Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Mar 2021
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Mar 2021
Aren't those portal part of the lore in BG? They should be there so I voted no limits at all. The only thing I can say if we do need to limit it would be to be able to use it on location only were the portals are.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
What? Elden ring is a very bad example to defend your point of view.
And yet, one bit where the game cuts player off from fast travel and forces them to find a way out has been praised to high heaven.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by SerraSerra
Originally Posted by The Composer
My stomach turns at the thought of random encounters. Hate them on tabletop, and any video games, even in pokemon (I think the newer games are a huge improvement on that front. Give me the old games, but visible pokemon in the grass that I can walk around to skip, and I'd be a very happy nerd!).[...] But random encounters is not a solution in any shape or form IMO. It's just annoying filler that doesn't drive the story. And if it's chance-based, I'd hit F5 before travel, travel, and reload if random encounter, and try travel again to avoid random combat :P

You do realise there's a certain irony in your statement that you hate random encounters because of how they're chance and not story driven in a discussion on a game that forces you to roll dice on literally everything in combat en often in dialogues too ?

Because skill checks in dialogue or combat, are elements of gameplay where the player is actively involved. They choose to go into dialogue, and choose the reply they want to say. Combat is something they also either choose, or encounter in correlation to something they choose to do, such as delving further into the goblin camp, or as a consequence to a dialogue option they chose (and failed or was a poor choice).

Random encounters during fast travel is just a random chance, of a random event, that the player is forced to do, without giving them a choice. So there's no irony, but a clear distinct difference. Not to mention random encounters is one of the common factors among DMs and discussions that are often pointed out as a contributor to overland travel being boring. Roll a dice for each hexagon you move, players roll their eyes as another pack of wolves randomly come out from the treeline? Even the dungeon master's guide advice on this is terrible, there's advice somewhere in there to make random encounters more exciting, and the example is that the bandits could ambush the players from behind, rather than from in front of them. Woo-hoo.

And it's also just terrible filler content that adds very little to the game compared to inconvenience and annoyance. You go for a long rest, and travel back to where you were, woops you got ambushed, either gotta use some spellslots to get them out of the way fast, or take damage and spend a short rest to heal up before you've even gone back to the adventure after resting.

Not to mention it adds bloat in terms of player rewards, if the random encounter doesn't provide loot and/or experience, then it'll feel even more annoying and boring. If it does, you can just fast travel back and forth to farm exp. Then exp becomes an infinite grindable resource, loses its meaning and might as well be removed from the game entirely.

There are many discussions and videos for, and among DMs out there that has a bucket-full of ideas on how to make random encounters better rescue random encounters from not making the game suck for players, and just that fact should underline that random encounters are fundamentally disliked by a lot of players. Not all, it has its fans too as is obviously present, but it's a topic I often see on repeat in social platforms where DMs discuss among themselves, or share their wisdoms to aspiring DMs.

I feel an urge to go on a longer rant, but to make it very short: Random encounters is in my opinion one of the worst gameplay elements that any game could ever have, unless the game is specifically designed around it as a core component and gameplay loop, ala Pokemon.

That being said, I do agree and believe that both fast travel and longrests should have some form of iteration, addition or limitations to them compared to what currently stands. But random encounters is not a solution to either.


Originally Posted by SerraSerra
Why not let some world events be dice driven too? Like you first come on a crosspoint. Dice roll, d6 , anything between 0-3 bad luck, 3-6 good luck , the higher lower, the more beneficial or dangerous. How would that randomness differ from the randomness in attacks hitting or missing, or your charisma checks to succeed. If the issue is losing rolls (or losing to randomness), just add an option of few negative encounters, no random encounters, or story mode where you succeed any roll everywhere... ?

