Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Aug 2014
1
addict
Offline
addict
1
Joined: Aug 2014
I like the skill checks. But 5e puts too much emphasis on the roll and too little on the character skill.

D20 is way too swingy and the modifiers the characters get are too small. 2d6 would be a lot better than 1d20.

I also like the ideas of tresholds where being skilled at something really means something and someone without any skill can't just come along and beat you because of RNG.

Hopefully the next edition of D&D will correct this. Bounded accuracy is a cool concept but they took it too far. Even better if BG3 could already use some new rules for skill checks.


Last edited by 1varangian; 12/11/20 06:48 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't mind the rolls, but there is a difference between a PC game and TT - a DM might react to bad dice rolls and don't let things spiral out of controll. High chance to make a diplomacy roll, but you roll low? Ok, maybe some quick thinking might get the players an additional roll to mitigate it and not end up in you having to kill everybody around you. Here we have it only in the other direction like with the druid scene where you needed several successfull dicerolls to avoid the bad outcome.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Make a setting to auto pass dialog checks. Then each user can choose to play as is or auto pass.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Oct 2020
100% there will be a mod for this.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Could we please remember some importants facts.

First, this game is or, at least, SHOULD BE inspired by BG which is inspired by D&D.
Which means this game ISN'T a copy/past of D&D (like, you know, barrelmancy).
BG1 and 2 didn't have roll-check in dialogues so people should really stop coming to talk about the "this is D&D" cause this is not. This is (well, this SHOULD BE) BG.

Second, I kind of like the games where your skills unlock some dialogue, it seems to be a simple and fair way to do.
The more you buff your social skill, the more option you get (in a way, it's far better than proposing the same dialogues for an an intellectual sorcerer and a dumbass barbarian tbh).

Thirdly, the roll-check have been designed for pen and paper game. It was necessary because the GM couldn't know what his gamers was going to say and so it would have been hard to determine if they was convincing or not. So, in order to not fight, there is the dice.
But this is NOT a pen and paper game, we are NOT choosing what we are goign to say. We are choosing beetwen option determined by the writters. yet when the writters create a dialogue they exactly know where it should go. They don't choose random sentence, they think and choose a sentence who could be, for example, intimidating.
Actually, with the roll-dice, it's like the world was FULL OF LUNATICS with imprevisible reaction. This is not reaslitic (I said realistic, not realist) and it just depreciate the work of the writters.
Wouldn't you find it stupid if reading a book, there was write
" - Ho Dylan, I love you !
- Please, take a dice and roll it in order to know if Dylan will love Kelly back, slap her or just eat his own finger - "
You would think it's dumb. You would wonder what the author was thinking.

So, I completely undertand the roll-dice in pen and paper game cause it prevents any fights against the GM and the gamers but in a full written story, it doesn't make sens.
It's just a poor attempt to give a feel which have no place in a video game. It's a mistake, something I never experienced in all the other RPGs I played (and I played quite a lot), and an evidence of the Larian's wanderings.



PS: and for all the people who would STILL argue about "but this is D&D", I would like to add a last thing. If you are so fond of D&D, you should ask for Larian to remove all the graphics and make the game exclusively vocals since it would be more "D&D"...

Joined: Jul 2017
C
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
C
Joined: Jul 2017
I played abit of Pathfinder and imho the system in there is so much better. You get a skill with flat roll + a dice roll modifier, meaning you can never completely catastrophically fuck up that make your skills irrelevant, and you can try your luck if you want to attempt checks higher than your dialogue skill level. It really should be like this...

Joined: Jul 2017
C
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
C
Joined: Jul 2017
Originally Posted by Zahur
Speaking about Disco Elysium, what they did right was having two types of rolls. Red check only allows one try but white check you were able to reroll when you level up or reach some milestone in story or finished a thought. This gives you much more control over rng.

I dont mind option to hide dialogue rolls and show them only in "combat" log. But the mechanic itself should stay. I am even advocating to show detailed roll including advantage or Guidance dice.


To make something as special as Disco Elysium, the dev would have to write the game in such a way that failure also make interesting events or alternative paths - which is incredibly hard with a game that has potentially different faction outcomes and major endings. Disco Elysium could do what they did because the story is actually railroaded - you get same major ending regardless (to the island). Not to mention even Disco Elysium isnt perfect - a specific roll just shit over all your character bonds with an NPC and ruins the relationship you build up with him.

