nope. Retain the skill check system, failure is interesting.

It really isn't, though..
I just want to say that this is just my opinion and that I don't intend to offend anyone if you disagree with my thoughts. I just want people to understand where I and people like me are coming from and why we like checks. And YES Larian CAN do better in many of the checks. There is always room for improvement. Some peoples previous suggestions for how a sequence of events could be altered are great and I hope Larian improves some of them.

That said . . I love the checks and the game so far, I don't mind when things don't go as planned, and I also don't mind reloading once in a blue moon if something really doesn't work out as I expected (typically if the choice I select causes my character to do something I didn't intend). But 98% of the time I just go with the flow.

Nearly every other game out there gives you a simple pass if you meet a certain threshold. And what does everyone do . . . put points into charm or whatever and bingo, pass Every Single Check. Its boring and pointless. Just make it an interactive story and be done with it. And I love interactive stories . . . they have their place!

But I want an adventure! . . . one where I don't know what's going to happen . . . one where my hero tries to influence things as best he can based on the skills I've given him. And I'm so excited that Larian is so far providing this adventure.

With regards to the Kagha situation. It absolutely makes a more interesting, dramatic, and impactful story if the child dies. It sets up Kagha as a villain, it gives you reason to take the quest to assassinate her, gives reason for the other druids to turn on her when she is exposed, and leads to dramatic events later if she survives until Halsin's return. I do suspect that Larian intended this result but threw in the option to save the kid for those who wanted it.

If you really want to influence these events then you build a character who has the skills and buff them with guidance, etc. And you can buff your stats AFTER beginning the conversation. So failing to pre-buff really isn't a concern here.

But if the child is saved by being released . . what is Kagha? A mildly annoying character. There is very little motivation to have her removed. Sure she plans to close the grove, but that doesn't impact your character, you are just looking for a healer and moving on. The Teiflings are leaving the grove one way or another regardless.

We don't read novels where nothing bad ever happens . . . why do we want a game like that?

Honestly I'd love Larian to troll us and alter the Kagha conversation so that if you Pass the check the child dies, but if you fail you save her. A few checks where 'success' clearly generates a bad result would teach players that they need to consider if they want to attempt the check in the first place. In a way the tadpole checks are kind of like this . . . you can pass whatever check its for but . . . bad things are going on in your head and there are likely consequences.

Also for many checks . . . they are meant to be a last resort. You are having to make the check because you didn't resolved the situation already or are attempting a risky activity that perhaps you shouldn't be doing. The injured mind flayer is an great example. Its super risky to talk to a mind flayer . . . and if you do there is a good chance it will kill you. The sensible thing is to kill it (preferably before killing the poor fisher people) and not talk to it.

Making the mistake, failing the roll, and getting a 'game over' is a great learning experience that this game is serious! You have to think about what you are doing. Again most other games have conditioned us that we can 'ask every question' and 'select every option' and there will be zero consequences. Baldur's Gate 3 is NOT like that. Larian has provided us with a range of options . . . some of which are BAD and should be avoided.

Combat is serious . . . just walking into combat will frequently result in death. Yet few people complain about the chance of dying from combat. You expect to plan ahead, scope out your options, and be very careful before engaging in combat. You need to do the same thing in conversation.

And there are often more options than people realize. Rescuing the guy in the burning building for example, even if you fail the check there is another way after that to save him (that doesn't require checks).

Larian has made a more complex game than many of us appreciate. I've screwed up many times over my playthroughs only to later learn of better alternatives I could have taken. That is one of the things I love about the game.

I'm sure Larian will provide a Story Mode like they did for their other games that will allow you to pass checks. But you really are doing yourself a disservice. Think ahead, make the hard decisions, accept and react to events as they play out. Live the adventure! Its more rewarding in gaming and in life for that matter!

Baldur's Gate 3 is off to such a bold and wonderful start! I want to see that continue.
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Nope. Retain the skill check system, failure is interesting.


Seems to me the OP and those who agree with him is approaching this from a bit of a compulsively perfectionist mindset. Something I struggle with too tbh. Alongside Larian's obvious efforts to make failure less binary/more interesting from a roleplaying stance (that critics here, alas, seem unappreciative of), perhaps there should be even more done in this regard:

1. Optional hidden rolls. Compulsive perfectionist player is unaware of having failed a roll thus won't be triggered to save scum. Ignorance is bliss.
2. More generous award of dice re-roll mechanic linked to difficulty level/optional difficulty.

I must admit though alongside the authority of ILLITHID WISDOM and Larian's interesting roleplaying failure, I have less sympathy for the weak minded save scummers (and I include myself in this category). However! I would really like Larian remove option to save in the middle of combat, given the very binary rng-nature of D&D - it is way too tempting to save scum.



I don't know what has gotten into people but it seems that many have this perfectionist mindset and can't handle adapting or rolling with the punches. That's the best part of this game to be honest, the fact that there is so much in this game that plays out after a failed roll that leads into other branching stories and not just a dead end. If you don't want spoilers don't read ahead, but it was really interesting to see the after effects of Kagda and the Tiefling child, and seeing her parents getting revenge, which you can also interfere.

Just deal with the consequences people, I'm glad that Larian is enforcing this kind of behavior. Savescummers need to move away from savescumming.
Originally Posted by trengilly
Larian has made a more complex game than many of us appreciate.


Wait, wait, wait. I may be a good even an excellent game but "complex" ?
I wouldn't call a game with some random consequences "complex" !

Try a quantic dream game if you want something "complex".

Btw, quantic dream used a LOT of QTC, which share a LOT of unexpected consequences, and surprisingly I ever enjoyed them and accept them.
But yeah, I'm kind of a perfectionist mindset. Let's say I want to save the kids, so unless his death is crucial for the story, I would like to have the opportunity to sav her.

Originally Posted by trengilly
If you really want to influence these events then you build a character who has the skills and buff them with guidance, etc.

Well, this is exactly what I did and this is exactly why I don't appreciate the current roll-dice. Cause I did and still failed A LOT. ^^"
There is another TTRpG out there called "Blades In The Dark".
Anyone who knows it or the system it uses will know what I am about to say, but for the rest, it is a system that works on adding nuances of failure to your success. The premise goes that even at "lvl1" the characters are still good at what they do. When you roll for the outcome and the aim of GM is to adapt that success outcome depending on how you roll. So a classic example is the party tries to escape from a heist across rooftops, there is a check involved....

1 - All players bar player 3 succeed in their check (could have done a group check but let's gloss over that rule for now)
2 - Player 3 fails hard and is told they slip on the wet rooftops and are falling.
3 - Player 3 sys it's ok they pre-prepared the route (useing a rule called flashback) and in good old Assassin's Creed fashion there is a cart with hay in the street.
4 - Check is made to see if they hit it cleanly, made, move on.

That was on a hard fail of the first check, a softer fail would have seen them lose an item, twist an ankle, but still succeed and always with the intent of creating a new scenario... damn, was that item dropped one of the vials containing a spiteful ghost? Well that's literally going to come back and haunt them, later.

Convoluted waffle aside, I appreciate D&D doesn't particularly work that way as standard, but that is not to say that an experienced GM cannot think aong those lines in situations where the level difference isn't too far apart.

It's like when you meet Sezza, there you say you step in front of the crossbow and so you do (iirc there was a roll to be made there and I passed it first time so I dont actually know what happens IF you fail). I wouldn't be adverse to the "failure" being an arrow to the knee grin fired by accident by the nervous Tiefling, who runs off afterwards, leaving you STILL having succeeded, just with a bloody bolt in your leg. I don't save scum because i got the result I wanted, even if the price was painful. Now though the Tieflings might create aggro for me after this.

(That reminds me, not realising I could throw Sezza, I waltzed out of the prison with the Goblin by my side, was promptly in battle with 3 Tieflings, then I think 1 or 2 others. After killing them, Sezza died alas, I waltzed out of town as if nothing had happened. and later we partied at my place.. errrrr Larian?!)

Same with the Tiefling girl. If the player wants to wade in with utter disregard for their own safety, let them. Let them succeed, but twist the situation depending on the roll. Fail and maybe the Druids are enraged by your interference and threten to kill you, Astarion or Shadowheart interject and object too, stating they refuse to put their necks on the line for your stupidity and will be outside and thus unavailable if it goes south. If this was the Witcher you could guarantee the girl would die in the ensuing fight anyway and the parents would blame you. Lol, but here you could even talk the Druids down but in the kuffufle the girl saw her opportunity and escaped (maybe with the idol!!)

But the core of the argument in this thread is that there should be an auto-succeed on a "story" only setting, no die rolls, you don't need the hassle of the die animation for something you are going to roll over and over again anyway, skip it. Perhaps Easy mode could essentially cast Guidance on the whole party as a perm. perk or something similar and give out the re-roll points more easily.

But on Normal the rule is fine as is, I just think we can all agree that a little less black & white on the outcomes would be even better, so save the kid is good right... let us save her 75% of the time, but depending on how might create a whole bucket of stress down the line! What if that little scamp steals that trinket Shadowheart is playing with in camp, during the party and runs off into the wildernes to play with it and is picked up by the Githyanki!!! Eeeek. Now that might in this example be story breaking, I don't know, but doing the right ting might not mean a good outcome and when that happens, players become more weary about intervention and save scum less (simply because the potential downside to their good intentions only shows up later!).

Cant believe people say failure is interesting. YES IT IS IF a new quest line opens, the story evolves a different path, you get some kind of bonus to incoming combat, more interesting dialogue options, changes to your character/inner reflection...
Right now most FAILURES lead to either COMBAT or no extra info; failed attempt at something, the END.
Wow, very interesting and fun indeed. Ill just reload that.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Cant believe people say failure is interesting. YES IT IS IF a new quest line opens, the story evolves a different path, you get some kind of bonus to incoming combat, more interesting dialogue options, changes to your character/inner reflection...
Right now most FAILURES lead to either COMBAT or no extra info; failed attempt at something, the END.
Wow, very interesting and fun indeed. Ill just reload that.



No, failure leads to the "default path" you'd have gotten even if you didn't roll. (in 99% of the cases)

You are trying to change a situation to your advantage, or avoid combat etc. Emphasis on "trying". This is the same as in a tabletop session. The DM sets a scene with an expected path. Then the players challenge the scene and might chose a different path. Their choices affects things. It can work, it can speed up their demise, the dice roll decide.