That goalpost can just be moved further and further, until the game just becomes a dice-rolling centipede of blockades to player agency. So no, all of those are bad for gameplay. You want to improve player agency and experience, not limit it or poke a stick in its wheels and over-systematically design every nook of gameplay. And just for random encounters alone, if it's rolled every time the players pass a crossroads, and there are many points in a world where a dice is rolled, it makes travel incredibly frustrating, and incentivizes fast travel. If fast travel too has random encounters, it's just a long fest of not fun gameplay that dictates what should happen, rather than letting the player steer their own adventure.

So... Just a flat no. To everything.

Quote
Edit: I suppose I should specify that I specifically refer to repeatable and generic random encounters. Unique events that has a random element of when and how it occurs, once, can be fine.
Also, random encounters were good in D&D once upon a time, when it was more dungeon-crawling focused and not so much the grand roleplay adventure concept it's moved towards in later years. Now they're just a nuisance that slows down the campaign without adding anything, at least for modern roleplaying game trends and preferences. More old-school players may come from a time when it was popular, and insist that it still should be. It can (arguably should) but it needs major rethinking to how it's implemented and designed.

If you want more combat as either a DM or players around the table, add more encounters. The encounters usually are more fun and involved then, if intentional and designed around the players to compliment their campaign, instead of put artificial roadbumps with no meaning along their journey through it.

Quote
Edit #2: I do however don't think random encounters don't have a place in D&D. Just not the way I see people often use it for, and therefore most often it's a bad idea. Any events on a random encounter table needs to add something to the game (not just more stuff to fight). It mustn't feel like it slows down the game but that it adds something, and it should have avoidance options. Not every random encounter should be, or end in combat. In fact, most of them shouldn't be combat unless players choose to instigate a fight, or to not try to avoid it. But regardless of outcome, it should add to the game. By adding to the game, I mean perhaps the players come across arcane-imbued zombies that turn out to be failed experiments from a nearby necromancer lair, and can be traced back there. It's given the players come clues to the area they're in, and new info for them. It adds something to the whole.

Other random encounters that *can* work are contextual and location-bound ones, such as you're infiltrating a bandit-occupied dungeon, perhaps there's a random bandit patrol that spawns a few corridors down on a patrol, so it ADDS a component for players where they need to be on a constant lookout, consider sneaking, or other decisions to navigate the dungeon. Those can be repeatable, because it's a confined and designed context.

Random for the sake of randomness, particularly triggered by fast-travel without context, is bad.

If the players sigh when a random encounter occurs, something is wrong about how random encounters are implemented. And a lot of DMs are really bad at it, or blindly follow the PHB/DMG/Module without putting any thought into it, because it's "just supposed to be that way".

And in a video game, I don't see any circumstance where that can be done, in a way that's any better than just doing it as a more well designed and defined event for players to encounter in a fixed point/location during their adventure. So for tabletop, random encounters can be good. In videogames, never, unless it's specifically designed for a context that adds to the game, such as bandit patrols in that previous example.

Last edited by The Composer; 28/04/22 01:03 AM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Lol. People legit feel that way. I can't tell if people are joking anymore. 🤪
Hehe. Fair enough. smile

My little play on D&D gaming was exaggeration for effect. But my main point was for real. I REALLY don't like the extent to which pure chance plays a role (pun intended ;)) in D&D mechanics. And like I said, I especially hate it in basic elements of the game such as anything to do with your character creation or development (so rolling for HPs when you level up), and rolling for the magnitude of effects when spellcasting/using potions/scrolls.

Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Archaven
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Just to be clear, random encounters doesn't mean just getting into combat. It could mean encountering a friendly creature, a mischievous one, wolves attacking a peasant and you have to save them either by scaring them off or if you can talk to animals, persuading them, a dryad asking for help or trying to charm you, a goblin patrol, a couple of spider carrying paralyzed victims on their backs and you need to try to save the victims before the spiders escape with them into the Whispering depths...

