BG3 has enough freedom for players to do almost anything, while also encouraging a certain kind of play pattern with incentives and punishments.
I’m curious to know how forum members handle this. Is it possible for you to play BG3 the way you like? Do you feel the game punishes you if you do? If you were to start a new run, would you play the way you like or the way the game encourages you to play?
Im a little torn between first and second option ... I sometimes use 6 party mod, and when i do i certainly like the game much more ... but i dont use it for every single playthrough, since its quite a drag ...
Decisions ... decisions ...
I guess i will go with option 2. Even tho i more often play regular, than modded ... i like it modded more.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Hmm. I wouldn't say that the game discourages me from playing a certain way, it's more like an inner conflict with myself and how I portray my character. For example, I play as a sorcerer. She has reasonable intellect and is not any way considered dumb. And, since I'm the one controlling her, everything I know about the game, she also knows(well, game mechanic wise mostly). So she knowing that using the explosive barrel in the middle of the room will significantly ease the battle...not using that knowledge to her advantage...would make her dumb. And in my mind, she's not dumb. So I can't limit myself as a player giving me a greater challenge, without also gimping my character at the same time.
It's stuff like this that makes me prefer more streamlined games than open sandbox games. Not too streamlined, I still like exploring and figuring out clever combos but also not too sandboxy where everything goes. Not saying that everything goes in BG3, but I still advocate for things in the game I personally feel could follow the 5e rules a little bit closer.
So...out of those options....I guess I will have to go with nr 3. Probably I will use mods in the future if I'm not perfectly satisfied with the final product.
I can’t choose any options, but I would chose a “no because what I want to do has not been added yet†(classes, multiclassing, spell types, better/less boring feats, stat rolling). But as this is EA, I have put the game aside for the last few months and I patiently wait.
I can’t choose any options, but I would chose a “no because what I want to do has not been added yet†(classes, multiclassing, spell types, better/less boring feats, stat rolling). But as this is EA, I have put the game aside for the last few months and I patiently wait.
I hadn’t thought of that.
I guess the question is implicitely about the current state of the game. Maybe there should’ve been a “No answer†option, but I’d count you as category five.
BG3 lack too much rules or features currently and some of them are way too unbalanced to my tastes. Of course I play with my own restrictions but I wouldn't call it "playing as I'd like". I'd say I'm using band-aids to make it a bit closer to what I'd like but it's currently not fully satisfying.
Coming from the TTRPG I can confidently say that for a huge chunk of the game I'm not allowed to play both casters and martials the way I would normaly on a 5e table.
The main problem with Casters is I'm not allowed to pinpoint AoE spells of any nature correctly. The autoadjustment feels clunky and limited. I can't for example pinpoint a darkness spell 10 feet high or stick it on an enemy's head. Now this is actually not a big problem as of EA, but as the game progresses it sure will become a bigger annoyance exactly as annoying as it is to not be able to break open doors by blasting them with spells or bombs. To me, it's mind boggling how this is something Larian hasn't considered for a AAA D&D Title of 2023 (personal assumption, hope I'm wrong)
Following the same train of thought, Martials lack core mechanics for the game to be considered Dungeons and Dragons 5e, and it will be an even bigger problem as the game progresses past level 5. What I mean is, the current combat system doesn't seem to reciprocate for multiple attacks and strategic play. If I for example play a barbarian on tabletop past level 5, in a turn I'm normally able to divide my attack action and bonus action as follows:
1) Attack Action-> Main hand attack X2, bonus action-> off hand attack.
2) Attack Action->Main hand Attack, shove or grapple, bonus action-> off hand attack
3) Attack Action -> Shove-grapple X2, bonus action-> off hand attack.
Unfortunately in BG3, this is impossible, not to mention attacking grappled enemies or pinning doesn't seem to be going viable in the future either. This is very unfortunate as I don't see many people actually considering the lack of combat options as of the current build and if Larian procceeds with things as they are I'd be really saddened I can't refund.
No, because the way I want to play it is with a full party of characters that I create myself. Not only am I tired of making parties using only the same companions, I don't actually like any of them. I don't like their personalities, and I don't like the builds.
The idea for the poll came from something GM4Him said in the Short Rest Poll thread.
Quote
The main issue with BG3 has to do with what also makes it so awesome. Freedom.
He’s right, and that statement neatly encapsulates my journey with BG3.
Baldur’s Gate 3 has two learning curves. The first one is learning about the game rules and world. The second is learning how to use those things to have fun.
Some of it was ignoring tedious systems. For example, looting, inventory and merchants. My initial thought was, “if the game lets me click on anything, it must expect me to click on everythingâ€. The game hints at what’s important with chests, but will also let players discover the hard way that every vase is empty.