I have yet to have any situation where I feel the dice roll has lost me content or progress. It's just there to give me a slightly different experience.

The alternative is "You don't have high enough skill to choose this option" style that we see in Fallout for instance. I find that to be a lot less interesting to be honest.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Cant believe people say failure is interesting. YES IT IS IF a new quest line opens, the story evolves a different path, you get some kind of bonus to incoming combat, more interesting dialogue options, changes to your character/inner reflection...
Right now most FAILURES lead to either COMBAT or no extra info; failed attempt at something, the END.
Wow, very interesting and fun indeed. Ill just reload that.

The problem with this is that, in the scenario discussed here, that people stop at "child dies", and don't play it out to see if there's anything interesting or not. There are things that are interesting, but because they aren't immediate, they may as well not exist. The problem is "instant gratification". You see, the goal is to remove Kagha, not necessarily kill her. There are other ways to go about that, and anyone that's doing any actual exploring in that section will find at least one. Of course, it requires some work to achieve, and that may well turn some players off. But a method exists.
Skill check failures in dialogue are great in tabletop because its in tabletop. The DM can tailor situations to the failure, creating a new "path" on the spot. It's there to allow for more variety and more interesting things to happen. So far instead of giving you new interesting content, thus making failure desirable in some way, it just locks you out of it. Or has no effect. Making it kinda pointless to roll for it.

In BG3, a game, the outcomes are pre-determined. Skill check failures don't really lead to anything interesting. Or new paths. Plus you can bypass that with just... selecting the non skill option when its there. Really it usually feels like the game goes "Oh... ok..." when you do that.

And yeah I spend 10-20 minutes quick loading when I fail skill checks till I realized you can bypass a good amount of stuff by picking the non skill options.

The death of the child can also be interesting as someone mentioned, in destroying the camp. But you can also just... choose to let them die and not require the skill check failure. Or well risk succeeding to let them live.
Dice rolling is fine as it is, we may want some more options here and there to do things in diffirent ways but option to fail should stay. In the end you have the last resort of murdering everything you dont like( but itd also be good to there be a measure of anti murderhoboing).
For those who want to 'win it all' just add story mode difficulty.
The main issue I have with rolling is that sometimes it feels like I am just missing out on content on a bad dice roll. If you want access to everything the game has to offer, you will need to save scum no matter what, unless you get extremely lucky. I didn't save scum on my first two playthroughs. but on my third I did because I'm not happy with missing out on a chunk of the game (because that's what it will accumulate to) on bad dice rolls.

Also bad dice rolls have made me completely give up on Shadowheart who did nothing but insult me for what seemed to be several conversations in a row. Just completely lost interest in the character "no/go away/I'm not telling you" etc. Ain't nobody got time for dat.
I let the discussion end after the child died but I doesn't get what's interesting after.
Maybe I didn't wait long enough but anyway, no matter what happens next the child is dead.

Damn, a kids died cuase I rolled a dice, I can't live with it ! xD
(even more after realizing choosing a non-skill option dialogue wouldn't lead to her death... it's really a "penalty skill") !

Btw, I was a bit unhappy with the talk I had later with the kids. She reveal herself to be insolent and... unpleasant. And what is funny is that the game is able to just kill a child to mess with you but it doesn't give you the opportunity to slap her or kill her or ground her or scared her.... Feel like a miss here.
Another fun part of Larian roleplaying experience:

Stumble into the warehouse (which leads to the mercenaries).
Struggle with camera being off-position.
Dialogue pops up, don't even see who's talking to me.
DC 19 skill check pops up.
Miss check.
My group explodes, as the guy obviously has many explosives set in the room, rendering the whole group dead.
Me: WTF did just happen?
Reload 10 mins old save.

Second try, get camera in position first, move only so far in the room I can actually see the guy.
Just shoot him dead for no justifiable reason aside of knowing what's going to happen if I don't.
Go in the mercenary camp just to find out I already messed up their quest and they attack me without letting me explain how I couldn't even know that I did something wrong.

That's big storytelling!
Ive been keeping an excel sheet for my checks, so far the running average for dice roll is 5 >.<
Besides the fact that sometimes you need to succeed on multiple checks in dialogue to get to a single outcome, I see no issue with failure.

If people really don't like failing in a game, there should be configurable difficulty settings to succeed on rolls in dialogue and exploration

Then another difficulty setting that does not allow save scum in dialogue and exploration for people who dont mind letting the dice take them wherever
If you read the thread, which I recommend, no one is complaining that there are fail-able rolls.
The main suggestion in this thread is turning rolled skills into threshold skills.

Roll a nature to see if the potion is poison
Vs.
You have 14 nature, you know its poison. Or you dont and there is no option

This removes failure and also options that you could possibly succeed or fail at depending on the roll.

If players dont want to fail, or risk failure on dice rolls and miss out on dialogue options to always succeed when they can , that's fine. Make it configurable, no rolls just state the DC and if one of your chars meet it with their skill or attribute then success!

Same can be extended to exploration rolls.
Originally Posted by Orbax
The biggest disconnect was you thinking that I was claiming that it was a narrative life or death. I was saying it was a life or death as those were the actual stakes at hand. It could have been freedom or jail, pudding or pie, or tickles and wiggles and the fact remained that player agency was removed and they were put into a situation that they were at a disadvantage for in level, tools, and information. The odds being stacked implied a narrative bias as it was not level appropriate and the story would have been better served as a complete cutscene if players don't get a fair shake at it. DC8 would have been appropriate if that is what they are doing as the check, as 99% of them are, are persuasion based and the majority of classes do not stack that score. There are no creative ways to solve that problem. Its have high charisma or a character that can cast guidance - neither one of which is a given - or be at a disadvantage and have a child die. It was lazy, it was disingenuous as to your chances, and the vast number of issues posted across all forums with this specific instance show that it frustrated a great deal of players.

The situation wasn't a bad idea, it was executed with a ride or die roll that was too high. Seeing the girl get dragged off and the snake now guarding the cage, you getting a chance to performance roll and snake charm (fun!), or you being able to gather a few druids to your side in protest against the new leader's authoritarian rule that has come to this so she says "fine, if it happens again, all the refugees are out of here. By force." and she storms off. I can think of so. many. ways. to make that an enjoyable encounter that gives players a proactive shake at being introduced into the politics of the circle. As it is, it is hamfisted, unfair, and serves the narrative purpose of building her persona more poorly than almost any other way.

+1
I think Kagha killing the child scenario is particularly bad because so much hinges on it. If you are roleplaying a good character and the child dies you really can no longer side with the druids. I killed all the druids for their crime, but that leaves me in a poor position story-wise because I am not going to ally myself with the goblins. Of course I still killed all the goblins to help the teiflings but it made the story weaker because I had no narrative motivation other than helping them.
Originally Posted by Arkhan
I think Kagha killing the child scenario is particularly bad because so much hinges on it. If you are roleplaying a good character and the child dies you really can no longer side with the druids. I killed all the druids for their crime, but that leaves me in a poor position story-wise because I am not going to ally myself with the goblins. Of course I still killed all the goblins to help the teiflings but it made the story weaker because I had no narrative motivation other than helping them.

Killing everyone for the action of a few seems like a pretty evil act to me. there is a path where you can get justice against Kagha and her actions with out killing all the other innocent druids.
I don't find failure that interesting as it means either fight or miss information. I would prefer have characters help (get advantage), or have another character step in (pretty much the same thing but with dialogue) , less rolls (in the gityanki dialogue you need to succeed at least three times to not fight). Perhaps there could be extended dialogue choices gated based on skill, character, class, race which I admit there is some of. The skill checks do kill some player choice as not everyone will play a character with high charisma and that means lots of failure or ignoring every low charisma class.
Originally Posted by Popsculpture
Originally Posted by Arkhan
I think Kagha killing the child scenario is particularly bad because so much hinges on it. If you are roleplaying a good character and the child dies you really can no longer side with the druids. I killed all the druids for their crime, but that leaves me in a poor position story-wise because I am not going to ally myself with the goblins. Of course I still killed all the goblins to help the teiflings but it made the story weaker because I had no narrative motivation other than helping them.

Killing everyone for the action of a few seems like a pretty evil act to me. there is a path where you can get justice against Kagha and her actions with out killing all the other innocent druids.

Going full murderhobo defenitly is an evil route.

Not working with the druids is fine. Killing them all because 1 did an evil act is so borderline evil it sounds like a parody...
My first playthrough I succeeded on saving the child and the situation mostly diffused. Girl was saved. Parents thanked me. I had a fairly neutral view of Kagha because as far as I knew she was just going to imprison the kid, not kill her.

I failed on my next game though, and that dramatically changed the situation. I got to see Kagha's reaction of initial shock and regret. That crack in her mask of composed malice she tries so hard to maintain, which told me a LOT more about her character than I got on my first playthrough. I saw the other druid fall to his knees in tears and all but beg me to find Halsin, as he's the only way to stop this madness.

I was much more emotionally invested in this druid conflict in my second game than I was in my first. In this instance, for me, failure was the more interesting route.

That said, I do think we should've had the option to make a DEX or STR check to rush in and kill the snake when we saw it poised to attack, then a Medicine check to try and stabilize the girl while one of the druids rush to find an antidote.

Those options could have their own little permeations in the story. Killing Kagha's snake could enrage her and get you banished from the grove until you come back with Halsin while succeeding in the Medicine check might even make Kagha thank you for preventing something terrible she never intended, softening her toward the PC and opening up new options to maybe talk Kagha down from her plans.
Originally Posted by SaurianDruid
My first playthrough I succeeded on saving the child and the situation mostly diffused. Girl was saved. Parents thanked me. I had a fairly neutral view of Kagha because as far as I knew she was just going to imprison the kid, not kill her.

I failed on my next game though, and that dramatically changed the situation. I got to see Kagha's reaction of initial shock and regret. That crack in her mask of composed malice she tries so hard to maintain, which told me a LOT more about her character than I got on my first playthrough. I saw the other druid fall to his knees in tears and all but beg me to find Halsin, as he's the only way to stop this madness.

I was much more emotionally invested in this druid conflict in my second game than I was in my first. In this instance, for me, failure was the more interesting route.

