Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Pageicus's SOCIAL Playtest

Pageicus Playtesting Data I work with a group of friends to playtest Tabletop systems and other games. I took part in 5e playtest and had Classes fixed in Pathfinder 2nd edition.

SOCIAL ENCOUNTERS.

There are 3 main types of play in any DnD game. Social, Combat, and Exploration.

If you are only playtesting the combat than you are only going to have 1/3 of the game complete. So today I wanted to help playtest SOCIAL ENCOUNTERS!

A social encounter much like a combat encounter, should have several different parts and strategies to win. THAT IS NOT THE CASE at this time. Right now you have usually 3 rolls of some sort and a severe consequence. It either results in combat to the death, or a passive group who lets you pass. With only one of these resulting in Xp, and treasure thus punishing a group twice for a passive and or skillful victory.
The character creation you implemented shows me you do take classes, backgrounds, races seriously and want them to be a part of the game in some form. Well you are missing the best way to represent them outside of just what attack they can do. This is the heart of tabletop gaming and the heart of DnD. Playing with your friends.

Every social encounter so far Puts all 4 members as one unit. As a SOLO pawn. The one speaking decides the fate of not only the present party... but the fate of all at the camp. Interesting that they all share the after effect but yet ONLY ONE PLAYER gets to take part in the Social Encounter. This would be bad game mastering at a tabletop. It also feels bad by design... like something is off or missing. Having friends on the headset asking what is going on and how did the roll turn out.

IF you are going to punish the wizard for the rogues bad arcana check. You should consider allowing the Wizard to step forward and make the check himself. Much like in combat when you position players on the field according to their strength and weaknesses… the position in Social Initiative is crucial to success. Especially if your goal is to have a RPG (ROLE PLAYING game)

My suggestion for this fix is to allow character swapping on the fly during social engagement. This should be limited to players who are close enough to hear the engagement. Also we must add a more robust voting feature.

Allow voting to push a player aside with a majority vote. IF 3 players make a choice there should be an animation of the pc stepping back for another pc to choose the popular choice. This could really throw a playful wrench of tug and war amongst roleplaying parties.

Right now every NPC is on the same trust level. There needs to be A formula that helps decide the checks dc. THIS IN TABLETOP IS CALLED ATTITUDE.

Social ATTITUDES. (a system of influence)

Friendly: these creatures will join you on a mission and or offer the best possible bartering. You have advantage ON ALL CHECKSz
Helpful: you have an added 1d4 on all check when conversing
Indifferent: Your rolls are normal and this is the most common NPC
Unfriendly: your checks minus 1d4 from all checks during conversation.
Hostile: they attack you immediately when they reach this point (some are ok with knockout)

To do this you need to implement a simple system that allows a feeling of more complex reactive behavior in regards to making a first impression. I believe the simplest way to do that would be tie a background to every NPC in the game. If you are of this background then you should be bumped up one step on the chart. So when usually people are hostile they would be indifferent.

Hobgoblins would likely prefer the soldier background of others. Or their own Race... They would see you will some respect as apposed to an entertainer. This would be a quick way to have an influence system that is not complex. You just add the preferred background to the npc and it should apply automatically in conversation. This would eliminate the need for a fully voiced role of backgrounds since they are affecting every choice. With die rolls and actual mechanics instead of fluff.

Mechanics are what seperate dnd from an adult TEA PARTY!

You could then set a background that the npc cannot stand. So a bard with an entertainer background is worse off than a bard with a criminal background when talking with fellow criminals. They would automatically be unfriendly to the bard making his checks harder.

YOU COULD DO THIS WITH, BACKGROUNDS, CLASSES, and RACES. Having preferred depending on the npd. This would allow a Dwarf to seemingly feel more comfortable with dwarves not only in writing and fluff but there would be a mechanic in place to show it.

This would allow character switching during the encounter to shine. The barbarian would know when it is his time to speak. The Bard would now get the majority of conversations but not ALL conversations.

The problem with social encounters is they are deigned for single player and SOLO. While the rest of the game is better in multiplayer or as a Team. IF you want to capture DnD then you have to get social encounters to engage the entire team at play.

Consider allowing social spells to be cast mid conversation as well. With charm affecting their attitude.

To figure out what class they prefer you would need to make the examination feature improved. Right now you examine a creature and instantly know everything about them. I would instead have the examination in combat be tied to creature type like in tabletop. I mean we have those skills for a reason right? Have the examination in social to be Perception. With a perception check in conversation you could learn what class/Background they prefer to speak to.