That’s easily ignored, but doing so isn’t always possible. When the enemy doesn’t know where the arrow came from and I start getting free attacks, I’ve learned to stand that PC in the open until initiative gets rolled. I also hate being bonus action shoved, so I’ve learned to vent about it in the forum.
The resting system is where the game discourages my playstyle. As far as signals go, it scolds the player for resting early on and makes it clear doing so costs food while providng virtually no in-world penalty for dawdling, skipping some dialogue should resting be posponed and providing so much food that the cost is meaningless. In the end, the player learns to rest as much or as little as they like, which robs the tension out the resource management at the heart of DnD 5e.
None of this is going away. The resting system may be reworked but Larian’s publicly stated philosophy of letting players break the game will remain. They will give their players every tool to destroy their own fun and trust that players won’t. Larian should at least help new players handle their freedom by keeping the incentives consistent.
All of this makes me glad to have played in early access. I’ve learned how to get the most out of BG3 despite the disincentives, which will make discovering the full game all the better.
I agree with much of Flooter's previous post. And this does not make me happy. I'm tempted to react to several points, but I'll focus on the main one.
Originally Posted by Flooter
None of this is going away. The resting system may be reworked but Larian’s publicly stated philosophy of letting players break the game will remain. They will give their players every tool to destroy their own fun and trust that players won’t. Larian should at least help new players handle their freedom by keeping the incentives consistent.
That's a very good summary. But I would add a pair of things.
1) The incentives are not just inconsistent, they are plainly contradictory.
The writing and the food system send the message that "time is important and you should not rest all the time". But the camp scenes system and the absence of any time-sensitive event send the message that "time does not exist and you should rest after every encounter" (be combat, social, discovery ... everything).
2) I'm happy if Larian wants to let players "break the game", and I'm happy to let players who want it do so. But there needs to be something to break in the first place !
Imagine a Platformer (or, indeed, a CRPG) where the Main Character can get hit by enemies and there is a Damage Tracker system. After how many hits do you have to retry the level ? (Or after how many hits does your CRPG character fall unconscious ?)
BG3's current answer is "however many you want". There's no design there.
Players who don't want to break the game do not know what constitutes a reasonable challenge and when they should press the "retry stage/fall unconscious/reload" button. Players who want to break the game can't : there's no point finding the cheat codes or clever shenanigans that allow to reset the Damage Tracker at will, if there's no threshold that the Damage Tracker should not exceed.
So Larian should not just help new players. They should, simply put, design a Long Rest system. Make a choice. And then think about how to let players abuse it.
And of course, if Larian has already design such a resting system so, then I'll add the two usual things. Firstly, it would be nice to let players test it. They said EA is for testing systems after all. Secondly, it would be nice to communicate about it, so we don't keep giving feedback on the resting system.
I chose the last option. The game doesn't really let me play the way I want. I want more 5e, more ( and less mary sueish) companions, party of 6, a more realistic approach of shove and less larianisms.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
When the enemy doesn’t know where the arrow came from and I start getting free attacks, I’ve learned to stand that PC in the open until initiative gets rolled.
For this i blame lack of comunication ... since we have still no idea if that is final version, or just some temporary bug they didnt get rid off yet.
Originally Posted by Flooter
Larian’s publicly stated philosophy of letting players break the game will remain.
There is question if there is even any breaking ... I mean you cant really "break the rules" if there are no rules to break in the first place.
Take that food for example ... Since Larian implemented it many people around here are complaining that it actualy isnt any limitation ... even you mentioned that ... I wonder, did anyone in Larian ever mentioned that this feature should somehow limit Long Rests? O_o I dont say they didnt ... just that if they did, i dont remember it.
So if that was never mentioend as limitation ... What if other things we think are broken (or breaking things) are working the same way? If we see them as ways to bypass rule, just bcs we falsely presume that there is rule.
Just thinking out loud ...
//Edit: Time: 2:02:22 ... Swen starts talking about food ...
It was a little vague as usualy ... but he never mentioned it should anyhow limit Long Resting ... only talking about how that incerase importance of food.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 24/05/2211:51 AM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
I chose the last option. The game doesn't really let me play the way I want. I want more 5e, more ( and less mary sueish) companions, party of 6, a more realistic approach of shove and less larianisms.
It was a little vague as usualy ... but he never mentioned it should anyhow limit Long Resting ... only talking about how that incerase importance of food.
He says “the reason [they] did it is because [they] wanted to differentiate stronger between short rest and long rest.†He adds that “it definitely adds a lot to finding food in the world.â€
Maybe limiting long rests isn’t Larian’s primary goal, but I’d be surprised to hear they believe their stated goals are met. And regardless of designer intent, the perceived intent of adding a cost to an ability is to limit its use.