That said, I do think we should've had the option to make a DEX or STR check to rush in and kill the snake when we saw it poised to attack, then a Medicine check to try and stabilize the girl while one of the druids rush to find an antidote.

Those options could have their own little permeations in the story. Killing Kagha's snake could enrage her and get you banished from the grove until you come back with Halsin while succeeding in the Medicine check might even make Kagha thank you for preventing something terrible she never intended, softening her toward the PC and opening up new options to maybe talk Kagha down from her plans.


This. Very well written.
This is the beauty of what larian are attempting to bring to this game - choice & consequences - luck - both good & bad - all down to the roll of the dice. I don't have any particular problem with save scumming if that's how you personally enjoy the game.
Me - I roll with the numbers ..trying to be a bit smarter now with my guidance cantrip too.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.





Yes LARIAN we DEMAND you do as this rude guy says RIGHT NOW!

XD
BG3 = save-scum simulator


Larian knows this from data. This is why they posted a message urging players to please not savescum.
They can't help it, this is the design they chose, that of a save-scum simulator, given human nature.

Divinity's system is much more appropriate for a single-player PC game


Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.


Just wow, kind of wonder if this is a troll post. Not only is it another remove said feature post, but remove dice rolls in a d&d game post. ROFL keep em coming, can't wait for the next one.
Originally Posted by fallenj
but remove dice rolls in a d&d game post.


In fact, this is a reasonable proposal.

Dnd dice roll mechanic simply isn't suitable for a dialogue system in CRPG where there is no GM to smooth out corners. Content in CRPG is served as is, there is no point to imitating random events in dialogues with NPCs, it looks unsuit and only provokes S/L abuse.

I think the best option is threshold requirements for skills/previously made choices/information received, or all this in combination, so that a new option in the dialogue appears at all. That is, no prompts for the skill/class requirements and visual display of dices, player see only text. In this case, player simply will not know whether he has failed a check somewhere or not, he will not feel that he has lost and will not receive a big red inscription "You Fail", in most cases he will simply move on, accepting the event as given.

And after finish the game and replaying with a completely different character, player will receive a lot of new options, otherwise solving problems where he did not even suspect such a possibility, and this is cool, it is to perceive the CRPG system as more complex and deep.
Ability checks with a d20 is a bad concept in almost all cases. Even worse than skill checks. A character with 8 in an ability score can succeed while someone with 20 in the same stat can fail. That's only a 30% shift in success rate between the absolute worst and best.

I can think of a certain burning building in EA where you need to pass a DC10 Strength check to bash the front door in.

It's entirely possible Lae'zel with 18 Strength fails and Gale with 8 Strength succeeds. How do you even begin to explain something like that in the context of BG3? In PnP the DM could just make up a shaky explanation that the fighter slips and the frail wizard finds a weak spot near the hinges and just sort of leans against the door to bring it down. A video game can't even do that. It just makes no sense. A physically weak 8 Str character should never succeed in a strength feat if a character as strong as an ogre, a freaking giant, with 18 Str can fail. This is not a question of probability. It's a question of something you can or can't do.

So why not use thresholds for this kind of stuff? Like Pillars of Eternity does, proabably for this very reason.

Skill checks are almost just as bad as plain ability checks, because an additional +2 isn't going to make a big difference either.

These checks are the biggest flaw in 5e imo and I hope the next edition fixes this.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ability checks with a d20 is a bad concept in almost all cases. Even worse than skill checks. A character with 8 in an ability score can succeed while someone with 20 in the same stat can fail. That's only a 30% shift in success rate between the absolute worst and best.

I can think of a certain burning building in EA where you need to pass a DC10 Strength check to bash the front door in.

It's entirely possible Lae'zel with 18 Strength fails and Gale with 8 Strength succeeds. How do you even begin to explain something like that in the context of BG3? In PnP the DM could just make up a shaky explanation that the fighter slips and the frail wizard finds a weak spot near the hinges and just sort of leans against the door to bring it down. A video game can't even do that. It just makes no sense. A physically weak 8 Str character should never succeed in a strength feat if a character as strong as an ogre, a freaking giant, with 18 Str can fail. This is not a question of probability. It's a question of something you can or can't do.

So why not use thresholds for this kind of stuff? Like Pillars of Eternity does, proabably for this very reason.

Skill checks are almost just as bad as plain ability checks, because an additional +2 isn't going to make a big difference either.

These checks are the biggest flaw in 5e imo and I hope the next edition fixes this.



There is nothing in the D&D rules that say you cannot require a flat "14 strength" for example to push a wall down without rolling a dice. Same with other checks like perception, you can actively search an area and have many perception checks against the same trap or switch if you stay and look longer.

You are correct about some dice rolls making no sense. You are either strong enough to pick up "object" or not. You are dexterous enough to jump over "gap" or not. I think some options require this type of limitation rather than dice a roll.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
These checks are the biggest flaw in 5e imo and I hope the next edition fixes this.


Actually it would be more like d&d as a whole is the biggest flaw, ability checks and skill checks have been in the game for each version as far as I can recall. But I've only played 3.5 & 4. Maybe you can surprise me and prove me wrong...Ability checks and skill checks lead to one thing people don't like, Failing. That's why the guy before you was so supportive to say the game leads to save scumming being a requirement. When you play a game and you don't get your way, what do you do? People need that perfect play, probably goes well with the perfect barbie doll they dressed up as there character.

I've failed perception checks, bluff checks, diplomacy, and so on. What happens next? you move on, lady luck wasn't with you that day. There's no dm to make you feel better or cave when he/she feels sorry for you.

Rolling isn't perfect, it is a game after all, but rolls for ability checks and skills has always been in d&d.
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
There is nothing in the D&D rules that say you cannot require a flat "14 strength" for example to push a wall down without rolling a dice. Same with other checks like perception, you can actively search an area and have many perception checks against the same trap or switch if you stay and look longer.


There was a rule in 3.5 that let you take 10 if you had all the time in the world to redo the skill, time also effected the dc if I remember correctly. Say you had a golem rushing twords you and you need that door unlocked asap, pretty sure the dc goes up for trying to do something in a hurry...don't quote me on that last one not sure.
The fix as far as I see it is to hide positives inside failure.

So for example, you save the girl, but her survival in that moment causes a different or may men larger negative down the road that you couldn’t foresee.

So you save scum to save the Tiefling child only to find out it was all for naught later on (or if not for naught, for a different complex outcome).

I think it’s been mentioned before but Witcher 3 did this very well and it just means you accept more what happens, because frig knows if your decision was good or not. It might feel good at the time, but later on, urgh...

It’s instant reward or effect that causes save scumming, especially if it is directly affecting you and your loot, do, etc...
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ability checks with a d20 is a bad concept in almost all cases. Even worse than skill checks. A character with 8 in an ability score can succeed while someone with 20 in the same stat can fail. That's only a 30% shift in success rate between the absolute worst and best.

I can think of a certain burning building in EA where you need to pass a DC10 Strength check to bash the front door in.

It's entirely possible Lae'zel with 18 Strength fails and Gale with 8 Strength succeeds. How do you even begin to explain something like that in the context of BG3? In PnP the DM could just make up a shaky explanation that the fighter slips and the frail wizard finds a weak spot near the hinges and just sort of leans against the door to bring it down. A video game can't even do that. It just makes no sense. A physically weak 8 Str character should never succeed in a strength feat if a character as strong as an ogre, a freaking giant, with 18 Str can fail. This is not a question of probability. It's a question of something you can or can't do.

So why not use thresholds for this kind of stuff? Like Pillars of Eternity does, proabably for this very reason.

Skill checks are almost just as bad as plain ability checks, because an additional +2 isn't going to make a big difference either.

These checks are the biggest flaw in 5e imo and I hope the next edition fixes this.



I quite like the idea of using thresholds instead of dice rolls for skill checks. I've written in other posts about how I dislike the "tyranny of the d20", especially as applied to non-combat tasks.
I've said this before but the d20 rolls for skill checks are one of the best parts of the game. The d20 checks, the lighting, the empty containers are the things that make this feel like D&D.

If you get rid of the d20 my build -- very squishy diplomat -- becomes less relevant. I'm walking around with 17 charisma and 9 constitution so I can make those checks. If anyone can make those checks with any build then I just wasted some points I should have put into battle stats.

I don't have to save scum I just use my inspiration points, cantrips and guesses about what sort appeals are likely to persuade. Inspiration points are given out like candy in this game.

PoE1 had crap combat. While playing I kept thinking "such great art, such a great story but this combat ruleset is the suck. I wish they had made a DnD game" Battle was a tiresome chore to complete so I find out more story details.

And even J.E. Sawyer has said the d20 is too iconic to go away.

Now save scumming for battle? Constantly. That's where the rules need to be fixed.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I've said this before but the d20 rolls for skill checks are one of the best parts of the game. The d20 checks, the lighting, the empty containers are the things that make this feel like D&D.

If you get rid of the d20 my build -- very squishy diplomat -- becomes less relevant. I'm walking around with 17 charisma and 9 constitution so I can make those checks. If anyone can make those checks with any build then I just wasted some points I should have put into battle stats.

Isn't this the opposite of what would happen?
Without the d20, your 17cha 9con squishy diplomat will succeed all those persuasion checks.
With the d20, your 17cha character is only better than a 10cha character 15% of the time.
Without the d20, a 10cha character will not be able to make the persuasion checks that your diplomat can make.
You make good points but I don't want to make all the skill checks. Then I lose the thrill of the dice. The prayers to Tymora, the dopamine rush when I get a 20, the groan when I get a 1. Also changes replay value.

Better to fail some and ask myself "is this so important that I need to spend an inspiration point"? I've been lucky with Khaga but that necromancy tome and the Koa Toa almost took all my points.

Now I do agree with more "fun fails". I was lucky that my first run of bad dice was with Gut and that had a great "fail well" story.
I am in favor of keeping the d20 for skill checks; it is what makes d&d d&d.
The implementation in BG3 does need work though
-Failure needs to be much more 'fun.' Or, as others have suggested on the forum, the consequences should be made less immediately apparent.
-Dialogue checks could lead to additional dialogue options, not results
---e.g., Kagha
Fail persuasion check to release the child. This leads to an option (NOT a check) where you can kill the snake and face the consequences, put yourself in harms way, or let the child die.