This would allow strategies to start developing for conversations. You could use these systems to do mass conversations battles. Where both sides are trying to gain influence over the crowd. The one who get them to Helpful first is the victor.

Consider the possibility of making conversations their own game! Otherwise when you finally implement the Bard for us social guys… we are going to have nothing to do but lose xp and gameplay time.

Thank You for your time and I am so happy you are doing BG3!!!

I've always believed that in a CRPG, the entire party should be involved in all dialogue. This means, all skill checks required in passing dialogue checks should incorporate the party's highest proficiency. Obviously, this can be implemented narratively as PnP RPG's and even some other CRPG's do (eg. Wasteland 3), with the most proficient interjecting into the conversation, and using their role to determine the outcome. The swarthy bard uses persuasion, the devious rogue uses deception, and the brooding fighter uses intimidation during conversations to try to succeed checks. In a co-op RPG, this is a necessity. All characters and players should have an influence on the conversations. Not just being able to see the conversation, but using their ability checks to past dialogue options too. Also, in co-op, all dialogue options should use a vote system. Where each player selects their desired response, and the most popular option is used. On a tie, the player speaking selection wins the vote. But if the choice requires a proficiency check, the player with that character with the highest proficiency wins the tie. That's the simplest and most immersive way I can think of handling CRPG and even co-op RPG dialogue off the top of my head right now.

Completely Agree with your statements.

Good write up. I agree.

The OP has a lot of good ideas. I wish this forum had a thumb option so I could just agree with things concisely instead of adding a bunch of words to look at.

I just do not undertand why the game assumes COMBAT is DnD... The holy trinity is Combat, Social, and Exploration if you have an understanding of your mechanics with these and they are fleshed out. Your game will be unforgettable. Add that with a good Game Master and Friends and you have a Game of the Decade contender!

I love the idea of swapping out characters during conversations!! I think they mentioned that using best rolls in conversations were planned, but if it was implemented and the characters adjusted themselves in conversations as this happened that would be utterly spectacular.

We need SOCIAL to be just as fleshed out as combat. Same with Exploration. Why are there endless possibilities in Combat but not simple things to make it feel that way in social. Allow the math to apply there. You dont need to have more voice acting. You just need to apply adjustments to the roll and a system to back it up. All characters should have input. ALL of our lives are at stake here... that tadpole is going to change us into a monster. We need our voices heard. Why have a bard if its just for combat... who the hell likes a low level bard in combat? We need that bard to talk and dance and cast the spells MID conversation... We also need him to do the checks to see who is worth talking too based on Knowlegdge check. Otherwise we are just clicking on NPC after NPC and wasting hours for no XP or rewards. Also is the way it is implemented now fun? NO!! But in tabletop the funnest part of the streams is the BANTER not the combat every single time. Think about some of your favorite RPG memories... was it the quest? The companions? Or was it how good you did the attack? Did your choice in BG1 or 2 Or dragon Age origins not matter?

DID we not dream of fleshed out CUSTOM characters? We where assured we lost nothing by creating them. Yet... it seems conversations are lacking with a party of Customs. ONLY ORIGIN CHARACTERS have any kind of development and it is sad.

Why is my criminal background not mentioned in story? Could that not be something to be redeemed? What about the racist Noble wizard? Could he not have people mention NObles are assholes? I feel like I am 4 unnamed placeholder characters missing out on the real game... due to the fact the budget seems to be going for Origin NPC's no one asked for. Cool camp buddies yay... Um what about this guy. Why cant I argue with this guy just as often? Why not get my ideals and bonds like in 5e? I can do nothing but WIZARD check?

Would love to hear more ideas and better ones to improve Social Activities. What would be the easiest improvements with the greatest effect? I appreciate the I agree posts but I was looking for more discussion on how we can fill what is missing.

I agree with every point made so far.

The real trick, as always, comes in finding cool ways to make the mundane stuff part of the gameplay. Everything can always be more gameful.

The idea to make conversation branching and NPC attitude a more intregal part of the gameplay is dead on!

I don't want to drift, but I see appearance and aesthetic progression as a kind of corollary example, in that it too can be a game, and a strong point of engagement and additional characterization, if well designed. Just to make an analogy in the same vein as the OPs suggestions, players could be given reasons to change their duds sometimes, beyond just maxing stats or grabbing the bonuses. Give us a reason to change clothes haha. This could tie appearance to the Social or Exploration aspect as well, by granting different conversations or attitude options based on what you're sporting at the time... maybe there's a reason to hold on to some Goblin gear occasionally? Or to don street rags instead of full armor, if it might allow the gang to avoid a combat, or bluff their way around town... discover a hidden path to the objective, or gain some other advantage that might not be immediately obvious. These are things that might also find their way into the convo branching.