There are LOTS of scenarios they could develop with lots of outcomes. Doesn't always have to be fighting encounters.

i love dnd5e for its combat. yeah sure you can have other non combat encounter but it can only be limited (and possibly recycled). like in pathfinder wrath of the righteous, the army management events are recycled. yes they did provide a handful or dozens of encounters. but since it's going to be random, it has to be recycled. i'm more interested in the combat and the loot though.

Pathfinder is a rather bad example, random encounters were so boring there and apart from the scripted ones, most of them involved approaching the enemy and waiting for him to die.
Another thing was that they were just as pointless.
At most, I would prefer the path DA: O. There was some limited pool of encounters (not too big, at least) but when you were done with them they didn't show up anymore (except for the trader who was annoying after a while)

Agreed. Pathfinder random encounters are not good. I've been Evading them every time. And they are just trash mobs. You easily kill them. Oh so exciting.

Solasta's we're better. Some of the random encounter fights I've had in Solasta we're the most exciting encounters in the game.

One encounter, I ran into a young black dragon. Now that was cool. Even though they are just fights, they mixed up the monsters so you don't fight the same random encounters all the time. Flying drake's, elementals, orcs, undead, dragons, and monsters I've never even used while DMing before.

If BG3 did something similar, and added some varies story-style encounters to boot, that would be really awesome.

+1. Wanted well crafted random encounters. It would be neat if there is a dedicated area or paid DLC? I don't mind. This area will be procedurally generated? And the deeper you delve in the more difficult the fights. And this will definitely solve the merchant farming issue. Players have great fun in the battles and the rewards are the loots. Be it weapons, armors, items or crafting materials.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I despise fast travel. It should be used minimally. "uuuuh, so don't use it, duuuuu...". Its a problem when a game is designed/built around fast travel.
Me wants my <Quality of life> this and that = bye bye RPG immersion. <<RPGs>> in 10 years : Who needs TB combat? Who needs inventory management? Who needs spells/classses? Who needs to walk around? Who needs a mouse and keyboard?

Limit fast travel. LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS = a better rpg experience and immersion. Quality of life dumbs down everything and is a plague to creativity.
#fuckqualityoflife (in games) smile

Quality of life stuff that ruined RPGs:

Auto health/magic regain
Unlimited resting
Unlimited inventory space
Unlimited xxx
Fast travel
No ammo
Less <junk> spells and abilities because they bring nothing to combat
No random encounters
No day/night
Dump down creature type and abilities
Less class/races/kits choices
Less companions
Less weapon types/skills
No written dialogues
Story mode
Tutorial areas
MMO/Smart phone like UI
UI designed around controllers
Brighter easy to see more colorful graphics
And on a general note : Game less mature/marketing towards kids (kids also including 20 to 30 year olds nowadays lol).

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 28/04/22 10:19 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I wish I could remember where I heard this, but a game designer (maybe of the Outer Wilds) said that modern video games are designed to play themselves.
This was mostly in context of open world games, which do everything in there power to ensure that players never feel out of their depth, but it goes for most game systems in every genre. Every aspect of rpgs that veered into simulation is not user-friendly so naturally game design has become about sanding down those edges, or taking them out all together.
I'll let you guys tell me how this might also be the case through the editions of D&D, I feel that older rules did more to deal with simulation in campaigns (usually in exploration) but never really adequately and it seems like most players and DMs are satisfied to hand-wave it.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well its right there for you ...
All you need to do is simply dont fast travel ... so ... where is the problem? laugh

No, it would be remove fast travel outside of not being at portal, remove send to camp feature, and link portals to specific other locations, not having them all linked together.

its that simple

Last edited by fallenj; 28/04/22 11:12 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well its right there for you ...
All you need to do is simply dont fast travel ... so ... where is the problem? laugh

No, it would be remove fast travel outside of not being at portal, remove send to camp feature, and link portals to specific other locations, not having them all linked together.

its that simple

They better not even plan it, it would be a terrible limitation.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Sozz
I wish I could remember where I heard this, but a game designer (maybe of the Outer Wilds) said that modern video games are designed to play themselves.
That’s a rather a different subject - handholding and following objective markes vs. Exploration through player’s curiosity. BG3 is rather far from AAA ina that regard.