-There are definitely places where you should be able to use a passive score instead of rolling.
-BG3 could allow more advantage on skill checks
---e.g., Breaking down the door. Instead of just having Lae'zel do it, you tell her to lead and Help her, giving her Advantage
---e.g., The party works together to persuade Kagha to [see spoiler]

Edit: @KillerRabbit I agree. I definitely want the thrill of the d20 to remain in the game.
The Gut fail end result is a good example of fun failing
I agree with the OP; pitch active dialogue checks. They LOOK like D&D, they don't actually reflect the way skill checks work at the table and they're bad video game design.

At the table, the players are generally the ones planning what they're going to attempt and then how they deal with the results of skill checks made to impliment their plans. Checks aren't pass/fail at the table, they're opportunities to add twists to the story, they're storytelling tools, but to work the story has to be fluid and the details made up on the spot.

In a video game, everything is already written and players are only selecting options off a menu. The only agency a player has navigating a conversation tree is which of the presented paths they take. Active skill checks in BG3 take that agency away from players by arbitrarily saying, "No, you can't have the option you picked, now this is what's happening." If the results for failure are more interesting than the results for success, then that's how the conversation should go, with no checks. Don't remove the player's agency in conversations.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by 1varangian
These checks are the biggest flaw in 5e imo and I hope the next edition fixes this.


Actually it would be more like d&d as a whole is the biggest flaw, ability checks and skill checks have been in the game for each version as far as I can recall. But I've only played 3.5 & 4. Maybe you can surprise me and prove me wrong...Ability checks and skill checks lead to one thing people don't like, Failing. That's why the guy before you was so supportive to say the game leads to save scumming being a requirement. When you play a game and you don't get your way, what do you do? People need that perfect play, probably goes well with the perfect barbie doll they dressed up as there character.

I've failed perception checks, bluff checks, diplomacy, and so on. What happens next? you move on, lady luck wasn't with you that day. There's no dm to make you feel better or cave when he/she feels sorry for you.

Rolling isn't perfect, it is a game after all, but rolls for ability checks and skills has always been in d&d.

There's rolling and then there's rolling.

The point is, using a swingy d20 with only minor modifiers even for "skilled" characters completely undermines character building.

It's not about failing. It's about the check results being too random and too little influenced by character skill.

2d10 or 3d6 would create bell curve results which is the cool thing dice CAN do over flat percentages. But D&D is stuck on using the "iconic" d20.

If they insist on using 1d20, the skill modifiers need to be twice as significant as they are now.
I think the real problem is to have 3 roll for one sucess. In table it would be one. If DM is nice, it could offer a second oportunity if you fail, but not make you do 3 roll to be successful. So many rolls in the same conversation should be reserved for the most importants. Otherwise, it becomes a nuisance that detracts from the actual chosing conversation options.
Quote
It's not about failing. It's about the check results being too random and too little influenced by character skill.


I don't feel like a swingy d20 does that.* For me it's about feel and my question is "does this feel like a tabletop session". I have tried a number of alternatives to DnD (and I would count PoE in that group) and those systems just to don't feel as fun despite their putative improvements on DnD. Now I could make a case for why 2nd ed does this better . . . but 2nd is dead and buried.

Now I do agree with *mrfuji completely -- make failing fun, let the 'help' action be used for certain checks like breaking down doors, etc. And @EMC_V is also spot on. Three checks in row is too much, that's 'jerk DM' territory. It's hard to avoid killing Nettie without metagaming.

Long live the d20! Gygax will come again. All hail the once and future DM!


*

A bit off topic but I do wonder if the people who are frustrated are not spending points on charisma and persuasion. Or not using guidance or friends? I tried Khaga with a medium charisma tiefling and had some ridiculously high score to beat but I think my high int / high cha / persuasion skill drow character had to roll above 10 or 11? Can't remember. The skill checks were put into 2nd edition to correct the 'charisma is my dump stat' and 'I'm a mage so I know everything' problems. The skill checks were always designed to make you use those precious points on scores that had no impact on combat.
Originally Posted by Arkhan
I think Kagha killing the child scenario is particularly bad because so much hinges on it. If you are roleplaying a good character and the child dies you really can no longer side with the druids. I killed all the druids for their crime, but that leaves me in a poor position story-wise because I am not going to ally myself with the goblins. Of course I still killed all the goblins to help the teiflings but it made the story weaker because I had no narrative motivation other than helping them.


That's an extreme overreaction to what is basically an accident. Your bizarre interpretation of the events is your own issue.

I do think the DC's in general should be lower. 10 should be the usual target, but it seems that the game throws WAY more 15's and 20's so that a trained expert barely has a chance of passing your typical challenge. There should also be a low DC persuasion check to tell the kid to go with the guard and sit in time out.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
. It's hard to avoid killing Nettie without metagaming.


Getting to pass 3 checks to save yourself from overlooking some major red flags is pretty generous IMO. Nettie cant even heal a fucking bird, so not sure why people would think she could deal with the tadpole. There's a dead drow that she says was infected, so not a great patient recovery rate. Her demeanor changes and she's very obviously hiding something and if you bother to ask questions on the cure her rather than letting some random stranger stab you with a branch you will catch on that something is up. Gygax would have killed Tav with no saving throw allowed lol.

Also if you fail your check you can make the cure yourself in the cauldron with herbs you picked up.
I'm afraid Larian's solution for this will be the loaded dice Swen mentioned.

But the swingy d20 is only one part of the problem. And it's not about succeeding every check to begin with. Loaded dice would let everyone succeed more while the actual problem remains the same.

The actual problem is that if I make an intelligent and highly charismatic character with a Criminal background and put every point into Deception I possibly can, I expect this character to be very deceptive and manipulative. But they are not. That amounts to a +5 modifier to any checks which is a 25%. It's simply not significant enough. Someone who put nothing into Deception or Charisma can beat me at my own game. And with loaded dice it could actually get even worse.

It's Larian's own fault how they design these checks, really. They could open up passive Deceptive dialogue options at +1, +2, +3, +4 , +5.. and only make you roll d20 if you are under pressure or in some extreme situation. Or they could make the consequences of a failed roll much less severe for skilled characters.

Somehow the difference between 0 and +5 has to be much more significant than a 25% difference in success rate. Especially for a specialized skill like Arcana or History, that should require proficiency to even be allowed to roll in the first place. An uneducated Barbarian with 8 Int will not remember details of the Netherese hierarchy structure, natural 20 or not.

I think Larian need to rethink how skills work in BG3. Bring thresholds into the mix to make skill levels more impactful. And be very careful where to use the d20 rolls.
Originally Posted by 1varangian


The point is, using a swingy d20 with only minor modifiers even for "skilled" characters completely undermines character building.

It's not about failing. It's about the check results being too random and too little influenced by character skill.

2d10 or 3d6 would create bell curve results which is the cool thing dice CAN do over flat percentages. But D&D is stuck on using the "iconic" d20.

If they insist on using 1d20, the skill modifiers need to be twice as significant as they are now.



Thissssssssssssssssss.

+9999
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by 1varangian


The point is, using a swingy d20 with only minor modifiers even for "skilled" characters completely undermines character building.

It's not about failing. It's about the check results being too random and too little influenced by character skill.

2d10 or 3d6 would create bell curve results which is the cool thing dice CAN do over flat percentages. But D&D is stuck on using the "iconic" d20.

If they insist on using 1d20, the skill modifiers need to be twice as significant as they are now.



Thissssssssssssssssss.

+9999


+1
It was a shit idea and Larian already acknowledged the feedback and is aware of many people not liking it. But they are a bit stubborn, they will let it in the game and maybe add an option to disable it or change it to a different system.
Thats at least something.
Originally Posted by Shepherd81
It was a shit idea and Larian already acknowledged the feedback and is aware of many people not liking it. But they are a bit stubborn, they will let it in the game and maybe add an option to disable it or change it to a different system.
Thats at least something.

Swen mentioned loaded dice.

Basically meaning everyone would succeed more regardless of character skill. A horrible fix for a bad system that makes it even worse.

We don't want to succeed every check, we want our character builds to matter. If skilless characters succeed with loaded dice, our character builds do not matter.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by 1varangian


The point is, using a swingy d20 with only minor modifiers even for "skilled" characters completely undermines character building.

It's not about failing. It's about the check results being too random and too little influenced by character skill.

2d10 or 3d6 would create bell curve results which is the cool thing dice CAN do over flat percentages. But D&D is stuck on using the "iconic" d20.

If they insist on using 1d20, the skill modifiers need to be twice as significant as they are now.



Thissssssssssssssssss.

+9999

Or simply lower the DC's. 10 is the standard per the D&D rules, which results in a 20% failure rate for those with a 16 stat and proficiency. People who cant stand any chance of failure can install the inevitable mod.

Incidentally, it doesn't appear as though spells like friends, charm person, etc do anything.

Lets fix those, and the clearly bugged dice rolls (average result of of 5 on a d20!) before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by Shepherd81
It was a shit idea and Larian already acknowledged the feedback and is aware of many people not liking it. But they are a bit stubborn, they will let it in the game and maybe add an option to disable it or change it to a different system.
Thats at least something.

Swen mentioned loaded dice.

Basically meaning everyone would succeed more regardless of character skill. A horrible fix for a bad system that makes it even worse.

We don't want to succeed every check, we want our character builds to matter. If skilless characters succeed with loaded dice, our character builds do not matter.


Oh, the dice are loaded... against the players. Track your rolls, the average is god awful.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by Shepherd81
It was a shit idea and Larian already acknowledged the feedback and is aware of many people not liking it. But they are a bit stubborn, they will let it in the game and maybe add an option to disable it or change it to a different system.
Thats at least something.

Swen mentioned loaded dice.

Basically meaning everyone would succeed more regardless of character skill. A horrible fix for a bad system that makes it even worse.

We don't want to succeed every check, we want our character builds to matter. If skilless characters succeed with loaded dice, our character builds do not matter.


I'm with you on the second point but to be fair he also said that the unaltered dice always be an option in the game. Which is how I will play.

BG2 had loaded dice for PCs who rolled for hit points -- if you got two bad rolls in a row you would get a good roll on the third level up. This prevented people from walking around with a high level mage with 10 hp because of some unlucky rolls.
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg

Oh, the dice are loaded... against the players. Track your rolls, the average is god awful.


Nonsense.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by 1varangian
These checks are the biggest flaw in 5e imo and I hope the next edition fixes this.


