Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Building a BG franchise on non-D&D game systems?

I absolutely love Solasta and I agree, it has shown that the 5th edition translate well in a video game.
But, in my opinion, it also showed that RAW may not always translate very well if your target is a wide video game player audience.

In exemple even if you play BG3 "as a DnD game" (as much as you can, eventually with the mod), combats are more dynamics than they are in Solasta.

I won't go into details or give too many exemples because it would require a lot of nuancing, as the financial means are not at all the same...
Solasta should inspire Larian for many things, but I can totally understand that Larian wants to create "another experience".

And even if money is the main purpose... Growing, becoming known and earning more is a fairly common goal of the entrepreneurial world.

We are players and we should stay open minded.
On the other hand, Larian should also stay open minded.
Many people here know DnD better than them and many players have more/a different experience with video games than they have.

We want a good game and good game makes more money. I'm sure they know that good cinematics doesn't make good games.
That's why we have to continue our suggestions/feedbacks.

If only we were sure they're open minded...

Niara,

Blimey, you can certainly ignite a few candles just by looking at them. However... after re-reading that line several times, I got a suspicion of some sort, and I'd like to verify it. So, let's try to split that particular hair one more time, shall we? Original quote, courtesy of Composer / Ragnarok (I believe this is the one that everyone is talking about? Otherwise, all bets are off):
The first sentence seems pretty standard, and doesn't raise any alarms, per se. Pretty much every DnD CRPG is "based" on its corresponding ruleset - no one, in my memory, ever claimed that their game implements 100% RAW, however simple that edition might have been.

Going to the next one, and this is where things become hairy (pun intended):
"Setting out"... I always have had a great deal of trouble with this peculiar English thing, when a preposition completely alters the typical meaning of a preceding verb, because my native language doesn't have any of that tomfoolery. So I asked google what it means, exactly, and this is what I've got:

• 1. begin a journey.
• 2. arrange or display something in a particular order or position.

Clearly, it can't be #1, as 5e has existed long before Larian has put their greasy hands onto it. So... it leaves us with #2, innit? And that means, if I'm not mistaken, that your description
is not just exactly what they did (I don't think anyone still doubts that, not at this point), but also is exactly what they said.

However, the rest of that sentence is a pure misleading, and you nailed it perfectly. When they say "and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame", they couldn't have meant the entire videogame genre in general, they meant D:OS2 engine. Because if it was about a genre, then Solasta proves them wrong on all accounts. As such, your statement:
still stands, I think.

The last sentence is, again, a banality. Everyone did it before them, there's nothing new here.

TL;DR: So, basically, it all boils down to a single word - "videogame". Swen used a generic term, while having a very specific one in mind.

No argument here; the simpler the game, the larger is its target audience. There is a reason behind Counter-Strike being #1 game on Steam in terms of online count.
The only problem is, when I dumb down the game (or any product or service, for that matter), it doesn't actually make it interesting for more consumers. It moves the target audience to a different social stratum, which has more people in it. But the original potential consumers (who would be my target audience if I didn't dumb the product down) are no longer interested in it.
Question is, how far down that rabbit hole Larian is willing to go?.. I just hope it's not the Candy Crush level.

Can't say I noticed that. Or maybe I just need another Solasta playthrough. On 14 April, they are releasing a new campaign and a multiplayer mode; might be worth a try.

That's not exactly what I meant. But that's beside the point, I suppose.

That's a fair enough analysis on most points I think, Rutger... And yes, sorry... I speak harshly, and I usually go back over everything and vet myself carefully for tone, but I'm feeling pretty exhausted right now and I'm probably not being as careful to guard myself as I should be.

I would say that this quote:


In the English language and, as a native English speaker, says, to me... That the individual talking started with the rules, set out meticulously and faithfully (tying in with their other quote about wanting to do this "as faithfully as possible", incidentally), used that rule set as their foundation, and changed them only where it was literally problematic for their project.

That is what that sentence, structured as it is, says. That's not fluffy or fuzzy interpretation - that is that quote's meaning.

That is NOT what they did, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

This sentence says, very strongly, that their basis is the 5e rules. That the 5e system is their foundation, and that they made changes to it only where it literally did not work. If they genuinely meant something other than that, then the sentence is misleading. If they meant to say this, despite knowing that this was not actually the case, then the sentence is deliberately misleading - and is misrepresenting their product for the sake of better advertising.