Simulation isn’t the best word I would use to describe difference between BG1&2 and BG3. In the game sense BG3 has far more of a simulation then BG1&2 were - environment is interactable, liquids spill, surfaces are impacted by elements. As far as systemic simulations are concerned BG3 dwarfs previous entry.

What I think people are missing is the narrative focus of Bioware - they didn’t create simulated worlds, but worked hard to breathe life into the world they created. When game reacted it wasn’t an act of simulation, but of a narration - reinforcing the feel of the place, or players character. Random encounters (be it during travels or in maps) weren’t there to simulate anything, but to tell a story - protagonist’s venturing out of comfort of home, exploring wilderness, war between guilds.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Yes the original context for that remark (if I've remembered it correctly and still can't find) is about open-world exploration and the difference between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Or as is pertinent to us, Sandbox and Railroad narratives. But I still think it's a industry-wide move, regardless of genre and beyond open-world gameplay.

Of a scale of Dwarf Fortress to Mass Effect; BG 1&2 incorporate more of D&D's attempts to realize actual adventuring concerns than BG 3. i.e.
mr_planescapist=

Auto health/magic regain
Unlimited inventory space
Fast travel
No ammo
Less <junk> spells and abilities because they bring nothing to combat
No random encounters
No day/night
Dump down creature type and abilities
Less weapon types/skills
Story mode
MMO/Smart phone like UI.
simulation isn't just about environments it's about a lot of things, if there's a better word for that I couldn't think of it.


Of course, how much D&D deals with this type of gameplay varies by campaign, with a majority of players being uninterested, which is why it's more or less an afterthought in the rules without supplementary material.

I like Bioware games and I'll be happy to play a Baldur's Gate game in the vein of one, but especially with the last Dragon Age I've reached a tipping point with the way certain aspects of RPGs have been streamlined or are now out of the player's control.

Last edited by Sozz; 29/04/22 01:07 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
"uuuuh, so don't use it, duuuuu..."
Its so cute when you are trying to dementate something ...
As when kids thinks that two inifinites is twice as much as infinite. laugh

Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Its a problem when a game is designed/built around fast travel.
I wonder what that even mean.
Could you elaborate?
Or is that just some vague catchword you are hiding behind? :P

Originally Posted by fallenj
remove fast travel outside of not being at portal, remove send to camp feature, and link portals to specific other locations, not having them all linked together.
This all can be done while not ruining other people game ...
If you dont want to ... just dont. laugh

Seems simple enough ...
What is the problem? Why do you require other people you never seen or met to play their own completely separated SINGLE PLAYER game that dont affect you in any way ... the way you want it?
Where is origin of this urge to adjust everything on system level so you can get what you want but are too ... dunno unwilling, lazy, incapable (fell free to pick) ... to get it youreself?

Now when i think about it ... i think i know ONE possibke reason that would explain such behaviour ... but i still find it inprobable that so many people on this forum would share the same diagnosis. O_o


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well its right there for you ...
All you need to do is simply dont fast travel ... so ... where is the problem? laugh

No, it would be remove fast travel outside of not being at portal, remove send to camp feature, and link portals to specific other locations, not having them all linked together.

its that simple

They better not even plan it, it would be a terrible limitation.

It probably won't happen, but if it did, it would be amazing!

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by fallenj
remove fast travel outside of not being at portal, remove send to camp feature, and link portals to specific other locations, not having them all linked together.
This all can be done while not ruining other people game ...
If you dont want to ... just dont. laugh

Seems simple enough ...
What is the problem? Why do you require other people you never seen or met to play their own completely separated SINGLE PLAYER game that dont affect you in any way ... the way you want it?
Where is origin of this urge to adjust everything on system level so you can get what you want but are too ... dunno unwilling, lazy, incapable (fell free to pick) ... to get it youreself?