Actually it would be more like d&d as a whole is the biggest flaw, ability checks and skill checks have been in the game for each version as far as I can recall. But I've only played 3.5 & 4. Maybe you can surprise me and prove me wrong...Ability checks and skill checks lead to one thing people don't like, Failing. That's why the guy before you was so supportive to say the game leads to save scumming being a requirement. When you play a game and you don't get your way, what do you do? People need that perfect play, probably goes well with the perfect barbie doll they dressed up as there character.

I've failed perception checks, bluff checks, diplomacy, and so on. What happens next? you move on, lady luck wasn't with you that day. There's no dm to make you feel better or cave when he/she feels sorry for you.

Rolling isn't perfect, it is a game after all, but rolls for ability checks and skills has always been in d&d.

There's rolling and then there's rolling.

The point is, using a swingy d20 with only minor modifiers even for "skilled" characters completely undermines character building.

It's not about failing. It's about the check results being too random and too little influenced by character skill.

2d10 or 3d6 would create bell curve results which is the cool thing dice CAN do over flat percentages. But D&D is stuck on using the "iconic" d20.

If they insist on using 1d20, the skill modifiers need to be twice as significant as they are now.


Oh I missed this reply, my bad. So your saying the D20 is not being influenced enough for rolls to matter. If anything this would be a complaint about 5e or BG3, so lets break down social skills for this edition, start with a level one character.

BG3:
Based off BG3 you can't get any better than a 17 for ability score (doesn't matter if you have a +2, +1, or nothing), so ability modifier is going to be +3. There is no skill points in this edition only proficiency which can be gained via background, racial, or class. At level one for proficiency is a +2, generally any race/class can achieve this +5 right from character creation.

Leveling up you gain +1 ability score at: 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th. Proficiency goes up by one at: 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th.

level 1: Ability Mod:+3 Pro: +2 = +5
level 10: Ability Mod: +4 Pro: +4 = +8
level 20: Ability Mod: +6 Pro: +6 = +12

Social skill challenges don't normally go up, so the higher level you go the better you get at said skill. This also doesn't include spells or potions that can give you the upper hand at skill checks.

Now normally in a d&d game you don't cap at 17 so the ability mod for racials actually comes more into effect giving possibly a 18 or 20 ability score. Class features seem to be missing, off the freebe pdf you can get from d&d beyond rogues get a expertise feature at level one. Which doubles skill proficiencies for 2 skills or 1 skill plus thieves tools.

Probably more junk I'm missing but I hit my limit on researching. Over all you have a problem with BG3 and how they implemented the 5e rules, 5e rules period, or just d&d all together. I'd recommend go finding another game if you don't like the d20 system in d&d.

Edit* Oh I did forget about inspiration points where you can spend a point to give yourself advantage in a skill check.

Edit2* Digging through the PDF and looks like 5e does cap your ability scores at 17 at least for point buy (racial mods included) rolls still can be 18s, interesting
This is why I thikn there needs to be an optional rule (one that can be turned off) to roll lock, locking rolles for all skill checks permanently in that profile for that character, so when you reload its always that same number.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.





Totaly agree, nothing more to say.
I'm a huge fan of 2d10 to put emphasis on character building. d20 has always felt way too swingy to me. Not just for skill checks, but for combat as well. Modifiers EARNED by characters, matter more when "Average" performance is more likely to happen than extremely poor/excellent performance. I made a heat map in spreadsheets to help visualize the difference. The vertical axis represents the Difficulty Class of the action (the roll required to succeed). The horizontal axis represents the modifier being applied to the action (based on associated ability/proficiency/status effects). The resulting number taken from the color shaded table shows the % of success. Highlighted yellow values are in the 50% range. And can be used as a control to easily tell on sight how the overall difficulty of dice rolls is changed when different dice are used. The shaded colors also help visualize the contraction in possibilities when using more dice.
[Linked Image]
*Note*: 2d10 chart is built so that a critical failure occurs when rolling (2, 3, or 4) and critical success on (20)
Failure needs to be a fair option. Its okay to fail successfully and still enjoy an outcome if its not the polar opposite of the action that was trying to be preformed.

My one thing that I'd like to see, is to see what my target number to succeed is. I hate thinking, "sweet a dex roll, I got a mod 4, and then I see to succeed is a 11 (15)". Like I would have chosen a different option then.
the problem comes with locking quests and dialogue/NPCs/routes behind some checks, disco elysium here has the best take on it where white checks can be retried and red checks have a shitton of failsaves written in to provide alternative routes to destinations should story impacting checks fail, this made exploring both the fail and success route a great addition to replay value, the d20 here I think is fine but larian has to do considerably (read: a metric ton) more work to write alternative routes and failsaves to quest triggers and dialogue, this means if they want to continue having the game fully voiced (still wondering why NPCs with generic 1 liners and no full dialogue tree need full voice acting, honestly seems a waste production wise considering the work still ahead of them) then this means a lot more time has to be spend on writing additional quest triggers, additional cutscenes for alternative ways for quests to work themselves out and a ton more dialogue (with voices if they want to keep that up) to accommodate those alternative routes and quest resolutions.

For example the quest to
confront kagha completely vanished when I killed the 3 goblin leaders, no option to talk to halsin or cutscene in which we confront kagha after the goblin leaders are dead, no alternative resolution to it other than the 1 cutscene we've got now for the confrontation + combat, I had 1 (one) chance of tipping one of the druids off when collecting my reward but if I skip that dialogue and just collect my reward there's no option to follow up on the quest to turn kagha after grabbing the reward for returning halsin
this to me means that there's still a lot of work to be done quest/story wise where larian needs to really bring their A game if they want to map out these quest triggers and dialogue options to include a ton of failsaves and alternative routes to completing quests.

for example despite being hinted at it lacking dialogue choices and alt routes currently
prevent dror razglin from being killed stealthily leading to an unavoidable confrontation in the throne room that always guarantees the rest of the temple turning aggressive as well meaning unavoidable goblin genocide unless you torch the grove


the game also does and does not take into account exploring and sneaking:
the bugbear assassin that takes out the tiefling with the soul coin can break completely if you run up the wrong side of the mountain to get to them, if you approach from the 'wrong' side the bugbear activates before you can get anywhere close to combat range and 1shots the tiefling lookout meaning you just pickup a soul coin and have absolutely no clue what this is supposed to be, what it's for, it's an item that knowing what I know after 3 playthroughs I know is going to play a part in some quest now but picking up the soul coin from her corpse if you approach from the 'wrong' side also prevents an arcane check from rolling meaning now your CHARACTER has 0 flags triggered for HIS knowledge of the soul coin ergo: quest triggers highly likely to be completely broken after this or play out jank as fuck where suddenly my character will have dialogue that indicates there was a check or that the dialogue did take place when it did not (no failsave or alt route so just bruteforce the preprogrammed path = extreme railroading of quests), don't say it won't be like that larian, I've played DIV OS1 and 2 and both of those had some really wonky quest triggers at time that had to be done in the EXACT right order or you'd risk soft locks or broken unsolvable quests, like in DIV OS2 I explored in the first act to where I ran into the final boss of the arc on accident and because of lvl scaling in DIV OS2 the bossfight was easily beatable and from there on the entire first act was jank af and soft locking a ton of quests that would culminate in that boss fight, I do NOT want to see that stuff again in BG3




it also means that if I don't take the exact right type of choices in dialogue when confronting
priestess gut (need to free halsin first and be told for the 4th time a stealthy approach might be best or the priestess dialogue for going somewhere private results to her aggroing her guards instantly + a giant temple aggro chain again, if you talked to halsin first and been told for the fourth time a stealthy approach might be best you get an additional dialogue option when talking to the priestess about just needing to talk about something in private which when that dialogue tree is followed the game seems to pick up on the fact you want to do a stealthy approach and the priestess for some reason doesn't use her "call for help" ability which leads to another unavoidable full goblin genocide (and no a 2 hour long combat encounter every playthrough there is not my idea of fun or a good aligned character, evil aligned characters also don't seem to approve much of the genocide as lae'zel says she thought it was amazing of you to do it but 0 approval is given for any actual slaughter leading to a story that is as of now HUGELY disjointed from its gameplay mechanics aka the ludonarrative discobiscuits (dissonance) rears its ugly head when D&D should really be the opposite with its writers going as far as to explain vlaakiths power by her sacrificing lvl 16+ gith for power which seems extremely excessive until you realize most of these stories can be played by players/DMs writing their own homebrew stuff, so I'd say take a note from disco elysium here and give alternatives when failing checks or alt routes to solving quests and for the love of god please no more janky quest triggers like DIV OS 1 and 2 where I found myself frequently reloading saves because apparently exploring breaks quest triggers (just like it's doing in BG3)


and in order to remedy any of this they'd need to do a lot of rewrites and re-record a ton of dialogue or add a lot of additional dialogue/quest writing in order to make the experience as good as it should be to not ruin the immersion when you run into soft locked quests because of wonky triggers or because you didn't pick the exact right combo of dialogue options. This more than anything feels like it removes my player agency and I start playing by outcome instead, instead of playing how I want to I'm now pidgeonholed into using guides in order not to fuck up quest triggers because I don't want to risk breaking the game by accidentally doing it in the wrong order (which is already poorly indicated with how the terrain often barely guides you along any intended path seemingly encouraging exploration and sandbox play only to break when that is attempted)

As it stands now I am constantly savescumming at almost every bit of dialogue because 1. autosaves are inconsistent and spaced way too far apart from one another to be relied upon at all, 2. picking the wrong combo of dialogue choices or quest triggers can ruin a quest or make it significantly harder when not needed or just flat out locks you out of some routes to solving quests or sometimes just softlocks em
Isn't that what a role playing game is about tho? You explore, discover, and work quest lines in ways that you find them. I love the fact that random things can happen because one thing led to another, as long as it felt organic.

My first time playing I had the whole tiefling group welcoming me as a hero at the gate, next time I played, I just played more callously and wow did everyone hate me haha. I only save scum if in combat something glitches out or I criticality clicked something I didn't mean to do. Or I clicked a talking option clearly from mistake because my fingers pushed the wrong number.

But imo, the story should just ride out from your decisions, if you messed up something or found an accidental work around that chopped some of the story up. It's still a viable story and its now your own true experience.
Originally Posted by Schepel
Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.





