Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Machinus
Since BG3 is not complete yet, I can't comment on whether or not the same mistakes are being made this time. However, the deliberate inclusion and advertising of "Speak With Dead" seems to indicate that it's now officially expected that you will always kill everyone you meet in the game to get the most XP out of it.
My party is halfway through the EA and already at the current level cap. If the devs stick with this pacing, not really.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Machinus
In the last two Larian RPGs, you could potentially get 1-2 higher levels by the end of the game by killing every single person you met in the game, even allies and neutral characters. This worked because, for some reason, you were granted extra XP but given no real consequences for killing every person you met. From an RPG perspective, I think this is a big problem if you are claiming to make a game where "choices matter" and there are actual systems in the game named "Reputation," etc.

Since BG3 is not complete yet, I can't comment on whether or not the same mistakes are being made this time.

Consequences aren't "fun", so this won't change. Pickpocketing, for instance, is basically a never ending source of loot and gold in reality without risk and without consequences. Same cheese as in DOS2 and a total screw you to any and all risk vs reward mechanism. In BG3 you are told you are in a desperate fight against time, but you can sleep an infinite amount without consequences. Total narrative dissonance, but consequences aren't "fun", so who caaaares?

Last edited by Seraphael; 04/03/21 06:04 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Machinus
Why is everyone killable?
This seem like odd question ...
Why should they not be killable? O_o
You are meeting mortals, and one of major feature of such creatures is being "able to die". O_o

For myself it was realy releaving that we are technicaly "able" to kill anyone and screw our story completely. :-/
I HATED it in Skyrim or new Fallout, that "cruicial" characters are just knocked down, seemed exhausted for few seconds, and them just stand up with full HP attacking once again. O_o

Its nice to see that developers are actualy creating consequences for our decisions, and they have to count with that in story creation that litteraly every character can die, not just bcs we kill it, it simply can ... its dangerous world out there. :-/

Can you imagine DM telling you "nah, you cant attack that guy, i need him for story i prepared" or even worse "you would kill him, but i need him for the story, so he survived three shots in the chest, decapitation, poisoning, and burning his body to dust" ... and still concidering that being a well handled plot? O_o

I have to be honest and say that I genuinely have never understood this attitude. Why is it at all an issue that plot-important NPCs are invulnerable? And how is it a meaningful improvement when every NPC is killable? Like, I'm indifferent to that as a design choice but I have seen so many people in favour of making every NPC killable and I just want to understand why. What is meaningfully gained in terms of experiencing gameplay or story if you can kill a plot-important NPC and potentially block off the quest? Especially if it's the main quest and not an optional side quest that can just be checked off as failed.

And regarding the example you gave, a computer game isn't a live game at the table, where a DM can potentially pivot and make their story work in spite of a dead NPC. A computer game is far more limited and I can't fault a dev for making their lives easier by letting themselves not have to accound for every bit of random death and destruction that the player can cause. Sure it's nice to imagine the possible creative results killing important NPCs could give, but realistically it would just leave you screwed out of completing the main game and at that point, what even IS the point?
It's about verisimilitude: the appearance of realism. In general, people want to feel like they're able to make choices.

A person who can't die because they're a plot point breaks the sense of verisimilitude.

You could argue that it's better to not allow that person to die because of the plot, but I would argue that it's better to design a plot that takes into account the potential death of that person, thus allowing the story to continue.

Joined: Aug 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by JoB
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Machinus
Why is everyone killable?
This seem like odd question ...
Why should they not be killable? O_o
You are meeting mortals, and one of major feature of such creatures is being "able to die". O_o

For myself it was realy releaving that we are technicaly "able" to kill anyone and screw our story completely. :-/
I HATED it in Skyrim or new Fallout, that "cruicial" characters are just knocked down, seemed exhausted for few seconds, and them just stand up with full HP attacking once again. O_o

Its nice to see that developers are actualy creating consequences for our decisions, and they have to count with that in story creation that litteraly every character can die, not just bcs we kill it, it simply can ... its dangerous world out there. :-/

Can you imagine DM telling you "nah, you cant attack that guy, i need him for story i prepared" or even worse "you would kill him, but i need him for the story, so he survived three shots in the chest, decapitation, poisoning, and burning his body to dust" ... and still concidering that being a well handled plot? O_o

I have to be honest and say that I genuinely have never understood this attitude. Why is it at all an issue that plot-important NPCs are invulnerable? And how is it a meaningful improvement when every NPC is killable? Like, I'm indifferent to that as a design choice but I have seen so many people in favour of making every NPC killable and I just want to understand why. What is meaningfully gained in terms of experiencing gameplay or story if you can kill a plot-important NPC and potentially block off the quest? Especially if it's the main quest and not an optional side quest that can just be checked off as failed.