Now when i think about it ... i think i know ONE possibke reason that would explain such behaviour ... but i still find it inprobable that so many people on this forum would share the same diagnosis. O_o

Ya, I was waiting for this kind of answer, the game isn't setup like that plain and simple, It's not my game nor yours, its larians baby, I just put out my request that's all, just like most of my requests I don't really care if you or anyone really likes them. What matters is if the request is good enough in larians view, so in other words it's not about you.

The thought process is, looking at the game as a whole, we are not playing big mmo maps, they are small and clustered together, you can seriously run down the road and find a goblin town sacked by the grove and the npcs are a o k with that. A previous request was adding more filler areas to seperate the locations. But IMO FR Lore and Immersion is better so here's this one.

Now what if they did put limitations in, you could probably use cheats to change it back so it wouldn't ruin "your" game.

Last edited by fallenj; 30/04/22 12:16 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by fallenj
Now what if they did put limitations in, you could probably use cheats to change it back so it wouldn't ruin "your" game.
Not sure if "probably" is good enough to use as an argument ...
But basicaly it seems the same as if i would say: Hope for mods and shut up. laugh


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Jan 2021
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
I despise fast travel. It should be used minimally. "uuuuh, so don't use it, duuuuu...". Its a problem when a game is designed/built around fast travel.
Me wants my <Quality of life> this and that = bye bye RPG immersion. <<RPGs>> in 10 years : Who needs TB combat? Who needs inventory management? Who needs spells/classses? Who needs to walk around? Who needs a mouse and keyboard?

Limit fast travel. LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS = a better rpg experience and immersion. Quality of life dumbs down everything and is a plague to creativity.
#fuckqualityoflife (in games) smile

Quality of life stuff that ruined RPGs:

Auto health/magic regain
Unlimited resting
Unlimited inventory space
Unlimited xxx
Fast travel
No ammo
Less <junk> spells and abilities because they bring nothing to combat
No random encounters
No day/night
Dump down creature type and abilities
Less class/races/kits choices
Less companions
Less weapon types/skills
No written dialogues
Story mode
Tutorial areas
MMO/Smart phone like UI
UI designed around controllers
Brighter easy to see more colorful graphics
And on a general note : Game less mature/marketing towards kids (kids also including 20 to 30 year olds nowadays lol).

Since you seem to be dead set on doing mindless chores instead of enjoying actual gameplay:

May I suggest that you play an rpg called "real life"?

It has mindless chores in abundance. And doing mindless chores there has much better rewards!

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
No chores for me, please! I love unlimited fast travel, unlimited inventory, and unlimited resting! The more quality of life stuff the better.

Last edited by Icelyn; 30/04/22 03:33 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Icelyn
No chores for me, please! I love unlimited fast travel, unlimited inventory, and unlimited resting! The more quality of life stuff the better.
It sounds like what you want Is a Command console. You might even be able to inta-kill enemies! No need to play the game at all. Just type what you want and it happens.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by fallenj
Now what if they did put limitations in, you could probably use cheats to change it back so it wouldn't ruin "your" game.
Not sure if "probably" is good enough to use as an argument ...
But basicaly it seems the same as if i would say: Hope for mods and shut up. laugh

no im not going to shutup, this thread was for voting, i voted other and gave my reason what other was. wtf did i hound anyone on here about there stupid vote.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by fallenj
no im not going to shutup
Wich part of "as if" you need to explain?

Originally Posted by Wormerine
It sounds like what you want Is a Command console. You might even be able to inta-kill enemies! No need to play the game at all. Just type what you want and it happens.
Even if ... why not? :P
As long as it entertains her. :P


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Just type what you want and it happens.
[Linked Image from static.tumblr.com]

Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5