Disagree. Failure *is* interesting. It simply means your story goes in a different direction. However, compared to DOS, it needed to be said this is actually the case. Sure, a lot of people will be reloading in order to try for the result they want. That is their choice. I prefer to keep the option to fail alive.


+1

If you want to save scum and not play the game as intended; that is a choice. Personally, I would go a step further, and NOT SHOW the DC for any skill check, so the player is unaware if the chances they face on a given challenge. This would reinforce the idea that failure is an option, and that you can't always get what you want in D&D. You think save scumming sucks now? Wait till you have to alt-tab to google the DC any given check because the game doesn't give you this info on a silver platter! HAHA!
People are far more likely to save scum in EA because they specifically want to see a variety of things, especially if they are "playtesting" scenarios. I think seeing how many people save scum here is not indicative of how people would act in a normal game.
Originally Posted by Ankou
People are far more likely to save scum in EA because they specifically want to see a variety of things, especially if they are "playtesting" scenarios. I think seeing how many people save scum here is not indicative of how people would act in a normal game.


I'm not so sure you can make that assertion on behalf of other players. Speaking purely for myself here but I will definitely be guilty of save scumming in the final game, mainly because I find the dice rolling mechanic utterly frustrating and there doesn't seem to be any interesting alternatives with failing them?

Two clear examples come to mind:

1. There's no way I will tolerate Kagha killing the child (regardless of some of the rumours about the Tiefling refugees). Cue endless reloads to save the child.

2. I don't want to have to fight Nettie either and prefer the option of talking her out of it. More endless reloads.

I think I have seen it suggested in the forums that a simple ability score check would be a viable alternative but I don't see that happening.
Posted By: Rimm Re: skill check dice rolls, a really shit idea. - 14/12/20 11:50 AM
Meh I think we should be able to "cheat".

Paper RPG allows that ( put extra topping on the GM's pizza :D), "choose your own adventure books" allows that (If you fail, go to page 86... pfsss as if :D).

Still I don't think this needs to be a game feature, just let us use some console code or mod to do it and avoid save scumming (not because I'm against it, but because is time expensive).

Though this topic is pretty old, wanted to add my 2 cents to this topic:

Im not against RNG, on the contrary, I feel with clever design it can be a really cool experience. Im playing Disco Elysium at the moment and its interesting what ways they use to make RNG an interesting mechanic rather than a frustrating one (some of this has been already mentioned by others):

- most of the cases when you see a tough skill-check in a dialogue, the game lets you to get out of dialogue and save before trying that check
- some scenarios doesnt let you to do the above, but the devs managed to make failing these really interesting or fun and the early-hints for this are top-notch, i almost always can feel if failing something will be cool rather than a deadend, its like the game wants you to fail some choices and this is pretty clear really early in the game
- there are red and white checks (white can be retried after skill progression) which is a nice way to give more visibility of options to the player
- most passive checks use the treshold system
- for crucial checks sometimes there is usually another way to achieve the goal even if you failed the check and the game lets you know if there is
- and the one i like the most: the game lets you know from the start that you have to explore things around you to increase your chances for certain checks. for example at the very beginning of the game
if you stop the fan first you can more easily reach the tie hanging from it
. You immediately see the bonus earned with that when you look how your chance rate builds up. And that encourages you instantly to explore more ways to abuse this system, you realize if you speak with npcs and read books you will know more about certain scenarios and you will see bonuses for checks connected to those scenarios, its not only your skill/attribute bonuses matter but the way you play. I feel the game rewards me for exploring the world and talking to npcs, a lot of times i only succeed with a tough check because of those modifiers. I have the feeling this already happens in BG3 at some parts but the game doesnt really let the player know which particular actions led to better chances on certain checks?

It would be cool to see the last one being used in BG3 to connect gameplay elements a little bit more to each other.
It depends on your gaming style and what you want from a game. Like you, I found the skill-check system frustrating at first and reloaded a lot, because I couldn't bear to "lose". But when I discovered that losing rarely LOSES you anything - in fact, it often opens up a whole storyline or area that you never otherwise would have discovered - I opened up to the idea. This isn't like most games where there is one obvious direction you are supposed to be aiming for. They've put a lot of work into fleshing out multiple narrative trees, some of which only come into being if you fail at the apparently "correct" route. Having Arabella die, for example, gives you the great scene with her parents at the Tiefling party. If you fail to persuade Nettie to give you the antidote, you can kill her or pickpocket her - or even make your own!

There are a few points when failing a check closes off an important part of the game, or makes getting something not very significant massively harder, and those are annoying, but there are usually several ways round every problem (eg: I just tried sneaking through the hole in the wall at the back of the Zhent storehouse instead of walking through the front and risking being blown up if I fail a dialogue check, and hey, completely different outcome!).
Hey different outcomes are quite fine ...
Most RNG rolls are also quite fine ...

But there still are things that pisses me off, like when you try to crush that tapole wich crawled out of that Dwarf ... and if RNG sucess, you get aproval from everyone ... if RNG fail, you get disaproval from everyone ...
I mean it may make sence from story perspective, but i as a player want my companions to respond with dis/aproval for my decisions, not results of RNG that i cant affect. :-/
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Hey different outcomes are quite fine ...
Most RNG rolls are also quite fine ...

But there still are things that pisses me off, like when you try to crush that tapole wich crawled out of that Dwarf ... and if RNG sucess, you get aproval from everyone ... if RNG fail, you get disaproval from everyone ...
I mean it may make sence from story perspective, but i as a player want my companions to respond with dis/aproval for my decisions, not results of RNG that i cant affect. :-/
This is something they should change.

If you get disapproval from failure rather than choice, they might as well give you disapproval every time you miss in combat.
I have to say that I really love the idea but as someone answered me in another thread...
At the moment failure is not ALWAYS interresting, I have to admit it.

The scene with Arabella is a good exemple.

DICE :
- Sucess : she live
- failure : she die

if we fail, we should probably have an option to :
- Protect her, she live, but the druids become hostile (or a few of them)
- Let her die

We should probably always be able to choose the end even if "how it ends" can change with the dice.
Part of RPGing is the luck of the dice roll. I think that it's perfectly in line with typical D&D to keep it as is. Sometimes you can't control fate. Sometimes, no matter how good you think you are, you fail, and failure can mean people disapprove.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
DICE :
- Sucess : she live
- failure : she die
This is quite some understatement ...

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
if we fail, we should probably have an option to :
- Protect her, she live, but the druids become hostile (or a few of them)
- Let her die
Jump betweem girl and snake ... you die, girl live. laugh
Too much is left to dice rolls and too little is up to player choices, whether it is conflict resolution or your companions' opinion of you.

A case in point:

When Gale finally tries to ingratiate himself to you to ask for magical items to eat, he gives you a list of things you did that earned his admiration. The list goes,
1. You peacefully resolved the conflict between Zevlor and Aradin
2. You peacefully resolved the conflict between Arka and the goblin prisoner
3. You saved Arabella from Kagha
4. You saved the boy from the harpies

Out of the 4, only the last one is not completely due to a roll of a die. The first three are completely left to the whims of chance. Your companions basically do not care about your intentions, only the results, many of which are left to dice rolls.

Another example:

You see the tiefling struggling with his sword practice. You try to help him. Your companions don't care that you want to help. They only care that you succeed, which, again, is left to chance. And if the dice roll poorly for you, they all show their disapproval.

Some more:

You try to kill the tadpole crawling out of the corpse's eye. Your companions don't care that you are visibly struggling with the mental control of the tadpole. They only care that you succeed in killing it, which is, again, completely left to chance, and you have to succeed two rounds of dice rolls. And if you fail at either, ALL your companions look at you with disdain as they display their utter disapproval.

At a table top, the GM's goal is to let the players have fun with making choices in the freedom that a table top game allows, with the GM using the rules of the dice to provide some structure to the resolution of the players' choices. This is the most important thing. Having fun from making choices. And the GM has to think on the spot to allow the players to use their freedom to achieve their in-game goals. To use the tadpole example again. A GM might, upon the player rolling badly when trying to overcome the tadpole's mental influence, say that the tadpole is wriggling away, and the party can roll for Dexterity to catch up to it if they want to. And if they still fail, the tadpole might then infect someone else, and the party now has the choice if they want to help the new victim to cope with the situation some way, or try to kill him too, to get at the tadpole. New choices open up upon the result of dice rolls.

Not so with BG3. The player gets as much freedom as the developer allows, and, as with most CRPGs, BG3 has very little of it. But what exacerbates this is that the game makes your character feel defeated when the dice rolls badly for him, with no other way to try to resolve the situation. Other than save scumming, that is. So the dice did not favour you. The tadpole wriggled away. Everyone in your party shows their disapproval. You can't do anything about it (except reloading), and walks away feeling defeated, for something that was determined by dice rolls. So I gotta ask the developers: is this supposed to be fun for the player? To make the player feel like he has lost, because the dice rolled one way? Why do this? How is this fun?
Originally Posted by Passerby
Too much is left to dice rolls and too little is up to player choices, whether it is conflict resolution or your companions' opinion of you.

A case in point:

When Gale finally tries to ingratiate himself to you to ask for magical items to eat, he gives you a list of things you did that earned his admiration. The list goes,
1. You peacefully resolved the conflict between Zevlor and Aradin
2. You peacefully resolved the conflict between Arka and the goblin prisoner
3. You saved Arabella from Kagha
4. You saved the boy from the harpies

Out of the 4, only the last one is not completely due to a roll of a die. The first three are completely left to the whims of chance. Your companions basically do not care about your intentions, only the results, many of which are left to dice rolls.
You can save Arabella as a druid by asking the snake for help, which doesn't involve any rolls. It requires animal speech, but I haven't checked if it works also with another class.

However, I am not sure if you actually need any of the above with Gale. My evil warlock hasn't done any of the above, has raided the druid grove, and - after telling her how terrible she is - Gale now said he has something to confess. I guess my warlock will know once she finds something he wants.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
You can save Arabella as a druid by asking the snake for help, which doesn't involve any rolls. It requires animal speech, but I haven't checked if it works also with another class.

However, I am not sure if you actually need any of the above with Gale. My evil warlock hasn't done any of the above, has raided the druid grove, and - after telling her how terrible she is - Gale now said he has something to confess. I guess my warlock will know once she finds something he wants.