Joined: Jun 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jun 2020
I would support fewer (not none) of our dialogue options being gated behind rolls. Currently, there are far too many lines that have a roll gate, that just shouldn't ahve one. Important dialogue points- really important ones about major decisions, should certainly have skill checks... but there are far too many breaking up dialogue at the moment.

I'm very much against any system that removes the random variable from the important dialogue checks entirely - I *hated* D:OS2's method of having a fixed skill value that was just a automatic fail or succeed... but it was mollified by them being relatively few in number, compared to the game we've got so far. The chance to succeed or fail matters - if it's all predetermined that removes a lot of the D&D feel.

A check can swing a conversation, but how you conduct the conversation before that point should affect it heavily, just like in a good PnP game - a social encounter may call for a roll, or a progressive roll, even, but the wight of what is achieved is still carried by the players having the conversation. We can't do that as well in a video game format, but what we COULD have would be fewer major skill checks in the conversation, and the DC of them being modified by the things you've said and the way you've conducted the conversation up to that point.

What I am in favour of, on top of that, is more passive values being used. Passive checks are a great way of speeding up the system, but they shouldn't be used to the exclusion of active skill checks. Passive checks support active checks, in social situations - they let you swing things you don't need to check for more easily and swiftly, and can thereby modify the actual difficulty you'll have with convincing your social engagement of what you want or need to with the active check(s) when they do have to be made.

I'd also strongly favour making the cut-out break away of the mid-conversation skill check being reduced and diminished so that it's not such a huge interruption from the conversations... The passive identifier (top left) that they already use would be ample.

Last edited by Niara; 13/11/20 12:22 AM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
I can appreciate randomness in other parts of the game, but I agree that die rolls within dialogue are really annoying. This issue is a really good candidate for an optional toggle. The default in the game can be as they are now, with an optional toggle to remove die rolls from dialogue (or alternatively automatic success) for those who prefer that.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
adkfina Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
I would support fewer (not none) of our dialogue options being gated behind rolls. Currently, there are far too many lines that have a roll gate, that just shouldn't ahve one. Important dialogue points- really important ones about major decisions, should certainly have skill checks... but there are far too many breaking up dialogue at the moment.

I'm very much against any system that removes the random variable from the important dialogue checks entirely - I *hated* D:OS2's method of having a fixed skill value that was just a automatic fail or succeed... but it was mollified by them being relatively few in number, compared to the game we've got so far. The chance to succeed or fail matters - if it's all predetermined that removes a lot of the D&D feel.

A check can swing a conversation, but how you conduct the conversation before that point should affect it heavily, just like in a good PnP game - a social encounter may call for a roll, or a progressive roll, even, but the wight of what is achieved is still carried by the players having the conversation. We can't do that as well in a video game format, but what we COULD have would be fewer major skill checks in the conversation, and the DC of them being modified by the things you've said and the way you've conducted the conversation up to that point.

What I am in favour of, on top of that, is more passive values being used. Passive checks are a great way of speeding up the system, but they shouldn't be used to the exclusion of active skill checks. Passive checks support active checks, in social situations - they let you swing things you don't need to check for more easily and swiftly, and can thereby modify the actual difficulty you'll have with convincing your social engagement of what you want or need to with the active check(s) when they do have to be made.

I'd also strongly favour making the cut-out break away of the mid-conversation skill check being reduced and diminished so that it's not such a huge interruption from the conversations... The passive identifier (top left) that they already use would be ample.


Yet another fix I'd be more than happy to settle for, but more so than the others. This actually sounds pretty cool, and coincidently, it's also more inline with how Disco Elysium integrated the flow of conversation into dialogue checks. Give passive checks a more prominent role and that could solve everyone's complaints.

Unfortunately though, the more this thread grows the more realize that good suggestions for fixes -like this one- add a level of complexity that Larian isn't really used to when it comes to dialogue, and I don't they're going to start experimenting now. I still hope they do though, or atleast see this thread and all the others about dice roles and do something about it at some point

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
I posted this in some other thread, but dialogues in PnP D&D frequently involve (at least in my games) multiple players talking to the NPC. This allows them to sometimes get Advantage on a persuasion/deception/etc check (or at least have others step in when the first person fails, to try to mollify the situation). This is a huge bonus.