And regarding the example you gave, a computer game isn't a live game at the table, where a DM can potentially pivot and make their story work in spite of a dead NPC. A computer game is far more limited and I can't fault a dev for making their lives easier by letting themselves not have to accound for every bit of random death and destruction that the player can cause. Sure it's nice to imagine the possible creative results killing important NPCs could give, but realistically it would just leave you screwed out of completing the main game and at that point, what even IS the point?
It's about verisimilitude: the appearance of realism. In general, people want to feel like they're able to make choices.

A person who can't die because they're a plot point breaks the sense of verisimilitude.

You could argue that it's better to not allow that person to die because of the plot, but I would argue that it's better to design a plot that takes into account the potential death of that person, thus allowing the story to continue.

I suppose that verisimilitude point makes sense, and I can't argue that it's got validity to it. But I would also argue that there is only so far writers can go with designing a plot that can account for the death of any given person. Stories require characters and if you want it to be a good story, those characters can't just be interchangeable. They have to MATTER to the story as more than just plot motion generators. On a storytelling level, it is extremely difficult to account for the death of any given character in a way that allows for the plot to continue moving forward. It would require numerous redundancies with regard to characters, which is really not a concern that exists in any medium outside of videogames, so I can't really fault writers for not being great at it. There are inevitably going to just be points where, if you kill certain characters then that HAS to result in a game over because no other character or event can take their place in a narratively satisfying manner. Because the alternative calls for moving the plot along in a way that would inevitably end up showing the hand of the creators in a blatant way, which I should think would also break that verisimilitude. Alternatively they could position and manipulate things so that no plot-relevant characters are ever in a position which would allow you to kill them at an inconvenient time to begin with, which is good but also severely limits storytelling capacity and I would imagine would also break verisimilitude after a whlie when you eventually notice that all these plot-relevant npcs are conveniently beyond your reach. And I am honestly curious; is getting a game over actually better than dealing with an invulnerable npc?

Then of course there's the resource aspect of all this; is it REALLY in the best interest of the game to devote the required resources in terms of money and time to allow for all the redundancies and workarounds and tricks necessary to keep the plot moving when all or most of the plot-important npcs can be killed? That would require going through the game over and over to address all sort of possibilities. And I honestly don't think that's the best place for the devs to spend time or money on. If they want to, obviously I hope they're able, and this speak with the dead spell is a great trick that Larian has available to them, but it's not a trick every game or setting will have available.

So while I suppose I get why wanting every npc to be killable is a thing, it seems to me to be an ultimately impractical request for numerous reasons. I am eager to hear more responses to this and to learn more of people's thoughts and opinions on this matter, it's one that I've always genuinely been unable to really get my head around.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Oct 2020
The problem relies in the fact that players (a large part) want both to be able to kill plot important NPCs and be able to finish the quests in the original way.

I find annoying to have unkillable npcs not because they're way over your level (that would imply that the npc level is adjusted to match the player's level) but because they are key to the plot, just like I don't like the "this quest is very important"/"you can explore all the map of the world, chat with every npc, loot any single chest or container, pickpocket the full population and the quest will still be there to you to complete".

Choices should bring consequences, something that challenge the argument about verosimilitude. How can be verosimile to have the same identical outcome wheter you kill a key npc or don't?

In my opinion instead of consuming energies in creating multiple ways to reach a same outcome, developers shoul concentrare and focus on create equally satisfying, engaging, and interesting different outcomes.

Alsa that is a dream. Producers know that players want both the wine barrel full and the wife drunk (is an old italian say "volere la moglie ubriaca e la botte piena" that mean to want everything even things that are completely opposite).

Joined: Oct 2020
B
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Oct 2020
I have a question: have they changed Speak with the dead? I remember that killed npcs wouldn't talk with the killer.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Bufotenina
I have a question: have they changed Speak with the dead? I remember that killed npcs wouldn't talk with the killer.

Minthara and hobgoblin dude always spoke to me in previous patches, have yet too see in this one. Would be a pretty interesting mechanic, though.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
I have to be honest and say that I genuinely have never understood this attitude. Why is it at all an issue that plot-important NPCs are invulnerable? And how is it a meaningful improvement when every NPC is killable? Like, I'm indifferent to that as a design choice but I have seen so many people in favour of making every NPC killable and I just want to understand why. What is meaningfully gained in terms of experiencing gameplay or story if you can kill a plot-important NPC and potentially block off the quest? Especially if it's the main quest and not an optional side quest that can just be checked off as failed.