Or their definition of "limiting" simply differs from ours.
It certainly worked for me ... im annoyed by need to gather and check food, so i rest only when i really, REALLY need to. If that is enough for Larian, then they were sucessfull ... by their own therms ofcourse.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Take that food for example ... Since Larian implemented it many people around here are complaining that it actualy isnt any limitation ... even you mentioned that ... I wonder, did anyone in Larian ever mentioned that this feature should somehow limit Long Rests? O_o
For those interested in this (side-)question and who don't want to find and listen to the relevant segment found by RagnarokCzD :
[...] We have started differentiating short rest from long rest more than they were expected [*] .
So here you see on our screen that we are actually using camp supplies before we have to go sleep. [...] If you eat sufficiently at camp, then you're going to have the benefits of a full rest. However if you don't have enough food with you, you will still be able to rest but you will get what we call a shallow rest or a partial rest. And that essentially means that you're not going to get all of your spells slots and not all of your HP restored when you go to sleep.
So managing your supplies is going to become important. That long rest has become more of a strategic, critical resource for you to manage.
The guys that have, let's say boni [*], when they do short rest, they're obviously going to get the benefits from that.
Experimental feature ! Putting in Early Access to see if you like it —yes or no ?
Certainly it has made finding food much more important in the game. And it actually, it works, I mean I know my opinion, it works pretty well.
* : transcribed as well as I could. Also, the emphasis is mine.
So, did Larian mention that food should somehow limit Long Rest ? Not in these exact words, but yes. If Long Rest becomes a critical resource for us to manage, we should no longer be able to spam Long Rest willy-nilly.
Originally Posted by Flooter
Maybe limiting long rests isn’t Larian’s primary goal, but I’d be surprised to hear they believe their stated goals are met. And regardless of designer intent, the perceived intent of adding a cost to an ability is to limit its use.
Fully agreed with second sentence. As for Larian's goal, as I said just above, I think this was clearly a stated goal (if they had unstated and more important goals, nobody knows, so I won't discuss the "primacy" aspect). It sounds as if Swen was pretty confident it would work.
My feeling is that the overall answer from the players is "no, it doesn't". (Maybe a new topic for a poll ?)
I can't criticise too much the fact of experimenting. That's usually a good method for gaining knowledge. But I can't help stressing that one can also derive knowledge from doing some analysis sometimes. Or, at least, form very good bets as to what the result of an experiment will be.
What does analysing the situation tell us ?
1. The camp supplies system necessarily adds some (tedious) UI manipulations to Long Rest. We now really should pick up the food we find (previously, we could ignore it if we didn't want to food as health potions). We tend to send it to camp to avoid being encumbered (thus going through the very subpar inventory UI). We then need to retrieve it once at camp. That's more clicks than before for a Long Rest.
2. Food is so abundant that I have not heard many people finding themselves in a tough spot because of excessive Long Rests.
3. The camp cutscenes system still encourages us to Long Rest frequently if we want to experience the story content.
4. The absence of any time-sensitive event means there is still never any consequence/impact of resting on the story, so why not regain our resources whenever we want ?
How could this limit Long Rest ? I can see two ways in which it could.
Tediousness effect. Players limit their Long Rest because they are put off by the tediousness of it. That's hostile design. I personally don't think it's good design. At all.
Psychological effect. Players limit their Long Rest because they realise that food, and thus Long Rest, is a potentially-limited resource, and they fear they might run short at some point. This only works for so long. A couple of hours in, players realise that they are sitting on mountains of food. Unlike gold, which we will almost inevitably end up impossibly-rich with because I don't think I've seen a video game where the "gold curve" remains credible past the early game, and which we will surely hoard because that's what gold is for, I guess, and, who knows, maybe in this game the best gear will be bought instead of looted, so ... unlike gold, food can't be used for purchasing anything else than Long Rests. That means that once we've figured out how frequently we long rest and how abundant food is, there is no more reason to save food just-in-case. We can spend it fairly carelessly.
In short, one way is bad, one way is likely to fail.
Meanwhile, because of the camp cutscenes and the absence of time, we are still encouraged to Long Rest at will.
I don't think it would have taken a crystal ball to see that the current system would probably not work pretty well at limiting Long Rest (or making food much more important in the game).
Anyway.
Coming back to the poll, I answered 4. Although I probably could have answered 5 just as well. I would like to play in a way that makes camping less blatantly immersion-breaking, and perhaps also has some strategic considerations attached to it. Among other things. I would also like a game that makes me think about how to fight the enemies, not how to fight the UI.
I'm not sure what people EXPECT from a computer game. Obviously there's no way it can accomodate fifty million different ways to play it. With that in mind, I am actually blown away by how many options we already do have! =)