A combination of
-the above
-actually allowing other party members to participate in dialogue (changing to your character with the best stat)
-small bonuses based on previous things you've done/said in the conversation
-passive checks
-outcome determined by the degree of failure (fail by 1 or 2 is different than failing by 10+)
would do wonders.

I like having a degree of randomness in dialogue rolls. But the current implementation, where it is easy and not fun to fail, isn't great.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
The presence of the rolls is not the problem.

The implementation of them is. They use die rolls in place of navigating dialogue puzzle. I've tended to find that the best implementation of Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation in a CRPG game is when the rolls unlock a shortcut/easier path or allow for a last chance to recover from a screwed up dialogue.

Joined: Sep 2017
G
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
G
Joined: Sep 2017
Group rolls ARE supposed to be in the final game.

The other problem is that the main way to resolve 95% of the dialogues they've presented is always a CHA check. No doubt, that is supposed to be the primary skill for talking to people but at least put in other options from time to time.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
@gaymer Are group rolls supposed to be in the final game? I heard that Larian was implementing the ability to switch between party members during dialogue, but nothing about doing group rolls where multiple characters could roll for the same check (or you got advantage)???

If so, that will make dialogue rolls easier.

@Thrythlind I agree that there's a significant amount of rolls that I feel I should be able to just say. Doing it your suggested way sounds good: allow for a player to often get their way through roleplaying/correct dialogue choices, but allow rolls for recovery from bad dialogue choices or to get through the dialogue more quickly (maybe with a better result, as long as there remains some no-roll dialogue tree that gives you a decent result)

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Real talk?

Yeah, probably. As much as I like the idea of an as-close-to-tabletop experience, a game developer lacks the time and resources to come even remotely close to a half-decent DM.

Save scumming is encouraged just because failures essentially lock you out of desired content, purely because of RNG.

I would enjoy the game more if dialogue checks operated the way they did since at least BG2, by simply checking for a value and giving you dialogue options based on that.

I don't think Larian is likely to change how their dialogues currently work, but hopefully modders can eventually introduce a take-10 system for dialogue checks to smoothen out the experience.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
-1 as well.

This d20 makes the game feel like D&D. I love the anticipation when the dice are rolling. I love how it increases replay value. The game feels different each time.

So more "fun fails" would be nice.

Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I don't like them either. It just takes me out of the experience when, say, a character that in my head is good at persuasion fails every other persuasion check. Doesn't help that rerolls, for some reason, fail 8 times out of 10, even with 'easy' rolls (and sometimes they give the same bad number a few times on a row)


The thing is that in DnD you might still be good at it, but you are still talking to real people, and you might not hit the topic correctly etc.

I think a better compromise is to let us see the actual difficulty of a check BEFORE we choose. At the table a player can ask the DM, does it look like this guy is easy to convince? to get some idea of how difficult that particular check is.



This is not DnD, though, it's a game. Like you said, there's no DM and no other people, therefore the random adventure is only enjoyable if you're looking for that in a RPG.

I also don't see how seeing the difficulty of the check before choosing would make a difference, to be honest. A needed 15/16 with max proficiency in whatever is still gonna be a 15/16. A 5 on a 10 roll with maxt proficiency is gonna come out either way. Bottom line, if i gameplay gimp my wizard by giving him 16 charisma i want more than a borderline 50% chance on most persuasion rolls to get the result i want.

I don't know if it's because of Pathfinder's rule, but either way Kingmaker's system is much more fun. There's way more of a progression with rolls getting harder as the game goes on, but at the same time chars' proficiencies play way more of a role (even those of companions)

Joined: Apr 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2020
Personally I love the dice rolls...seeing a natural 20 when you needed a 17+ is awesome.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by adkfina
What I actually do want ideally is for my choices (background, skills or abilities) to have a direct impact, without an added RNG component getting in the way.




They do, all your bonuses are subtracted from the DC.

Last edited by Maikaz; 13/11/20 11:51 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
The "D&D" game style is based around... feeling a little bit like a spectator I think.

Like the Gods of this world.
We are watching and hoping that our favourite mortals (our characters) make it through.

The ingame gods give them their abilitys.
The outer world gods (us) we guide them.
But we are not 100% of their fate.

And I kinda like it.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

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