I'll say this: If by "videogame" Swen meant "Our Divinity2 Game Engine", then yes, in that case, the quote as a whole would not be a misrepresentation of what they were doing.

However, if they expected the average listener to make that leap of logic and assume that they meant "Our Divinity 2 Game Engine" when they said "videogame" in this context, then they are very stupid, and need to fire their speech-writers and PR department heads. If, on the other hand, they knew full well that your average listener would not assume that the word "videogame" was supposed to be interpreted as "Our Divinity 2 Game Engine", and would instead take it as given that the word "videogame" meant the general concept of videogame media as a whole, or else as a reference to one of its sub-genres, such as RPGs, or even fantasy RPGs, or even D&D Fantasy RPGs.... then they were deliberately misrepresenting what they were doing in order to draw and/or impress a larger crowd and raise hype in more sectors.

==

If they had never said things like "as faithfully as possible" in the context of how they wanted to make their game in relation to the 5e ruleset...
If they had never said anything about starting with a meticulous description of the 5e rules...
If they had never said anything about making their game based on the 5e system...
If they hadn't consistently used diminutive and minimising language around nearly every mention they make of deviating from the rules - heavily implying by their wording choices that the differences from core 5e will be minimal...

If they'd never implied that this was going to be an actual 5e D&D game in the first place...

And instead, had simply advertised that they were making BG3, as made by the developers who brought you Divinity... I'd probably be on board with that... I might even play it, if the character customisation looked good enough (It doesn't! I still don't know why people complement character creation in this game! It's simplistic, stale and limited in the extreme! It's completely unsatisfying! It feels like an almost vestigial afterthought!).

And I'd be disappointed that we STILL DIDN'T HAVE, and STILL WEREN'T GETTING a proper D&D video game in 5e rules... because that's what I'm actually interested in, and clearly that's what this is not intending to be.

Yup ...

And the missinterpretation starts once you ask what does "problematic" means. :-/

There isnt any big true ...
Only two points of view ...

First group expect them to implement everything that is possible, just bcs that is what they want.
Second group expect them to change everything that isnt fun, even tho it would be possible to implement, bcs that is what they want.

My money goes for Swen being in second group.

This is the observation that matters. None of us are on the dev team, so we don't know what code they wrote or why they chose to throw out so much of the PHB over time. But, the incentives behind their decisions are straightforward. Swen has been transparent about trying get the license for a long time. Larian has also prominently featured well-known IP from Baldur's Gate and 5E in their trailers, artwork, and advertisements. They have carefully courted the large, pre-existing customer base by sending messages that this game will be traditional and consistent with other official D&D products. What conclusion are most gamers going to draw about a product with an official D&D logo on it? Larian knows the answer to that. That is why brands bring so much value to developers. They know that the customer base will associate the ruleset with the logo, and buy the game.

The reason I do not hope is because of the reasons Larian gives for ignoring the PHB. They don't say "we haven't gotten to it yet." They say "we like our way better" or "5E isn't as fun as our way" or "5E doesn't work in a videogame." It is not an issue of time at this point. They don't like the core ruleset or mechanics.

I feel "being mislead" is a personal experience. I just never perceived BG3 as being advertised as a faithful 5e adaptation. Then again, I knew Larian well enough to assume BG3 won't be a "good" Baldur's Gate sequel as soon as I heard the rumors. I suppose that due to my unfamiliarity with 5e and familiarity with Larian and BG IP I might be incapable what others might have hoped for when seeing the advertisments.

WotC rejected Larian's application for the license before DOS2. That means they have some standards for how faithful the adaptation will be. I know that many gamers, including myself, did not think it was possible that WotC would allow so much of the core rules to be ignored or changed in an official product. Niara is being generous by saying it is "misleading." The final release of this game is going to cause problems when the wider D&D audience reviews it.

You make quite an assumption there as to why WotC didn't give Larian the licence to BG3. If WotC was concerned about faithfulness of Larian's adaptation of their system then they would put it in the contract. There is no indication as far as I know that WotC is in any way unhappy with the direction Larian is taking the game. If anything D:OS2 convinced them that Larian was the studio to make BG3.