I think if building these kinds of features into the game, it would be good to highlight them early on. Because once the player is clued in to the possibility that there might be alternative rewards for Role Play, rather than just the meta of combat, they are much more likely to try a unique approach.

The first and most critical step which has been brought up many times, is to start rewarding players with experience for being creative outside of combat and for using all the tools at their disposal. Some of these are simple to envision, like the rogue who might get XP for employing a disguise or deftly sneaking the party around a combat, rather than just dashing straight for the knife in the back. But it could happen in a similar way for all sorts of situations, highlighting class or background.

One sort of classic touchstone that the game seems to be missing right now in EA is the idea that a failure or seeming weakness can sometimes offer the greater reward or the more entertaining experience. The combat mechanics are such that min/max always has a built in reward, as it should be, but on the table top there are ways to flip things on their head periodically. That requires more imaginative work on the part of the players and esp the DM.

Like as a general rule, a weak attribute score is just a weakness. The dunce with low INT just gets fewer options when speaking. But what if being an idiot somehow inured the player to the most debilitating brain slug effects in a clutch convo like it did for Fry? Or maybe the party finds itself in an argument with an angry mob, and our chief blockhead manages to sway opinion in the party's favor... the sheer magnitude of their stupidity briefly becoming an inspiring asset? I mean there's room for stuff like that to go down and be amusing, but only if the DM is game to play and lean into it a bit.

Simply creating an option for all members of the party to participate in a conversation would immediately open up way more possibilities. Love the idea of a convo battle to tip the attitude scales! Voting is an excellent idea too!

I think they need to think a lot more about the carrots than the sticks when designing the convo branches. The more upsides there are to the fails, the more likely it is that players will play through them instead of just quitting and reloading to get a better roll or whatever. Clearly that's not something that can be done at the table and still save face, but the computer doesn't care. We need reasons, (meta reasons) as players to play through when the chips are down, and the easiest way would be to award XP occasionally for a hard fail.

Here's one idea, cribbed a bit from Torment, but how about giving people a reason to die sometimes? This might be as simple as awarding an XP bonus the first time a party member is successfully revived. Or perhaps could go on for a whole narrative arch, that can only be experienced once someone takes a "dirt nap" for real.

Maybe there's a charlatan at the local temple up to no good, and things go all extra Frankenstein on a side quest? Or maybe the squishy party member comes back from the other side haunted by ghosts and it opens up a whole new series of macabre banters? I don't know, but you get the idea.

Controlling the whole party doesn't mean we need to lose out on such stuff. It could be more like a choose your own soap opera, to be continued lol. Come to think of it, I don't think its ever been tried in a crpg where the player can really game out companion interactions. I don't mean just passively listening to enjoyable banter, but like actually choosing which (multiple choice) insult Lae'zel is going to level at Shadowheart this time. Or maybe its an unexpected random compliment branch, that somehow sets their whole relationship on its head, and now they're suddenly friends plotting how to get rid of Gale!?

Hehe


Anyhow, yeah +1

This still seems to suck as implemented!

Still working on my other two lists. But right now this is my biggest issue with the game as is.

Don't take this criticism wrong. I appreciate the time spent testing and writing this up. If I could offer a few minor differences of opinon without implying, I disagree with everthing...

"With only one of these resulting in Xp" Actually I find that you actually gain a good amount of XP in dialogs, but it is not highlighted so most people don't notice it. Should the amounts change/increase? Maybe. Should more options reward XP? Maybe. But I don't want people to think the XP is not there.

"The one speaking decides the fate of not only the present party... but the fate of all at the camp. Interesting that they all share the after effect but yet ONLY ONE PLAYER gets to take part in the Social Encounter." I have not played multi-player, but in single-player other party members step in at times. So are you just talking multi-player?

"Allow voting to push a player aside with a majority vote." I find it interesting that there is a twitch integration that could choices the answer but you seem to be saying no such thing exists in multi-player? Seems like an obvious option that should be there.

"Social ATTITUDES. (a system of influence)" While not visible and not sharing your specifics, this is in there. I like some of your ideas for further fleshing it out.

"I just do not understand why the game assumes COMBAT is DnD... The holy trinity is Combat, Social, and Exploration" I totally agree, though I think all three still need work.