And regarding the example you gave, a computer game isn't a live game at the table, where a DM can potentially pivot and make their story work in spite of a dead NPC. A computer game is far more limited and I can't fault a dev for making their lives easier by letting themselves not have to accound for every bit of random death and destruction that the player can cause. Sure it's nice to imagine the possible creative results killing important NPCs could give, but realistically it would just leave you screwed out of completing the main game and at that point, what even IS the point?
It's not important to be able (no, "to have the OPTION to TRY", being able is a different thing) to kill everyone because it's a nice to do.
It's important because it's part of the systemic design that creates the illusion of the artificial world that is consistent with its own rules.

Every time the players are denied an action (no matter how inconvenient) that they should be reasonably be able to attempt or every time a game fails to acknowledge something particularly out of the ordinary that they are doing, the illusion cracks a bit. More and more cracks piling up can break the spell.

Which is why when a game goes out of its way to open doors to the player (the option to attempt killing anyone, the option to talk to non-plot relevant characters) and be reactive to his actions (getting angry or suspicious if something is stolen, commenting if the character is naked or dressed inappropriately, acknowledging if the player killed or helped someone else, having a distinct behavior if the MC is male, female, elf or dwarf, etc) the illusion is reinforced and the player feels more rewarded for the time invested in the simulation.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Why is it at all an issue that plot-important NPCs are invulnerable?
In short? It just seem lazy. :-/

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
And how is it a meaningful improvement when every NPC is killable?
There is many reasons ... to list a few:
- Its more fitting to many settings
- Its much more realistic
- There is many ways to get simmilar, or same results that will be fitting actualy
- And last but certainly not least ... it forces developers to create more complex story, since what is complexity if not number of possibilities to reach your goal? :P

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
What is meaningfully gained in terms of experiencing gameplay or story if you can kill a plot-important NPC and potentially block off the quest?
Well, first of all, those are two completely different things ...
If you block off the quest, then that is certainly misstake of writer ... since you did something he didnt expected ... such situations are even worse in games like Baldur's Gate 3, where death of such NPC can be result of poor diceroll, or some of automatic reactions.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Especially if it's the main quest and not an optional side quest that can just be checked off as failed.
Even main quest can be "failed" ... just not entirely. smile
That is after all one of first things Swen was encouraging us to do: Thrust the dices.

You are looking at it as if you have one single path to compelte main quest ... and you just killed the one and only person that had any clues about your futher steppes.
That is perfect example of bad design. smile

Yet, then if that person have some notes in her pocket, that provide you necesary informations, so you are able to continue ... but also you are restricted of some flavours, tidbits, details, and another things she would offer you if she was still alive ... your progress through that quest is allready alternated. smile
That is example of good design. wink
And with every another option you get it become better and better.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
And regarding the example you gave, a computer game isn't a live game at the table, where a DM can potentially pivot and make their story work in spite of a dead NPC.
That is something even Game designer can do ...
You killed NPC that was suppose to provide some info? Well, his associate have it too. laugh

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
A computer game is far more limited and I can't fault a dev for making their lives easier by letting themselves not have to accound for every bit of random death and destruction that the player can cause.
But there are ways to make life easier even without divine intervention.

You can make that character higher level > therefore stronger, so you discourage players to attack it.
You can give that character tough bodyguards, or even whole escort ... same result, better imersion.
You can let that important person to only comunicate with your character through messengers, od magicaly, or by dead letter-box ... w/e just not let them meet each other.

There is many options. smile
But if you simply decide that this NPC is simply buletproof, magicproof, waterproof, fireproof and godsknowswhatelseproof ... its just lazy. laugh


Originally Posted by JoB
but I would argue that it's better to design a plot that takes into account the potential death of that person, thus allowing the story to continue.
Exactly! :3


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Might be a dumb thing to say, but some games revel in the mortality of NPCs.
For example in Morrowind you can kill Vivec. This is considered a really bad result and the game warns you that you doomed the place, but you can just keep playing in this doomed world and as far as I know you can still beat the game.
Similarly you can kill NPCs in dark souls series to get certain items or progress early. The murdering of an npc is rewarding but also affects the game as now I have to contend with a high level boss at a low level and various npc summons get locked away as an example. Or I get their weapon but I ruined their questline or can not learn newer spells from them.
And then there is New Vegas which is designed with the ability to kill everyone (except yes man) and you can drastically affect faction relations like that. It is possible to murder Caesar and still lead the legion to victory under a new leader, or let/cause the NCR president die and lead the NCR to victory.
In short, I am hoping BG3 becomes that kind of game where death can be a major factor in how you engage with people, do you chaotic evil murder them for the reward you want now, or deal with them as a lawful good and navigate the quest that way.