The example of talking to the snake and the different dialogue we get from Nettie could be signs that Larian is starting to understand that players want to be rewarded for choices, not penalised for dice rolls. Time will tell if this new insight leads to better dialogue in other areas.

As for Gale, the point I was making was that his approval of you, for the reasons as enumerated by him, has so much to do with pure chance.
Originally Posted by Passerby
The example of talking to the snake and the different dialogue we get from Nettie could be signs that Larian is starting to understand that players want to be rewarded for choices, not penalised for dice rolls. Time will tell if this new insight leads to better dialogue in other areas.

As for Gale, the point I was making was that his approval of you, for the reasons as enumerated by him, has so much to do with pure chance.
Apart from his romance (which I haven't tried, so no idea), how much impact do these options have on your interactions with Gale, though? Even when going with the rolls (and I don't bother with some, e.g. Arka) I never had any companions leave due to low approval. The (dis)approval messages are quite annoying and feel like spam, so I'd like an option to turn them off. But feeding Gale magical items was enough for him to be very approving of my characters regardless.

Tbh, I had the impression with some of Gale's dialogues that he is just buttering the main character up.
Posted By: Rack Re: skill check dice rolls, a really shit idea. - 02/04/21 07:06 PM
I think BG3 has a serious problem with framing and contextualisation. It's silly and goofy and you can throw barrels and push monsters off ledges and now pass a speech check or this young girl will be executed.

It doesn't work. That's not a framework where failure generates an interesting consequence, it just generates dissonance. Water finds a path and BG3 has to do a lot, LOT better before players are going to be comfortable just letting bad dice rolls stand.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Apart from his romance (which I haven't tried, so no idea), how much impact do these options have on your interactions with Gale, though? Even when going with the rolls (and I don't bother with some, e.g. Arka) I never had any companions leave due to low approval. The (dis)approval messages are quite annoying and feel like spam, so I'd like an option to turn them off. But feeding Gale magical items was enough for him to be very approving of my characters regardless.

Tbh, I had the impression with some of Gale's dialogues that he is just buttering the main character up.

Mechanically, those options don't affect his approval of you much since there are many other occasions to earn his approval, even with the approval cheese fixed. But narratively, because he listed them, they must have left an impression on him.

Yes, there's every reason to believe he was buttering up the player character, but the point is that he did not say that he believed you were a good person because you tried to do the right thing. He only cared that you succeeded in doing those things, 3 out of the 4 of which were determined by dice rolls (pre-Patch 4).

This is the point I was making: results that are determined by dice rolls affect your companions' approval of you, but not your intentions.
RPG's are supposed to simulate real life while giving players the ability to put themselves in the role of their fantasy character. In RL, you may have good intentions, but you may not always succeed at something.

If I was DMing this story, as I am a DM, I would make players make rolls to determine if they succeed in persuading people, in resisting the influence of the tadpole, etc. It's all apart of D&D. You succeed sometimes and fail others. Sometimes you are a hero and make epic rolls and are like, "Yeah! I needed a 15 and I rolled natural 20," and other times you need a 5 and roll a 1. The story is then affected by your RNG dice rolling. That's how an RPG is supposed to be done.

In a computer game version, you can cheat by savescumming. So if you want to cheat and be a hero every time, save and reload for every roll. That's tour choice.

I am saying this because I feel that this is something Larian is doing right. If you make all the dialogue choices and so forth all player picks and not RNG, the game will be more boring. The whole point of these rolls is too make you grit your teeth and think, "Oh gosh! If I fail this roll, what will happen?"

Spoiler. The first time I played the game and the snake killed Arabella, I was like, "What the crap! That sucks! No. I'm reloading. Not gonna happen." But then I took a moment and realized, "That's how it should be. You waltz in and try to persuade a Dark Druid to not kill a thief who stole her idol, you are more than likely going to fail even if you are a skilled negotiator. Snakes are fast, and you weren't thinking she was going to do such a thing, so being able to save her is also unlikely. It is also likely that Gale would be upset with youbfor failing. All this makes sense for Larian to do and it wakes player up real quick. Some actions have serious consequences.

So please don't take this element of the game away from me. Put a difficulty setting in for people who don't want true D&D experiences but don't take away my authentic RNG RPGing. I really enjoy having 1 playthrough where one character succeeds at something and I get to see what happens when you succeed and then another playthrough 1 character fails and I get to see what happens. It really makes this game more fun on additional playthroughs.
Originally Posted by Passerby
Mechanically, those options don't affect his approval of you much since there are many other occasions to earn his approval, even with the approval cheese fixed. But narratively, because he listed them, they must have left an impression on him.

Yes, there's every reason to believe he was buttering up the player character, but the point is that he did not say that he believed you were a good person because you tried to do the right thing. He only cared that you succeeded in doing those things, 3 out of the 4 of which were determined by dice rolls (pre-Patch 4).

This is the point I was making: results that are determined by dice rolls affect your companions' approval of you, but not your intentions.
I'm not sure I follow. For me a narrative difference means the game's story takes a different turn depending on the outcomes of an event. In this case I'd expect a different result depending on whether you suceed at these quests. But out of the examples you gave, I don't bother with Zarka and I usually kill Aradin (if the goblins don't manage that). Yet Gale still confessed and asked for magical items. The only narrative difference to his quest I have seen so far is now on the evil playthrough, but this is the outcome of going the evil route from the start.

Gale speaking a few nice words doesn't necessary mean you have made an impression on him. That is in the realm of character interpretation, and, based on my own playthroughs, I don't interpret his words as such.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
I'm not sure I follow. For me a narrative difference means the game's story takes a different turn depending on the outcomes of an event. In this case I'd expect a different result depending on whether you suceed at these quests. But out of the examples you gave, I don't bother with Zarka and I usually kill Aradin (if the goblins don't manage that). Yet Gale still confessed and asked for magical items. The only narrative difference to his quest I have seen so far is now on the evil playthrough, but this is the outcome of going the evil route from the start.

Gale speaking a few nice words doesn't necessary mean you have made an impression on him. That is in the realm of character interpretation, and, based on my own playthroughs, I don't interpret his words as such.

You're free to interpret what it means to make a narrative difference or what his reasons are for saying the things he says, but the main point that I've kept having to repeat is that, intentions don't matter to your companions, only that you succeed, which depend most of the time on dice rolls.
Originally Posted by Passerby
You're free to interpret what it means to make a narrative difference or what his reasons are for saying the things he says, but the main point that I've kept having to repeat is that, intentions don't matter to your companions, only that you succeed, which depend most of the time on dice rolls.
And so far I haven't seen any consequences of failing apart from not getting the few congratulatory words from Gale. Which is why I don't see failing to e.g. crush the tadpole as an issue. It doesn't seem to impact the companions opinions of my characters as much, because mechanically there are options to raise it anyway.
Originally Posted by Passerby
1. You peacefully resolved the conflict between Zevlor and Aradin
2. You peacefully resolved the conflict between Arka and the goblin prisoner
3. You saved Arabella from Kagha
1) If you are Tiefling, you can solve problem without dices (if i remember corectly)
2) This one is funny ... since if you step between Arka and Sazza, and then instead of dices, you simply step out of the way ... you still get aproval from Gale. It seem he didnt cared about the goblin at all, he simply admired that you have courage to interfere in first place. laugh
3) Im not quite sure about it, since its quite some time (2 patches cca) when i tryed it, but i believe that if you fail, Gale will tell you that he likes that you TRYED to save the kid. But as i say, its few months back when i failed last time, maybe im mixing things up. :-/

Conclusion, theese things dont even need to exactly "change" ...
All Larian needs to do is simply move approval gain before the dice roll, not after ...

I just wonder how would it look if we get split approval to two groups ...
First "half" we would get when we try ... and another one when we success ... you know, something like "at least you tryed man".
Originally Posted by ash elemental
And so far I haven't seen any consequences of failing apart from not getting the few congratulatory words from Gale. Which is why I don't see failing to e.g. crush the tadpole as an issue. It doesn't seem to impact the companions opinions of my characters as much, because mechanically there are options to raise it anyway.

While you can get high reputation with Gale by (successfully) doing good things over the course of Act 1, the process of gaining said reputation needs to be fun. I've already elaborated on why the current system of successful dice rolls being responsible for gaining approval is not fun. If you find it enjoyable, then good for you. Sadly, this aspect of the game is a misstep for me.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
1) If you are Tiefling, you can solve problem without dices (if i remember corectly)
2) This one is funny ... since if you step between Arka and Sazza, and then instead of dices, you simply step out of the way ... you still get aproval from Gale. It seem he didnt cared about the goblin at all, he simply admired that you have courage to interfere in first place. laugh
3) Im not quite sure about it, since its quite some time (2 patches cca) when i tryed it, but i believe that if you fail, Gale will tell you that he likes that you TRYED to save the kid. But as i say, its few months back when i failed last time, maybe im mixing things up. :-/

Conclusion, theese things dont even need to exactly "change" ...
All Larian needs to do is simply move approval gain before the dice roll, not after ...

I just wonder how would it look if we get split approval to two groups ...
First "half" we would get when we try ... and another one when we success ... you know, something like "at least you tryed man".

Yeah, and real relationships are very much based on intentions. If you're in some kind of trouble and a friend steps in to help you, but he ultimately ends up unsuccessful, you'd still appreciate the fact that he tried to help you, and not be disdainful of him for trying and failing. As you say, you'd go, "Thanks, anyway. At least you tried." It's the thought that counts, as the saying goes. Larian's way is just so video-gamey.
Ok. I can agree with that, though it depends on the people. 😁

Some people only like you if you succeed. Some are not so shallow. So I guess it depends on the types of people these characters really are. Lae'zel, for example, strikes me very much as a gal who is only impressed by results. Astarion as well and even Wyll, though he hides behind his hero mask. Not sure about Shadowheart and Gale. They all hide deep, dark secrets, so Im not sure any of them are truly good people who care much at all about intentions.

Honestly, I view all the party, even Lae'zel, as redeemable people who are all not good but also not evil. I view them as various shades of neutral. Some may have some good intentions, like Wyll, but deep down there is an evil that lurks that makes them all rather selfish and self-centered. Your decisions and successes may win them over to be more good or more evil, and that is part of the point of the game. The more you impress them, the more you persuade them to either become better people or more evil. The more you succeed, the more you impress them.