Even if WotC had reservations or concerns about Larian's interpretation of the game, they certainly wouldn't make that public. Regardless, I assume they are ok with things as they are going presently.

I didn't make that assumption. My suggestion was not that they rejected it solely due to "faithfulness." If you read my post, my point was that WotC protects their brands (through faithfulness or something else) because they know they have a reputation to uphold. WotC knows that their large, profitable customer base forms associations about their products and franchises, and will compare future products to past ones. They want to maintain standards and integrity of their games. Larian knows that those same gamers will automatically bring expectations about content and quality of BG3.

Yeah-yeah, that's exactly why WoTC made Tuque Games create the masterpiece "Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance"... auch, sorry, I think I just stretched my sarcasm muscle.

WotC doesn't "make" developers do anything, for one thing. The branding process in general is an attempt to generate revenue and manage risk, not directly control the products. There are no guarantees, and sometimes the decisions are poorly made anyway.

With that being said, their licensing behavior became much greedier under their most recent CEO, and the current upper management group has been diluting the value of several of their primary brands. I doubt many gamers are aware of the game you mentioned, but that is a good example of an attempt to cash in on brand recognition with a poor product. WotC has also begun to sacrifice the value of the brands it owns to market more products. It has its own internal problems with integrity, unfortunately.

The poor quality of the product you mentioned, despite making it through the approval process, should serve as a warning to gamers who might still associate these brands with quality. I think many customers still do, which is why this process is profitable. Eventually, though, customers (like many on this forum who know D&D from editions before 5E) will realize that WotC cannot be trusted to choose good partners, and the brand will lose value. This has already happened to some of their other products.

You would be right if not one little detail - Tuque Games belongs to WotC.

Lets not forget that Wotc/Hasbro are untrustworthy shit corp.
My god among the many things, what they suddenly did to Fantasy Flight’s license of Android: Netrunner LCG...sudden license cancellation. They were selling good, tournaments were happening, the game was super fun, new expansions being released...uhuh, this game brand CAN be successful and make money!?!
And now WotC just re-applied the license for themselves.
So there's that too.
Tomorrow they could be saying, uh $%&' you Larian. Bye.
Thats the kind of business Wotc does. Among the low quality shit they produce. Just look at MTG these days.

Larian has freedom of the license? I call it BS. Lots of strings are being puled to make this game an accessible <<Cinematic RPG>> for the masses. Not a detailed classic style hardcore D&D game respecting the Baldur's gate license. 2 years in EA, nothing has changed from that concept = thats what we are getting.

And they trusted a studio responsible for best selling cRPG in recent memory with their most valuable PC IP. What do they really have to loose in that deal with the adaptation not being faithful? Maybe Larian will make some of WotC fanbase into their customers, and maybe WotC will convert some of Larian's fanbase into their customers. All while hopefully making a neat profit of BG3.


That's possible of course, but with BG3 overwhelmingly positive reception from players and critics one can assume it will be considered "a quality product" even if some hardcore fanbase will be disappointed. Maybe it will even replace D:OS2 as "best RPG of all time!" Anyway, what was the last decent D&D PC game. NWN2?

Piece of trash corp WoTC/Hasbro?!?! to <maintain standards and INTEGRITY of their games> is this JOKE of the year??? ROFL.

As Red Letter Media well puts, the thought process now for these <rebooted> movies and games :

We don't care, we are making new "games", we are going to market them of popular legacy characters, because people know them...and we are going to make a NEW audience, and we don't give a fuck about canon about timelines, we are just going to make a new "show" ...gonna have action cinematics , car chases, we gonna have weird things happen, we gonna have fun with it, and we don't care what people bitch about.

Even that is highly debated amongst fans. Grognards are going to grognard after all. But the Mask of the Betrayer expansion is pretty universally loved.

(I personally loved NWN2, it had issues though)

The customers are being drawn from multiple pools. I believe experienced PC gamers will be disappointed with the shallow game mechanics and strange obsession with melodrama and cinematics. People who only know DOS will probably like it. I think some people who love anime and inspirational or woke TV shows might enjoy this game. And, I believe the D&D community will be very disappointed with this game, and will pan it in the same way you have just done -- by lumping it in with the other disappointments from the last 20 years.