Joined: Aug 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
I talked about the issue of every npc being killable with another friend of mine and he did convince me of the value of having every npc be killable-even though it still feels like a bizarre thing to care about to me, I get why people care about it and I see the value it can add to a game, at least hypothetically. But the way he put it that sold it to me is that you absolutely should get locked out of stuff if you kill the wrong npc, even get cut out of the main questline as punishment for doing something obviously stupid. I disagree with the idea that you should be able to do everything even if you kill important npcs. There should probably be some give, but I fully think there should be a point where you fail the quest and the game throws its hands up and says no, you can't continue, you've ruined things for yourself.

I don't think that this should really be a priority for devs, and I do have concerns that working around making everyone killable could potentially be a detriment to the variety of stories being told.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I am pretty amazed what kinds of RPG players exist. I would not even think about just killing everything just to add another level or 2 to my characters. Maybe if i try to roleplay a brainless murderer. Does not sound like too much fun from my perspective. Maybe just play DOOM?

I know this is not contributing anything to this discussion but it is simply something i had to comment...Sorry for that.

I will try to contribute a little bit though.

Making every living thing killable is good from an RPG pov. The OP stated that it does not influence the outcome of the game IF you kill everything but to achieve that you must plan in detail when you can kill which npc. Since some DO contribute to either Story or quest. Killing them at the wrong time could cost you more XP than the
kill gets you? Or did i misunderstand that?

You loose reputation for certain actions already so there is a penalty in play. Not that it changes much but that may be to the early stages of the game. Making non-combat NPCs net 0XP is actually a good way to discourage certain people from killing them. Or only for loot smirk.

And alignment penalties? Do we have alignments? :O I only remember them from AD&D and going against them was not too good, especially for clerics of palas.

I am just really glad i never had someone like him in my RPG times.

Last edited by UnknownEvil; 05/03/21 03:42 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
I have to be honest and say that I genuinely have never understood this attitude. Why is it at all an issue that plot-important NPCs are invulnerable? And how is it a meaningful improvement when every NPC is killable? Like, I'm indifferent to that as a design choice but I have seen so many people in favour of making every NPC killable and I just want to understand why. What is meaningfully gained in terms of experiencing gameplay or story if you can kill a plot-important NPC and potentially block off the quest? Especially if it's the main quest and not an optional side quest that can just be checked off as failed.

And regarding the example you gave, a computer game isn't a live game at the table, where a DM can potentially pivot and make their story work in spite of a dead NPC. A computer game is far more limited and I can't fault a dev for making their lives easier by letting themselves not have to accound for every bit of random death and destruction that the player can cause. Sure it's nice to imagine the possible creative results killing important NPCs could give, but realistically it would just leave you screwed out of completing the main game and at that point, what even IS the point?
It's not important to be able (no, "to have the OPTION to TRY", being able is a different thing) to kill everyone because it's a nice to do.
It's important because it's part of the systemic design that creates the illusion of the artificial world that is consistent with its own rules.

Every time the players are denied an action (no matter how inconvenient) that they should be reasonably be able to attempt or every time a game fails to acknowledge something particularly out of the ordinary that they are doing, the illusion cracks a bit. More and more cracks piling up can break the spell.

Which is why when a game goes out of its way to open doors to the player (the option to attempt killing anyone, the option to talk to non-plot relevant characters) and be reactive to his actions (getting angry or suspicious if something is stolen, commenting if the character is naked or dressed inappropriately, acknowledging if the player killed or helped someone else, having a distinct behavior if the MC is male, female, elf or dwarf, etc) the illusion is reinforced and the player feels more rewarded for the time invested in the simulation.

Nicely formulated!

This freedom is what makes RPGs to RPGs. (next to some other things ofc)

M
Machinus
Unregistered
Machinus
Unregistered
M
Originally Posted by UnknownEvil
Alignment penalties? Do we have alignments? :O I only remember them from AD&D and going against them was not too good, especially for clerics of palas.

The total disregard for alignment restrictions is one of several problems with this workaround. There should be penalties, not XP, for most PCs to kill most NPCs. It is completely inconsistent with the allowed behavior of characters in pnp, and mechanically it has created problems for an already messy quest system. This spell should be implemented in a way that does not make it easier to violate the spirit of your character's alignment just so you can min/max for more xp or items. That would never be permitted in pnp. Killing innocent or friendly NPCs should always have dire consequences for your character, that can't be fixed by casting this spell.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

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