But, if Larian is not going for the shallow approach to these characters, then I totally agree. A not shallow character would be persuaded by intentions, not successes. But keep in mind, not one of them calls you friend in the beginning. You have to win their friendship. Until then, they are all judging you based sometimes on intentions and sometimes on shallow successes or failures. So IMO, I do think it is pretty well balanced and shows they are all a bit shallow at times.
I agree, that the trying part should get approval. It's not fun to do the right thing and the companions still disapprove. It is not always fun to have to succeed a role to get approval.
What about you get minor approval for trying and failing but more approval foe succeeding and disapproval for not trying and more disapproval for doing the opposite of trying.
Originally Posted by fylimar
I agree, that the trying part should get approval. It's not fun to do the right thing and the companions still disapprove. It is not always fun to have to succeed a role to get approval.
Depends on the companion. E. g. I doubt the githyanki society rewards intentions; you either fail or you succeed. So I don't think Lae'zel would care about you trying, same for Astarion. Shadowheart on the other hand remarks on it if you try to free her from the pod, even though you fail.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by fylimar
I agree, that the trying part should get approval. It's not fun to do the right thing and the companions still disapprove. It is not always fun to have to succeed a role to get approval.
Depends on the companion. E. g. I doubt the githyanki society rewards intentions; you either fail or you succeed. So I don't think Lae'zel would care about you trying, same for Astarion. Shadowheart on the other hand remarks on it if you try to free her from the pod, even though you fail.

Right. That's what I was saying earlier too. I actually think it is just fine as is. Lae'zel is, for the most part, a person who requires results or she's not impressed. This is especially clear when she propositions you at camp after you kill the gobbo leaders. But even still, there are many dialogue events that she approves simply by making the right choice without a roll. Same with all the characters. Some dialogue options give you approval or disapproval. Some are based on whether you succeed or not. And we have no idea how much approval/disapproval points we get each time either. So maybe Gale disapproves when you fail a roll, or whatever, but it obviously isn't much since you can pretty easily increase your Gale approval rating just by making choices in the game that are towards helping people. Same with Wyll.

So if you really examine the game closely, some choices gain influence or lose it and some dice rolls. This is not a bad way of doing it for a CRPG. If I'm a DM and I have complete strangers all meet and thrown into this scenario and they don't know each other and don't know whether they can trust one another, passing Persuade dice rolls and so forth would impact characters' overall impressions of one another. Good intentions only go so far with complete strangers.
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by fylimar
I agree, that the trying part should get approval. It's not fun to do the right thing and the companions still disapprove. It is not always fun to have to succeed a role to get approval.
Depends on the companion. E. g. I doubt the githyanki society rewards intentions; you either fail or you succeed. So I don't think Lae'zel would care about you trying, same for Astarion. Shadowheart on the other hand remarks on it if you try to free her from the pod, even though you fail.

Right. That's what I was saying earlier too. I actually think it is just fine as is. Lae'zel is, for the most part, a person who requires results or she's not impressed.
Yep. But I'd still like an option to hide the messages, because they get annoying quickly (and also sometimes are immersion breaking, since Shadowheart can disapprove even if dead). I don't pay attention to the approval metrics anyway.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by fylimar
I agree, that the trying part should get approval. It's not fun to do the right thing and the companions still disapprove. It is not always fun to have to succeed a role to get approval.
Depends on the companion. E. g. I doubt the githyanki society rewards intentions; you either fail or you succeed. So I don't think Lae'zel would care about you trying, same for Astarion. Shadowheart on the other hand remarks on it if you try to free her from the pod, even though you fail.

Right. That's what I was saying earlier too. I actually think it is just fine as is. Lae'zel is, for the most part, a person who requires results or she's not impressed.
Yep. But I'd still like an option to hide the messages, because they get annoying quickly (and also sometimes are immersion breaking, since Shadowheart can disapprove even if dead). I don't pay attention to the approval metrics anyway.

I totally agree. You shouldn't really know how they view you. You should only know whether they like you or not based on how they respond to you during dialogues and whether or not you trigger certain dialogues at all. Although I might WANT to know how best to appeal to certain characters to make them like me more or whatever, this is not something I SHOULD know.

Maybe they could make it another option in the Settings. Turn off approval acknowledgements, etc. or something like that.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
I can prove it to you.

1) In your statistical analysis, check how many times players reloaded just after a failed roll.
I guarantee you will see that a significant portion of people's playtime is spent in the load-save screen, concentrated wherever you have a skill check roll.
Also publish this information if you got balls.

2) In forum discussions about certain encounters and quests, people often give advice on how to get the best roll chances in order to have to load-save the least amount of times.

3) YOU, LARIAN, had to put out an official message asking people to please not reload constantly and to "let failure happen".
And of course, that doesn't work. That's not how human nature works. Definitely not gamer human nature.


So my advice is, trash that whole system. It works for tabletop, but not here.
Use the (much better) skill-threshold system from D:OS, where if you cross a certain threshold of ability-score/class/race/proficiency/item in party inventory/prepared spells and cantrips and abilities/etc or a combination thereof, you automatically pass the check.
I think they are staying true to D&D. And I love it. It's second nature to fail in D&D. If you are use to playing D&D then you would know. I mean I know it's not for EVERYONE. But a good portion of people enjoy that. Maybe implement it as a "Hardcore" thing.
Thank you. I agree. The game gets more boring when everything is based on your intentions. The replayability goes way down when dice rolls are taken out, and you lose a lot of excitement.

If every time you play the game you know you will always save Arabella by selecting a certain option, there is no excitement at all when I replay. I just pick the path I want and that's it. Done.

This way, with dice rolls, no two playthroughs are the same. I've remade my Half-Drow Cleric like 10 times and each time Ibplay through with him it's different because some rolls he makes and some fail, leading to so many different experiences.
Quote
Disagree. Failure *is* interesting. It simply means your story goes in a different direction. However, compared to DOS, it needed to be said this is actually the case. Sure, a lot of people will be reloading in order to try for the result they want. That is their choice. I prefer to keep the option to fail alive.

Man, it absolutelly not interesting when your charisma is 18, but you fail persuation again and again. It's stupid.
In my opinion, it would be a pretty good compromise to increase the x2 modifiers.
It would be an extremely simple solution that would make a character who specializes in something less often fail.
There would still be a possibility of failure but I think the game would be generally more fun for more players.
Thanks to this, the player would feel that character building really matters, not just rng.
What does it mean to succeed when you can't fail?
The thing with Arabella is, there are multiple story trees whether she dies or not. If you're not a fan of digital children dying, then sure, reload, but if you're not fussed either way, the richness of gameplay remains both in the event of death and life (you just get the dancing lights amulet sooner if she lives).

What I don't like is when failing a die roll totally closes off one avenue of play (eg Lae'zel coming to kill you in the night), If something important can be decided on a die roll, there should always be a harder route to the same outcome. Good example: if everyone fails their perception check on the lever in Selune's Temple that opens the way to the Underdark, you can still solve the puzzle and get through. Annoying, but at least that option isn't completely gone. So even if you've sworn, for whatever reason, never to reload, you can still gain the experience and find the route ahead.
Originally Posted by Adiktus
...Good example: if everyone fails their perception check on the lever in Selune's Temple that opens the way to the Underdark, you can still solve the puzzle and get through. Annoying, but at least that option isn't completely gone. So even if you've sworn, for whatever reason, never to reload, you can still gain the experience and find the route ahead.

Well in regards to the UD, there are multiple ways to get down there. So in effect, what you are saying is already there. Not disagreeing with you, just wasn't sure if you knew that.
I've found four ways into the UD so far. The Selune Temple route seems to be the easiest, and the earliest one you'll come across if you play the way the game is designed to push you (ie you don't know all its secrets inside out). I was talking more about multiple options for solving *immediate* problems, so if you're in the temple, you have at least two ways to progress.
I do agree it can be a bit frustrating when dice rolls lock you out of certain events or keep you from getting certain items or something, but that is kinda the way life can be, right? Sometimes if you aren't lucky enough, you just miss out on something.

One thing I love about this game is that you never play the same game twice. Sometimes you make rolls and trigger events and sometimes you don't. Take away dice rolling triggering things or locking you out of things and the game loses a lot of edge and flavor. Next time I play, same game. No variations.

What I honestly think would be easiest and work best is 5e Hard Core rules, take away back stab, etc., but give players the option to go into settings and set for themselves their own preference on how many Inspiration points they have to start with. These points could be used in combat and dialogue both so if they want to cheese battles they could spend inspiration. So if players want easy mode, they can set themselves to have 100 inspiration points to start.
Originally Posted by Adiktus
I've found four ways into the UD so far. The Selune Temple route seems to be the easiest, and the earliest one you'll come across if you play the way the game is designed to push you (ie you don't know all its secrets inside out). I was talking more about multiple options for solving *immediate* problems, so if you're in the temple, you have at least two ways to progress.
The first entrance I've found on my first playthrough was the spider cave, but I didn't use it because I was afraid it would be a one-way trip. But once I've learned that flying creatures don't take fall damage, I've sent a raven familiar down the cave. If you have an imp you could have it go invisible and won't even have to fight the spiders. And then you can just use it to find a waypoint in the Underdark, so I find it easier than the temple.

I think failed perception checks should not be revealed, though. It's a bit immersion breaking: you as the player know there is something there, even though the party doesn't. And also the reverse: I think for quest items like the soul coins there should be a perception check, because as it is now, it is the player that has to spot them.
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I do agree it can be a bit frustrating when dice rolls lock you out of certain events or keep you from getting certain items or something, but that is kinda the way life can be, right? Sometimes if you aren't lucky enough, you just miss out on something.

One thing I love about this game is that you never play the same game twice. Sometimes you make rolls and trigger events and sometimes you don't. Take away dice rolling triggering things or locking you out of things and the game loses a lot of edge and flavor. Next time I play, same game. No variations.

What I honestly think would be easiest and work best is 5e Hard Core rules, take away back stab, etc., but give players the option to go into settings and set for themselves their own preference on how many Inspiration points they have to start with. These points could be used in combat and dialogue both so if they want to cheese battles they could spend inspiration. So if players want easy mode, they can set themselves to have 100 inspiration points to start.

Using inspiration point in combat would probably require a proper reaction system crazy
© Larian Studios forums